In a recently deleted thread, I pointed out that Anet needs to do more to encourage guild-centric play in WvW.
Why?
Because WvW is boring without guild rallies – no matter the size. When all a server has to offer is a casual militia blob, that kills the fun for a lot of players as well as makes the activity on the server dependent upon a small number of pugmanders rather than a larger number of guilds. WvW should not be a numbers arms race.
Sabull said it best in his posts on this old thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Food-for-thought-for-ArenaNet/page/2#post5011003
“Essentially our dream (and I’m sure many of you hold the same) was and is that lets say with a zone cap of “100” we have 4 guilds of 20 guys from each server in the zone, with 20 left for roaming/camp parties and afkers (20/20/20/20/20). Instead what we have had (50/30/0/0/20).”
This is what “guild-centric” WvW looks like, with protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.
Guilds running separate not only allow for more fight options in WvW, they also help equalize numbers in fights so that population imbalances don’t seem so outsized. It also reduces skill lag because fights remain at a size the servers are capable of processing.
“GvG was born because WvW should be more like “GvG” (equal numbers, 20man guild centered).” “GvG (or large-scale TDM) did not born for e-sports, it was never about e-sports, ques, instanced arenas, pricepools, money. It was born to make WvWvW BETTER!”
Many ideas have been floated in the past to help steer WvW towards more guild-centric play. My post isn’t to summarize those ideas, only to shout out once again to Anet that guild-centric play is what really makes WvW tick and that’s what you need to focus on encouraging. You only have to examine the server transfer trends into other tiers/servers where there are actual guilds to fight against, not casual militia blobs.
Preach brotha man!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for typing this out, Chaba. We need more well thought out posts like this. We need to not get so granular and focus on the 10,000 ft view for WvW. Let’s bake in some of these ideas and see what comes out.
(edited by Robin Hood.3850)
Yes!!! Anything that encourages guilds and smaller sized teams. Pleeeeeeze ANet! Enough with winning by steamroll.
Guilds create opportunity to learn, to connect with other players, make friends, and provide a place of belonging. They are the glue that keeps players coming back to this game mode. We are hanging on in WvW primarily because of the guild communities we’ve all worked hard to create and maintain, and the friendships we’ve formed around them while playing WvW.
INTRODUCING BATTLEGROUNDS FOR GUILDS TO QUEUE INTO, MUCH LIKE OUR PVP QUEUE SYSTEM. YOU’RE STILL IN “WVW” BUT YOU’RE QUEUED UP AGAINST GUILDS IN A CONTROLLED INSTANCE.
This could be the start, of a competitive WvW, reborn from ashes.
Just look at your transfer statistics: guild(s) leaving a server creates a chain reaction, they are followed despite the payment wall. WvW is about guilds, the life blood of the game mode.
When a guild has no enemies to fight in their timezone, they are condemned to a slow death. Hoping that the next week will be better. Playing other games. Trying to transfer into a matchup where they could have something to fight… until RNG/Glicko changes things again. This way WvW loses players, and rarely gains any.
if there was more guilds in this game that would happen naturally. This is only possible in maybe 1 or 2 tiers in NA prime only. OCX SEA and EU on NA servers will be lucky to get 1 guild raiding tops. Gotta make it more rewarding to guild raid so people actually make more guilds and make wvw great again.
You know what they’re going to do with this right? If they do anything at all they’ll add some bs siege with unlimited hitcap or some Eotm style bs.
cuz they’ve been sooooo in touch with the community over the last few years
You know what they’re going to do with this right? If they do anything at all they’ll add some bs siege with unlimited hitcap or some Eotm style bs.
cuz they’ve been sooooo in touch with the community over the last few years
You are wrong sir, the expansion will be bringing more bigger sized guild missions.
Chaba, Thank You For Posting This.
I Believe That If Anet Encourages More Guild Centric Play That Wvw Will Be In A Much Better Position Than It Is Now.
In Recent Discussion, In The Official Wvw Discord, Someone Brought Up That Wvw Is Essentially A Gentlemen’s Game (Sorry Ladies) In That Guilds Follow A Gentlemen’s Agreement To Not Barge Into A 20v20, 15v15, 10v10, 5v5 Fight With More Players. Guilds Want To Keep Fights “fair” And “even”.
