Guild Wars 2

Is WvW too big?

At launch it wasnt. Every server had queues.

4 years of neglect and Deserted BL release caused so many players to leave.
Server mergers were Anet’s attempt to make WvW look active again across all servers, not just the top half.

Server mergers were anet putting a bandage on WvW, when WvW is actually having a heart attack.

I would like to bring another dimension to the question.

Do you feel like you personally have an impact on the score result at the end of the week or do you feel like a water drop into the ocean?

I user to play WvW for PPT every single day for 8 hours a day. I consider that its quite a lot of time invested in a game but even with that much time, it didn’t feel like my contribution was worth that much.

When you stop to do the math, it get plain obvious :

My contribution : 8 hours x 7 days = 56 hours
Global contribution : 24 hours x 7 days x 4 maps x 40 players = 26880 hours

So, yes, I was a drop into the ocean. Its not a bad thing by itself. I mean, WvW is still a really fun game mode and a lot of players are enjoying it. But its a casual game mode and I was trying to be “competitive” score wise.

Do you think that something over which you have barely any control on the outcome can be considered competitive?

The score can’t matter and will never matter in WvW as long as it is so big. I can’t play on 4 maps at a time so why do I need to conquer/protect 4 maps at the same time in order to “win” at the end of the week.

This is one of the many reasons that I think WvW is too big. For me it means, too many maps at the same time.

Would it makes sense if you had to win on 4 maps at a time in PvP while you can’t only play on one at a time?

This is a subjective issue.

If you play on the T1 servers, there is a likelihood that these maps might be too small. The opposite might be the case for the lower servers, especially during the mid week.

Smaller maps induce conflict and lead to more fights.

Larger maps lead to more strategic play (generally if they are well designed) and more calculated fights.

I used to play a game that was entirely WvW and pvp based several years ago. Invasions involved taking out guards to each map which were on timers of one hour. Taking them down and keeping them open for conquering involved strategy. There was a bonus pillar that each faction wanted to destroy for an attack bonus and also had an hour cool down before it could be taken back.

We used to have battles for several hours, many times up to 16 hours all in all.

The maps were fairly large and we could hide in numerous places creatively.

Map size was rarely, if ever an issue. The issues were almost always related to population imbalances and night capping.

Night capping was resolved when battle schedules were introduced only allowing invasions during a specific time frame. The population imbalances were never resolved.

I don’t believe that map sizes are an issue in Gw2 WvW. I also don’t expect that night capping and population issues will ever be resolved without sacrificing the guild system.

Gudradain.3892

Regarding impact on the score: Honestly not at all. Used to feel I could make a difference back in T7-8 simply because the numbers where so low that every single person helped quite visually on the PPT tick.

After being linked up with T1-2 server, the PPT numbers are more like lotto numbers in the background. Just not paying attention to it, and I don’t really feel it would make any difference to the PPT if I play or log out.

Do you think that something over which you have barely any control on the outcome can be considered competitive?

Not at all, I’ve never considered WvW Competitive at all, it is by design casual. This quote says it better than I can:

"PopeUrban.2578"

Plenty of board games (most of which are, like WvW, all about territory control and PPT) don’t tally the score until the end.
Even in traditional sports, people have a tendancy to tune out if the game is already decided before the halfway mark if its obvious there’s no opening for a turnaround.
WvW is not a sport. It never will be. The number of players on the field varies by the minute, you have no control over the composition of the teams, and the participants can choose to leave the field at any time with no repurcussions.
Making sports analogies in relation to WvW is like comparing apples and oranges. It isn’t a sport, and it isn’t a competitive mode, and it never will be. It’s a casual, instant gratification interpretetion of open world siege pvp that only holds player interest as long as the moment to moment play remains interesting.
There are no instrinsic concept or benefits of ownership, no stakes, and literally nothing that makes “real” competition in a siege metagame work. It’s just a large population pvp map with objectives designed to shuffle players in to large group engagements. That’s all it will ever be. It is a meaningless war for no stakes that never ends, never benefits the victor, and never punishes the loser.
And that’s fine. That’s why the rewards revamp focused on personal reward rather than objective based reward. It’s the only logical reward structure for a system that has only ever been about personal gratification and playing war games in stead of attempting to simulate the decision making and tactical processes that go in to a more detailed and impactful actual war game.
If anything, the entire concept of matches and score could be removed from WvW and it would change nothing. The score doesn’t matter, winning or losing doesn’t matter, and there are so many variables inherant in its systems that ensuring “fair” or “competitive” match ups is an impossibility.

joneirikb.7506:

Do you think that something over which you have barely any control on the outcome can be considered competitive?

