Guild Wars 2

Here’s a few questions :

1. Do you consider that WvW is a competitive game mode?
2. Do you wish that WvW was a competitive game mode?
3. Do you think that WvW can be a competitive game mode?

When I say “competitive”, I mean score wise mostly but feel free to elaborate on other parts if you want

Bonus question : How do you feel about losing or winning every week, or having a rating/ranking associated with your server. Do you care?

1 – No, WvW is a joke as a competitive mode, not just in regard to flaws in it actually being competitive like coverage/double teaming, etc, but also in that the gameplay to play their terrible PPT system is the complete opposite of what you want in a supposed mass scale PvP RvR type system, where to PPT effectively often means avoid fights, PvDoor, see the other 2 servers are fighting so run to a tower slam down 8 rams and PvDoor it whilst they are busy, etc.

2 – Maybe 3 years ago, but WvW is basically dead now, so it really makes little difference and they would have to change so much from map design, to the whole PPT system, to alliances instead of servers, etc that it will never happen when Anet seem to take an age to even change the smallest of things.

3 – No, see answer 2, I think Anet will make minimal changes in a game that is in terminal decline and will just try and milk those who remain and spend money on gems, that is after all the pattern for most MMOs that are not sub based when they are past their prime.

^what zink said.

WvW to be at least competive it required a gamemode remake…
- Call it competitive with the actual scheme would be awfull, score by blobbing and blob empty stuff it is the idiotic game design.
- Stacking players while servers cant handle population is awfull.

1. No. It’s a 24/7 game mode that bases a huge chunk of it’s scoring system on time. Meaning it merely comes down to who is willing to play more (e.g. have more coverage).

2. No, not in it’s current state. It might have a chance of being better if balance was separate, but even still it wouldn’t be competitive due to number 1.

3. No, not in it’s current state. Especially true if updates cannot happen regularly due to technically reasons (for example: they do not have the infrastructure to change maps less then 3 months).

At best the time-zones would need to be segregated if you want a semblance of balance in coverage to make it “competitive.” Even then, portions of WvW has mixed feelings, such as the dilemma between the siege warfare, and open field fighting.

(Short version) Think I answered your last post on this, but here goes:

(1) No.
(2) Don’t really care either way.
(3) No. Too many design faults for that.
(4) Don’t care about points, they’re just there to create match-up’s.

(Long version)

Designed to be casual. Some of the designs that limits the game mode from being competitive, and some other reasons like player attitude etc:

• Teams: Server population, plays what they want, when they want, how they want, builds they want, do what they want, participate when they want, leave when they want. You essentially have a mostly random team. This is impossible to plan around, and removes any “strategical” aspect to this game.
• Even/Balance-Population/Coverage: Server structure simply won’t allow it. Servers will have strong and weak time periods no matter what, and uneven populations. There is no way to fix this unless ANet sits down and play Tyrant and manually move people about servers, and adjust again to move more every time someone rage-quits (justified) for being move to another server.
• Stacking: Server structure again. As long as this is the solution for most people, players are going to bottleneck themselves to try to jump into the most desirable servers, and the bottom half is going to be feeling like a wasteland. And this is a player created problem.
• Score: Main problem is having a scoring system for avoiding enemies, when you can just back-cap, karma-train empty objectives, and ride the Ticks. ANet’s Philosophy for the game as a whole is actually limiting WvW a lot, especially that they will never punish players for grouping together. Scoring in a competitive game mode should come from fighting each others, directly or (less for) indirect conflict.
• Boredom: When the most effective strategy for WvW is to bore your opponents to death, or make them rage-quit, there is something wrong.
• Fair-Weather: When the largest part of players doesn’t bother to fight back when beaten, and rather just go elsewhere (pve, pvp, dungeon, hot, log-off, etc) when they die or their zerg/group is killed. Thus starting the chain-reaction of more people leaving, until only the bitter veterans are left, and everyone else just stands in spawn AFK waiting for a CMD or does something else. Is this World vs World a massive pvp game mode? Or AFKvsAFK, massive amounts of AFK’ers sitting waiting for the enemy to be bored, so it’s their turn to karma train ?
• 24/7: Teams + Score + Population/Coverage from above, means there are almost never a fair fight anywhere, thus not competitive.

(Possible competitive mode)

If they wanted to make something Competitive out of WvW, I think they could manage something based on it, but not WvW as is. Mentioned before:

Structured pre-arranged team matches, where 1-5 guilds work together to form a team/alliance/war-group something, and arrange a time with an enemy team to meet up and play for 1-2-3-4 (pre-determined) hours on a specific map based on WvW.

