How do we get people to spread out across maps more?

[hellsqueen.3045]

**Please don't get angry about anything said here, this is my opinion based on various observations and I would absolutely love to get people's opinions and hear other people's ideas on spreading the population back into some other areas/activities.**

 

I am of the personal opinion that by making metas more equally a profitable experience but giving them the Istan treatment of only being profitable once a day, you end up forcing people into finding other profitable materials to fill the new gaps in their schedules. The metas would include LWS4 metas in this rotation hopefully and also spark some life into Serpent's Ire. While those other profitable activities need to be enough to give a fairly decent loot pool but should feel as if they come second to metas in a day.

For example, I could see more bounties being run if metas were once a day.

 

Basically, I feel as if making more metas doesn't really help change the situation of population feeling lack luster in some maps because people will not leave their most profitable maps unless they are given a reason to leave. If you make it most profitable once and leave only map currency and EXP and karma profit and a few basic room chests as the major loot for any run done after the first, then they will feel their effort is better served on another map. If they have run out of map metas to chain but still desire an activity that earns them profit, they need to look for other activities that also provide profit and this means they will likely spark life into activities that largely go ignored because they can start running the activities on their own newly made time.

 

I feel like this would be a pretty controversial change, people really like their metas and I think it is deserved. They bring people together and the best ones bring people together without forcing heavy coordination in terms of needing commanders and subgroups (IE. Auric Basin is good no matter what, Serpent's Ire is disliked for the high coordination requirements and the need for a guild like TTS to run it) and yet they still provide top notch loot. They also manage to provide a sense of community (Auric Basin Chat: **WEST?!?!??! SOUTHHH???! ARE YOU GOOD?**).

 

What are your thoughts? How do we spread people to other areas of the game and promote the play of other content without making it MORE profitable than the metas?

How do we make the goal, we want more content being run without completely killing the content we are already running?

[Randulf.7614]

I'm not really seeing it as a major issue. There will always be more popular maps than others, but it is rare to see maps completely empty (time of day dependant). The more group stuff or profitable metas the game adds, the risk it runs of spreading too thinly and some end up failing. Whilst Thunderhead was a pretty pathetic map, it does have the advantage of only attracting people once an hour with nothing else going on to risk failing.

 

The best maps work where there is a lot of solo, small group and meta content - where people can pootle along and suddenly find themselves adjacent to a big group event where everyone can quickly pool then return to what they are doing (Draconis, Jahai, Sandswept as examples)

[phs.6089]

Imo, just IMO they gotta stop producing this 1111zeg!111 metas.

What comes in mind are instanced events and bosses(maybe final fight of LWs? mb something else) for 20-30 people with about t3s difficulty that can be complied once per day per acc.

I recently resumed doing HoT metas for amgs for upcoming GS, boy afk leeching is real. I might be bit tilted tho.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"phs.6089" said:

> Imo, just IMO they gotta stop producing this 1111zeg!111 metas.

So much this. When I see any zerg, I turn around and go the other direction. Even seeing it from a far makes me puke, playing as part of it is nauseous experience.

 

 

[Trise.2865]

> @"phs.6089" said:

> Imo, just IMO they gotta stop producing this 1111zeg!111 metas.

 

Can you then explain how exactly one is supposed to promote singular play over group play in an MMO? and how individuals or small groups could EVER be as powerful as large groups?

[Klipso.8653]

The problem with making a meta only good once per day is that we play at different times, and if your playtime just happens to be outside of prime time then you're screwed.

[thehipone.6812]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > Imo, just IMO they gotta stop producing this 1111zeg!111 metas.

>

> Can you then explain how exactly one is supposed to promote singular play over group play in an MMO? and how individuals or small groups could EVER be as powerful as large groups?

 

My two copper: It requires a shift in player thinking from zergs being the best/only way to complete content to parties. Seems like everything is a train - champ train, HP train, world boss train, legendary bounty train - sometimes unnecessarily upscaling things. On the design side, it requires good scaling of events both up and down, while also avoiding the creation of perverse incentives like mega-zerg upscaling spawning champs that draw people away from the main event objective. ANYTHING to make guilds great again could also help to draw smaller groups together to tackle content. I understand the for argument, but large events that run on timers are also detrimental to breaking up mega-zergs. Lastly, 111 metas being top farms is also a massive potential contributor to zerging. Buff map reward tracks a bit, (especially in PoF now that unid gear has been slaughtered. one map having shiny baubles would be a start) so you can earn something by doing a few different shorter events.

