Guild Wars 2

Make it more like Alliance Battles from GW1. Create 3 factions. They can either be player picked or keep it by server but group servers together to eliminate empty maps. Games would be played and finished in one setting. There will be multiple maps for each side. When a faction is losing the maps are pushed back towards their territory favoring them similar to AB but since there’s 3 factions instead of 2 there would need to be maps that can favor 2 sides. Each team would have maybe 20 people and games would max at 30 minutes. People can join a game in progress. Multiple instances of each map like AB.

WvW is just so dead most the time it’s not worth having. Something has to change.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Make it more like Alliance Battles from GW1. Create 3 factions. They can either be player picked or keep it by server but group servers together to eliminate empty maps. Games would be played and finished in one setting. There will be multiple maps for each side. When a faction is losing the maps are pushed back towards their territory favoring them similar to AB but since there’s 3 factions instead of 2 there would need to be maps that can favor 2 sides. Each team would have maybe 20 people and games would max at 30 minutes. People can join a game in progress. Multiple instances of each map like AB.

WvW is just so dead most the time it’s not worth having. Something has to change.

This already exists. It’s called EotM. Have fun!

Ark Bladesteele.2943:

uhohhotdog.3598:

Make it more like Alliance Battles from GW1. Create 3 factions. They can either be player picked or keep it by server but group servers together to eliminate empty maps. Games would be played and finished in one setting. There will be multiple maps for each side. When a faction is losing the maps are pushed back towards their territory favoring them similar to AB but since there’s 3 factions instead of 2 there would need to be maps that can favor 2 sides. Each team would have maybe 20 people and games would max at 30 minutes. People can join a game in progress. Multiple instances of each map like AB.

WvW is just so dead most the time it’s not worth having. Something has to change.

This already exists. It’s called EotM. Have fun!

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’re jumping to conclusions that are not necessarily true.

1. PvE and SPvP are both completely free of server, yet there is a lot of community and communication. PvE players who want friends to PvE with usually go to the big PvE cities and ask for a guild, SPvP players meet eachother in the Heart of the Mists. Neither PvE or SPvP are “dead” because they lack servers communities.

2. There is no proof that WvW would have any problems by being detached from servers and instead based on something like “alliances”. What this would require is of course something like Heart of the Mists… a sort of common hub where people from different “servers” can find eachother and make guilds and alliances to fight with when they go into WvW.

3. In my opinion this latter form of community would be a lot better than the current restricted one. This sort of community would not be restricted to whoever is on your server, but instead broadened to anyone at all who wishes to play with you. I have made friends in SPvP from different servers, and we couldn’t care less about being on this or that server.

I don’t want to fight with randoms. I like knowing who the scouts are and what the people I’m fighting with are capable of. Alliances will ruin that.

Sirendor.1394:

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’re jumping to conclusions that are not necessarily true.

He is jumping to no more or less conclusions the those who suggest a change are. You cannot suggest “I think we should change X system because……” and then blindly accuse someone with a opposing opinion as being the one jumping to conclusions.

coglin.1867:

Sirendor.1394:

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’re jumping to conclusions that are not necessarily true.

You cannot suggest “I think we should change X system because……” and then blindly accuse someone with a opposing opinion as being the one jumping to conclusions.

Actually I can. I have suggested an alternative, of which I am convinced it is not worse (as the person I commented on claimed), but better. I have not stated that it IS better, I have only given him another perspective on the matter.

Also, if you would look, I am not the one who first mentioned this idea, I simply am restating his idea. The person I commented on claimed that change x would be bad objectively (“it will kill WvW”, “it will kill all guilds”), while that’s just his opinion.

So yeah, I think I can criticize anyone I want if they are talking nonsense, and I don’t need your permission, thank you very much!

And a TLDR of my reply is: Community structures are perfectly POSSIBLE apart from servers, which is what Dawdler tried to deny.

While community structures are certainly possible apart from servers, there’s a big difference between coordinating a 5-man sPvP team and coordinating one-third of the playerbase.

As others have said, this basically exists in EOTM. Please don’t ruin WvW too.

or just go play AB its there and its super fun and none want to play it

Sirendor.1394:

1. PvE and SPvP are both completely free of server, yet there is a lot of community and communication. PvE players who want friends to PvE with usually go to the big PvE cities and ask for a guild, SPvP players meet eachother in the Heart of the Mists. Neither PvE or SPvP are “dead” because they lack servers communities.

So you’re saying that it would create a community that’s exactly like in EoTM, where everyone communicate by text only and do their own thing?

