[SUGGESTION] Improve reward system in WvW

[Infusion.7149]

I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold, upgrading structures cost gold, and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

 

Any player with less than 1,060 WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

 

Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

 

You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

 

The reason why ascended (non mistforged) armor is difficult to obtain is because it can also be upgraded to legendary.

 

Also you don't need ascended armor for WvW , although weapons + trinkets are highly recommended.

[Aeolus.3615]

IM FLLLLLOOOOODED WICH CHEST ON WVW ._. PIP chests, players bags, npc/structure cap rewards/ reward tracks with boxes insides boxes.... its mindblow.

 

NURF my acocunt ANet. plz

 

 

Jk asside, the culprit is how messed the drop system and the reward system in this game is designed, but seriously im being overwhelmed with boxes and bags in wvw....

 

 

 

[Evil.1580]

> @"Infusion.7149" said:

> I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

>

> Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

>

> Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

>

> You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

 

Why you can't compare them both?

We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

You kill enemy players - you get currency.

Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> I guess none of you suggesting higher rewards for killing players were around or remember what happened when players dropped loot bags in the Obsidian Sanctum and the spawn points were all in the same vicinity.

>

> https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Obsidian-Sanctum-Issues/page/1#post4925481

>

> (This stopped after loot was disabled. People weren't as much grinding for the title as claimed as they were for loot ;) )

 

I think player bags drop should be based on the materials of the gear those player, being based on armor type materials and rarety by a smaller change ifexotic or ascended... XD (they should never be disabled IMO)

Besides all drop system should be based on materials, maybe after that rewards system could be changed to work more seamless with the drop system???

[Infusion.7149]

It affects WvW players because there is limited queue space. You can't have a bunch of PvE players thinking about gold per hour running around in PvE gear and PvE builds, not getting in comms, building paper arrowcarts in openfield, and repairing towers/keeps while it is getting trebbed.

 

The suggestion to draw more players in shouldn't be more gold per hour , especially for things as "number of people in squad". Many WvW guilds have low player squad size around 15-20 at best. All it will lead to is more people using PvE builds in WvW , more blobing, and not doing smart decisions.

 

1. repairing rewards currency = repair while being trebbed instead of taking out treb

2. attacking / defending already gives rewards if you kill enemies

3. PUGmanding will make more gold than organized group if it is not dependent on performance and just number in squad

4. support classes that aren't auto-attacking all the time won't benefit from your "spending resources" currency gain ; mesmers hiding in structures as well (current scout system works)

5. Taking a keep/camp/etc rewards WxP and WxP gets you closer to a wvW rankup chest , so this is pretty pointless

 

If you want to increase rewards , should just tweak the reward track system to remove useless things such as red lentils in the crystal desert , sandswept isles, and kourns tracks. Additionally there's no way to earn elegy mosaics.

 

[Evil.1580]

> @"Infusion.7149" said:

> It affects WvW players because there is limited queue space. You can't have a bunch of PvE players thinking about gold per hour running around in PvE gear and PvE builds, not getting in comms, building paper arrowcarts in openfield, and repairing towers/keeps while it is getting trebbed.

>

> The suggestion to draw more players in shouldn't be more gold per hour , especially for things as "number of people in squad". Many WvW guilds have low player squad size around 15-20 at best. All it will lead to is more people using PvE builds in WvW , more blobing, and not doing smart decisions.

>

> 1. repairing rewards currency = repair while being trebbed instead of taking out treb

> 2. attacking / defending already gives rewards if you kill enemies

> 3. PUGmanding will make more gold than organized group if it is not dependent on performance and just number in squad

> 4. support classes that aren't auto-attacking all the time won't benefit from your "spending resources" currency gain ; mesmers hiding in structures as well (current scout system works)

> 5. Taking a keep/camp/etc rewards WxP and WxP gets you closer to a wvW rankup chest , so this is pretty pointless

>

> If you want to increase rewards , should just tweak the reward track system to remove useless things such as red lentils in the crystal desert , sandswept isles, and kourns tracks. Additionally there's no way to earn elegy mosaics.

>

 

As I said before to another contributor of the topic:

 

> @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> Why you can't compare them both?

> We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > @"Infusion.7149" said:

> > I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

> >

> > Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

> >

> > Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

> >

> > You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

>

> Why you can't compare them both?

> We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

 

I don't understand what you are trying to argue for anymore.

I don't believe you are actually trying to argue for stimulating AFKers with your earlier suggestion of getting gold for spending supply or being in a large squad.

And then you wrote "But yes increased rewards from kills would be better", but you ignored my post about what happened in the past when rewards from kills was made easy to get.

 

Perhaps the reason rewards are the way they are in WvW right now is exactly because of these problems with providing rewards that people here are trying to explain to you.

 

You want to use the example of sPvP for WvW. You are ignoring some very basic differences though. In sPvP you have to be in the entire match to get the reward and get progression on reward and pip tracks in order to be fair to all players in an sPvP match. You can't do that with 24/7, 7 days a week WvW matches! That's the core reason for why sPvP and WvW methods of rewards are different. What works in sPvP doesn't make sense for WvW any more than what works in WvW wouldn't work for sPvP.