 

One example of content that does work for spread out, small groups is bounties. In a group of five to ten people you can knock down bounties in a minute an a half to two minutes each. Get a zerg (like on days when it is Crystal Oasis bounty hunter daily) and it takes 4 or 5 times as long when the boss gets upscaled. They're not on a "every two hours" timer like metas. The bounty rewards don't seem to draw players and that's an issue that should be looked at whether it is an awareness one or lack of interest. "Unique rewards" is somewhat of a forum meme by now, but the bounty unique rewards that include two sets of in-game obtainable armor skins, a handful of weapon skins, and rare minis don't draw the farming effort. Small groups farming forged bounties for the warbeast recipes (5-25 gold) or the rare minis should in theory be a thing. Heck, only 3-6% of the gw2efficiency players have bounty hunter armor unlocked, why not go for it? Guild missions could also fit the bill, but they are so stale by now. Junundu Rising is another example of an event that scales well and also gives solid rewards, with the chance for a jackpot drop.

 

So I guess one general recipe could be: -non-timered events that -scale well to be completable by the "organic" player population likely to be nearby/summonable via mapchat - provide good reward/time ratio for groups of 5-10 and - players are aware of the potential rewards and any unique items.

 

 

[phs.6089]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > Imo, just IMO they gotta stop producing this 1111zeg!111 metas.

>

> Can you then explain how exactly one is supposed to promote singular play over group play in an MMO? and how individuals or small groups could EVER be as powerful as large groups?

 

I don't promote single gameplay. Zergs dont' make this game more social.

I just gave one of many possible solution 'instanced meta events for 20-30' hard enough to wipe 11111players and not that hard for average slakers that know how to dodge and can ouput some damage with good rotation and tactics.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > Imo, just IMO they gotta stop producing this 1111zeg!111 metas.

>

> Can you then explain how exactly one is supposed to promote singular play over group play in an MMO? and how individuals or small groups could EVER be as powerful as large groups?

 

There is nothing wrong with group content, zergs are the problem. I found out that the optimal number of people playing close to each other is 5-10, may be up to 15 (already starts to feel too crowded). More than that and the whole process becomes a ridiculous chaotic skill-spam fest where you can't figure out what's going on anymore. It seems like Anet came to the same conclusion as well, hence we have 5 players party in dungeons and fractals, and 10 players party in raids.

 

As how to discourage ppl from zerging.. They could limit number of people in party in PvE, like max 15-20ppl in one. Then change algorithms which spread out people between instances of the same map, make sure that they are distributed over large enough number of instances. They could stop building boss fights in such way you can just spam skills at a single target all the time, like add several boss characters to a single fight which never are close to each other, and which you need to attack simultaneously (similar to Triple Trouble) - and change this number of additional targets as the number of players changes (the more players - the more targets to spread them out). Employ that "sphere shield" which is already can be seen in some fights, preventing you to come closer to a boss if there are too many players already attacking it, thus forcing you to change your target to another boss character. Etc

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

To answer your question OP, you can't. Players will always gravitate towards the most profitable and more efficient farms and the maps containing them will be the most active. With the way GW2's endgame rewards are structured, players feel that if they aren't maximizing their gold income they are wasting game time. And it's a proven fact time and time again that GW2 playerbase (and MMOs in general) prefers easier content that allows you playing "solo" even when part of a huge zerg. Looking at the activity of Triple Trouble or Seprpent's Ire should be proof enough, not to mention the state of raids in this game.

 

The only choice is creating more metas that are equally profitable and also "fun" for the majority of the playerbase. They 'd have to be unique enough though so their popularity doesn't kill the previous top farm. In my opinion HoT did that well with AB and DS being really popular without killing SW. PoF completely failed in that regard.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> To answer your question OP, you can't.

You can't unless you try. Then suddenly it may appear that you can.

 

> Players will always gravitate towards the most profitable and more efficient farms and the maps containing them will be the most active.

 

And here is an easy, already tried solution: reduce gains from farm on a map proportionally to growth of number of players playing there, **dynamically, in real-time** (not statically by hand, how Anet does it atm). So it becomes not as efficient to play on a map where a lot other players are playing, farm-wise, but more efficient on maps which are half-empty atm. Make this thing react to rapid grows of players' number promptly, to prevent exploits, like deliberately leaving map until it will become very profitable, then suddenly dropping a zerg there. Problem solved.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

As a historical reminder, the OP's idea for a meta cycle is what the core maps world boss train is, except extended to map metas. The world boss train works reasonably well, with events cycling so that they pop up multiple times a day, and there is a WB event every 15 minutes. Map metas might need to be on a longer timer to accommodate longer meta events, but implementation doesn't seem impossible.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

 

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > To answer your question OP, you can't.