2. There is no proof that WvW would have any problems by being detached from servers and instead based on something like “alliances”. What this would require is of course something like Heart of the Mists… a sort of common hub where people from different “servers” can find eachother and make guilds and alliances to fight with when they go into WvW.

EoTM doesnt have any problems? Did it improve WvW? Do any guilds play in EoTM? No? Yeah.

3. In my opinion this latter form of community would be a lot better than the current restricted one. This sort of community would not be restricted to whoever is on your server, but instead broadened to anyone at all who wishes to play with you. I have made friends in SPvP from different servers, and we couldn’t care less about being on this or that server.

Does EoTM have a better community than WvW? Does EoTM even have a community?

Sirendor.1394:

coglin.1867:

Sirendor.1394:

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’re jumping to conclusions that are not necessarily true.

You cannot suggest “I think we should change X system because……” and then blindly accuse someone with a opposing opinion as being the one jumping to conclusions.

Actually I can. I have suggested an alternative, of which I am convinced it is not worse (as the person I commented on claimed), but better. I have not stated that it IS better, I have only given him another perspective on the matter.

Also, if you would look, I am not the one who first mentioned this idea, I simply am restating his idea. The person I commented on claimed that change x would be bad objectively (“it will kill WvW”, “it will kill all guilds”), while that’s just his opinion.

So yeah, I think I can criticize anyone I want if they are talking nonsense, and I don’t need your permission, thank you very much!

And a TLDR of my reply is: Community structures are perfectly POSSIBLE apart from servers, which is what Dawdler tried to deny.

To me it was like he was trying to say “Actions have Reactions”… EG: Can’t punch someone in the face then cry wolf when he punches you back.

Dawdler.8521:

Does EoTM have a better community than WvW? Does EoTM even have a community?

Sure, it has that EoTM guild that taxi’s it’s members in to one instance where they are tagged up for all 3 sides. This way they can coordinate a rotation where they don’t run into each other and they can K-train to their hearts content.

That’s kind of a community right?

I’m sure GW1 vets remember what a tight nit community the alliances were. You practically knew everyone by name. It’s not like every time you queued up you were tossed in with a bunch of random strangers, half of which just afk’ed in spawn. I have fond memories of people always playing for the fights, I remember how they would shout their battle cry of ,“Red resign!” before tactically sitting in spawn.

@OP: In all seriousness, if you want more PvP modes to be added to the game I will 100% support you. I don’t however, support the idea of replacing WvW, especially with what sounds like EotM 2.0

I think the OP’s suggestion got off track with everyone talking about alliances vs. servers. And EotM. It has nothing to do with EotM. Or WvW really.

The OP is talking about a completely different game mode. Much smaller maps with a lot less people on them. Matches are very short.

I would love the game mode that is described. And yes it is much like AB in GW1. I’ve often said Anet should just copy/paste AB and Ft. Aspenwood into GW2. It would be awesome.

It’ll never happen though. It would require Anet to make numerous maps which is not happening.

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’ve obviously never played AB before if you think it’s anywhere near the same.

First you’d have to queue up for it, not just jump in like eotm or wvw.
There would be a lower cap on players. Map would be smaller.
It would have an even amount of players. Randoms only joining to even out for deserters.
Not a bunch of pvd
There would be multiple maps based on progress each faction makes not the same thing every day.

Wvw is garbage.

Johje Holan.4607:

I think the OP’s suggestion got off track with everyone talking about alliances vs. servers. And EotM. It has nothing to do with EotM. Or WvW really.

The OP is talking about a completely different game mode. Much smaller maps with a lot less people on them. Matches are very short.

I would love the game mode that is described. And yes it is much like AB in GW1. I’ve often said Anet should just copy/paste AB and Ft. Aspenwood into GW2. It would be awesome.

It’ll never happen though. It would require Anet to make numerous maps which is not happening.

I would love for FA to be copied over. Stronghold feels similar but it is too closed in and small scale. But like I said before, there is no need to remove WvW to implement a new PvP mode. The more options the better.

I could almost have a discussion about AB if the OP wouldn’t have gone the route of suggesting removing WvW to do it. That makes it one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, and I am 100% against it.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Wvw is garbage.

You appear to me, to have difficulty with the difference between subjective opinion, and objective fact. Your idea is destined to die because you come to a subforums of a very popular game mode and bash it, then poorly articulate your idea, and want folks to take up your cause?

The quote above is not going to build your fan base particularly quickly.