 

If you applied WvW-style reward to sPvP matches, players would get progression on both reward track and pip track at every tick, players could leave matches at any time and hop over to a more favorable match if they were losing, loot would drop from killing players in sPvP, and you'd get a champ loot bag from killing, for example, Foefire lords.

 

See also the loot/progression cap on sPvP custom arenas which is meant to reduce farming-for-rewards behavior that your suggestions would introduce to WvW, which doesn't have true ranked/unranked/custom arena options.

[Evil.1580]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > @"Infusion.7149" said:

> > > I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

> > >

> > > Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

> > >

> > > Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

> > >

> > > You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

> >

> > Why you can't compare them both?

> > We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> > Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> > Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> > You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> > You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> > Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> > All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> > It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> > Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

>

> I don't understand what you are trying to argue for anymore.

> I don't believe you are actually trying to argue for stimulating AFKers with your earlier suggestion of getting gold for spending supply or being in a large squad.

> And then you wrote "But yes increased rewards from kills would be better", but you ignored my post about what happened in the past when rewards from kills was made easy to get.

>

> Perhaps the reason rewards are the way they are in WvW right now is exactly because of these problems with providing rewards that people here are trying to explain to you.

>

> You want to use the example of sPvP for WvW. You are ignoring some very basic differences though. In sPvP you have to be in the entire match to get the reward and get progression on reward and pip tracks in order to be fair to all players in an sPvP match. You can't do that with 24/7, 7 days a week WvW matches. If you applied WvW-style reward to sPvP matches, players would get progression on both your reward track and pip track at every tick, players could leave matches at any time and hop over to a more favorable match if they were losing, loot would drop from killing players in sPvP, and you'd get a champ loot bag from killing, for example, Foefire lords. See also the loot/progression cap on sPvP custom arenas which is meant to reduce farming-for-rewards behavior that your suggestions would introduce to WvW, which doesn't have true ranked/unranked/custom arena options.

 

So basically you disagree with an example but you agree with the whole idea to improve WVW rewards. ("Now I'm not saying I don't like the idea of improving rewards in WvW").

You know what we all see here? I suggest something, you agree that there should be a change, but you aren't helping with anything. If you can't think of anything productive, or at least anything that can help with our common agreement, maybe you shouldn't discuss it.

And basically, you are quoting a post which you aren't talking about, instead, you are quoting a post and talk about my OP, no?

I don't want to make it PvP, no. In PvP you AFK and still get gold. It's worse there. I want people that are taking SM after 15 min fight to get better rewards, I want people that are taking tier 3 keep to get better rewards. Basically, I want all these people that are trying to win to be rewarded.

As I said many times before. I am just giving an example, the overall idea is to improve the rewards (which you agree is a good idea), which are at least 20 times less than a PVE farmer and this is bad.

How will anet implement this improvement? I don't know. I have just given basic suggestions which may be bad or not. I opened a topic so we can discuss how to make this changes the best way possible. If you agree there should be such a change, better work on "how" and not "if".

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > @"Infusion.7149" said:

> > > > I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

> > > >

> > > > Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

> > > >

> > > > Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

> > > >

> > > > You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

> > >

> > > Why you can't compare them both?

> > > We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> > > Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> > > Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> > > You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> > > You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> > > Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> > > All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> > > It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> > > Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

> >

> > I don't understand what you are trying to argue for anymore.

> > I don't believe you are actually trying to argue for stimulating AFKers with your earlier suggestion of getting gold for spending supply or being in a large squad.

> > And then you wrote "But yes increased rewards from kills would be better", but you ignored my post about what happened in the past when rewards from kills was made easy to get.

> >

> > Perhaps the reason rewards are the way they are in WvW right now is exactly because of these problems with providing rewards that people here are trying to explain to you.

> >

> > You want to use the example of sPvP for WvW. You are ignoring some very basic differences though. In sPvP you have to be in the entire match to get the reward and get progression on reward and pip tracks in order to be fair to all players in an sPvP match. You can't do that with 24/7, 7 days a week WvW matches. If you applied WvW-style reward to sPvP matches, players would get progression on both your reward track and pip track at every tick, players could leave matches at any time and hop over to a more favorable match if they were losing, loot would drop from killing players in sPvP, and you'd get a champ loot bag from killing, for example, Foefire lords. See also the loot/progression cap on sPvP custom arenas which is meant to reduce farming-for-rewards behavior that your suggestions would introduce to WvW, which doesn't have true ranked/unranked/custom arena options.

>

> So basically you disagree with an example but you agree with the whole idea to improve WVW rewards. ("Now I'm not saying I don't like the idea of improving rewards in WvW").

> You know what we all see here? I suggest something, you agree that there should be a change, but you aren't helping with anything. If you can't think of anything productive, or at least anything that can help with our common agreement, maybe you shouldn't discuss it.

> And basically, you are quoting a post which you aren't talking about, instead, you are quoting a post and talk about my OP, no?

> I don't want to make it PvP, no. In PvP you AFK and still get gold. It's worse there. I want people that are taking SM after 15 min fight to get better rewards, I want people that are taking tier 3 keep to get better rewards. Basically, I want all these people that are trying to win to be rewarded.

> As I said many times before. I am just giving an example, the overall idea is to improve the rewards (which you agree is a good idea), which are at least 20 times less than a PVE farmer and this is bad.

