Originally posted by Serelisk

The system you're attempting to propose would cut off content from 2/3rds of the entire game's playerbase at any one time. I shouldn't have to point out to you everything that's wrong with that. 

 

Actually please do. Because I can see fk all wrong with having a small amount of content in a game you have to compete over when the game is already full of content accessible to everyone.

It should be as clear as day what's wrong with the idea that people can't have stuff to compete over just because some people want access to everything all the time.

Imo the main problem with WvvW at the moment is that rewards, especially individual ones are not in sync with possible costs and collective rewards as such. This has happened before, most notably in WAR before they managed to fix at least some of the initial problems.

To put it simply, WvW lacks enough motivation for individuals and guilds. You tend to pay more than you gain when WvW-ing.

This leads to a situation which is very unfortunate for a game which is PvP-centric, or at least claims that PvP and PvE are equal, and that is that you "need to PvE to PvP". Since PvP gives very lackluster monetary rewards, you need to PvE to earn money you want to spend in PvP. Since xp gain in WvW is on average miserable AND, which is even more harmful, it depends on your kills which means the lower level you are, the less xp you get, leveling in WvW becomes completely impractical. Again, you need to PvE so you can PvP.

If i had a say, I'd make following changes to the game:

1) XP rewards to anyone in the vicinity of a kill, get rid of tagging

2) Away with stupid bag drops. I probably miss 3/4 of all my bags in a fight. Let the loot be delivered via mail or placed in some bank space.

3) Trickle xp for anyone within a contested zone. Lurking around should be rewarded as well. The way rewards are set up now massively favors zergs.

4) Introduce a new WvW XP with WvW leveling like in DAoC and WAR... and what they already have in GW2 sPvP. The rewards don't have to be material... they can be purely cosmetic, but there should be an exclusive rewards system for WvW play.

as for the guilds:

5) Holding keeps and other locations should provide rewards for the guilds and players holding them. Not taking keeps, but holding them. This is a very basic mistake that somehow always creeps in all initial RvR designs... Otherwise you'll have musical chairs. At the moment, holding keeps rewards the server but not the players. This is a basic conflict of interest which works against and not for the "server pride".

6) In order to do that, each keep should provide trickle xp (either regular or WvW) just for being around them. In addition hefty bonuses for succesful defenses.

7) Holding a keep should provide influence for the guild claiming it, both trickle and bonuses for succesful defense.

8) In addition to xp and influence, keeps should make money for their guilds. They could feature merchants with ecxclusive wares and that can be taxed with money going into the guild bank.

9) In order to avoid "keep ninjaing" claiming a keep should be resolved via a blind bid mechanic with guilds paying influence for the opportunity to claim a keep. In addition to resolving ownership issues, this would provide the guilds with an additional incentive to hold on to a keep for as long as possible in order to recuperate the inital cost AND would foster a greater sense of emotional attachment to keep ownership.

in general/my pet peeves:

10) Enemy names should be made visible. What did they think would happen? Invisible player names hugely detract from the very essence of competetive play. It's like hiding the faces of players in a soccer match.. It's just dumb, boring and alienating. I like to face opposing players that I know and fear and have a relationship with. WvW lost a lot of soul with this short-sighted, namby-pamby decision.

11) Mounts in WvW. Too much running around as a penalty for dying again favors the safety of a zerg. When you factor in rewards which are almost exclusively dependent on finding an opponent, playing solo or in a small group becomes an exercise in masochism. Mounts would lessen the dull downtime (especially when you're defending your own territory) and make solo/small group play more viable.

That was my 2 cps.

Originally posted by chryses

Originally posted by Serelisk

I disagree completely. 

The current system is based on server pride in order to strengthen the community therein. From what I've witnessed, that has seen a lot of success, though my testimony is mostly heresay. But here, I'm from Fort Aspenwood Alliance in the guild GODS and couldn't be more happy with the coordination between multiple guilds and the recognition of allied strength across the server as a whole. We don't win them all, but we don't give up either. 

The system you're attempting to propose would cut off content from 2/3rds of the entire game's playerbase at any one time. I shouldn't have to point out to you everything that's wrong with that. 

