Disagree on removing them. WvW was intended to give players not interested in PvP an alternative entry point into it. WvW was described, before release, as being friendly to the non-PVPer, giving them plenty of PvE options and ways to participate.
In short, It’s not meant to be a super-duper-hardcore-PVP-purist-paradise. It’s not meant to be a place where PUGs are shunned. It’s not meant to be a place where the lone player feels like he can’t do anything. The swords will stay, because they are easy points for the average player to see on the map, and go about aiding one way or another if he/she chooses.
I like all the “Eliminating crossed swords will extend the lifetime of World vs World” implications. Hell, let’s just remove all the PVE elements. That’ll make more players do it. Let’s remove the Jumping Puzzle. That’ll bring more players in. Let’s make it so only players in groups can enter. That’ll bring more players in. Oh, wait, it probably wouldn’t. It’d just take the “E” out of “PvPvE.”
Taking the “E” out of PvPvE would leave more room for PvPers, but even the casual PUG/lone player runs supplies, drops AOEs where needed, and does ample damage to doors and defenders. Making it just another PVP zone, and making it appeal to only PVPers will not, in any way, shape, or form, extend its life.
World vs World has a cut on its leg. Removing a lot of things that make it easily accessible to new players is like removing the leg and cauterizing the wound. Sure, it’d be in stable condition, but it wouldn’t be what it once was. You can’t completely ostracize and cut out a large majority of people just to make the minority happier, and expect a longer lifespan.
I run my own guild, and it’s definitely not a WvW guild, and I don’t have WvW friends. I’m a lone player, and I like to join (I do almost every single day, for hours and hours at a time) and do things where I’m needed. Instead of sitting around waiting for somebody to tell me where to go, the cross swords are an instant indicator. Does that mean “Lolzergggggg?” No. It means there’s a battle there. I analyze the map, look where the battle is taking place, determine who’s attacking, what their next target will be, judge the progress being made on the target, and act accordingly, all while moving on my way there.
Not standing in the kittening entry portal going “ok guys where am i needed?” and waiting for an answer. PUGS/Lone players =/= idiots. One doesn’t need to be in an organized guild to feel like they’re contributing, and changing it to that way is a stupid step, and one in the wrong direction. I won’t even get started into how being a commander somehow makes their tactics, ability, and leadership any better than someone who doesn’t have 100g.
My “Commander” was screaming in map chat at me because he assumed I was in the jumping puzzle when Stonemist was under attack, but I was in front of the gates destroying the siege that was attacking us, and almost dying repeatedly doing it. Even went as far to spend time insulting me. And my question is, how is he really leading if he’s throwing insults? How is he even contributing? I’m glad he has plenty of time to scream, be an immature idiot, and type insults, but the people defending the castle didn’t.
Which brings me to my final point. Commanders don’t win the war. 2 Man strike teams don’t win the war. Commandos don’t win the war. Armies, whether big or small, win the war. A two-man strike team is great for capturing objectives if they’re extremely coordinated, but they cannot be everywhere, and they can’t win the war. A commander is great for directing armies and expressing leadership, sometimes, but they don’t win the war. Armies they direct do.
People can whine about zerg vs zerg all they want, but armies win the wars. Whether big or small. A small prepared army wipes a larger unorganized army out a lot of the time, but eventually sheer numbers will win. They took 2 of our walls down in Stonemist once, and 10 of us held off 30-40 people from getting in for about an hour, because they stupidly kept sending in 5-10 people at a time. We eventually lost, because we got hit from the other side of the castle. But they sure as hell didn’t come in from the side we were defending.
Moral of the story? The brunt of their army was attacking Northeast, and a much smaller force attacking from Southwest. Crossed swords weren’t gonna say “OMG NOBODY DEFENDING HERE.” So it’s not like Crossed Swords are entirely accurate or super-duper-zerg-beacons either. If you don’t have an army, you don’t win World vs World. Period. I say “Army” because true Armies have organization. Zergs are just a bunch of people following a commander [bold] that have little organization. [/bold] Note the emphasis. True zergs have little organization. If they have organization, they’re an army. I’ve seen zergs split and run off in 5 directions because a much smaller force.
The Crossed Swords will stay.
