Guild Wars 2

Would you stop playing WvW?

Personally, I’d say yes. I’m tired of WvW Zerging and imbalance already.

On my guardian? Yes, probably.

On my thief? No, probably not. Too muhc fun ganking people.

Yes id love to have GVG.

Don’t see it being added with present land mass. Future expansion maybe.

Yeah, please bring back GvG.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GvG

Not this 20v20 nonsense death match.

Varonth.5830:

Yeah, please bring back GvG.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GvG

Not this 20v20 nonsense death match.

Gw2 was supposed to be about mass pvp with WvW as the main selling factor for the big chunk of players that bought it.People want 15v15 20v20 30v30 .Why shouln’t they have it just because you still live in the past? or because you just don’t like mass pvp ? Gw1 is dead and no old school gvg can ressurect it.Deal with it and let people play what they want to play.

I would definitely stop playing WvW and play GvG full-time. Though this wouldn’t really be bad, since the zergs seem to be amusing themselves and Anet could charge gems for Guild Arenas and stuff like that.

Nope. I am not in a large guild so to me it doesn’t matter. I enjoy wvw, the siege, the defense etc. It needs work and improvement for sure, but I still enjoy it most of the time.

mini.6018:

Varonth.5830:

Yeah, please bring back GvG.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GvG

Not this 20v20 nonsense death match.

Gw2 was supposed to be about mass pvp with WvW as the main selling factor for the big chunk of players that bought it.People want 15v15 20v20 30v30 .Why shouln’t they have it just because you still live in the past? or because you just don’t like mass pvp ? Gw1 is dead and no old school gvg can ressurect it.Deal with it and let people play what they want to play.

The guildwars website shows guilds with recent matches and it has more entries than gw2gvg.com, even if you include the massive amount of guilds on that website without a single match record.
Standing around at a random outpost yesterday for a few minutes, there was actually someone searching for new players for their new guild for daily GvG.
I had imagined to see such messages on important cities like Lions Arch or Kamadan but not on a random outpost.

Speaking of a dead game…

The gw2gvg.com websites lists 286 guilds, and as I said, alot of them have 0 or just 1 match. Those guilds really interested in this sort of gameplay probably already know about it. If you are really generous and include players for the inactive guilds on that website you might break the 5k player base with that.
I certainly wouldn’t throw money at such a small playerbase if I were ANet.

Also:
Sorry to tell you this, but large numbered groups lower the skill requirement for each individual member, as your contribution to the end-result becomes less and less important with each member you add.
Most games have a magic number somewhere between 3-10 for team based activities to maintain enough skill per player, while also offering enough team strategy.
Some games can achieve bigger numbers per team, but those matches also often include maps of a massive scale, to spread these teams into smaller subteams with one general goal.

The bigger the teams the more casual it becomes for each individual team member. That can be fun aswell, but it certainly isn’t competive as some want to make this gamemode want to look like.

It’s actually fun because people who are doing those “GvG” in WvW think they could be any good at defense/attack/flag type of scenario (hopefully excluding train).

Too bad they are probably not much better than a Footman in GW1 GvG map.

Only ‘monthly fee games’ have enough money to ‘speed develop’ ‘player demanded’ content. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they will forgive Anet for not being perfect.

If they introduced GvG then you would see some serious changes/nerfs to some of the most popular professions that populate its meta (Warriors/Guardians/Ele’s).

To me, GvG is a special type of mode for three types of professions in the game, while the rest play second fiddle (unless you enjoy being a boon strip bot like a necro, a feedback bot like a mesmer or enjoy not even being included at all like every single medium armor profession).

The sad truth is, those that promote and call for GvG so much are the ones that are completely blinded by its complete lack of balance amongst the professions.

You want GvG? Be prepared for thousands upon thousands of “Nerf warrior/guardian/ele” threads to appear in your new sub-forum over night.

Decklan.7540:

You want GvG? Be prepared for thousands upon thousands of “Nerf warrior/guardian/ele” threads to appear in your new sub-forum over night.