Unfortunately The Game-mode Is Currently Designed To Cater To The “casual” Player. Which Means This Player Can Join A Wvw Map, Roam Around And Flip Camps, Group Up With Friendlies To Siege An Objective, Or To Follow A Commander Tag To Engage In More Large-scale Combat (There Are Plenty Of Other Avenues This Player Can Take But Lets Just Simplify It This Way). The Game-mode Doesn’t Reward These Players For Guild-centric Play, Because They Can Achieve The Same Result By “pugging”, Much Like Open World Pve. That Said, Typically A Guild Will Yield Better Results Through Organized Play, But There’s No Incentive Past That, And That Only Goes So Far Before The Player Is Burned From Repetitive And Unrewarded Game-play.
My Personal Suggestion To Helping Encourage More Guild Centric Play Is By Introducing Battlegrounds For Guilds To Queue Into, Much Like Our Pvp Queue System. You’re Still In “wvw” But You’re Queued Up Against Guilds In A Controlled Instance. You Could Do A Lot With This, Actually Such As:
Anyway ….
As A Guild Leader That Once Had A 5-man Team, A 10-man Team, A 15-man Team, A 20-man Team, And A 25-man Team I Can Say With Confidence That Without Anet’s Help In Regards To Encouraging More Guild Centric Play, You Will Continue To See Your Wvw Guilds Diminish Due To Lack Of Content, Stimulating Game Play, And Competition.
Eventually Wvw Will Become Like Eotm Or Any Other Open World Pve Where You’ll Find Commanders And Puggers Zerging Down Objectives And Avoiding Combat For That Sweet Wvw Exp, Bonus Chest, Karma, And Champ Bag.
I like the post Haematic, can we have it in french?
Thanks for sharing Chaba. I spent some time reading Sabull’s original post and this quote resonated with me:
Then people mention que systems with supported tournaments, I cry out of sadness – the WvW culture could be different and we wouldn’t have to be thinking about these things. I think of practicalities and it is not really possible because takeing away GvG guilds from WvW means death of WvW and the people in these guilds want both spontanious openfield fighting and controlled GvGs, not just latter! Aka not possible or good for the guilds nor WvW.
If people ever pick up on the core issues of " WvW should be different so we wouldn’t need GvG" or how Anet should have and should design new maps (EotM), guild&commander changes and all changes to guide and push the culture to be guild centered not random community blob centered. I jump of joy and I don’t have to do these posts.
source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Food-for-thought-for-ArenaNet/page/2#post5011007
He’s got a point. If smaller engagement sizes were encouraged, or rather if there were diminishing returns on zerging, we might see this apogee of challenging and interesting combat naturally as opposed to trying to artificially create it through proposed queuing systems. In retrospect, I now see these “wvw queue” proposals as no different than server pairings—a short term solution that addresses the symptoms rather than the root cause.
(edited by expandas.7051)
Don’t often post, but wanted to agree wholeheartedly with this. The best experiences I’ve had in WvW have been with a group of friends. Pug groups are great, but the game mode is so much better when played with an added level of organisation which can only come from playing with the same group regularly i.e. a guild. More experimentation in the meta, more sense of inclusion, more fun playing with friends, more sense of purpose in a group, more ownership of achievements, more competitive WvW match-ups.
Please, as Chaba says, explore design solutions which encourage and suitably incentivize guild play in WvW.
Look we have already had this discussion.
“Anet please make guilds relevant and encourage small guilds!”
Anet removes all exisiting guilds features and locks them behind a 20K gold paywall
End of story.
Try to get more and you will need a trophy from the Shatterer just to claim a tower (note, trophy is consumed on claiming and has a 2.6% drop chance).
Look we have already had this discussion.
“Anet please make guilds relevant and encourage small guilds!”
Anet removes all exisiting guilds features and locks them behind a 20K gold paywall
End of story.
Try to get more and you will need a trophy from the Shatterer just to claim a tower (note, trophy is consumed on claiming and has a 2.6% drop chance).
2.6% rop rate? that’s pretty generous.
Heard that anet disbanded the guild development team, I hope that answers your request.
More experimentation in the meta…
Playing in a guild, other than a very casual one, is way more restrictive than not playing in one, which is why many players don’t join WvW guilds.