> You can't unless you try. Then suddenly it may appear that you can.

>

> > Players will always gravitate towards the most profitable and more efficient farms and the maps containing them will be the most active.

>

> And here is an easy, already tried solution: reduce gains from farm on a map proportionally to growth of number of players playing there, **dynamically, in real-time** (not statically by hand, how Anet does it atm). So it becomes not as efficient to play on a map where a lot other players are playing, farm-wise, but more efficient on maps which are half-empty atm. Make this thing react to rapid grows of players' number promptly, to prevent exploits, like deliberately leaving map until it will become very profitable, then suddenly dropping a zerg there. Problem solved.

 

 

So you are proposing to kill what has been proven to be one of the most popular playstyles (zerging) in this game in favor of more challenging smaller grouping. And you think Anet would be willing to take such a gamble? You can't force a square peg in a round hole, GW2's playerbase is predominantly casual, you can't magically make it "love" challenge.

[ReaverKane.7598]

Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea, tying a daily reward to metas, but increasing it slightly so it's more worth it, wouldn't be a bad thing, really, as long as there's enough meta content to keep people going...

It would probably end up devolving into a "Meta train" akin to what happens with world bosses though... Good or bad, you decide!

[kharmin.7683]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea, tying a daily reward to metas, but increasing it slightly so it's more worth it, wouldn't be a bad thing, really, as long as there's enough meta content to keep people going...

> It would probably end up devolving into a "Meta train" akin to what happens with world bosses though... Good or bad, you decide!

 

Not everyone enjoys metas or trains. Please leave daily rewards as they are.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> So you are proposing to kill what has been proven to be one of the most popular playstyles (zerging) in this game in favor of more challenging smaller grouping.

I don't remember mentioning challenge anywhere. OP asked about how to minimize number of people playing the same map - here is the solution. This solution can be adapted to any playstile after it's put in place. And, btw, there is no such thing as "casual gaming". What is called "casual games" aren't games by definition. Games are impossible without challenge, decision making and uncertainty factor. If you can repeat the same pattern with your brain idling and win "a game" in 95% of the times, you are not playing a game.

 

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> And here is an easy, already tried solution: reduce gains from farm on a map proportionally to growth of number of players playing there, **dynamically, in real-time** (not statically by hand, how Anet does it atm). So it becomes not as efficient to play on a map where a lot other players are playing, farm-wise, but more efficient on maps which are half-empty atm. Make this thing react to rapid grows of players' number promptly, to prevent exploits, like deliberately leaving map until it will become very profitable, then suddenly dropping a zerg there. Problem solved.

 

So your solution to players struggling on unpopulated maps is to punish players for playing on well populated maps?

 

Also @ OP post, I run AB not just because it has loot, but because it can take as little as 5 minutes to complete, and launches every 2 hours, on the hour.. Dragon's Stand is a far more epic meta, but I rarely play it because I don't always have a spare 45min-hour to dedicate to a single meta.

 

 

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea, tying a daily reward to metas, but increasing it slightly so it's more worth it, wouldn't be a bad thing, really, as long as there's enough meta content to keep people going...

> > It would probably end up devolving into a "Meta train" akin to what happens with world bosses though... Good or bad, you decide!

>

> Not everyone enjoys metas or trains. Please leave daily rewards as they are.

 

Seriously... What i said, is that Metas should have a daily reward (as in ONCE A DAY YOU GET A SPECIAL REWARD FROM THAT, with repeated completions being much less rewarding), not that daily achievements should be meta events...

[Trise.2865]

> @"phs.6089" said:

> > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > @"phs.6089" said:

> > > Imo, just IMO they gotta stop producing this 1111zeg!111 metas.

> >

> > Can you then explain how exactly one is supposed to promote singular play over group play in an MMO? and how individuals or small groups could EVER be as powerful as large groups?

>

> I don't promote single gameplay. Zergs dont' make this game more social.

> I just gave one of many possible solution 'instanced meta events for 20-30' hard enough to wipe 11111players and not that hard for average slakers that know how to dodge and can ouput some damage with good rotation and tactics.

 

Yes, forcibly split the player base. Genius.

 

It's highly amusing how the "easy, obvious solution" to zerging is to not be an MMO.

 

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> So your solution to players struggling on unpopulated maps is to punish players for playing on well populated maps?