 

This is exactly what is needed.  Cutting off 2/3rds of the player base from specific content is what generates that server pride.  If you are leading you want to keep that lead. If you don't have access you pile in to make a difference.  I don't care if it reset once a week.

As a player I need a reason to do something over and over.  A tiny buff just isn't enough.  In EvE if you fight hard and hold a territory you gain access to rare ore and plenty of richess.  It means something to win.

GW2 is lucky in the sense that the actual mechanics are pretty decent (IMO only) they just need to scale up the difference between winning and losing.  Right now its negligble and hardly worth having epic battles over.

You people that keep pounding this drum really don't seem to understand people.  At all.    One of two things is far more likely:

1.   People will migrate to the 'top' servers rather than be stuck on a loser.   (This is freshman, basic psychology.)

2.  They'll just give up since they 'can't win.'    (This, too, is freshman, basic psychology.) 

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Agree with everything you say plink apart from the mounts.

It should take time to reinforce, that was one of the things warhammer did wrong, it was too easy to get back into combat, especially when bioware took over and introduced the stupid rezzing inside keeps. You need consequences for dieing, it doesn't have to be xp loss or being looted, a gw2 / daoc style very long walk is enough.

Maybe, but the "higher death penalties work against the zerg" is a logical fallacy I encounter a lot on this board. High death penalties actually favor the zerg - safety in numbers and all. It's simple game theory 101. I know many believe that "punishing" that douchebag who is obviously not doing his job would make him play better, but the actual fact is that he would much more probably just leave.

What really is a zerg? Why do players join zergs? Because zergs provide safety - safety in terms of rewards and safety in being shielded from punishment in case of dying (someone can revive you, there is a greater chance your force will be stronger than the opponents). In WvW you die mostly through no fault of your own. You simply stumble into an overwhelming force, and that is part of the fun. There is no justice in being severely punished just because you had bad luck. If you decrease punishment, the motivation to join a zerg lessens. It's all about risk vs reward and not the need to "educate players to play better." Severe individual punishment can work in games that are "fair" in individual fights otherwise it's just unfair and frustrating.  I find current WvW costs and punishments for dying right at the very edge of what I can stand before feeling unfairly put-down by a game.  And from all my RvR and PvP experience so far, lower penalties for dying = more daring, more heroic deeds, better player spread across the map and more PvP in general.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

Actually please do. Because I can see fk all wrong with having a small amount of content in a game you have to compete over when the game is already full of content accessible to everyone.

 

It should be as clear as day what's wrong with the idea that people can't have stuff to compete over just because some people want access to everything all the time.

This is an over arching issue that can be seen in all the games reward systems. Good eye.

Well with the Orbs removed due to hackers which for some reason they could not fix, DAOC had it for 10 years and never these issues, there is little or no reason to WvW. Let me restate that, there is not a main objective. With most of the hardcore PvP guilds gone or dying in NA they need to spruce up the WvW, whether it be a ranking system ala DAOC and WAR, guild perks that give incentive to defend their keep or many of the ideas stated by PP.

Funny thing is we had 2 keeps last night taken by the stealth hack which was supposedly fixed, yeah I know SS or it did not happen, if you actually WvW on a consistent basis and not just say you do you would know what I am talking about.

Nevermind the PvP...the PvE too, heck, even leveling above level 40 seems like it was just put in for you to do it and nothing else, I don't get any new skills, any new weapons or any new traits.

I'm the same character from 40-80. Then at 80 still nothing changes and I do dungeons for 3 days to get exotics that change my stats a bit I guess, then I'm out of PvE to do, and I can PvP which also dries up very fast.

It lacks community and purpose...therefore it gets stale very quickly, yesterday I actually decided to go back to TERA to prep for whenever they release ranked Arena.

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Agree with everything you say plink apart from the mounts.

It should take time to reinforce, that was one of the things warhammer did wrong, it was too easy to get back into combat, especially when bioware took over and introduced the stupid rezzing inside keeps. You need consequences for dieing, it doesn't have to be xp loss or being looted, a gw2 / daoc style very long walk is enough.

