Oli.4597 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Hey plebs and poggers ;D See topic. Would it be possible to bring back tournments? Servers no longer "exist" then, we only have "Worlds" But *hopefully* we have balanced Worlds with the Alliances etc. Atm, we dont know how many Worlds we will get (Anet maybe especially Lukes might do) In the current System it didnt make much sense to put out another Torunment. The winners would be obvious. Imo this was the reason why it had a negative inpact in the tournment 2014. (but thats not the point here) So with the "balanced" Worlds and Alliances, would you like to see Tournments rise again? Some people say it only would make sense if ww is copetetive again. Is it with the new WvW update? Maybe, because of better belance - we will see. We could also do tournments + e. g. "No Downstate-Event" Im optimistic, so lets say the new Sytsem with Worlds, Alliances *does* work and its kinda balanced. (There might be people who would say "lets wait things out first and see how it works etc.") Im already one step ahead and say it will work (after some struggle) Tell me your thoughts on this and if you would like to see something like this again. o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 This really depends on how Anet would handle glicko with alliances. *Theoretically* we could have "soft tournaments" all year around with 2 months intervals. All it requires is a full glicko reset on alliance reschuffle. All worlds begin at 0 and fight their way up to the top. Could delete glicko alltogether, though that would lead to non-randomized matchups (just plain 1 up 1 down) which could become a slog if worlds stall. It does require a truly full reschuffle of worlds every 2 months though, to keep it fresh for the players. If they *dont* reset glicko and instead just do minor shuffles of players/guilds/alliances on fairly static worlds after the initial reschuffle from current links to alliances, WvW would look pretty much exactly as it does now. Tournaments would become boring if the worlds are otherwise considered "balanced" (ie the winner from last time is probably going to be the winner the next time) and force players to eventually transfer in order to get some movement in the rankings, which solves nothing. Without knowing the final implementation of alliances it's pointless to speculate about tournaments anyway. They are quite literally the last concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliburn.1845 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 What would you say about locking transfers when any proposed tourny starts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero.3871 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 removing tournements had Nothing to do with Population imbalancings in the past. it was because player base where exhausted after a tournement. that due to a shrunk in Player numbers in wvw because People stopped playing the game after a tournement. anet will not starting tournements again since it is destructive for the wvw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oli.4597 Posted January 4, 2019 Author Share Posted January 4, 2019 > @"Caliburn.1845" said: > What would you say about locking transfers when any proposed tourny starts? Ofc that, but you will only be able to transfer after every "match" anyway. (8 weeks or so maybe less Anet wasnt sure about the "matchduration") So either you transfer before the tournment starts aka before the new "match" starts or afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oli.4597 Posted January 4, 2019 Author Share Posted January 4, 2019 > @"Zero.3871" said: > removing tournements had Nothing to do with Population imbalancings in the past. it was because player base where exhausted after a tournement. that due to a shrunk in Player numbers in wvw because People stopped playing the game after a tournement. anet will not starting tournements again since it is destructive for the wvw. Mhhh, maybe find a way to motivate players to stay after a tournment then? Tournments could give good Rewards. You need to find a way so players dont just come for the tournment only an also stay for the "regular" fights. Im mostly a Roamer. My Gold only increases from the Daily. When im running around with the Zerg i dont get that much more. (ofc bags + random stuff) but compared to pvp + tournments its nothing. (Maybe im just unlucky, i also hear that ppl earn good amount of gold in 1 hour - idk.) With tournments you could have e.g increased pips per tick + an Event like the "No Downstate" one. (ofc. also some extra tickets + Gold/prizes for winners whatsoever) While after the tournment on regular bases you also get gold now for compliting the last chest from each division (Bronze, Diamond etc.) By doing so also Roamers earn a bit of gold while zerg ppl wouldnt be on a disadvantage. You could also implement more WxP (in periods) in the "Non Tournment" phases. Just a quick thought. Back in 2014 you had nothing in wvw like this. You only got Rewards in the tournment. There was no Rewardtrack and no chests when you just did the "regular" wvw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero.3871 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 > @"Oli.4597" said: > > @"Zero.3871" said: > > removing tournements had Nothing to do with Population imbalancings in the past. it was because player base where exhausted after a tournement. that due to a shrunk in Player numbers in wvw because People stopped playing the game after a tournement. anet will not starting tournements again since it is destructive for the wvw. > > Mhhh, maybe find a way to motivate players to stay after a tournment then? > Tournments could give good Rewards. You need to find a way so players dont just come for the tournment only an also stay for the "regular" fights. > > Im mostly a Roamer. My Gold only increases from the Daily. When im running around with the Zerg i dont get that much more. (ofc bags + random stuff) but compared to pvp + tournments its nothing. (Maybe im just unlucky, i also hear that ppl earn good amount of gold in 1 hour - idk.) > > With tournments you could have e.g increased pips per tick + an Event like the "No Downstate" one. (ofc. also some extra tickets + Gold/prizes for winners whatsoever) > While after the tournment on regular bases you also get gold now for compliting the last chest from each division (Bronze, Diamond etc.) By doing so also Roamers earn a bit of gold while zerg ppl wouldnt be on a disadvantage. > You could also implement more WxP (in periods) in the "Non Tournment" phases. > Just a quick thought. > > Back in 2014 you had nothing in wvw like this. You only got Rewards in the tournment. There was no Rewardtrack and no chests when you just did the "regular" wvw. > Problem is that too many Players are too serious in such a tournement and sacrificing a lot of their private time to it. back in the days of 1st tournements e.g. vizunah-square organsied 24/7 Players and commanders to Queue every map all the time. after the tournement this Server died and never came back because great number of Players stopped playing after it. there is no ingame reward anet could create to hold Players that gave up their private life for such a tournement and want to spend their time in real life after overpasting so heavily. a wvw tournement lasts usually around 8+ weeks/2 month and permanently playing during that time is very exhausting. the truth is, wvw just not suits for such a tournement because the time you have to spend to win this is too much. its only would increase toxicity,elitism and will exhaust the playerbase where the bigger part of wvw community will loose with their Server and become completely demotivated. that is what the past tournements showed. so there is no gain for wvw to have those tournements. i think the curretn System with having some Events is better since it is for just 1 week where People can enjoy differeent rules (like no-downed state) and then going back to normal wvw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diku.2546 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 > @"Zero.3871" said: > > > @"Zero.3871" said: > > > removing tournements had Nothing to do with Population imbalancings in the past. it was because player base where exhausted after a tournement. that due to a shrunk in Player numbers in wvw because People stopped playing the game after a tournement. anet will not starting tournements again since it is destructive for the wvw. > > Snip 8< > > Problem is that too many Players are too serious in such a tournement and sacrificing a lot of their private time to it. back in the days of 1st tournements e.g. vizunah-square organsied 24/7 Players and commanders to Queue every map all the time. after the tournement this Server died and never came back because great number of Players stopped playing after it. there is no ingame reward anet could create to hold Players that gave up their private life for such a tournement and want to spend their time in real life after overpasting so heavily. > > a wvw tournement lasts usually around 8+ weeks/2 month and permanently playing during that time is very exhausting. the truth is, wvw just not suits for such a tournement because the time you have to spend to win this is too much. > > its only would increase toxicity,elitism and will exhaust the playerbase where the bigger part of wvw community will loose with their Server and become completely demotivated. that is what the past tournements showed. so there is no gain for wvw to have those tournements. i think the curretn System with having some Events is better since it is for just 1 week where People can enjoy differeent rules (like no-downed state) and then going back to normal wvw. > --- I agree with you that Tournaments are bad for WvW based on our current situation, but this could all change. The NFL is able to host their Super Bowl event annually...without the drama & excuses that seem to plague WvW Tournaments. Honestly, I really do believe we COULD have Healthy Competitive Weekly Match-Ups...that lead up to an Annual WvW Tournament. There's only 5 things that need to be done to change this, but it will require that we focus on replacing our current Match-Up model. We need to Directly fix & replace our broken Match-Up model...instead of In-Directly trying to fix things through complex Team Creation mechanics...imho There needs to be more emphasis on World vs World(s). Yours truly, Diku p.s. See some of my past posts...please vote Helpful or Thumbs up if you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 > @"Diku.2546" said: > The NFL is able to host their Super Bowl event annually...without the drama & excuses that seem to plague WvW Tournaments. I'd like to see the crowds reaction when one team goes out on the field with 80 people and the other side has 50 people while 20 people sitting down on the field having lunch while occassionaly jumping so they dont have to leave. Also every time one team score, the other team send a player into their ranks to spy on what their next move is. And that's before we get to the guy constantly flipping the power to the stadium on and off while yelling something about EWP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Order.7258 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Yay more incentive to stack to win. Great idea! *Just what we need in a game mode ruled by class stacking in zergs. *Roaming dominated by 3 carrying cheese classes. *Walls that are more of a death sentence to defenders then charging straight into the zerg. *Siege that carries the larger number team when it should help the heavily outnumbered defenders first. Have you even played against large numbers when outnumbered and they prop down two shield gen and 8 catas with shields. That near hopeless feeling is much fun! *Also props to those gvg guilds that get their kicks farming unorganized pugs. The ego stroking must be real or really needed. But we gotta wait for 250+ gem store updates before alliances when something as simple as a dynamic queue could have curbed a lot of this bullshit stacking. Don't expect alliances anytime soon when you got shitter alliances willing to fund Anet so their organized group can stomp pugs while avoiding other organized groups. If Anet cared they would have implemented a dynamic queue on maps long, long ago. Like 200+ gem store updates ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > I'd like to see the crowds reaction when one team goes out on the field with 80 people and the other side has 50 people while 20 people sitting down on the field having lunch while occassionaly jumping so they dont have to leave. Also every time one team score, the other team send a player into their ranks to spy on what their next move is. > > And that's before we get to the guy constantly flipping the power to the stadium on and off while yelling something about EWP. That’s... hysterical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diku.2546 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > I'd like to see the crowds reaction when one team goes out on the field with 80 