More experimentation in the meta…
Playing in a guild, other than a very casual one, is way more restrictive than not playing in one, which is why many players don’t join WvW guilds.
Yes, that’s the current way the game-mode is. It doesn’t encourage guild-centric play.
This is why Chaba posted this ya jive kitten.
Playing in a guild, other than a very casual one, is way more restrictive than not playing in one, which is why many players don’t join WvW guilds.
Different guilds will have different focus.
Sure some guilds will be voice coms required bring x class with x spec or gtfo. This is more the GvG centric guilds that are looking to improve their play and theory craft build/gear optimisation.
But other guilds will b bring whatever, it’s our pantsless raid night PvX guild. That are interested in a WvW raid night once or twice a week when not PvE raiding.
Some people enjoy option A others prefer option B.
Theres no way to enforce those guilds to not voltron.
In a recently deleted thread, I pointed out that Anet needs to do more to encourage guild-centric play in WvW.
Why?
Because WvW is boring without guild rallies – no matter the size. When all a server has to offer is a casual militia blob, that kills the fun for a lot of players as well as makes the activity on the server dependent upon a small number of pugmanders rather than a larger number of guilds. WvW should not be a numbers arms race.
Sabull said it best in his posts on this old thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Food-for-thought-for-ArenaNet/page/2#post5011003
“Essentially our dream (and I’m sure many of you hold the same) was and is that lets say with a zone cap of “100” we have 4 guilds of 20 guys from each server in the zone, with 20 left for roaming/camp parties and afkers (20/20/20/20/20). Instead what we have had (50/30/0/0/20).”
This is what “guild-centric” WvW looks like, with protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.
Guilds running separate not only allow for more fight options in WvW, they also help equalize numbers in fights so that population imbalances don’t seem so outsized. It also reduces skill lag because fights remain at a size the servers are capable of processing.
“GvG was born because WvW should be more like “GvG” (equal numbers, 20man guild centered).” “GvG (or large-scale TDM) did not born for e-sports, it was never about e-sports, ques, instanced arenas, pricepools, money. It was born to make WvWvW BETTER!”
Many ideas have been floated in the past to help steer WvW towards more guild-centric play. My post isn’t to summarize those ideas, only to shout out once again to Anet that guild-centric play is what really makes WvW tick and that’s what you need to focus on encouraging. You only have to examine the server transfer trends into other tiers/servers where there are actual guilds to fight against, not casual militia blobs.
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
Structured pvp exists for a structured pvp experience. WvW is an “open world” realm vs realm experience and the devs are not going to change it into some glorified structured “battleground”.
Want more incentive for guilds to play? Add better guild reward goals. It’s not by slapping on restrictions to wvw and changing the format.
Also, this is what bothers me when I read threads like these… Yes the devs are responsible for many things, but the players are responsibile for building their own community within the game.
More experimentation in the meta…
Playing in a guild, other than a very casual one, is way more restrictive than not playing in one, which is why many players don’t join WvW guilds.
Yes, that’s the current way the game-mode is. It doesn’t encourage guild-centric play.
This is why Chaba posted this ya jive kitten.
No dear, that is how the game has always been and has nothing to do with “encouraging guild-centric” play, the nature of guilds bar the very casual ones means they will always be more restrictive, which is a turn off to some players, especially in a game mode that has always had non-existent class balance.
(edited by zinkz.7045)
In my opinion they should completely scrap the server concept and make wvw completely guild based. Have guilds commit for a number of players per hour for a week in a given time slot. Allow a guild size of 1 for people that don’t want to join one.
Fight With More Players.
Thats the weirdest French I have ever seen.
I am commander Shepard and this is my fauvorite post of the forum.
Every player that is part of a WvW guild is tired of Zerg smash everything. You try a balance figth and…there is the zerg…again.
the breakdown of GvG (which is related to the breakdown of 15/20 mans all together) is there’s a lack of incentive to even try. Players like to compete in tests of skill, and the balance of WvW has gotten so far gone that practically no one cares about proving themselves the best anymore.
Losing in old WvW metas always had me thinking about specific points where I could have zigged instead of zagged, used this button at a different time, target switched to a better guy, etc. It demanded a lot to be very good.