It’s possible we would see that though I guess you haven’t done much GvG if you think that Necros, Mesmers, Engis, and Thieves have no place in GvG (Rangers… yeah that’s another story).

Thieves are key in their roles as Spikers/Strikers taking out the other team’s Ranged and finishing off downed stragglers. Mesmers are useful in all the various ways they are strong in WvW including Veils, Moas on opposing Commanders, and plenty of Support capabilities in addition to Glamour/Feedback. Engis have a large amount of CCs that can be used to impair opponents’ abilities to move/stay grouped as well as providing Support/Fields and AoE depending on spec.

I think actually it is one of the reasons why GvG was gaining in popularity – more Professions/Roles/Builds are viable in it than in a WvW Zerg.

Phoebe Ascension.8437:

Only ‘monthly fee games’ have enough money to ‘speed develop’ ‘player demanded’ content. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they will forgive Anet for not being perfect.

Source please?

Really though, I believe Anet has made quite a bit of money from the gem store, some players have probably spent more than 15$ a month on gems.

And yes, I wholeheartedly support GvG, unfortunately I feel as though these cries for GvG will disseminate in the coming months just like the cries for open world dueling did a year after release >.<

All they really need to do is remove the bloodlust buff no actual work needs to be done.

Phoebe Ascension.8437:

Only ‘monthly fee games’ have enough money to ‘speed develop’ ‘player demanded’ content. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they will forgive Anet for not being perfect.

I’ve been subbed to WoW for quite some time and I can tell you straight-up that collecting $15 a month does not make the devs work any faster.

Varonth.5830:

mini.6018:

Varonth.5830:

Yeah, please bring back GvG.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GvG

Not this 20v20 nonsense death match.

Gw2 was supposed to be about mass pvp with WvW as the main selling factor for the big chunk of players that bought it.People want 15v15 20v20 30v30 .Why shouln’t they have it just because you still live in the past? or because you just don’t like mass pvp ? Gw1 is dead and no old school gvg can ressurect it.Deal with it and let people play what they want to play.

The guildwars website shows guilds with recent matches and it has more entries than gw2gvg.com, even if you include the massive amount of guilds on that website without a single match record.
Standing around at a random outpost yesterday for a few minutes, there was actually someone searching for new players for their new guild for daily GvG.
I had imagined to see such messages on important cities like Lions Arch or Kamadan but not on a random outpost.

Speaking of a dead game…

The gw2gvg.com websites lists 286 guilds, and as I said, alot of them have 0 or just 1 match. Those guilds really interested in this sort of gameplay probably already know about it. If you are really generous and include players for the inactive guilds on that website you might break the 5k player base with that.
I certainly wouldn’t throw money at such a small playerbase if I were ANet.

Also:
Sorry to tell you this, but large numbered groups lower the skill requirement for each individual member, as your contribution to the end-result becomes less and less important with each member you add.
Most games have a magic number somewhere between 3-10 for team based activities to maintain enough skill per player, while also offering enough team strategy.
Some games can achieve bigger numbers per team, but those matches also often include maps of a massive scale, to spread these teams into smaller subteams with one general goal.

The bigger the teams the more casual it becomes for each individual team member. That can be fun aswell, but it certainly isn’t competive as some want to make this gamemode want to look like.

Gv2gvg.com does not include but a small % of guilds that do or did gvg in this game so your point lacks a base.

The hard truth is actually most of competitive hardcore guilds already quit the game a long time ago for the lack of support and respect they got from Anet devs.I can asure you that hundreeds if not more gvgs were done across servers without any kind of publicity and we are talking about an unsuported game mode where even organizing such an event takes hours due to queues/lags/player interference and such mechanisms that stay in the way.

Takes less skill to 5v5 than to 1v1 hence less skill to 20v20 ? Because Kitten logic right?I mean it’s not like there(were) are guilds that have almost 100% win/lose ratio cause it’s all random.Yes sir kitten logic indeed.