> How will anet implement this improvement? I don't know. I have just given basic suggestions which may be bad or not. I opened a topic so we can discuss how to make this changes the best way possible. If you agree there should be such a change, better work on "how" and not "if".

>

>

 

If you (and others) are going to ignore the defects in your suggestions as they are pointed out to you, you will never design a better reward system. Agreeing with the whole idea or not is moot, nor did I ever say I agreed with it. I only promoted the idea that perhaps the reason there isn't something better is because we've already reached the pinnacle of what can be done within the current design limitations of the game mode without tipping too far into farming-for-loot and AB multimap styled territory. That idea probably doesn't sit too well with you, but you're mostly just repeating what has been suggested before on past threads.

 

My real guess with regards to rewards is that after WvW is restructured around the more dynamically created teams, each "season" will become some type of tournament with additional rewards based on that (and players who transfer after teams are formed will become ineligible for the rewards). Or at least the game mode would open itself up to such a thing.

[Evil.1580]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > > @"Infusion.7149" said:

> > > > > I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

> > > > >

> > > > > Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

> > > > >

> > > > > You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

> > > >

> > > > Why you can't compare them both?

> > > > We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> > > > Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> > > > Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> > > > You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> > > > You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> > > > Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> > > > All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> > > > It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> > > > Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

> > >

> > > I don't understand what you are trying to argue for anymore.

> > > I don't believe you are actually trying to argue for stimulating AFKers with your earlier suggestion of getting gold for spending supply or being in a large squad.

> > > And then you wrote "But yes increased rewards from kills would be better", but you ignored my post about what happened in the past when rewards from kills was made easy to get.

> > >

> > > Perhaps the reason rewards are the way they are in WvW right now is exactly because of these problems with providing rewards that people here are trying to explain to you.

> > >

> > > You want to use the example of sPvP for WvW. You are ignoring some very basic differences though. In sPvP you have to be in the entire match to get the reward and get progression on reward and pip tracks in order to be fair to all players in an sPvP match. You can't do that with 24/7, 7 days a week WvW matches. If you applied WvW-style reward to sPvP matches, players would get progression on both your reward track and pip track at every tick, players could leave matches at any time and hop over to a more favorable match if they were losing, loot would drop from killing players in sPvP, and you'd get a champ loot bag from killing, for example, Foefire lords. See also the loot/progression cap on sPvP custom arenas which is meant to reduce farming-for-rewards behavior that your suggestions would introduce to WvW, which doesn't have true ranked/unranked/custom arena options.

> >

> > So basically you disagree with an example but you agree with the whole idea to improve WVW rewards. ("Now I'm not saying I don't like the idea of improving rewards in WvW").

> > You know what we all see here? I suggest something, you agree that there should be a change, but you aren't helping with anything. If you can't think of anything productive, or at least anything that can help with our common agreement, maybe you shouldn't discuss it.

> > And basically, you are quoting a post which you aren't talking about, instead, you are quoting a post and talk about my OP, no?

> > I don't want to make it PvP, no. In PvP you AFK and still get gold. It's worse there. I want people that are taking SM after 15 min fight to get better rewards, I want people that are taking tier 3 keep to get better rewards. Basically, I want all these people that are trying to win to be rewarded.

> > As I said many times before. I am just giving an example, the overall idea is to improve the rewards (which you agree is a good idea), which are at least 20 times less than a PVE farmer and this is bad.

> > How will anet implement this improvement? I don't know. I have just given basic suggestions which may be bad or not. I opened a topic so we can discuss how to make this changes the best way possible. If you agree there should be such a change, better work on "how" and not "if".

> >

> >

>

> If you (and others) are going to ignore the defects in your suggestions as they are pointed out to you, you will never design a better reward system. Agreeing with the whole idea or not is moot, nor did I ever say I agreed with it. I only promoted the idea that perhaps the reason there isn't something better is because we've already reached the pinnacle of what can be done within the current design limitations of the game mode without tipping too far into farming-for-loot and AB multimap styled territory. That idea probably doesn't sit too well with you, but you're mostly just repeating what has been suggested before on past threads.

>

> My real guess with regards to rewards is that after WvW is restructured around the more dynamically created teams, each "season" will become some type of tournament with additional rewards based on that (and players who transfer after teams are formed will become ineligible for the rewards). Or at least the game mode would open itself up to such a thing.

 

Yes, you have agreed, read your previous comments, which you think I have ignored.

Tournament type will be great. With rewards after match.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > > > @"Infusion.7149" said:

> > > > > > I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

> > > > >

> > > > > Why you can't compare them both?

> > > > > We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> > > > > Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> > > > > Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> > > > > You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> > > > > You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> > > > > Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> > > > > All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> > > > > It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> > > > > Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

> > > >

> > > > I don't understand what you are trying to argue for anymore.

> > > > I don't believe you are actually trying to argue for stimulating AFKers with your earlier suggestion of getting gold for spending supply or being in a large squad.

> > > > And then you wrote "But yes increased rewards from kills would be better", but you ignored my post about what happened in the past when rewards from kills was made easy to get.

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps the reason rewards are the way they are in WvW right now is exactly because of these problems with providing rewards that people here are trying to explain to you.