Losing in current HoT doesn’t even feel that bad. You find yourself without a lot you could even do differently game-play wise. It’s so buildwars that it’s a parody of itself at this point. This is why GvG’s and group competitive spirits died; it’s just not fun to take the meta seriously at all. (for most)
It’s a nice feel-good thing to want 20 mans back like it’s 3 years ago, but the game doesn’t reward the participants like it used to through competitive skill measuring.
Bumping more constructive topic.
@Pinko, you don’t need to have a “competitive fights GvG guild” to have regular guild rallies in WvW. Not everyone is looking to “compete in tests of skill”. Read, for example, the “Why you keep playing WvW thread”.
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
More guilds, more variety of guilds = more community organization = more activity.
Less militia standing around only defending or waiting for the single public tag guy to log in and form a map blob.
Teams/Servers should be balanced around guilds. An organized guild is worth more than the same number of randoms, in most cases.
We aren’t all equals: certainly not equally skilled, not contributing the same amount into the score and so on. Thus 300 players vs 300 players, aren’t equal or “balanced”.
A new rating system is needed and balance based on those values, but even then, the balancing should start around guilds, encourage and reward guilds more, and give more reasons for joining one.
Anet needs to do more to encourage guild-centric play in WvW.
Why?
HoT encouraged guild-centric plays by introducing guild hall, guild arena, war room upgrades, and removal of guild influence, etc.
It encourages the formation of larger guilds because of the time and effort required for many of the upgrades.
Are these changes working out as intended? Or more time is still need to measure thier impact?
Anet needs to do more to encourage guild-centric play in WvW.
Why?
HoT encouraged guild-centric plays by introducing guild hall, guild arena, war room upgrades, and removal of guild influence, etc.
It encourages the formation of larger guilds because of the time and effort required for many of the upgrades.
Are these changes working out as intended? Or more time is still need to measure thier impact?
That is mooted. Guild hall can be upgraded by rich individuals, we already have many level 6x guilds and many of which are not large guild size.
alot of good points in this thread hope Anet takes some notice…
#magswag, long live wvw.
i got you jamesdolla
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
More guilds, more variety of guilds = more community organization = more activity.
Less militia standing around only defending or waiting for the single public tag guy to log in and form a map blob.
2 hour skirmishes with better rewards = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Fix lag issues = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Improve professions like we have begged since launch = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Add elite specs more frequently = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
…
…
…
…WvW is realm vs realm gameplay, anet is not going to change it into some glorified gvg mode. The gvg ship sailed long ago and your suggestions would kill this rvr mode fast.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
More guilds, more variety of guilds = more community organization = more activity.
Less militia standing around only defending or waiting for the single public tag guy to log in and form a map blob.
2 hour skirmishes with better rewards = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Fix lag issues = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Improve professions like we have begged since launch = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
…
When you say “gvg battlegrounds”, you’re letting the past gvg scenes color your perception. What I’m describing is more like the diversity we saw in WvW at the beginnings of GvG. Reread my OP: “Because WvW is boring without guild rallies”
Like jamesdolla above said, when there’s more guilds doing regular rallies in WvW, what I describe happens naturally.
Like Haematic pointed out, there’s no incentive right now for a player to chose “guild play” over “militia play” because the results are the same. So fixing lag issues and providing skirmish rewards only serves the purpose of “more people”, not “more guilds”. Results will still be the same.
Look, you wrote earlier even: “Want more incentive for guilds to play? Add better guild reward goals.”
Want to kill WvW? Turn it into EOTM pug blobs.
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
More guilds, more variety of guilds = more community organization = more activity.
Less militia standing around only defending or waiting for the single public tag guy to log in and form a map blob.
2 hour skirmishes with better rewards = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Fix lag issues = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Improve professions like we have begged since launch = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
…
When you say “gvg battlegrounds”, you’re letting the past gvg scenes color your perception. What I’m describing is more like the diversity we saw in WvW at the beginnings of GvG. Reread my OP: “Because WvW is boring without guild rallies”
Like jamesdolla above said, when there’s more guilds doing regular rallies in WvW, what I describe happens naturally.
Like Haematic pointed out, there’s no incentive right now for a player to chose “guild play” over “militia play” because the results are the same. So fixing lag issues and providing skirmish rewards only serves the purpose of “more people”, not “more guilds”. Results will still be the same.