I keep wondering to myself if all the people who gripe and moan about WvW being garbage, and thinking some alliance system is necessary come from T5 and below.

If Anet wants to add some 20v20 sPvP I am all for that, but WvW is the only place left that has any sense of server pride, and why would anyone want that gone?

I almost think that perhaps the people that keep posting about how horrid WvW is have never played on a competitive server, reside on a once competitive server that has fallen, and/or are all small group players that just don’t want to compete with, or join, larger guild groups or zergs.

All of these posts smack of, “It’s not fun for me so you can’t have your fun either.”

coglin.1867:

Sirendor.1394:

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’re jumping to conclusions that are not necessarily true.

He is jumping to no more or less conclusions the those who suggest a change are. You cannot suggest “I think we should change X system because……” and then blindly accuse someone with a opposing opinion as being the one jumping to conclusions.

Actually he can, because the rest of his post give reasons to back up his statement.

coglin.1867:

I could almost have a discussion about AB if the OP wouldn’t have gone the route of suggesting removing WvW to do it. That makes it one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, and I am 100% against it.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Wvw is garbage.

You appear to me, to have difficulty with the difference between subjective opinion, and objective fact. Your idea is destined to die because you come to a subforums of a very popular game mode and bash it, then poorly articulate your idea, and want folks to take up your cause?

The quote above is not going to build your fan base particularly quickly.

Considering that WvW is empty the majority of the day, I’d say it’s based in fact.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’ve obviously never played AB before if you think it’s anywhere near the same.

First you’d have to queue up for it, not just jump in like eotm or wvw.
There would be a lower cap on players. Map would be smaller.
It would have an even amount of players. Randoms only joining to even out for deserters.
Not a bunch of pvd
There would be multiple maps based on progress each faction makes not the same thing every day.

Wvw is garbage.

Obviously I have not, yet people keep describing it exactly like a smaller scale EoTM mixed with sPvP.

What am I supposed to think given that info?

That it would be even remotely capable of replacing WvW? Hahahahahaha… Thats funny.

uhohhotdog.3598:

coglin.1867:

I could almost have a discussion about AB if the OP wouldn’t have gone the route of suggesting removing WvW to do it. That makes it one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, and I am 100% against it.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Wvw is garbage.

You appear to me, to have difficulty with the difference between subjective opinion, and objective fact. Your idea is destined to die because you come to a subforums of a very popular game mode and bash it, then poorly articulate your idea, and want folks to take up your cause?

The quote above is not going to build your fan base particularly quickly.

Considering that WvW is empty the majority of the day, I’d say it’s based in fact.

Maybe on your server but definitely not everywhere. Have you checked other servers as well?

WvW and AB are very different. I played AB a lot in GW1 but I definitely would not want WvW to be replaced to this. So I have to say I cannot support this idea at all.

uhohhotdog.3598:

coglin.1867:

I could almost have a discussion about AB if the OP wouldn’t have gone the route of suggesting removing WvW to do it. That makes it one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, and I am 100% against it.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Wvw is garbage.

You appear to me, to have difficulty with the difference between subjective opinion, and objective fact. Your idea is destined to die because you come to a subforums of a very popular game mode and bash it, then poorly articulate your idea, and want folks to take up your cause?

The quote above is not going to build your fan base particularly quickly.

Considering that WvW is empty the majority of the day, I’d say it’s based in fact.

You appear to misunderstand what a fact is. You only stated your opinion. When you refuse to aknowledge that, you make it clear to me, that your not looking to ha e a reasonable discussion. In my experience, WvW is extremely popular and enjoyed. I would be interested in adding new game modes to play, I am not interested in what I feel is a terrible idea. And to me, removing things to do in the game is absolutely a terrible idea.

Johje Holan.4607:

I think the OP’s suggestion got off track with everyone talking about alliances vs. servers. And EotM. It has nothing to do with EotM. Or WvW really.

The OP is talking about a completely different game mode. Much smaller maps with a lot less people on them. Matches are very short.

I would love the game mode that is described. And yes it is much like AB in GW1. I’ve often said Anet should just copy/paste AB and Ft. Aspenwood into GW2. It would be awesome.

It’ll never happen though. It would require Anet to make numerous maps which is not happening.

True, but if you try to fit it in the existing system… they wouldn’t need to create a ton of new maps for that. But if the OP’s suggestion is like you say more about small maps and short map durations, it should be in PvP forum and not in WvW one I imagine..

Also, I apologize if this thread is being derailed by adding another discussion to it. Not my intention, sorry OP!