Please don’t preach me about something you clearly have less than a clue about.Actually do us all a favor…Thank you for your opinion.Hf in gw1 gvg,this thread is about GW2 GvG

@ OP its is not an actuall problem whether to WvW or not .Thing is with GvG arenas WvW will simply be a ghost town with no reason whatsoever to ever enter unless you need to pvdoor or karmatrain and Anet knows it.

At least know you still have some zergbusting guilds,but if ever GvG arenas shall be developed with no big improvements to WvW, no one will stand in their way and zergs would countinously avoid eachother non stop karmatrainftw.Wich suits perfectly Anet’s vision imo,basicly a easier farming mode than Pve.

mini.6018:

I can asure you that hundreeds if not more gvgs were done across servers without any kind of publicity

This is true our guild did countless GvGs with a ton of other guilds from multiple servers before we even heard of the GvGsite. The vast majority of ours and all the guilds time in WvW was typical WvW fighting these were/are the most active players for each server.

Epic error on Anets part disrespecting a huge part of their WvW core the GvGers.

Xom.9264:

All they really need to do is remove the bloodlust buff no actual work needs to be done.

This. In any case, I doubt they’d implement GvG anyway — they probably think it would hurt their precious sPVP.

mini.6018:

Varonth.5830:

mini.6018:

Varonth.5830:

Yeah, please bring back GvG.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GvG

Not this 20v20 nonsense death match.

Gw2 was supposed to be about mass pvp with WvW as the main selling factor for the big chunk of players that bought it.People want 15v15 20v20 30v30 .Why shouln’t they have it just because you still live in the past? or because you just don’t like mass pvp ? Gw1 is dead and no old school gvg can ressurect it.Deal with it and let people play what they want to play.

The guildwars website shows guilds with recent matches and it has more entries than gw2gvg.com, even if you include the massive amount of guilds on that website without a single match record.
Standing around at a random outpost yesterday for a few minutes, there was actually someone searching for new players for their new guild for daily GvG.
I had imagined to see such messages on important cities like Lions Arch or Kamadan but not on a random outpost.

Speaking of a dead game…

The gw2gvg.com websites lists 286 guilds, and as I said, alot of them have 0 or just 1 match. Those guilds really interested in this sort of gameplay probably already know about it. If you are really generous and include players for the inactive guilds on that website you might break the 5k player base with that.
I certainly wouldn’t throw money at such a small playerbase if I were ANet.

Also:
Sorry to tell you this, but large numbered groups lower the skill requirement for each individual member, as your contribution to the end-result becomes less and less important with each member you add.
Most games have a magic number somewhere between 3-10 for team based activities to maintain enough skill per player, while also offering enough team strategy.
Some games can achieve bigger numbers per team, but those matches also often include maps of a massive scale, to spread these teams into smaller subteams with one general goal.

The bigger the teams the more casual it becomes for each individual team member. That can be fun aswell, but it certainly isn’t competive as some want to make this gamemode want to look like.

Gv2gvg.com does not include but a small % of guilds that do or did gvg in this game so your point lacks a base.

The hard truth is actually most of competitive hardcore guilds already quit the game a long time ago for the lack of support and respect they got from Anet devs.I can asure you that hundreeds if not more gvgs were done across servers without any kind of publicity and we are talking about an unsuported game mode where even organizing such an event takes hours due to queues/lags/player interference and such mechanisms that stay in the way.

Takes less skill to 5v5 than to 1v1 hence less skill to 20v20 ? Because Kitten logic right?I mean it’s not like there(were) are guilds that have almost 100% win/lose ratio cause it’s all random.Yes sir kitten logic indeed.

Please don’t preach me about something you clearly have less than a clue about.Actually do us all a favor…Thank you for your opinion.Hf in gw1 gvg,this thread is about GW2 GvG

That gamemode is not GvG.
It is death match.
Don’t call it GvG. Just don’t.