> > > >

> > > > You want to use the example of sPvP for WvW. You are ignoring some very basic differences though. In sPvP you have to be in the entire match to get the reward and get progression on reward and pip tracks in order to be fair to all players in an sPvP match. You can't do that with 24/7, 7 days a week WvW matches. If you applied WvW-style reward to sPvP matches, players would get progression on both your reward track and pip track at every tick, players could leave matches at any time and hop over to a more favorable match if they were losing, loot would drop from killing players in sPvP, and you'd get a champ loot bag from killing, for example, Foefire lords. See also the loot/progression cap on sPvP custom arenas which is meant to reduce farming-for-rewards behavior that your suggestions would introduce to WvW, which doesn't have true ranked/unranked/custom arena options.

> > >

> > > So basically you disagree with an example but you agree with the whole idea to improve WVW rewards. ("Now I'm not saying I don't like the idea of improving rewards in WvW").

> > > You know what we all see here? I suggest something, you agree that there should be a change, but you aren't helping with anything. If you can't think of anything productive, or at least anything that can help with our common agreement, maybe you shouldn't discuss it.

> > > And basically, you are quoting a post which you aren't talking about, instead, you are quoting a post and talk about my OP, no?

> > > I don't want to make it PvP, no. In PvP you AFK and still get gold. It's worse there. I want people that are taking SM after 15 min fight to get better rewards, I want people that are taking tier 3 keep to get better rewards. Basically, I want all these people that are trying to win to be rewarded.

> > > As I said many times before. I am just giving an example, the overall idea is to improve the rewards (which you agree is a good idea), which are at least 20 times less than a PVE farmer and this is bad.

> > > How will anet implement this improvement? I don't know. I have just given basic suggestions which may be bad or not. I opened a topic so we can discuss how to make this changes the best way possible. If you agree there should be such a change, better work on "how" and not "if".

> > >

> > >

> >

> > If you (and others) are going to ignore the defects in your suggestions as they are pointed out to you, you will never design a better reward system. Agreeing with the whole idea or not is moot, nor did I ever say I agreed with it. I only promoted the idea that perhaps the reason there isn't something better is because we've already reached the pinnacle of what can be done within the current design limitations of the game mode without tipping too far into farming-for-loot and AB multimap styled territory. That idea probably doesn't sit too well with you, but you're mostly just repeating what has been suggested before on past threads.

> >

> > My real guess with regards to rewards is that after WvW is restructured around the more dynamically created teams, each "season" will become some type of tournament with additional rewards based on that (and players who transfer after teams are formed will become ineligible for the rewards). Or at least the game mode would open itself up to such a thing.

>

> Yes, you have agreed, read your previous comments, which you think I have ignored.

> Tournament type will be great. With rewards after match.

 

Which completely ignores the stacking that took place last time.

 

Increased rewards for 'winning' is a bad formula.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> Yes, you have agreed, read your previous comments, which you think I have ignored.

 

LOL Ok, you post the link to my post where I agreed then.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > > > > @"Infusion.7149" said:

> > > > > > > I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why you can't compare them both?

> > > > > > We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> > > > > > Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> > > > > > Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> > > > > > You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> > > > > > You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> > > > > > Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> > > > > > All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> > > > > > It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> > > > > > Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to argue for anymore.

> > > > > I don't believe you are actually trying to argue for stimulating AFKers with your earlier suggestion of getting gold for spending supply or being in a large squad.

> > > > > And then you wrote "But yes increased rewards from kills would be better", but you ignored my post about what happened in the past when rewards from kills was made easy to get.

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps the reason rewards are the way they are in WvW right now is exactly because of these problems with providing rewards that people here are trying to explain to you.

> > > > >

> > > > > You want to use the example of sPvP for WvW. You are ignoring some very basic differences though. In sPvP you have to be in the entire match to get the reward and get progression on reward and pip tracks in order to be fair to all players in an sPvP match. You can't do that with 24/7, 7 days a week WvW matches. If you applied WvW-style reward to sPvP matches, players would get progression on both your reward track and pip track at every tick, players could leave matches at any time and hop over to a more favorable match if they were losing, loot would drop from killing players in sPvP, and you'd get a champ loot bag from killing, for example, Foefire lords. See also the loot/progression cap on sPvP custom arenas which is meant to reduce farming-for-rewards behavior that your suggestions would introduce to WvW, which doesn't have true ranked/unranked/custom arena options.

> > > >

> > > > So basically you disagree with an example but you agree with the whole idea to improve WVW rewards. ("Now I'm not saying I don't like the idea of improving rewards in WvW").

> > > > You know what we all see here? I suggest something, you agree that there should be a change, but you aren't helping with anything. If you can't think of anything productive, or at least anything that can help with our common agreement, maybe you shouldn't discuss it.

> > > > And basically, you are quoting a post which you aren't talking about, instead, you are quoting a post and talk about my OP, no?

> > > > I don't want to make it PvP, no. In PvP you AFK and still get gold. It's worse there. I want people that are taking SM after 15 min fight to get better rewards, I want people that are taking tier 3 keep to get better rewards. Basically, I want all these people that are trying to win to be rewarded.

> > > > As I said many times before. I am just giving an example, the overall idea is to improve the rewards (which you agree is a good idea), which are at least 20 times less than a PVE farmer and this is bad.