Maybe, but the "higher death penalties work against the zerg" is a logical fallacy I encounter a lot on this board. High death penalties actually favor the zerg - safety in numbers and all. It's simple game theory 101. I know many believe that "punishing" that douchebag who is obviously not doing his job would make him play better, but the actual fact is that he would much more probably just leave.

What really is a zerg? Why do players join zergs? Because zergs provide safety - safety in terms of rewards and safety in being shielded from punishment in case of dying (someone can revive you, there is a greater chance your force will be stronger than the opponents). In WvW you die mostly through no fault of your own. You simply stumble into an overwhelming force, and that is part of the fun. There is no justice in being severely punished just because you had bad luck. If you decrease punishment, the motivation to join a zerg lessens. It's all about risk vs reward and not the need to "educate players to play better." Severe individual punishment can work in games that are "fair" in individual fights otherwise it's just unfair and frustrating.  I find current WvW costs and punishments for dying right at the very edge of what I can stand before feeling unfairly put-down by a game.  And from all my RvR and PvP experience so far, lower penalties for dying = more daring, more heroic deeds, better player spread across the map and more PvP in general.

People join Zergs because 

1. They suck in PvP and want to feel cool running with the pack.

2. Because they cannot think for themselves

3. They are new to the area which is not a bad thing to stay with the zerg but it just makes the zerg that much larger

4.Their server has zero coordination within the guilds which leads to themindless zerg just reacting instead of being proactive.

5. There is little to no incentive for Small Unit Tactics

Originally posted by Saxonblade

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Agree with everything you say plink apart from the mounts.

It should take time to reinforce, that was one of the things warhammer did wrong, it was too easy to get back into combat, especially when bioware took over and introduced the stupid rezzing inside keeps. You need consequences for dieing, it doesn't have to be xp loss or being looted, a gw2 / daoc style very long walk is enough.

Maybe, but the "higher death penalties work against the zerg" is a logical fallacy I encounter a lot on this board. High death penalties actually favor the zerg - safety in numbers and all. It's simple game theory 101. I know many believe that "punishing" that douchebag who is obviously not doing his job would make him play better, but the actual fact is that he would much more probably just leave.

What really is a zerg? Why do players join zergs? Because zergs provide safety - safety in terms of rewards and safety in being shielded from punishment in case of dying (someone can revive you, there is a greater chance your force will be stronger than the opponents). In WvW you die mostly through no fault of your own. You simply stumble into an overwhelming force, and that is part of the fun. There is no justice in being severely punished just because you had bad luck. If you decrease punishment, the motivation to join a zerg lessens. It's all about risk vs reward and not the need to "educate players to play better." Severe individual punishment can work in games that are "fair" in individual fights otherwise it's just unfair and frustrating.  I find current WvW costs and punishments for dying right at the very edge of what I can stand before feeling unfairly put-down by a game.  And from all my RvR and PvP experience so far, lower penalties for dying = more daring, more heroic deeds, better player spread across the map and more PvP in general.

People join Zergs because 

1. They suck in PvP and want to feel cool running with the pack.

2. Because they cannot think for themselves

3. They are new to the area which is not a bad thing to stay with the zerg but it just makes the zerg that much larger

4.Their server has zero coordination within the guilds which leads to themindless zerg just reacting instead of being proactive.

5. There is little to no incentive for Small Unit Tactics

I don't suck in PvP and I run with the zerg. Also I think for myself and run with the zerg. The reason I run with the zerg is that I cannot stand being run over by another server's zerg while playing on my own or in a small group... and then being forced to repair and run, run, run...

Sorry mate, but people who zerg are not morons who can't play. People will tend to do what profits them the most. This is the way of games. Players will not do things that are not profitable for them in a cost/benefit calculation. For me, a bad player is the one who goes off alone like a rambo in a game which clearly favors zerging... or the one who zergs in a game which clearly gives better rewards for solo/small group play.

As for the other points (3-5) I do agree, especially no 5. However "incentive" is comprised of both the potential penalties as well as rewards. Playing small units at the moment is not viable because on average the penalties are harsher than rewards. A small heoric unit will eventualy get roflstomped by a zerg and that is as it should be, however, the rewards the said small unit will obtain while alive will be lower than the cost in repairs and especially downtime (aka running). I might admire such a small unit, but I wouldn't consider them good players because they are working against their own interest. At the moment a "better" player would maximize his gain by joining a zerg.