And yes, 20v20 takes less individual skill per player.
The bigger the number, the less each player matters.
20v20 every player makes up 5% of a team.
40v40 now every player makes up for 2.5% of a team.
100v100… one player = 1% of the team.
In a 100v100 if suddenly one player has a disconnect, you won’t even notice, because that players individual contribution to the fight is so small. It is actually quite simple, and that some people can’t grasp that is kinda sad.
Take Battlefield 3. The bigger tournaments had maximum teamsize of 8.
Battlefield 3 would allow for a teamsize of 32, but no one who knows a bit about competive play, would ever think of making a 32v32 competive tournament. They maybe make one for fun, but thats it. Fun.
Why do you think Football or Soccer has a teamsize of 11? The rules would work perfectly fine with teamsize of 50v50 and there is more than enough space on a field.
You can take basically any teamsport or teamgame and look at it’s competive scene, and you will almost always see a teamsize of around 10.

On top of that, smaller group sizes have a positive community value, as more guilds can participate in the content.

The game IS called Guild Wars.. it doesn’t make sense for it to not have GvG, but no, I wouldn’t stop WvWing. I like the capture the castle aspect of it as well as siege use, it does need some serious revamping though, it’s a little stagnant and buggy.

If we had a GvG arena, I would still do WvW.

WvW isn’t perfect, but it is still fun to take on other servers. Even if we did have a formal outlet for GvG, it would still be hilariously fun to take 15-20 people and kill 40-50.

Varonth.5830:

That gamemode is not GvG.
It is death match.
Don’t call it GvG. Just don’t.

And yes, 20v20 takes less individual skill per player.
The bigger the number, the less each player matters.
20v20 every player makes up 5% of a team.
40v40 now every player makes up for 2.5% of a team.
100v100… one player = 1% of the team.
In a 100v100 if suddenly one player has a disconnect, you won’t even notice, because that players individual contribution to the fight is so small. It is actually quite simple, and that some people can’t grasp that is kinda sad.
Take Battlefield 3. The bigger tournaments had maximum teamsize of 8.
Battlefield 3 would allow for a teamsize of 32, but no one who knows a bit about competive play, would ever think of making a 32v32 competive tournament. They maybe make one for fun, but thats it. Fun.
Why do you think Football or Soccer has a teamsize of 11? The rules would work perfectly fine with teamsize of 50v50 and there is more than enough space on a field.
You can take basically any teamsport or teamgame and look at it’s competive scene, and you will almost always see a teamsize of around 10.

On top of that, smaller group sizes have a positive community value, as more guilds can participate in the content.

So if a Football(EU) team has per say 1 or 2 terrible players would not affect the outcome of the match whatsoever ? Also Football takes a lot less skill than Basketball by your logic ? Sorry but it is flawed.

Imo it takes a lot more skill to organize a 100vs 100 and win it becasue in a 1v1 i only have myself to manage but in a much larger scale not only me but another 99 players have to practice/theorycraft/build/micromanage and not even taking in consideration personal skill to actually become a true team.We talk about sinergy,coordination,movement,timing,engage disengage, rotation,cover,spike,avoid spike,party rotation,heals,stack,spread,decoy,stomp,weapon/armor/food choices and all the above i just stated.You just show a complete lack of understanding about what the term organized team is holding. Just ask ex RedGuard members how Sacrx wouldn’t even start a normal WvW raid if a certain class/player would be missing in his raid formation and then come back and talk to us about organized mass pvp.

That is why a 24 man raid encounter will always be a lot harder than a 5 man dungeon.It is a lot more room for error in larger group because you more people equals more possibility to do mistakes and only one person can cause a wipe(Look at other mmos).Also only 1 person can rally 100 others in a blink of an eye.

To be honest the situation is actually quite the opposite of what you believe.It takes a lot more skill to 20v20 than to 1v1 properly.That is why the 20 pugs always wipe when facing a 10,15,20 man guild in WvW .Your point is moot and lacks logic.This is not math my friend and it does not apply here.

I can’t see holding towers, keeps and castles with 20 man teams. The zergs get all the publicity, but the strategy and patience it takes to hold territory on a map is much of the fun of WvW.

back to the question?
I’ll probably do both.

I can visualize a GvG mode as a microscale WvWvW with even numbers fought by guilds.