people and the other side has 50 people while 20 people sitting down on the field having lunch while occassionaly jumping so they dont have to leave. Also every time one team score, the other team send a player into their ranks to spy on what their next move is. > > > > And that's before we get to the guy constantly flipping the power to the stadium on and off while yelling something about EWP. > > That’s... hysterical! --- Agree...that was hysterical. :) Seriously though... Super Bowl Match-Up model & game mechanics shouldn't be used directly for WvW. My point is...Why are we NOT enjoying the same type of perks that the Super Bowl event encourages? It would be more efficient to Directly replace our horrible Match-Up model (fixed 3 way in pyramid tiers)...instead of In-Directly trying to fix things using Team Creation mechanics...to create Healthy Competitive Match-Ups...in Just 5 steps... imho I really do believe we COULD & should use...IF we HAD Healthy Competitive Weekly Match-Ups (which we don't have :( )...an Annual WvW Tournament. Your truly, Diku Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorani.7205 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_vs._World_Season_1 was exhausting, because to be able to get the rewards, the "non-hardcore" players - PvX players if you want to call them that way (who still make up the majority of the population in WvW) burned themselves out and left after the season. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_vs._World_Season_1_(achievements) Season 2 ( https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WvW_Spring_Tournament_2014 ) tuned down the numbers a bit ( https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WvW_Spring_Tournament_2014 ) like 75 caravans killed compared to 225 in season 1. The exhaustion damage was done though and many guild members I know did not even bother, thinking the numbers would be very high again. The last season ( https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WvW_Fall_Tournament_2014 ) was not really a WvW event. It highlighted the introduction of EotM and you needed 5 events to qualify (including EotM), which pretty much everyone got. A slightly revised version of the 2nd season (no JP, shave off the last tier from season 2) would work for me (that's for the 2 month time period) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 No to tournaments. This mode needs issues resolved, not issues compounded. I really don't understand the obsession with turning this mode into a glorified spvp experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I enjoyed the tournaments, but saw people I played with lose interest in WvW after they were over. I don't think the benefit to cost of players is worth it here. Not to mention it really did lead to coverage wars. The server that could field a larger force over the 24hr clock held advantage. I don't think even with today's mechanism it wouldn't come down to this. So for me no, would prefer to see resource time spent on other WvW projects versus time spent on coding for tournaments, IMO. Good hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiri.4257 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 just make sure they hard cap the populations. every match up will be a quest to find coverage gaps. if tryhards want to quit their school, jobs, and children to win then so be it. Deem them WvW champions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 And indeed, I never bought the whole "people were burnt out" thing. That's their choice. It's not like Anet took a gun to their head and forced them to PPT. We shouldn't hold a game back because of some people's personal problems. Maybe those people shouldn't be playing games in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirine.6852 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Lets first see how these alliances go and if they even solve anything before we would start things like that ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limodriver.4106 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 its pointless we all know whats going to happen: Player A: good job with the population balance since we are winning Players B: Population balance sux since we are losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimator.3589 Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 You're hoping for officially supported tournaments from a dev team that won't allow discussion of matchups in a game mode that's all about matchups, and hates GvG in spite of **_Guild Wars_** being in the name of their game? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynomite.5834 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 The tournaments were just too long. Make them shorter and lock servers down and that might be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipso.8653 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 Organizing guilds to cover specific timezones for 100% coverage of 24 hours per day- every day, for 7 weeks straight. No thank you. Seasons burned people out, I didn't even play WvW for a year and a half after season 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronos.6532 Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 They said they won't do tournaments again because they resulted in a permanent drop in players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 If there was another tournament, Blackgate would win. Even if you dispute this, you can agree the servers with no off hours coverage have no chance. You can also agree there aren't enough off hour players to go around. Can it really be a positive thing when most of the playerbase knows the tournament has a foregone conclusion and their effort is futile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > If there was another tournament, Blackgate would win. > > Even if you dispute this, you can agree the servers with no off hours coverage have no chance. You can also agree there aren't enough off hour players to go around. > > Can it really be a positive thing when most of the playerbase knows the tournament has a foregone conclusion and their effort is futile? > This^^ Servers already don’t want to face BG when their isn’t new PVE content. When BG is out in force, it’s one of the most difficult servers to face. It would take a coordinated 2v1 (that has happened before) unless one of the link servers got heavily bandwagoned. The other scenario? A server with two links gets all the transfers into its two links. Even then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now