> > > > How will anet implement this improvement? I don't know. I have just given basic suggestions which may be bad or not. I opened a topic so we can discuss how to make this changes the best way possible. If you agree there should be such a change, better work on "how" and not "if".

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > If you (and others) are going to ignore the defects in your suggestions as they are pointed out to you, you will never design a better reward system. Agreeing with the whole idea or not is moot, nor did I ever say I agreed with it. I only promoted the idea that perhaps the reason there isn't something better is because we've already reached the pinnacle of what can be done within the current design limitations of the game mode without tipping too far into farming-for-loot and AB multimap styled territory. That idea probably doesn't sit too well with you, but you're mostly just repeating what has been suggested before on past threads.

> > >

> > > My real guess with regards to rewards is that after WvW is restructured around the more dynamically created teams, each "season" will become some type of tournament with additional rewards based on that (and players who transfer after teams are formed will become ineligible for the rewards). Or at least the game mode would open itself up to such a thing.

> >

> > Yes, you have agreed, read your previous comments, which you think I have ignored.

> > Tournament type will be great. With rewards after match.

>

> Which completely ignores the stacking that took place last time.

>

> Increased rewards for 'winning' is a bad formula.

 

Yes, it is, but the restructuring should remove the issue that caused it. Players won't be able to "stack" when a team is formed since all teams will be created completely anew for every "season" with equalized playhours and players who transfer after teams are formed would be ineligible to receive the rewards. That's why I say the new design would open itself up to such a reward.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > > > @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Infusion.7149" said:

> > > > > > > > I suppose you weren't around when repairing cost gold and WvW rewards consisted of lord/players dropping heavy loot bags + mostly garbage, rank up chests only. Did I mention siege used to be much more expensive?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any player with less than 1K WvW rank doesn't have all WvW abilities unlocked so there's an innate disadvantage vs someone with all abilities unlocked.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Rewards in WvW are alright now provided you aren't new to WvW or under 2 participation, although I don't know why grandmaster shards aren't in all final chests up to diamond. Given that the mark shards themselves are worth a few gold at best, it isn't a huge deal.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You can't compare WvW to Istan or Silverwastes let alone anything deliberately timegated such as daily Tequatl, daily fractals , or weekly raids.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why you can't compare them both?

> > > > > > > We have the same economics, doesn't matter if you play WvW or PvE, you are using the same TP as the farmer in Istan.

> > > > > > > Also, no one has ever said we want to make 20g/h... we just want to make 5, which is 4 times less than a PvE player.

> > > > > > > Considering we can have a system which can stimulate players to play and not AFK and keeping in mind that this will attract more people, I do not really see how this will interfere with your gameplay negatively but you can explain here.

> > > > > > > You take a keep/sm - you get currency.

> > > > > > > You kill enemy players - you get currency.

> > > > > > > Also, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each skirmish can multiply the gold by 1.2, 1.1, 1.0. (this will stimulate the whole world to play better)

> > > > > > > All these simple examples (obviously there are many more) can only improve your gameplay and I do not see a reason to disagree with this.

> > > > > > > It is like your boss is saying "I will double your wage" and you say "Nah, my wage was twice less last years, its ok now".

> > > > > > > Can you explain to me your behavior about disagreeing on something that can attract new players and something that can stimulate AFKers to actually play?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't understand what you are trying to argue for anymore.

> > > > > > I don't believe you are actually trying to argue for stimulating AFKers with your earlier suggestion of getting gold for spending supply or being in a large squad.

> > > > > > And then you wrote "But yes increased rewards from kills would be better", but you ignored my post about what happened in the past when rewards from kills was made easy to get.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Perhaps the reason rewards are the way they are in WvW right now is exactly because of these problems with providing rewards that people here are trying to explain to you.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You want to use the example of sPvP for WvW. You are ignoring some very basic differences though. In sPvP you have to be in the entire match to get the reward and get progression on reward and pip tracks in order to be fair to all players in an sPvP match. You can't do that with 24/7, 7 days a week WvW matches. If you applied WvW-style reward to sPvP matches, players would get progression on both your reward track and pip track at every tick, players could leave matches at any time and hop over to a more favorable match if they were losing, loot would drop from killing players in sPvP, and you'd get a champ loot bag from killing, for example, Foefire lords. See also the loot/progression cap on sPvP custom arenas which is meant to reduce farming-for-rewards behavior that your suggestions would introduce to WvW, which doesn't have true ranked/unranked/custom arena options.

> > > > >

> > > > > So basically you disagree with an example but you agree with the whole idea to improve WVW rewards. ("Now I'm not saying I don't like the idea of improving rewards in WvW").

> > > > > You know what we all see here? I suggest something, you agree that there should be a change, but you aren't helping with anything. If you can't think of anything productive, or at least anything that can help with our common agreement, maybe you shouldn't discuss it.

> > > > > And basically, you are quoting a post which you aren't talking about, instead, you are quoting a post and talk about my OP, no?

> > > > > I don't want to make it PvP, no. In PvP you AFK and still get gold. It's worse there. I want people that are taking SM after 15 min fight to get better rewards, I want people that are taking tier 3 keep to get better rewards. Basically, I want all these people that are trying to win to be rewarded.

