Can there be more emphasis on World vs World?

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> We had it, they took it away.

Seriously, _the tournaments hurt WvW_, why is that so hard for people to understand. Anet has literally stated this outright.

 

> @"Dagger.2035" said:

> New maps would have been simple to create. You wouldn’t need new NPCs, AI creatures, and events. Just apply new textures, new ambient objects, and slightly alter the terrain. The terrain used by yaks and large objectives could have been left as is to save time. These maps would have gotten hundreds of hours of use unlike PvE maps which are forgotten rather quickly.

So you don't want a new map, you just want an existing one with a new hat.

[Diku.2546]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > We had it, they took it away.

> Seriously, _the tournaments hurt WvW_, why is that so hard for people to understand. Anet has literally stated this outright.

>

I agree past tournaments hurt the WvW game mode because our current Match-Up design is flawed & does NOT Allow or Support Healthy Competitive Match-Ups.

 

Tournaments should be used as an incentive...Only when...we have game mechanics that actually foster Healthy Competitive Match-Ups are in place, but sadly we don't have such mechanics in place...so we can't have Tournaments given our current Match-Up design.

 

Current Match-Up design typically encourages the

scenario.

 

There's only 5 steps that need to be done to Allow & Encourage Healthy Competitive Match-Ups...imho

 

Long term vision...Tournaments should be part of an overall feature of this game mode to provide an annual "End Game Content" that would be the next eSport event that's similar in scope as the SuperBowl event is to the NFL.

 

For this to happen...We need to have Healthy Competitive Weekly Match-Ups & A Solid World Server Identity to provide the reason behind why players are willing to fight so hard.

 

Yes...please put more emphasis on World vs World

 

Yours truly,

Diku

[subversiontwo.7501]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> Seriously, _the tournaments hurt WvW_, why is that so hard for people to understand. Anet has literally stated this outright.

> So you don't want a new map, you just want an existing one with a new hat.

Actually, I was just responding to the guy asking about it above but since you're pouting about it let's humour the thought.

 

Just because ArenaNet set up tournaments poorly in the past (making them too long etc.) doesn't mean they have to recreate a poor ruleset again. The foremost reason as to why tournaments may not be a good thing to run again anytime soon is the same as everything else: The mode is now at a state where determining winners and losers would be even more broken. However, some sort of tournament could be made with a better ruleset same as new maps could be made with better design.

 

Just because ArenaNet has created two rather ill-received maps it doesn't mean that new maps wouldn't be welcome. They would just have to be better made with a greater insight into how WvW works. One aspect of that is that they do not need to reinvent the wheel when making new maps, as they have done with those forementioned maps. Other developers who are successful at map rotation tend to just iterate on existing map concepts. In fact, when ArenaNet has done this to their existing maps they too have been rather successful, it's just that the times it has been done have been too few and far apart.

 

[RedShark.9548]

> @"Diku.2546" said:

> Can we Also have Healthy Competitive Weekly Match-Ups & A Solid World Server Identity?

>

> We NEED a Fair Theater of War & Something Precious to Fight For...imho

>

> 1) Let Players pick their own Weekly Match-ups & Permanent Home World Server to Protect...(Server change by gem based transfer every 1-3 months).

>

> 2) Use a WvW version of

that lets players pick up to 3 Enemy Server's BL to fight on for the week.

>

> 3) Only Reward players when they attack an enemy server that is ranked higher than their own server's rank, or for Defending their Home Server BL.

>

> 4) Always Punish players when they attack an enemy server that is ranked lower than their server's rank by reducing their Home Server rank score.

>

> 5) Always Show players in a RANDOM order in their WvW Score UI...the Top 3 servers attacking their Home Server BL.

>

> The game mechanics are already in the game...it just needs to be re-purposed for WvW to encourage Healthy Competitive Weekly Match-Ups & a Solid World Server Identity.

>

> Imagine

> ---

> WvW hosting an annual tournament where a World Server's Rank needs to be earned by fighting off all other Servers wanting to be Ranked #1.

> and

> Where a Server's Ranking can have a deeper meaning to the Individual Players, Guilds, and International Alliances...that sacrificed to obtain it.

>

> Yes...please put more emphasis on World vs World

>

> Yours truly,

> Diku

>

> p.s.

> See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree.

 

How would a server vote who to fight against? Everybody m8ght have a different opinion.

So you are saying attacking a lower scored server lowers your own score? You know what i would do, attack all those low scoring servers until my rating is low AF and then farm the kitten out of them. EZ money bois.

This is flawed as hell.

[Diku.2546]

> @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > @"Diku.2546" said:

> >

> > Can we Also have Healthy Competitive Weekly Match-Ups & A Solid World Server Identity?

> >

> > We NEED a Fair Theater of War & Something Precious to Fight For...imho

> >

> > 1) Let Players pick their own Weekly Match-ups & Permanent Home World Server to Protect...(Server change by gem based transfer every 1-3 months).

> >

> > 2) Use a WvW version of

that lets players pick up to 3 Enemy Server's BL to fight on for the week.

> >

> > 3) Only Reward players when they attack an enemy server that is ranked higher than their own server's rank, or for Defending their Home Server BL.