Example maps: Cut out SMC from ebg and make it a own map. Probably one for more open fights like a big arena/os arena just larger with some more terrain. Basically a few different ones for different aspects of WvW, so people can fight in different ways.

• Teams: organized and pre-arranged. A max limit, and you can kick people that sabotage etc. You can train, organize, and make anyone on the team use teamspeak, proper builds etc, and set up roles for the fight.
• Population/Coverage: No longer an issue, X vs X enters, plays for Y time. Fair.
• Stacking/servers: no longer an issue.
• Fair-Weathers: no longer an issue, kick them off the team if they do that.

But this would require ANet to make another mode, a sort of in-between of PvP and WvW. And might sound crazy similar to what a lot of people want as GvG. And I’m not even going to go into the argument of using PvP or PvE stats/gear.

/rant

joneirikb.7506:

(Possible competitive mode)

If they wanted to make something Competitive out of WvW, I think they could manage something based on it, but not WvW as is. Mentioned before:

Structured pre-arranged team matches, where 1-5 guilds work together to form a team/alliance/war-group something, and arrange a time with an enemy team to meet up and play for 1-2-3-4 (pre-determined) hours on a specific map based on WvW.

Example maps: Cut out SMC from ebg and make it a own map. Probably one for more open fights like a big arena/os arena just larger with some more terrain. Basically a few different ones for different aspects of WvW, so people can fight in different ways.

• Teams: organized and pre-arranged. A max limit, and you can kick people that sabotage etc. You can train, organize, and make anyone on the team use teamspeak, proper builds etc, and set up roles for the fight.
• Population/Coverage: No longer an issue, X vs X enters, plays for Y time. Fair.
• Stacking/servers: no longer an issue.
• Fair-Weathers: no longer an issue, kick them off the team if they do that.

But this would require ANet to make another mode, a sort of in-between of PvP and WvW. And might sound crazy similar to what a lot of people want as GvG. And I’m not even going to go into the argument of using PvP or PvE stats/gear.

Kinda wish this mode existed.

yes, it is competitive. but the competition is to rally more people to your server than the enemy can rally to their server. it is not a gameplay skill based competition, it is a political savvyness based competition.

I have sometimes wondered what WvW would be like without the whole concept of worlds. If it were the “warfare” to SPvP’s “skirmishing” — much bigger teams, much longer matches, added siege weapons, but essentially instanced arena matches.

There would be serious matches like joneirikb described, and more casual matches the just feed incoming players/parties to whichever of red/green/blue is losing.

I think WvW is basically an accident, the design path of least resistance when you have your PvE players divided into servers at launch. I think they started from that and invented the slogan “fight for the honor of your world” to market it. They didn’t start from “honor of your world” and then design a game mode to realize that.

But after a few years of “fight for your world”, I imagine the people who are left are people who think that way. So that’s what we’re going to get.

Gudradain.3892:

Here’s a few questions :

1. Do you consider that WvW is a competitive game mode?
2. Do you wish that WvW was a competitive game mode?
3. Do you think that WvW can be a competitive game mode?

When I say “competitive”, I mean score wise mostly but feel free to elaborate on other parts if you want

Bonus question : How do you feel about losing or winning every week, or having a rating/ranking associated with your server. Do you care?

1) No T1 sucks, all about PPT and lags like kitten when blob is near u cant even play a class that doesnt require 1 11 11 1 11111, so obviously i dont want my server too win and compete with these blobbers PPT kitten.
2) IF server could handle it and WvW score wouldnt be around Capping stuff make it K/D score around keeps/towers/camps count as score so PPT is pretty much over, not so hard to make towers etc wanted when u give tower owner more points for kill or whatso ever tho wvw will never change so w/e :p.
3)Sure if u change alot.

as for your bonus my server can pretty much wipe floor with most EU servers, but good thing is my server doesnt care for PPT so once in a while we end up in T1 (like this week and its terrible) so i hope we lose to face the servers that actually wanna fight without blob the kitten out of each other and having 200 arrow carts bunkered up in their towers/keeps

insanemaniac.2456:

yes, it is competitive. but the competition is to rally more people to your server than the enemy can rally to their server. it is not a gameplay skill based competition, it is a political savvyness based competition.