WvWvW is not balanced because different servers have different number of people.

I would still play WvW.

GvG, for me, was a way to get better at WvW combat. You could be the best tactician, place siege in the right places, but you won’t always be able to take something undefended. Eventually you will have to take something with the knowledge that you can kill your enemies open field. Otherwise, you are stuck having to ninja things while your enemies are otherwise occupied 100% of the time.

Varonth.5830:

Yeah, please bring back GvG.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GvG

Not this 20v20 nonsense death match.

I agree what wvw players call gvg is laughable.

robocafaz.9017:

Phoebe Ascension.8437:

Only ‘monthly fee games’ have enough money to ‘speed develop’ ‘player demanded’ content. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they will forgive Anet for not being perfect.

I’ve been subbed to WoW for quite some time and I can tell you straight-up that collecting $15 a month does not make the devs work any faster.

Development maybe, but support is much faster on Wow (i heard from friends). If you get hacked, next day you already have your account back. Same for scams as far as i know. But i get your point, wow is bad in many many ways yet they are swimming in the money. If the leader of the company is greedy, it will take everything with it. Maybe Ncsoft is doing same here. 50 euro *3m copies, maybe sound much but don’t forget monthly costs like salary, servers, server maintenance, software licences, paying somehow Ncsoft for ‘publishing’ (or owning it?) the game. And all those commercial trips have to be payed as well. But I agree they aren’t doing bad, and I think they should hire more people.

I’d still play wvw – it’s much more relaxing than gvg was, and no doubt if they implemented real gvg arenas with 10,15,20,30 player options (or just 10,15,20) a lot of people and guilds would certainly try it out and become hooked.

But is has to be more than just 20 people running into each other (but NO siege please!!!), much more along the lines of gvg in gw1 – flag runners, npcs and a guild lord to end the match (which cannot be hit at all for the first ten minutes).

Even the Lux vs Kur battles were not a bad format as they required splits.

If it’s just an open space with 20vs 20 running into each other, then it would soon get very stale.

mini.6018:

Varonth.5830:

That gamemode is not GvG.
It is death match.
Don’t call it GvG. Just don’t.

And yes, 20v20 takes less individual skill per player.
The bigger the number, the less each player matters.
20v20 every player makes up 5% of a team.
40v40 now every player makes up for 2.5% of a team.
100v100… one player = 1% of the team.
In a 100v100 if suddenly one player has a disconnect, you won’t even notice, because that players individual contribution to the fight is so small. It is actually quite simple, and that some people can’t grasp that is kinda sad.
Take Battlefield 3. The bigger tournaments had maximum teamsize of 8.
Battlefield 3 would allow for a teamsize of 32, but no one who knows a bit about competive play, would ever think of making a 32v32 competive tournament. They maybe make one for fun, but thats it. Fun.
Why do you think Football or Soccer has a teamsize of 11? The rules would work perfectly fine with teamsize of 50v50 and there is more than enough space on a field.
You can take basically any teamsport or teamgame and look at it’s competive scene, and you will almost always see a teamsize of around 10.

On top of that, smaller group sizes have a positive community value, as more guilds can participate in the content.

So if a Football(EU) team has per say 1 or 2 terrible players would not affect the outcome of the match whatsoever ? Also Football takes a lot less skill than Basketball by your logic ? Sorry but it is flawed.

Imo it takes a lot more skill to organize a 100vs 100 and win it becasue in a 1v1 i only have myself to manage but in a much larger scale not only me but another 99 players have to practice/theorycraft/build/micromanage and not even taking in consideration personal skill to actually become a true team.We talk about sinergy,coordination,movement,timing,engage disengage, rotation,cover,spike,avoid spike,party rotation,heals,stack,spread,decoy,stomp,weapon/armor/food choices and all the above i just stated.You just show a complete lack of understanding about what the term organized team is holding. Just ask ex RedGuard members how Sacrx wouldn’t even start a normal WvW raid if a certain class/player would be missing in his raid formation and then come back and talk to us about organized mass pvp.