Dawdler.8521:

Sirendor.1394:

1. PvE and SPvP are both completely free of server, yet there is a lot of community and communication. PvE players who want friends to PvE with usually go to the big PvE cities and ask for a guild, SPvP players meet eachother in the Heart of the Mists. Neither PvE or SPvP are “dead” because they lack servers communities.

So you’re saying that it would create a community that’s exactly like in EoTM, where everyone communicate by text only and do their own thing?

2. There is no proof that WvW would have any problems by being detached from servers and instead based on something like “alliances”. What this would require is of course something like Heart of the Mists… a sort of common hub where people from different “servers” can find eachother and make guilds and alliances to fight with when they go into WvW.

EoTM doesnt have any problems? Did it improve WvW? Do any guilds play in EoTM? No? Yeah.

3. In my opinion this latter form of community would be a lot better than the current restricted one. This sort of community would not be restricted to whoever is on your server, but instead broadened to anyone at all who wishes to play with you. I have made friends in SPvP from different servers, and we couldn’t care less about being on this or that server.

Does EoTM have a better community than WvW? Does EoTM even have a community?

Why do you seem so fixed on the idea that any system that doesn’t require servers would become EotM?? I am not a game developer so I can’t present you with a solid way how it could be different than EotM (I am not a fan of the constant karmatrains and even deliberate avoidance of PvP that happens in there), but I think we should at least give an idea like this a chance at making things better.

We’ve seen how server-based systems work now, and they work poorly. What it all comes down to is the amount of people your server can bring to the battlefield. People are locked in their servers unless they want to diss out large amounts of gems for a transfer to another server that might be as bad off, or is unplayable because of zerg lag. We’ve seen server-based systems… and they obviously fail at making a competitive, balanced PvP scene.

I am certainly not looking for another EotM, but I really think that if the WvW guilds would actually give it a shot, and would try to break the karmatrains (some guilds are doing that already, see the recent thread about EotM and 3-way), EotM might be a good game mode. Also yeah, they need to nerf the PvE rewards.

Even if they did….the way WvW is setup, either everyone would have perma queue’s or they would have to up the map limit per side, and their server’s can currently barely handle the current number….

Sirendor.1394:

Why do you seem so fixed on the idea that any system that doesn’t require servers would become EotM?? I am not a game developer so I can’t present you with a solid way how it could be different than EotM (I am not a fan of the constant karmatrains and even deliberate avoidance of PvP that happens in there), but I think we should at least give an idea like this a chance at making things better.

You dont have to be a game developer to present a solid way of doing WvW in EoTM better than how EoTM is now. But it still wouldnt be the WvW that we know and love. You can argue away how you would solve karmatrains but the core flaws of server-less gameplay would still be there. Its very evident in EoTM. Yes, even if you imagine it with PPT to perfection.

You say that the server based system “work poorly”. Does it? Does it really? Then how come GW2 WvW is by far the best in the genre? Is there any competition to GW2 in the WvW area? ESO tried and failed horribly, because it was nowhere as fun and intense. And also guess what ESO did? Yep, alliance vs alliance. Server-less gameplay.

You may not be looking for another EoTM, but if you want the advantages of EoTM you also get the flaws of EoTM. Flaws that would ruin WvW and the community servers have created around it. Guilds wouldnt be able to raid (especially not with the AB original suggestion and very, very limited player counts, in EoTM is hell to bring all into one instance), guilds wouldnt be able to play together with other guilds they know, pugs wouldnt be able to communicate – a hardcore and dedicated server community can organize a server TS, but no one can organize an alliance (ie 6+ server eqvivalent) TS, these are people that do it for fun mind you, there would be no feeling of a perpetual (well, a weeks) battle and it would cease to function as an true MMO when you start turning the only unique – and most definetly best – part of GW2 into a hot-join large scale PvP match that’s over in an hour or something.

WvW isnt perfect but its definetly better than that.

I’m not against turning the servers into something more immersive and ingame (like larger Anet created “guilds” players choose instead of a “server”) but that’s not what the OP is going on about. It is about replacing WvW with this AB, as the topic state. And all that is being argued is EoTM, sPvP style. Not an improvement to WvW.

So its still the worst idea ever.

If people want what OP is describing, by all means suggest a freakin 20vs20vs20 sPvP map and duke it out on a larger scale with a more interesting gameplay mode than standing on a point. Hell it’d be more balanced by default since it would suffer sPvP rules, unlike WvW that is under PvE rules. The sPvP forum is somewhere above this one, not too hard to find.