And that is the whole point - if the game gives the best rewards/penalties ratio for zerging, players will zerg. Those who don't will fall behind and eventually either adopt the dominant behavior or leave in disgust. GW2's WvW needs to change the way penalties and rewards work to make some other type of play more rewarding than zerging. It is as simple as that and has nothing to do with how "good" the players are.

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by Saxonblade

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Agree with everything you say plink apart from the mounts.

It should take time to reinforce, that was one of the things warhammer did wrong, it was too easy to get back into combat, especially when bioware took over and introduced the stupid rezzing inside keeps. You need consequences for dieing, it doesn't have to be xp loss or being looted, a gw2 / daoc style very long walk is enough.

Maybe, but the "higher death penalties work against the zerg" is a logical fallacy I encounter a lot on this board. High death penalties actually favor the zerg - safety in numbers and all. It's simple game theory 101. I know many believe that "punishing" that douchebag who is obviously not doing his job would make him play better, but the actual fact is that he would much more probably just leave.

What really is a zerg? Why do players join zergs? Because zergs provide safety - safety in terms of rewards and safety in being shielded from punishment in case of dying (someone can revive you, there is a greater chance your force will be stronger than the opponents). In WvW you die mostly through no fault of your own. You simply stumble into an overwhelming force, and that is part of the fun. There is no justice in being severely punished just because you had bad luck. If you decrease punishment, the motivation to join a zerg lessens. It's all about risk vs reward and not the need to "educate players to play better." Severe individual punishment can work in games that are "fair" in individual fights otherwise it's just unfair and frustrating.  I find current WvW costs and punishments for dying right at the very edge of what I can stand before feeling unfairly put-down by a game.  And from all my RvR and PvP experience so far, lower penalties for dying = more daring, more heroic deeds, better player spread across the map and more PvP in general.

People join Zergs because 

1. They suck in PvP and want to feel cool running with the pack.

2. Because they cannot think for themselves

3. They are new to the area which is not a bad thing to stay with the zerg but it just makes the zerg that much larger

4.Their server has zero coordination within the guilds which leads to themindless zerg just reacting instead of being proactive.

5. There is little to no incentive for Small Unit Tactics

I don't suck in PvP and I run with the zerg. Also I think for myself and run with the zerg. The reason I run with the zerg is that I cannot stand being run over by another server's zerg while playing on my own or in a small group... and then being forced to repair and run, run, run...

Sorry mate, but people who zerg are not morons who can't play. People will tend to do what profits them the most. This is the way of games. Players will not do things that are not profitable for them in a cost/benefit calculation. For me, a bad player is the one who goes off alone like a rambo in a game which clearly favors zerging... or the one who zergs in a game which clearly gives better rewards for solo/small group play.

As for the other points (3-5) I do agree, especially no 5. However "incentive" is comprised of both the potential penalties as well as rewards. Playing small units at the moment is not viable because on average the penalties are harsher than rewards. A small heoric unit will eventualy get roflstomped by a zerg and that is as it should be, however, the rewards the said small unit will obtain while alive will be lower than the cost in repairs and especially downtime (aka running). I might admire such a small unit, but I wouldn't consider them good players because they are working against their own interest. At the moment a "better" player would maximize his gain by joining a zerg.

And that is the whole point - if the game gives the greatest rewards for zerging, players will zerg. Those who don't will fall behind and eventually either adopt the dominant behavior or leave in disgust. GW2's WvW needs to change the way penalties and rewards work to make some other type of play more rewarding than zerging. It is as simple as that and has nothing to do with how "good" the players are.

I will stand corrected on point 1 to a degree and add as the number one reason people zerg is because this game rewards the zerg,which to me ruins the WvW and hence the less and less I play anymore.To tell me though there are not some really really bad players in the zerg though is BS. DAOC had some zerging but it also had a ton of small teams out there running around, like stealth gank squads, scout teams etc. That said this is more a casual PvP experience then hardcore which is a shame because at least GW1 provided some of the best PvP I have enjoyed with good rewards to boot.