Haha! Great description, love it

1. Do you consider that WvW is a competitive game mode?

No, it is not. A game can be considered competitive only if it is a 1vs1, a 3way matchup can not be considered competitive beacouse results are set most of the time by facts not related to your merits nor your faults . Also WvW is totally unbalanced speaking about population, who have more players and play more just win.

2. Do you wish that WvW was a competitive game mode?

Yes, that would be awesome.

3. Do you think that WvW can be a competitive game mode?

It is possible if it is played 1vs1 and if the score system totally changes. PPT can not be considered a valid skill parameter, due the reasons listed above at point 1. A competitive score system can be achieved only if there are only two participants (servers in Gw2 case), only if those participants have almost the same amount of players (100 vs 99 won’t change much, 20 vs 5 changes a lot) and play the same amount of time.

1. Its too unbalanced to be truly competitive
2. Absolutely
3. No, fundamental changes would be required and anet are unwilling to go to far in making changes as shown by their rejection of a possible change to the mode in resetting servers every 3 months.

1. No. WvW is not competitive in the current state of the game and it is unlikely it ever will be simply because of population imbalances.
2. Not really. WvW being competitive is completely unimportant to me. I want it to be fun first and foremost.
3. Not without drastic changes.

1. No, not with the size of the teams being uneven at almost all times, population and coverage differences. Wvw is too big to pull that off properly.

2. Maybe. People like playing competitive games with the goal of winning. While some people just like to fight, wvw still needs something to drive it for most players, and ppt is it. You can still find competitive areas in wvw, but not as a whole.

3. No, it never will be given the size of wvw, it needs equal size for all sides, much like any competitive sport. Too many other unbalanced things exist in wvw for it to be considered competitive, including the scoring system. GvGs are said to be competitive, which in part thanks to equal sides fighting, much like spvp but with 2-3x the numbers. Scoring will never be competitive without gimmicks to keep it close though.

WvW is a PvP sandbox mode without much sandbox. It is not competitive and it really isn’t meant to be outside of players leveling the playing field themselves.

1. no
2. yes
3. yes

there really needs to be some form of server wipe, repopulate a set number of new servers based on total population, strict limitation on transfers afterward (to limit fairweather movement) and something to fight for such as bi-montly or seasonal tournaments.
When populations are somewhat even it is fun to fight, play, and stategize. But if you are so outnumbered, as in the DH-Ebay, matchup, you don’t know if you are fighting one zerg on your map or five. You can start a somewhat even fight and get run over, strategize perfectly yet get overwhelmed on 3 fronts, etc…
When it is even, it is competitive, when it is grossly imbalanced it is futile and boring, yet nobody really cares anyway because winning and losing each week doesn’t do anything (such as reward anything meaningful or change your match-up).

The game has less guilds and more pug blobs these days. Brought on in part because of anets lack of support for a gvg game mode, stability changes, the power creep of heart of thorns and improving aspects of seige defense to discourage smaller team play to capture objectives.

no game of paper rock scisscors is ever competitive and Anet/NCSoft will never learn that so no. How many competitive games did NCSoft make so far? None. They are just a bunch of content creators on the production line, they dont have the time nor energy nor the skill to fix this mess, hence they go in all directions at once and try to alleviate pain but dont actually fix anything. they lack vision.

1. Yes I consider WvWvW to be competitive only because it’s as close to open world PvP as GW2 will ever get, the actual scoring mechanics are a joke.

2. Yes is wish it was competitive as I think it would increase the chances of me finding more like minded players and having more fun.

3. Lol no, WvWvW never be competitive. It will have to be gutted and rebuilt, players would cry about it and this is a 4 year old B2play/f2play game, not happening. Plus, Anet’s philosophy is all about creating an amorphous hand holding experience and by definition, competitive players ruin that. This is why guilds have been dropping like flies out of this game and mostly what’s left are pug blobs that shrink in big chunks on every wipe.

Bonus Question: No I don’t care who wins the week, I haven’t kept track of that in a very long time.

I’m going to answer this question from two different views, Developer and Player.

1. Do you consider that WvW is a competitive game mode?

Developer: Yes. The game mode is working as intended as it is drag and drop. The score doesn’t represent anything too intensive and ultimately the goal is accomplished in which players have all the power.

Player: No. The game mode is working as intended but there’s not much control, too much power rests in the hands of players so people who are just being rude can screw things up. The rewards and score are not meaningful which dampens the point and leaves it open to a rotation schedule of who is up at 2 am and who isn’t.