That is why a 24 man raid encounter will always be a lot harder than a 5 man dungeon.It is a lot more room for error in larger group because you more people equals more possibility to do mistakes and only one person can cause a wipe(Look at other mmos).Also only 1 person can rally 100 others in a blink of an eye.

To be honest the situation is actually quite the opposite of what you believe.It takes a lot more skill to 20v20 than to 1v1 properly.That is why the 20 pugs always wipe when facing a 10,15,20 man guild in WvW .Your point is moot and lacks logic.This is not math my friend and it does not apply here.

If you have read my post, you would know, that I never said 1v1.

Most games have a magic number somewhere between 3-10 for team based activities to maintain enough skill per player, while also offering enough team strategy.

Bold this time, so that you hopefully don’t miss it.
That an organised team of 20 wins against 20 pugs is a valid outcome of such an encounter. What I am telling you, is that the individual skill per member goes down with each member added.
That just happens once you surpass the magic number of a game, and that number is determined by the amount of possible jobs to do in a matchup. That is the reason why certain games need more players and others less.

How many tasks can you name for a standard guild death match?
And then start thinking about how many players you can throw at each task at once.

Who said it had to be about skill?

I think we all know there isn’t much skill involved in large scale PvP but that doesn’t stop it from being fun, or companies continuing to develop games with mass player battles.

Also the term GvG existed long before GW1’s cap the flagstand-kill the guild lord-mode. It means what it means, a guild vs another guild, and the community definition of 20v20 deathmatch satisfies that as long as they are each in two separate guilds.

Original GvG didn’t have any siege, did it? That changes the game a lot.

Siege needs supply, whole different game.

You can screw up a much larger hyper-offensive, no defense at all server by trashing their supply. Keep it all paper forever. Just takes a little planning and patience.

If by GvG you mean a simulation of the the meaningless 20v20 zerg that happens at windmill, no thanks.
If you mean GW1 GvG then definitely.

Varonth.5830:

mini.6018:

Varonth.5830:

mini.6018:

Varonth.5830:

Yeah, please bring back GvG.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GvG

Not this 20v20 nonsense death match.

Gw2 was supposed to be about mass pvp with WvW as the main selling factor for the big chunk of players that bought it.People want 15v15 20v20 30v30 .Why shouln’t they have it just because you still live in the past? or because you just don’t like mass pvp ? Gw1 is dead and no old school gvg can ressurect it.Deal with it and let people play what they want to play.

The guildwars website shows guilds with recent matches and it has more entries than gw2gvg.com, even if you include the massive amount of guilds on that website without a single match record.
Standing around at a random outpost yesterday for a few minutes, there was actually someone searching for new players for their new guild for daily GvG.
I had imagined to see such messages on important cities like Lions Arch or Kamadan but not on a random outpost.

Speaking of a dead game…

The gw2gvg.com websites lists 286 guilds, and as I said, alot of them have 0 or just 1 match. Those guilds really interested in this sort of gameplay probably already know about it. If you are really generous and include players for the inactive guilds on that website you might break the 5k player base with that.
I certainly wouldn’t throw money at such a small playerbase if I were ANet.

Also:
Sorry to tell you this, but large numbered groups lower the skill requirement for each individual member, as your contribution to the end-result becomes less and less important with each member you add.
Most games have a magic number somewhere between 3-10 for team based activities to maintain enough skill per player, while also offering enough team strategy.
Some games can achieve bigger numbers per team, but those matches also often include maps of a massive scale, to spread these teams into smaller subteams with one general goal.

The bigger the teams the more casual it becomes for each individual team member. That can be fun aswell, but it certainly isn’t competive as some want to make this gamemode want to look like.

Gv2gvg.com does not include but a small % of guilds that do or did gvg in this game so your point lacks a base.

The hard truth is actually most of competitive hardcore guilds already quit the game a long time ago for the lack of support and respect they got from Anet devs.I can asure you that hundreeds if not more gvgs were done across servers without any kind of publicity and we are talking about an unsuported game mode where even organizing such an event takes hours due to queues/lags/player interference and such mechanisms that stay in the way.