> > > > > As I said many times before. I am just giving an example, the overall idea is to improve the rewards (which you agree is a good idea), which are at least 20 times less than a PVE farmer and this is bad.

> > > > > How will anet implement this improvement? I don't know. I have just given basic suggestions which may be bad or not. I opened a topic so we can discuss how to make this changes the best way possible. If you agree there should be such a change, better work on "how" and not "if".

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you (and others) are going to ignore the defects in your suggestions as they are pointed out to you, you will never design a better reward system. Agreeing with the whole idea or not is moot, nor did I ever say I agreed with it. I only promoted the idea that perhaps the reason there isn't something better is because we've already reached the pinnacle of what can be done within the current design limitations of the game mode without tipping too far into farming-for-loot and AB multimap styled territory. That idea probably doesn't sit too well with you, but you're mostly just repeating what has been suggested before on past threads.

> > > >

> > > > My real guess with regards to rewards is that after WvW is restructured around the more dynamically created teams, each "season" will become some type of tournament with additional rewards based on that (and players who transfer after teams are formed will become ineligible for the rewards). Or at least the game mode would open itself up to such a thing.

> > >

> > > Yes, you have agreed, read your previous comments, which you think I have ignored.

> > > Tournament type will be great. With rewards after match.

> >

> > Which completely ignores the stacking that took place last time.

> >

> > Increased rewards for 'winning' is a bad formula.

>

> Yes, it is, but the restructuring should remove the issue that caused it. Players won't be able to "stack" when a team is formed since all teams will be created completely anew for every "season" and players who transfer after teams are formed would be ineligible to receive the rewards.

 

***Most*** of it will be removed.

 

While I doubt it will happen, an alliance of OCX or SEA players could easily carry a world on NA as most of the population there play NA time. So, two alliances, one with either a SEA prime or OCX prime focus added in to almost any other alliance of normally distributed players, an that world would be really tough to beat.

 

Some buff in rewards after alliances for winning might be OK, but as you pointed out with the OS farm link, if that buff is too high, people will abuse the system to take advantage of it.

[Israel.7056]

One of the main problems is that the game cannot always tell the difference between what we might consider "healthy gameplay" and what we might consider "unhealthy gameplay" or "intelligent gameplay" and "unintelligent gameplay" because what usually makes the difference is context. So take for instance repairing a wall. Sometimes it makes sense to repair a wall, sometimes it doesn't. But if the the reward system pays out for repairing a wall regardless of context then the game incentivizes repairing a wall under any circumstance and so the incentive is at odds with what we might consider "healthy or intelligent gameplay." Properly mirroring that sort of internalized contextually driven human calculus in an algorithm can be quite difficult for a game designer.

 

Another big problem here is that a player could decide that all they care about is the reward they get for repairing walls and completely ignore any other objective. So the rewards have to be good enough to incentive playing the game mode but not so good that they incentivize only doing a particular behavior over and over without any consideration for what else is going on.

[SnowHawk.3615]

 

 

 

Ok> @"bOTEB.1573" said:

> It is the least rewarding mode in GW2, even PVP, which doesn't need gold/gear at all is more rewarding than WvW.

> How about a reward system that stimulates players to do what WvW is meant for.

>

> 1. Repairing should give currency.

> 2. Attacking and defending should give currency to each interval.

> 3. Being in a squad with more than X people should give currency each interval (5 mins this time). Will you just stay in a squad not doing anything? Gl finding a commander which won't kick you!

> 4. Any form of spending resources (not only repairing) should give currency, make it 1 copper per hammer swing if you want.

> 5. Taking a keep/sm/mine should also give currency.

>

> I can't really decide how much should be earned by each of these "acts" but they should be rewarded at least a similar level as we get gold from PVP.

> I know earlier we had to spend gold for the keeps and only same people were doing it every time and the things were improved little. But this is not enough.

> None of the modes should feel less rewarding than the others, considering they offer different gameplay and mechanics and some of us love to do WvW more than PvP or PvE.

> We still play the other modes but we enjoy WvW the most. Don't we deserve a little more rewarding experience?

>

> These changes will bring WvW in a better light and many PIP farmers will start joining squads. I bet that the WvW player base will expand also.

>

 

> 1. Repairing should give currency.

Repairing giving currency? No, and here is why. People troll as it is with repairs - and it would make matters worse. You would have randoms repairing at the worst times such as locking half of a group outside or inside with the enemy getting said group wiped. It happens already and we don't need another reason for it happen. It's happened to my guild group several times because either people don't pay attention to the fight at hand, or they are just trolling us. Also, waste of supply! There are already dedicated trolls who waste supply on walls being trebbed constantly. Broken walls can be used as choke points to wipe the enemy, and constantly repairing it wastes supply to build siege and other things. You're already granted WvW XP for each tick of repairs- gold doesn't need to be involved. It would bring the wrong kind of attention.

 

> 2. Attacking and defending should give currency to each interval.

There would be too much going on for a squad to respond too- That means that a group of 5 people who can siege up and defend for X time would get paid to sit on arrow carts and shield gens. And the attackers would only have to attack to get paid- not actually take it. SO no.

 

> 3. Being in a squad with more than X people should give currency each interval (5 mins this time). Will you just stay in a squad not doing anything? Gl finding a commander which won't kick you!