Not at all, I’ve never considered WvW Competitive at all, it is by design casual. This quote says it better than I can:

PopeUrban.2578”

Plenty of board games (most of which are, like WvW, all about territory control and PPT) don’t tally the score until the end.
Even in traditional sports, people have a tendancy to tune out if the game is already decided before the halfway mark if its obvious there’s no opening for a turnaround.
WvW is not a sport. It never will be. The number of players on the field varies by the minute, you have no control over the composition of the teams, and the participants can choose to leave the field at any time with no repurcussions.
Making sports analogies in relation to WvW is like comparing apples and oranges. It isn’t a sport, and it isn’t a competitive mode, and it never will be. It’s a casual, instant gratification interpretetion of open world siege pvp that only holds player interest as long as the moment to moment play remains interesting.
There are no instrinsic concept or benefits of ownership, no stakes, and literally nothing that makes “real” competition in a siege metagame work. It’s just a large population pvp map with objectives designed to shuffle players in to large group engagements. That’s all it will ever be. It is a meaningless war for no stakes that never ends, never benefits the victor, and never punishes the loser.
And that’s fine. That’s why the rewards revamp focused on personal reward rather than objective based reward. It’s the only logical reward structure for a system that has only ever been about personal gratification and playing war games in stead of attempting to simulate the decision making and tactical processes that go in to a more detailed and impactful actual war game.
If anything, the entire concept of matches and score could be removed from WvW and it would change nothing. The score doesn’t matter, winning or losing doesn’t matter, and there are so many variables inherant in its systems that ensuring “fair” or “competitive” match ups is an impossibility.

Good answer and I really like that quote too

I just find it strange that so many people complain about night capping and score in a game mode that cannot be competitive.

Why!?

It is almost like if a good chunk of the population wishes that WvW was competitive from my point of view. No?

WvW has many "almost" Strategy game aspects, so a lot of players get caught up in those, and try to play it as a strategy game.

The game is a "Tactical" game, you can gain quite a few short term advantages by thinking and adapting. But not a "Strategical" game, as you can’t plan out over time when your (and enemies) "Players/Units" is very unpredictable.

But any game with "Points" and "Win condition" will make a lot of people focus entirely upon that aspect and try to win. Doesn’t mean the game is "Competitive", but those players become "Competitive". You can see this in as absurd situations as family sitting together playing Yatzhee, and 1 or 2 of them is getting way to rilled up about winning a game about tossing random dice.

But if anyone can make me a mod for StarCraft 1 where I get "random units" at "random times" that does "Their Own Random Thing", I’d love to try it for a laugh. I’m sure no one would call that a competitive StarCraft mod.

A very good summarization of WvW as a strategy game, go play an old RTS game called "Majesty" it is exactly how WvW would work as an RTS. Here is a "Lets Play" I found after some quick google, with some explanations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF-EyFUmcsE

Gudradain.3892:

joneirikb.7506:

Do you think that something over which you have barely any control on the outcome can be considered competitive?

Not at all, I’ve never considered WvW Competitive at all, it is by design casual. This quote says it better than I can:

PopeUrban.2578”

Plenty of board games (most of which are, like WvW, all about territory control and PPT) don’t tally the score until the end.
Even in traditional sports, people have a tendancy to tune out if the game is already decided before the halfway mark if its obvious there’s no opening for a turnaround.
WvW is not a sport. It never will be. The number of players on the field varies by the minute, you have no control over the composition of the teams, and the participants can choose to leave the field at any time with no repurcussions.
Making sports analogies in relation to WvW is like comparing apples and oranges. It isn’t a sport, and it isn’t a competitive mode, and it never will be. It’s a casual, instant gratification interpretetion of open world siege pvp that only holds player interest as long as the moment to moment play remains interesting.
There are no instrinsic concept or benefits of ownership, no stakes, and literally nothing that makes “real” competition in a siege metagame work. It’s just a large population pvp map with objectives designed to shuffle players in to large group engagements. That’s all it will ever be. It is a meaningless war for no stakes that never ends, never benefits the victor, and never punishes the loser.
And that’s fine. That’s why the rewards revamp focused on personal reward rather than objective based reward. It’s the only logical reward structure for a system that has only ever been about personal gratification and playing war games in stead of attempting to simulate the decision making and tactical processes that go in to a more detailed and impactful actual war game.
If anything, the entire concept of matches and score could be removed from WvW and it would change nothing. The score doesn’t matter, winning or losing doesn’t matter, and there are so many variables inherant in its systems that ensuring “fair” or “competitive” match ups is an impossibility.

Good answer and I really like that quote too

I just find it strange that so many people complain about night capping and score in a game mode that cannot be competitive.

Why!?

It is almost like if a good chunk of the population wishes that WvW was competitive from my point of view. No?

Despite people always saying “nobody cares about PPT”, people obviously do care about the score. People complain about “nightcapping” because the score is fairly even but then, bam, in half a day the score becomes lopsided. So they think, “What’s the point?”.

Its not even that they are competitive (some are) but that it seems like there is no point to playing. If there is a score, and there is, then people are going to be concerned with the score. People need a reason to do something. Even if something is fun at first, without a reason or goal, it gets old and stale. Anet made the score the goal, the reason to go out and fight and take objectives, etc.

Which is one reason I hope Anet hurries up with the skirmishes. The skirmishes will give a short term goal that is achievable. Even if you have no hope of winning the war, maybe you can win some battles. And that in itself will be satisfying.

4 maps at reset is needed. A few hours after that 4 maps is way too much.

No, I think the maps are fair size atm. I wouldn’t be opposed to reducing the amount maps if there was a way of ensuring equality between the teams in the matchup, and not getting rid of ebg.

Also I would hope eotm stays separate from wvw.