Look, you wrote earlier even: “Want more incentive for guilds to play? Add better guild reward goals.”
Want to kill WvW? Turn it into EOTM pug blobs.
Yeah I know what you are trying to get at… “This is what “guild-centric” WvW looks like, with protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.”…
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
Yup, look at what I wrote earlier and let that absorb some.
“World versus World (also known as WvW) is a Player versus Player game mode where players from three different servers, or worlds, battle in the Mists. It features open-world combat on five large maps with up to several hundreds of players per map.”
“WvW is designed to accommodate players that would not normally participate in PvP. For instance, the high player limit means that a new player can get involved without immediately feeling pressured to contribute. In addition, objectives are available for a variety of group sizes, so players don’t need to be members of dedicated guilds in order to be productive.”
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
@Previous 3 posts (too long to quote):
I don’t think that Chaba suggests turning WvW into GvG (though a GvG game mode would be great too, but that’s another topic). Instead:
Reserving a fixed/variable amount of places on a WvW map for guilds, so is not taken up by unorganized militia, afk-ers and so on (many servers have EB map full of these, they are just crying for a “commander” but most won’t join the squad, won’t get in voice chat, aren’t using a WvW build, and are… really “special cases”, just taking up space there, being unable to compete and there’s a queue with more of these)
Even if that server has an organized force somewhere, they can’t get in. Same happened during “Tournaments”, when completely new players kept the maps full, so competitive WvW-ers couldn’t get in… Don’t even ask why is such a toxicity present if this is what happens regularly: the most rude server has the advantage, since they can remove more “casuals” from the map (and the server), and this SHOULDN’T be like this.
I just added to that initial ideea (of reserving space for guilds) the balancing around the guilds: there has to be a contribution rating and guilds should be encouraged to spread, in order to create balance, or at least less one-sided matchups.
While everyone is welcome and WvW is inclusive (and that is good because brings in fresh blood, though should be way more attractive), the WvW is also competitive, even for those afk-ers, asking about “why WE lost X and Y, why aren’t we winning, why X guild left, and so on”. Notice the “WE”, as in they are also part of the team, though they hardly realize their role: that they are those dragging the team down and preventing any progress.
These can’t be solved by the community. Being rude is not something most of us like, you can’t expect it from us. Asking nicely works in time, slowly, but is very inefficient and it’s always a large percentage who doesn’t care enough to start changing and improving. There has to be a framework helping those who care, making them able to serve their team.
(edited by Tiawal.2351)
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Am I misunderstanding this thread or is the suggestion that currently guilds can’t get on to play WvW because the spaces are being used up by militia/afkers? If so, I can only assume this is a T1 issue because in the tiers where I’ve been playing these last few months (T2/3/4) the problem is finding enough players online to make up even one medium-sized zerg across all four maps. A big zerg these days is 25 people.
As for the question of guilds themselves, I’ve never been fond of the concept. When GW2 started, one of the very big attractions over many other MMOs was the breaking of the genre-wide reliance on guilds. Allowing people to join multiple guilds was part of it but more important was the way the game was built around everyone playing constructively with everyone nearby regardless of party or guild affiliation. It should be completely unnecessary in any part of GW2, WvW very much included, for anyone to need to join a guild; the game structures should support and encourage dynamic co-operative play as a matter of course.
For a while under the previous administration and particularly in the development of Heart of Thorns things went the other way, back towards a traditional MMO take on guild membership but that process seems to have dried up after the relative failure of HoT. If the team working on those features really has been disbanded then that’s welcome news to me.
That’s not to say things couldn’t be improved. There are structural changes that could be made to obviate the real problems caused by blobbing (in the tiers that still have blob-sized population) and afking. Tying those improvements to the insular, elitist and increasingly archaic “Guild” concept would not be the way I’d choose to address those problems.
What is guild wars without the guild and the war part?
I do like the GvG instanced concept. In my mind, there is an avenue for learning from different games and how they’ve addressed some of what we are seeing here. Though I do think GW2 has some unique issues.
Ideas: (these are random, they may be crap)
1. Instanced Groups: You still have a home server, but you can create a group and fight who you want. As a commander I can mix and match who I want. Then the system pairs us up with another group of equal size. Once your team hits the number for a queue, there is a system that looks for competition. I’m trying to utilize the mega server concept in a different way.