Takes less skill to 5v5 than to 1v1 hence less skill to 20v20 ? Because Kitten logic right?I mean it’s not like there(were) are guilds that have almost 100% win/lose ratio cause it’s all random.Yes sir kitten logic indeed.

Please don’t preach me about something you clearly have less than a clue about.Actually do us all a favor…Thank you for your opinion.Hf in gw1 gvg,this thread is about GW2 GvG

That gamemode is not GvG.
It is death match.
Don’t call it GvG. Just don’t.

-snip-

I don’t know how you ‘developed’ whatever you link in your signature with this kind of thinking ability. Maybe you just put it there, probably :]

We call it GvG because literally, GvG means nothing more than Guild versus guild. GW1’s guild versus guild mode involved capture mechanics. GW2’s guild versus guild involves deathmatch. Does that make GW2’s guild versus guild not a guild versus guild? Use of logic in your post is just… simply laughable. Keep posting for my daily laughs, PLEASE!

Let’s all make guilds of 1 and 1v1GVG! 1V1GVGWVWGW2PVDPVTCOF on a stick!

Indeed Kuora, people from GW1 need to grow up a little. GvG translates purely and simply to the concept of Guild Vs Guild. It existed long before GW1 and their form of GvG.

15 v 15, 20 v 20, etc etc, Even numbered fight between 2 guilds duking it out for supremacy. None of this point capping nonsense. Just a fight to the death.

Haters explain to me why it isn’t “GvG”. When its Guild X vs Guild Y.

Back in CoD Clan vs Clan ladders/matches happened in various forms. Team Deathmatch, Search and Destroy, they still were Clan V Clan.

Varonth.5830:

That gamemode is not GvG.
It is death match.
Don’t call it GvG. Just don’t.

And yes, 20v20 takes less individual skill per player.
The bigger the number, the less each player matters.
20v20 every player makes up 5% of a team.
40v40 now every player makes up for 2.5% of a team.
100v100… one player = 1% of the team.
In a 100v100 if suddenly one player has a disconnect, you won’t even notice, because that players individual contribution to the fight is so small. It is actually quite simple, and that some people can’t grasp that is kinda sad.
Take Battlefield 3. The bigger tournaments had maximum teamsize of 8.
Battlefield 3 would allow for a teamsize of 32, but no one who knows a bit about competive play, would ever think of making a 32v32 competive tournament. They maybe make one for fun, but thats it. Fun.
Why do you think Football or Soccer has a teamsize of 11? The rules would work perfectly fine with teamsize of 50v50 and there is more than enough space on a field.
You can take basically any teamsport or teamgame and look at it’s competive scene, and you will almost always see a teamsize of around 10.

On top of that, smaller group sizes have a positive community value, as more guilds can participate in the content.

Individual skill means nothing, nor it shall be. It’s GvG, not Individual vs. Individual. You must show your skill as organized group, as guild, not as bunch of individuals. And if someone trying to degrade GvG into fight of individuals or small comps of individuals – this is wrong approach. Thats why i personally think that minimal size of GvG comps shall be set at 20 vs 20, ideally – 25 vs 25.

mini.6018:

@ OP its is not an actuall problem whether to WvW or not .Thing is with GvG arenas WvW will simply be a ghost town with no reason whatsoever to ever enter unless you need to pvdoor or karmatrain and Anet knows it.

At least know you still have some zergbusting guilds,but if ever GvG arenas shall be developed with no big improvements to WvW, no one will stand in their way and zergs would countinously avoid eachother non stop karmatrainftw.Wich suits perfectly Anet’s vision imo,basicly a easier farming mode than Pve.

I was going to refute you but I think you might actually be right.

We all know what needs to happen here. Replace sPvP with GvG.

Dranul.2094:

people from GW1 need to grow up a little.

Maybe people should learn that they pretend to play a game mode (in another one) that doesnt exist: the team deathmetch.
Do you ever pretended to play tennis in a soccer pitch? No?
Well then, grow up a little