TL;DR
GW2 without EoTM, meh no one cares.
GW2 without WvW, most boring PvE grind ever.

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

Dawdler.8521:

uhohhotdog.3598:

No. This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

With no servers – meaning no communications and no community – your idea would:

1) Kill all guilds larger than a couple of people

2) Kill WvW completely

3) Be like a larger scale sPvP version of EoTM.

GG.

You’ve obviously never played AB before if you think it’s anywhere near the same.

First you’d have to queue up for it, not just jump in like eotm or wvw.
There would be a lower cap on players. Map would be smaller.
It would have an even amount of players. Randoms only joining to even out for deserters.
Not a bunch of pvd
There would be multiple maps based on progress each faction makes not the same thing every day.

Wvw is garbage.

Obviously I have not, yet people keep describing it exactly like a smaller scale EoTM mixed with sPvP.

What am I supposed to think given that info?

That it would be even remotely capable of replacing WvW? Hahahahahaha… Thats funny.

If you don’t know what it is, then don’t tell me it’s the same. AB is nothing like EoTM other than the fact that there’s factions. That’s literally the ONLY similarity.

AB was very popular in GW1. I believe it’s very capable of replacing WvW if done right.

coglin.1867:

uhohhotdog.3598:

coglin.1867:

I could almost have a discussion about AB if the OP wouldn’t have gone the route of suggesting removing WvW to do it. That makes it one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, and I am 100% against it.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Wvw is garbage.

You appear to me, to have difficulty with the difference between subjective opinion, and objective fact. Your idea is destined to die because you come to a subforums of a very popular game mode and bash it, then poorly articulate your idea, and want folks to take up your cause?

The quote above is not going to build your fan base particularly quickly.

Considering that WvW is empty the majority of the day, I’d say it’s based in fact.

You appear to misunderstand what a fact is. You only stated your opinion. When you refuse to aknowledge that, you make it clear to me, that your not looking to ha e a reasonable discussion. In my experience, WvW is extremely popular and enjoyed. I would be interested in adding new game modes to play, I am not interested in what I feel is a terrible idea. And to me, removing things to do in the game is absolutely a terrible idea.

Maybe in Tier 1. I’m in Tier 2 and only Eternal Battlegrounds ever gets more than a few people per map for most of the day. Only when the dailies reset do people join borderlands to get their dailies done and they leave and they’re empty again. I can’t imagine the lower tiers being any more populated.

People that say it’s popular must only play right after daily reset. Or they really enjoy PvD.

uhohhotdog.3598:

coglin.1867:

uhohhotdog.3598:

coglin.1867:

I could almost have a discussion about AB if the OP wouldn’t have gone the route of suggesting removing WvW to do it. That makes it one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, and I am 100% against it.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Wvw is garbage.

You appear to me, to have difficulty with the difference between subjective opinion, and objective fact. Your idea is destined to die because you come to a subforums of a very popular game mode and bash it, then poorly articulate your idea, and want folks to take up your cause?

The quote above is not going to build your fan base particularly quickly.

Considering that WvW is empty the majority of the day, I’d say it’s based in fact.

You appear to misunderstand what a fact is. You only stated your opinion. When you refuse to aknowledge that, you make it clear to me, that your not looking to ha e a reasonable discussion. In my experience, WvW is extremely popular and enjoyed. I would be interested in adding new game modes to play, I am not interested in what I feel is a terrible idea. And to me, removing things to do in the game is absolutely a terrible idea.

Maybe in Tier 1. I’m in Tier 2 and only Eternal Battlegrounds ever gets more than a few people per map for most of the day. Only when the dailies reset do people join borderlands to get their dailies done and they leave and they’re empty again. I can’t imagine the lower tiers being any more populated.

People that say it’s popular must only play right after daily reset. Or they really enjoy PvD.

This statement is completely incorrect. T2 has people going most times of the day, and NA primetime it’s as busy as T1. I dabble in EU time, the majority of my time is spent during NA Prime, and occasionally into OCX. Never lack for fights or something to do. EB is the map that tends to be most busy, but it’s the PuG map so of course there are more people there. You do get a lull on Wednesday and Thursday outside of NA prime, but that’s it.

Disagree, I enjoy the long-term battle. EOTM demonstrates the “quick game” and I feel like I never achieve anything because it’s gone in a couple hours.

uhohhotdog.3598:

People that say it’s popular must only play right after daily reset. Or they really enjoy PvD.

“daily reset” ?