2. Mega server style: I queue up with my guild group. Other people can join from different servers until we hit the map cap. The leader of the raid determines the home server. While all people are in that raid group, they play for the “home” server. All points accumulated go towards that outcome.
3. Allied queues: If your server is severely overpopulated, you get the ability to play for another server for the current two hour skirmish. Whatever points you accrue go to the server you are playing for at the time.
@Previous 3 posts (too long to quote):
I don’t think that Chaba suggests turning WvW into GvG (though a GvG game mode would be great too, but that’s another topic). Instead:Reserving a fixed/variable amount of places on a WvW map for guilds, so is not taken up by unorganized militia, afk-ers and so on (many servers have EB map full of these, they are just crying for a “commander” but most won’t join the squad, won’t get in voice chat, aren’t using a WvW build, and are… really “special cases”, just taking up space there, being unable to compete and there’s a queue with more of these)
Even if that server has an organized force somewhere, they can’t get in. Same happened during “Tournaments”, when completely new players kept the maps full, so competitive WvW-ers couldn’t get in… Don’t even ask why is such a toxicity present if this is what happens regularly: the most rude server has the advantage, since they can remove more “casuals” from the map (and the server), and this SHOULDN’T be like this.I just added to that initial ideea (of reserving space for guilds) the balancing around the guilds: there has to be a contribution rating and guilds should be encouraged to spread, in order to create balance, or at least less one-sided matchups.
While everyone is welcome and WvW is inclusive (and that is good because brings in fresh blood, though should be way more attractive), the WvW is also competitive, even for those afk-ers, asking about “why WE lost X and Y, why aren’t we winning, why X guild left, and so on”. Notice the “WE”, as in they are also part of the team, though they hardly realize their role: that they are those dragging the team down and preventing any progress.
These can’t be solved by the community. Being rude is not something most of us like, you can’t expect it from us. Asking nicely works in time, slowly, but is very inefficient and it’s always a large percentage who doesn’t care enough to start changing and improving. There has to be a framework helping those who care, making them able to serve their team.
Nope, “Reserving a fixed/variable amount of places on a WvW map for guilds” is not the request in the op.
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
You remind me of that e-sports meme clip with the charr… You don’t care about the important things wvw really needs because you’re too enchanted with gvg stuff.
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
You remind me of that e-sports meme clip with the charr… You don’t care about the important things wvw really needs because you’re too enchanted with gvg stuff.
How about offering what you think “wvw really needs” instead of being insultingly hung up still on gvg after I took time out of my day to give you a thoughtful response? A response like yours indicates that you have nothing and every point I made is valid.
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
You remind me of that e-sports meme clip with the charr… You don’t care about the important things wvw really needs because you’re too enchanted with gvg stuff.
How about offering what you think “wvw really needs” instead of being insultingly hung up still on gvg after I took time out of my day to give you a thoughtful response? A response like yours indicates that you have nothing and every point I made is valid.
I already explained to you what would attract more players and guilds to play, but you want to ignore those facts. You’re too busy saber rattling about gvg rules in wvw, creating “safe spaces” for players around gvg play and coming off as an elitist with your eotm comments…
You want this mode to be all about the gvg, with all else secondary, but the devs won’t do that.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
You want this mode to be all about the gvg, with all else secondary, but the devs won’t do that.
I never said I want it to be all about gvg with everything else secondary. You’re just ignoring whatever I wrote to substitute it with your assumptions.
We already know what WvW looks like without diversity. You say my comment about EOTM is elitist, and yet EOTM is what it is and there’s no guesses about how it turned out. That’s not an opinion, that’s how EOTM is played.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Yeah, more guild attention would be great. I want to decorate our objectives more please. My guilds are heavily into RPing inside towers.
Raising map caps pass 60? Nah. Still going to be blobby, and not to mention laggy (as it already is).
Idk how EOTM was brought up. EOTM’s issues are map design, and lack of match making (e.g. you can’t queue up as a squad against other potential squads). Its lack of persistence solves coverage problem by removing them at least…
“World versus World (also known as WvW) is a Player versus Player game mode where players from three different servers, or worlds, battle in the Mists. It features open-world combat on five large maps with up to several hundreds of players per map.”