 

It doesn't punish players *playing* there, only those farming there. Those who come to play still can play to their heart's content. For example, I don't care much about gold/hour myself, only about whether a map is fun to play. Also, as you can see, Anet cares about the same thing (moving people from over-populated maps and more even distribution of players over the world). Your personal farming urges are not that important as healthy state of the game's world, in general, you know. Empty maps except a few ones popular only due to farming reason is as unhealthy as it can be.

 

 

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > So you are proposing to kill what has been proven to be one of the most popular playstyles (zerging) in this game in favor of more challenging smaller grouping.

> I don't remember mentioning challenge anywhere. OP asked about how to minimize number of people playing the same map - here is the solution. This solution can be adapted to any playstile after it's put in place. And, btw, there is no such thing as "casual gaming". What is called "casual games" aren't games by definition. Games are impossible without challenge, decision making and uncertainty factor. If you can repeat the same pattern with your brain idling and win "a game" in 95% of the times, you are not playing a game.

>

 

Over the years playing this game, with maybe the exception of few bounties, I haven't encountered open world content that is not MORE challenging with less people. Of course if I am with a smaller group of players who all know encounter mechanics and are relatively skilled, the encounter will be faster and easier because of upscale. But that's not indicative of the average, randomly put together group in open world. At least that's my experience over the years and after many failed metas.

[Skotlex.7580]

I would say that most maps are already populated enough except at real late off hours. And this is particularly true of LS maps.

 

Most events are perfectly doable with 5 people, and such number of people are available at most maps almost the whole time.

 

That said, if I were to rephrase the Op's request, I would state "how do we increase map replay value?" So that there's an incentive for players to revisit old areas (this is specially true for core Tyria maps).

 

Personally, I would like it if there were some daily achievement that will take the player to all sorts of maps. One could say the daily is already this way, but it just doesn't includes LS maps, sadly.

[HnRkLnXqZ.1870]

First thing that came to mind when I did read the title of this topic: Serpent's Ire. Most of you are aware of the dilemma with this meta-event. It is required for a couple of important collections/Achievements but gathering enough people to try it quite difficult nowadays.

 

I see the biggest problem with the event timer and event times. Most of the meta-events happen according to a daily schedule, every X hours at Y time. While the map is highly populated, this functionality works out very well. But once the content becomes a little outdated, you match the minimum requirements once in a blue moon. So I would like to suggest to expand the Guild World Event.

 

The Guild World Events have been introduced in 2014 and belong to the long long list of discontinued features in Guildwars 2. It is a special sort of Guild Mission, that allows a guild to start certain World Events off the schedule. How does this help?

 

We could actually open squads in the LFG, collect people without looking on the stupid schedule and start the events when we have enough people. It might also be interesting, if those manually started World Events would have lower player-count-requirements OR downscale better. Maybe even with downscaled loot.

 

The event timers split the people randomly, they just try to reach the next event in the schedule. Some start a squad in LFG, but when you have missed the event by a few minutes it is pointless to start a new squad, because you have to wait so long for the next cycle.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > So your solution to players struggling on unpopulated maps is to punish players for playing on well populated maps?

>

> It doesn't punish players *playing* there, only those farming there. Those who come to play still can play to their heart's content. For example, I don't care much about gold/hour myself, only about whether a map is fun to play. Also, as you can see, Anet cares about the same thing (moving people from over-populated maps and more even distribution of players over the world). Your personal farming urges are not that important as healthy state of the game's world, in general, you know. Empty maps except a few ones popular only due to farming reason is as unhealthy as it can be.

>

>

 

Except that isn't what you said. Go ahead and read your own post again and tell me how it doesn't punish players, because there is no way for you to know who is playing or who is farming.

 

I think I've done the Istan farm maybe 3-4 times in total, and that was before the nerf, and even then, I didn't go to Sandswept Isles. After the Istan nerf? Still haven't gone there. Obviously the issue wasn't that Istan was too good.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> Go ahead and read your own post again and tell me how it doesn't punish players, because there is no way for you to know who is playing or who is farming.

 

I went, and still didn't find anything about punishing players, only about lowering gold/hour dynamically for overpopulated maps, to move part of people caring about it somewhere else, making events less crowded and other maps less empty. I fail to see how it's punishing those playing there. As somebody else said above, you can perfectly do 95% of events with 5-10 people, and others may be scaled down as well, if needed. Except from lowering gold/hour, I still fail to see any "punishment" for people **playing** there. Surely, you don't need 30 gold/hour to enjoy combat mechanics, right?