> >

> > 4) Always Punish players when they attack an enemy server that is ranked lower than their server's rank by reducing their Home Server rank score.

> >

> > 5) Always Show players in a RANDOM order in their WvW Score UI...the Top 3 servers attacking their Home Server BL.

> >

> > Snip 8<

> >

> How would a server vote who to fight against? Everybody m8ght have a different opinion.

> So you are saying attacking a lower scored server lowers your own score? You know what i would do, attack all those low scoring servers until my rating is low AF and then farm the kitten out of them. EZ money bois.

> This is flawed as hell.

 

Look closely at Step #2.

 

This specific in-game mechanic is already being used to track individual player's World choices & allows players to pick any Server to Guest Visit to play with Friends & Families for the Megaserver system.

 

Why not Use a modified WvW version of this mechanic to let players individually pick which Enemy Server's Home BL they want to ATTACK for the week?

 

---

 

ANet needs to Re-Design the WvW Match-Up design model.

 

Currently 3 Worlds Fight against each other in an employee or automated selected pairings within a Fixed Tier design structure using multiple maps.

 

Get rid of this Requirement.

 

Remove this Fixed 3 Way Fight Scenario in Structured Tiers & multiple maps.

 

Assign each World Server a single Home BL map.

 

Note - Maps are changeable for added variety & multiple maps (up to 4 total) can be assigned to a World Server to increase the capacity of a "Home BL."

 

i.e. - The #1 Ranked Servers automatically get assigned 4 maps to defend. Increased capacity allows more players to visit & fight the #1 Ranked "Home BL".

 

---

 

Let players individually choose which Enemy's Home BL that they want to visit & FIGHT ON for the week...using a modified version of

for WvW...then the rest of the other 4 steps should make better sense.

 

Players would still be required to have a Permanent Home Server BL to defend & can only change it every 1-3 months, and have to pay gems if they don't like their Home Server BL.

 

Match-Ups become player driven & we can have Healthy Competitive Weekly Match-Ups & A Solid World Server Identity.

 

Note - You earn nothing when fighting on any Lower Ranked Server's BL for an entire week & your Server's Score Ranking actually goes down as you earn negative World Rank points, or earning can be set to zero World Rank points to prevent abuse with this design model. Sorry no EZ money boiz. Only way to earn money is to fight Higher Ranked Servers...which will make any #1 Ranked Server work for their privileged & coveted status.

 

We need better Match-Up Mechanics & NOT better Team Creation Mechanics...imho

 

Yours truly,

Diku

 

p.s.

If you like the idea...please encourage the devs to use it. Maybe even host an event week to try it out.

[Samuel.4812]

I've only been playing for about a year but as a new player I fell in love with wvw very early on. No other game has this type of game mode. I really wish anet would put more into it as it's my primary fun thing to do. Fractals don't appeal to me that much. There's just so much more that could be done with it!

[Elvirais.5472]

Same here - WvW is the only reason I'm still playing GW2 after all these years. But it really needs some shaking up and some good changes. Those proposed map reskins would be great too for variety.

[Sylosi.6503]

> @"Samuel.4812" said:

> No other game has this type of game mode.

 

ESO has this type of game mode, Warhammer had this type of game mode, DAoC has (and basically invented) this type of game mode, Planetside 2 has this type of game mode, EVE Online has what is a more complex / hardcore version of this game mode and so on...

[Klipso.8653]

Besides this game, the only other active population for RvR would be ESO. Which they basically ripped straight from GW2.

 

With almost no effort, anet could make this the go-to game for this type of PvP. But that would require something more than making the player pools smaller with "alliances"

 

 

[clone wars.9568]

wvw needs a dedicated team that LISTEN to the REAL wvw players, which it's become clear will never happen. three man "team" working on the "new" ally system which is already set to fail because worlds will not have the same amount of players on each. And the fact anet is pushing everyone to just blob, marked and increased capping circle times (which anet never pointed out in patch notes) and power creep as well as in balance between classes has almost completely killed this gamemode for roamers. Solo guilds can no longer make banners or claim towers/camps/keeps.

[Arzurag.7506]

> @"Garrus.7403" said:

> > @"Towelie.9504" said:

> > Way back when WvW and your server actually made some sort of impact outside of WvW as well (bonuses on things like gathering, crafting, magic find etc). This kind of gave people at least some motivation to enter the game mode. Could these bonuses come back and additionally provide some other incentives for people to participate?

> >

> > As it stands right now, WvW is an almost empty game mode now and while we are given the promise of alliances it seems like this is fairly far away and could only be a temporarily jump in population.

> >

> > If a new player is logging in and about to create their very first character it seems odd to me for them to choose a server name that they may never have any impact on at all.

>

> Can you imagine ppl playing WvW just for the fun it brings? Why do ppl today just need rewards for everything they do?

 

Because it's not fun to play wvw?

 

I personally play for that neat legendary backpack and thus, simply stay semi-afk on an outnumbered map and refresh my participation every 10 minutes.

 

It's just that there's no incentive to play it another way because I don't get tickets by winning or getting objectives, having the highest points does not get rewarded either and actively doing wvw by zerging is no fun due the game's unbalanced state.