Sounds good in theory, but there can’t be a “real” WvW-Mode with guilds in it. Most players who join “dedicated gvg” – guilds don’t get the concept of WvW. They won’t care for the server, will transfer to the next hype server and stand idle/unproductive at the spawn while their commander takes a dump. The result is a toxic/broken/dead game mode … just like we have for some years now. You can’t have “one team” with a ton of sub-teams blaming each other.
Disable guild features while in WvW and create a new gvg game mode kitten . It’s about time. But i guess that would ruin the income from server hopping guilds … :p
the players are responsibile for building their own community within the game.
that’s like saying to a kid “ok here is a match don’t start a fire”.
@ Chaba
if nothing else I can agree to cap squads at 20. it would be a decent start to getting better quality fights.
(edited by Stand The Wall.6987)
You want this mode to be all about the gvg, with all else secondary, but the devs won’t do that.
I never said I want it to be all about gvg with everything else secondary. You’re just ignoring whatever I wrote to substitute it with your assumptions.
We already know what WvW looks like without diversity. You say my comment about EOTM is elitist, and yet EOTM is what it is and there’s no guesses about how it turned out. That’s not an opinion, that’s how EOTM is played.
Are you conveniently forgetting what you typed in your op?
You want anet to redesign wvw to favor “guild centric” aka gvg play with more population cap restrictions, forced group limits and special “protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.”… You want a structured gvg environment first and foremost… and that’s not going to happen. Anet is not going to change the wvw sandbox into your gvg box.
In a recently deleted thread, I pointed out that Anet needs to do more to encourage guild-centric play in WvW.
Why?
Because WvW is boring without guild rallies – no matter the size. When all a server has to offer is a casual militia blob, that kills the fun for a lot of players as well as makes the activity on the server dependent upon a small number of pugmanders rather than a larger number of guilds. WvW should not be a numbers arms race.
Sabull said it best in his posts on this old thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Food-for-thought-for-ArenaNet/page/2#post5011003
“Essentially our dream (and I’m sure many of you hold the same) was and is that lets say with a zone cap of “100” we have 4 guilds of 20 guys from each server in the zone, with 20 left for roaming/camp parties and afkers (20/20/20/20/20). Instead what we have had (50/30/0/0/20).”
This is what “guild-centric” WvW looks like, with protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.
Guilds running separate not only allow for more fight options in WvW, they also help equalize numbers in fights so that population imbalances don’t seem so outsized. It also reduces skill lag because fights remain at a size the servers are capable of processing.
“GvG was born because WvW should be more like “GvG” (equal numbers, 20man guild centered).” “GvG (or large-scale TDM) did not born for e-sports, it was never about e-sports, ques, instanced arenas, pricepools, money. It was born to make WvWvW BETTER!”
Many ideas have been floated in the past to help steer WvW towards more guild-centric play. My post isn’t to summarize those ideas, only to shout out once again to Anet that guild-centric play is what really makes WvW tick and that’s what you need to focus on encouraging. You only have to examine the server transfer trends into other tiers/servers where there are actual guilds to fight against, not casual militia blobs.
You want anet to redesign wvw to favor “guild centric” aka gvg play with more population cap restrictions
We can stop here. You continue to equate “guild centric” with gvg and think it has to do with population cap restrictions so that’s your problem.
Both you and Haem recognized that to encourage guild-centric play means rewarding guilds better for performing regular rallies in WvW to differentiate it from militia play since right now rewards are the same for both playstyles yet for some odd reason you keep going on here about gvgs.
You emboldened quotes from Sabull to hyperfocus on the gvg thing (the risk I took with quoting Sabull) without taking away the core points he made that I tried to emphasize in a later post regarding how guilds seek out fights they feel are more equal to their own sizes to your own detriment. I am not Sabull. I only agree with him that guilds form a core function in WvW that serves the purpose of improving the open world PvP experience so it doesn’t become a single playstyle like what we see in EOTM.
At this point I think all you are interested in is in trying to prove me as some sort of gvg battlegrounds fanatic rather than interested in what constitutes a health-through-diversity WvW team. I’ve been posting here for four years now that a healthy WvW means having a good mix of playstyles and I stand still by my assertion that guilds are what provide that diversity. As we lose guilds we lose that diversity and thus we lose the options that everyone can find fun in fighting against.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.