 

This would hurt the groups that prefer to run closed. A small organized guild group that does fine taking towers, zerg busting etc would be punished VS the giant brainless zerg who steam rolls everything just due to sheer size. Queue times would be horrendous due to people zerg chasing for some cash. Commanders can already grant participation to squad members tapping keeps, scouting etc which grants WvW XP that also goes towards your next chest.

If the number is 15 let's say- and I run during EU time and often we have about 8-13 people guildies with whome we run closed with and do just fine for ourselves. It forces organized groups to open to anyone to leech on just for money, They don't have to listen to the commander. It would be mass kicking and complaining on all sides. "Give me money! Let me in squad!"

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> One of the main problems is that the game cannot always tell the difference between what we might consider "healthy gameplay" and what we might consider "unhealthy gameplay" or "intelligent gameplay" and "unintelligent gameplay" because what usually makes the difference is context. So take for instance repairing a wall. Sometimes it makes sense to repair a wall, sometimes it doesn't. But if the the reward system pays out for repairing a wall regardless of context then the game incentivizes repairing a wall under any circumstance and so the incentive is at odds with what we might consider "healthy or intelligent gameplay." Properly mirroring that sort of internalized contextually driven human calculus in an algorithm can be quite difficult for a game designer.

>

> Another big problem here is that a player could decide that all they care about is the reward they get for repairing walls and completely ignore any other objective. So the rewards have to be good enough to incentive playing the game mode but not so good that they incentivize only doing a particular behavior over and over without any consideration for what else is going on.

 

On point and a Thumbs Up for you. What you basically describe is my attitude since my server became a link. A whole nother subject...

[Safandula.8723]

Guys, all your concerns about making rewards of wvw higher, assume people will abuse boring wvw tactics to earn around 5g/h ( i would be satisfied with 2 or 3) . No way i'll let enemy blob kill me, becouse i killed them once. No way i'll camp in keep to use shield gen for 3 hours. No way i'll sit in keep and build trebs just to get a bit of a kitty. There are much better ways to grind. Noone want sick gold earning becouse it would cause ques with shitty play in game. We just want to earn a little bit more than few mystic coins per week, and 1/3 g and 2 green items per lvl up.

[Gorani.7205]

1. A Question: How many dedicated WvW players use the weekly guild missions to gain coin and commendations each week, because those are highly focused on rewarding gold (silver) as rewards.

2. An Idea: What if we could use the existing tech of guild missions and races to be able to start daily WvW challenges? Those daily challenges could be started by paying Badges to an NPC, who initiates a "beginner's zone" (like in races). Everyone who stood in the zone gets a buff (with the time limit of the challenge /guild mission). You can't join the team later (so no leeching) and you have to participate in at least one event of the dynamic event chain (two for capture and hold; again no hopping on later to leech). Guild missions of the capture & hold type would not only require the attack but also a defend event, which is good for the fight dynamic on the map. A complete set of missions (without the Obsidian Sanctum JP) would be an extra 12 gold a day (for stuff you might do already, but before that without other people).

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Safandula.8723" said:

> Guys, all your concerns about making rewards of wvw higher, assume people will abuse boring wvw tactics to earn around 5g/h ( i would be satisfied with 2 or 3) . No way i'll let enemy blob kill me, becouse i killed them once. No way i'll camp in keep to use shield gen for 3 hours. No way i'll sit in keep and build trebs just to get a bit of a kitty. There are much better ways to grind. Noone want sick gold earning becouse it would cause ques with kitten play in game. We just want to earn a little bit more than few mystic coins per week, and 1/3 g and 2 green items per lvl up.

 

But yet when descriptions of how what has been suggested for buffs would be abused by stating specific examples of previous issues, you effectively dismiss them,

 

How long have you played WvW?

 

Many of these issues have been present in aspects of WvW at different times.

-When rewards were buffed, an influx of people queued the BLs with people who were not interested in assisting with the gameplay. Their interest was only in obtaining the new shiny available.

-when tournaments were introduced, stacking became a huge issue creating dead servers and robbing many servers of their ability to compete.

-when kills gave significant rewards, people kill traded in order to benefit from this.

 

@"Israel.7056" was very eloquent in his description of the problem that exists here: the game is unable to distiguish what is healthy game play.

 

 

[Voltekka.2375]

Let us see how alliances will work first. Then, the issue about wvw rewards may come up again. But it is funny to see how newcomers ignore things that have happened in the past (killtrading, server stacking, etc),or how they suggest to make wvw more pve oriented. Some suggestions remind me of eotm, where zergs just avoided each other and recapped everything in circles, an effective karma and exp train.

[Voltekka.2375]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Safandula.8723" said:

> > Guys, all your concerns about making rewards of wvw higher, assume people will abuse boring wvw tactics to earn around 5g/h ( i would be satisfied with 2 or 3) . No way i'll let enemy blob kill me, becouse i killed them once. No way i'll camp in keep to use shield gen for 3 hours. No way i'll sit in keep and build trebs just to get a bit of a kitty. There are much better ways to grind. Noone want sick gold earning becouse it would cause ques with kitten play in game. We just want to earn a little bit more than few mystic coins per week, and 1/3 g and 2 green items per lvl up.

>

> But yet when descriptions of how what has been suggested for buffs would be abused by stating specific examples of previous issues, you effectively dismiss them,

>

> How long have you played WvW?