2. Do you wish that WvW was a competitive game mode?

Developer: Yes. Developer controls, I.E. sPvP, tPvP, GvG, etc. are what makes a mode more competitive than others. For what it is the mode is competitive but it could definitely be more serious if there were rules that could genuinely be enforced.

Player: Yes. See what that guy said. ^

3. Do you think that WvW can be a competitive game mode?

Developer: “More” competitive? No. Because of player-side behavior being what it is adding new restrictions and restructuring and doing all we can on this side isn’t going to end up with a better game mode. Changing maps, changing mechanics, adding organization bonuses and whatnot all have an effect but ultimately the problem lies with the players.

Player: Yes. I wish it was more controlled, that we could get rid of the trolls, that people were more skilled, and that we could allow the serious people to be separated from the really casual buggers who don’t know what they are doing and keep coming with their Rifle Warrior in pure Zerk armor.

It has always been like this by the way. From day until day now. Other than GvG the best solution is probably map shrinkage actually; the simpler the map and the more “forced” the engagements and collisions the better it tends to be. You want more things like ravines and difficult terrain in a small space than you do an expansive set of fields with more objectives since one requires organization and tactical prowess and the other just requires line of sight. A mix, of course.

1. No WvW is not competitive, it’s about coverage wars and numbers. Even with server linking and all, match-ups are still very unbalanced.

2. Yes I wish WvW was competitive, competition drives players to play more in games.

3. No, in order for WvW to be competitive, they’d need to change the current WvW design into instanced battlegrounds where Anet could regulate the rules and even the numbers. For one, what’s left of the WvW playerbase won’t like instanced BG’s. Two, Anet does not have the resources to make major changes, they’re doing bare minimum to drag players along until LS3, all the while they are busy working on the next expansion already.

If Anet supported GvG rather than let it die, WvW could still be competitive. The core of the issue here is Anet, they are against competition. They want to cater to the casuals and the less competitive minded folks so they made sure GvG couldn’t grow. They want to make sure everybody could jump in from PvE, into WvW, and have a great time. Hence why all the PvE-centric additions that came out with HoT in WvW. Anet is the sole reason why WvW isn’t competitive.

Competition drive players & guilds in MMO’s. They could’ve at the very least implement things like DAOC’s relic raids to give people a reason to attack/defend. They could’ve added more player/guild stats online. Sometimes all people need are bragging rights to keep going.

4. Nobody I know cares whether the server wins or loses the week, not one. People seem to care about who we’re going to be matched up against more than anything. So the only incentive to fight or not fight is really to avoid certain match-ups that are not fun.

HoT destroyed small WvW guilds. ANET took away all of their hard work and forced them to join the big guilds or leave the game. Most left the game.

Much of the best “competition” comes from small guilds in RvR games, but ANET doesn’t recognize that.

So the only competition left in ANET’s current version of WvW is server stacking. The server with the biggest blobs in all time zones (BlackGate atm) wins. TC is trying to stack like BlobGate, but they are having a hard time bribing enough ocx / sea players to do it.

Nothing else matters in WvW, only stacking.

1. No. There is no variety or competions in WvW. It’s about as competetive as three neighbor hood kids in a sandbox throwing sand at each other until two of them get sand in their eyes and run away crying.
2. Yes. I wish that people wanted to win for the sake of being strongest, but there is no balance, so strongest is simply best distributed.
3. They need to reset glicko and prevent glicko walls from creating permanent tiers. They could either put everyone in new servers and balance pairing on these less congested servers or reset glicko and increse matchup variety. The gap between the best and worst servers needs to be smaller so that matchups can have more variety.
4. Servers need to be balanced so that they cannot win/lose every time. Rankings are okay, but matchups that are 1, 2, 3/4, 5, 6/ect. Need to be mixed up better. 1, 3, 4/2, 6, 7/5, 9, 10 is an example of how the matchup can change to create variety. If server pairings are balanced well, this arrangement will not make as many one-sided matchups as it currently will.

Sarrs.4831:

1. No. WvW is not competitive in the current state of the game and it is unlikely it ever will be simply because of population imbalances.
2. Not really. WvW being competitive is completely unimportant to me. I want it to be fun first and foremost.
3. Not without drastic changes.

Agreed. This is pretty much my opinion on it, too. Only reason I still enjoy WvW so much is because of #2.

No, because one server can have stacked time zones over another. It becomes more coverage wars than anything else.

In another thread, I mentioned Map Queues based on average “currently logged in” population of the three servers. It would force a balance. It would then be based more on skill than numbers.