The better PvP guilds are either migrating to the top servers or just leaving, we used to have 2-3 hour waits for WvW now it is instant, that alone speaks volumes. If they don't do something soon there won't be a whole hell of a lot good WvW left.

Originally posted by Serelisk

I disagree completely. 

The current system is based on server pride in order to strengthen the community therein. From what I've witnessed, that has seen a lot of success, though my testimony is mostly heresay. But here, I'm from Fort Aspenwood Alliance in the guild GODS and couldn't be more happy with the coordination between multiple guilds and the recognition of allied strength across the server as a whole. We don't win them all, but we don't give up either. 

The system you're attempting to propose would cut off content from 2/3rds of the entire game's playerbase at any one time. I shouldn't have to point out to you everything that's wrong with that. 

 

That's the sacrifice that has to be made if people want higher stakes from WvW. Create a zone or two and dungeon or two that give unique armour sets and weapon sets and these can only be accessed through winning WvW matches.

Originally posted by Zeroxin

Originally posted by Serelisk

I disagree completely. 

The current system is based on server pride in order to strengthen the community therein. From what I've witnessed, that has seen a lot of success, though my testimony is mostly heresay. But here, I'm from Fort Aspenwood Alliance in the guild GODS and couldn't be more happy with the coordination between multiple guilds and the recognition of allied strength across the server as a whole. We don't win them all, but we don't give up either. 

The system you're attempting to propose would cut off content from 2/3rds of the entire game's playerbase at any one time. I shouldn't have to point out to you everything that's wrong with that. 

 

That's the sacrifice that has to be made if people want higher stakes from WvW. Create a zone or two and dungeon or two that give unique armour sets and weapon sets and these can only be accessed through winning WvW matches.

Won't happen due to the fact this game caters to casual PvPers more so then the hardcore PvPers who are leaving. Funny thing is I tried Desolation a EU english speaking server and found the WvW to be 10x better, lots of coordination, fewer zergs etc.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Why was warhammer more zergy then.
Pretty much Instantly back in the action
No repair costs (although gw2 should drop repairs in pvp imo)
Gear drops from players
Best way to gear up / earn cash

It was the least punishment for dying game yet

Nope. It was zergy because they had their strategic gameplay all screwed up. If you followed the game, the zerg all but disappeared when they made changes to their strategic game - especially when they introduced resource runners and generally tweaked the rewards so that zerging didn't pay off as much.

Harsher death penalties would have made WAR even more zergy. Zerg is safety in numbers, and you value your safety more the higher the penalties for dying are.

Ideally, a game with "communal PvP" should have an exact correspondence between the fate of the group (the server) and the individual (the player). Why should a player be excessively punished for doing something beneficial to the group? As mentioned, a small team may do a lot of good for their GW2 server, but their penalty/reward over time ratio is much worse than for a mindless zerg hopping from keep to keep. The individual death penalties should be decreased - either that or remove universal ressing. At the moment, a zerg is the best place to be.

My "half-life" while solo/small group is 10 minutes... during which I hope I won't meet the enemy (and attendant xp and rewards) because there is a good chance of being overwhelmed and forced to respawn with all the repairs and running, running, running... While zerging I'm assured of being ressed all the time, having rewards trickle pretty continuously and I can even let my brain rest a little. If they decreased the death penalties, I would be more willing to go off on my own and take risks, however at the moment zerg-style keep-hopping play is definitely the best choice for any player who is not into masochism.

Originally posted by Saxonblade

Well with the Orbs removed due to hackers which for some reason they could not fix, DAOC had it for 10 years and never these issues, there is little or no reason to WvW. Let me restate that, there is not a main objective. With most of the hardcore PvP guilds gone or dying in NA they need to spruce up the WvW, whether it be a ranking system ala DAOC and WAR, guild perks that give incentive to defend their keep or many of the ideas stated by PP.

Funny thing is we had 2 keeps last night taken by the stealth hack which was supposedly fixed, yeah I know SS or it did not happen, if you actually WvW on a consistent basis and not just say you do you would know what I am talking about.

However a game that revolves around "rewards" is not what they intended to create. I realize that many of you do not like this new design, but maybe it is just time that you just realize that the game perhaps is not for you. Noone is forcing you to play.