>

> Many of these issues have been present in aspects of WvW at different times.

> -When rewards were buffed, an influx of people queued the BLs with people who were not interested in assisting with the gameplay. Their interest was only in obtaining the new shiny available.

> -when tournaments were introduced, stacking became a huge issue creating dead servers and robbing many servers of their ability to compete.

> -when kills gave significant rewards, people kill traded in order to benefit from this.

>

> @"Israel.7056" was very eloquent in his description of the problem that exists here: the game is unable to distiguish what is healthy game play.

>

>

 

I believe he has stated he is rank 170.

[Safandula.8723]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Safandula.8723" said:

> > Guys, all your concerns about making rewards of wvw higher, assume people will abuse boring wvw tactics to earn around 5g/h ( i would be satisfied with 2 or 3) . No way i'll let enemy blob kill me, becouse i killed them once. No way i'll camp in keep to use shield gen for 3 hours. No way i'll sit in keep and build trebs just to get a bit of a kitty. There are much better ways to grind. Noone want sick gold earning becouse it would cause ques with kitten play in game. We just want to earn a little bit more than few mystic coins per week, and 1/3 g and 2 green items per lvl up.

>

> But yet when descriptions of how what has been suggested for buffs would be abused by stating specific examples of previous issues, you effectively dismiss them,

>

> How long have you played WvW?

>

> Many of these issues have been present in aspects of WvW at different times.

> -When rewards were buffed, an influx of people queued the BLs with people who were not interested in assisting with the gameplay. Their interest was only in obtaining the new shiny available.

> -when tournaments were introduced, stacking became a huge issue creating dead servers and robbing many servers of their ability to compete.

> -when kills gave significant rewards, people kill traded in order to benefit from this.

>

> @"Israel.7056" was very eloquent in his description of the problem that exists here: the game is unable to distiguish what is healthy game play.

>

>

 

250 lvl. Iv seen some stupid stuff like over building stuff at camps and always some ppl afking at WP, but nothing that should be worried about.

How big were the rewards from abusing wvw grind? When was that a w what were the others ways of earning gold?

Dead servers are caused by low game population, its natural part of computer games at some point, and its whole another topic

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> Let us see how alliances will work first. Then, the issue about wvw rewards may come up again. But it is funny to see how newcomers ignore things that have happened in the past (killtrading, server stacking, etc),or how they suggest to make wvw more pve oriented. Some suggestions remind me of eotm, where zergs just avoided each other and recapped everything in circles, an effective karma and exp train.

 

No, lets not wait. Alliances are to normalize the issues caused by population mismatch, but the other aspects of the game design are unchanged by this. Reward incentives are STILL causing the same types of problems, because the core of the issue with WvW is a combination of Persistence, Time Coverage, and Lack of Coordination, surrounded by a cloud of secondary issues from Objectives, to Siege, to Group Comp, and much much more. All the reward system is doing for many is making the slog tolerable, and having something else to feel like "progression".

 

While this might sound idiotically polarizing at first, the mode's mechanics are mess because we're using a bad combination of Open world design with Match based scoring methods. While this leaves the field open for tactical options, the "Win Conditions" don't make any sense, nor do they matter. The whole scoring system is now feeding into Skirmish rewards; so it shouldn't surprise anyone that this are what people are farming. The weekly cap also governs a lot of player's activities, due to a huge drive for efficiency and material wealth (big showing on the weekend, mostly unemployed and streamers on the week days).

 

Fixing it is not really possible in the game's current scope and map size. Unfortunately, there are few good examples to draw inspiration from, as war games tend to simulate conflicts that are about other things.... while the game itself is about the conflict. As best as I've been able to gather, a war game that can self perpetuate has to be designed around "logistics" more then combat. But this is tricky, because players (especially competitive players) build their egos around combat prowess. Yet time and again, a lot of team based combat games will stream line the logistics, and the whole game flow hits a point of chaos.

 

So on the top of the list, we have the overall objective (and the purpose of fighting) needs a complete rethink; and from there changes can be made to support that new design premise. Games have dedicated themselves to this and still not gotten it right..... and the single biggest hurdle is defining what the war seeks to accomplish. Second is "how" the war is fought- and adding logistics and upkeep costs to maintain owning large amounts of territory goes a long way to self-regulating gameplay. Giving players agency in the logistics system is also important to them wanting to maintain it. Resources also have to be focused within the mode, avoid drawing from external sources and/or costs, and made as non-personal as possible. All of which will require a much bigger map (easily POF sized), with structures that make strategic sense to maintain control over- Even if it means holding it while surrounded by enemy owned structures. With that kind of requirement, Guilds and Guild alliances start to make sense again.

 

You can see why this probably won't happen, given the amount of Dev investment required to make work, and the amount of Player cooperation that casual players might find to daunting and avoid. The last of which is kind of sad, since small guilds or ad-hoc groups acting as Mercs not only fits well into this scheme, they gain a lot more value with their increased autonomy, and ability to hit weak points and pressure man power of larger groups. But I bet what really gets it shot down is the slower game pace; because again, many egos are built on combat prowess. Even in the current game design, many groups avoid PPT and focus on fighting, because they want battles and KDR.