Founding member of [NERF] Fort Engineer and driver for [TLC] The Legion of Charrs
RIP [SIC] Strident Iconoclast
(edited by Chaba.5410)
The score is not even determined by the players. In sandbox games we had player created tourneys with our own brackets and rewards. We determined who the winners and losers were, had our our " refs" and determined how the score was kept, not the Dev’s.
Two quick things:
1- You’ve apparently missed out completely on when there was a GvG scene that did exactly what you describe with regards to player-created tournaments with rewards and our own refs. The scene even had a few websites for tracking leaderboards! WvW enabled that. Guilds chose to move to a server based on which guilds they could fight against, not to win a Dev-defined WvW score. Anet attempted to unofficially support it through the arena in OS and guild halls.
2- Considering that guilds know they can stack a server to exploit the scoring system…
I feel like you’re trying to ignore what actually happened in this game, which is why I said “none of this matters”.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
The score is not even determined by the players. In sandbox games we had player created tourneys with our own brackets and rewards. We determined who the winners and losers were, had our our " refs" and determined how the score was kept, not the Dev’s.
Two quick things:
1- You’ve apparently missed out completely on when there was a GvG scene that did exactly what you describe with regards to player-created tournaments with rewards and our own refs. The scene even had a few websites for tracking leaderboards! WvW enabled that. Guilds chose to move to a server based on which guilds they could fight against, not to win a Dev-defined WvW score. Anet attempted to unofficially support it through the arena in OS and guild halls.
2- Considering that guilds know they can stack a server to exploit the scoring system…
You thinking that driving backwards on a racing game somehow makes it a sandbox, it doesn’t. That is just doing something different in a structured game mode, but doesn’t change that it is still a structured game mode.
See, if this was sandbox WvW, You could choose what server you get to fight at will or any guild on it, you don’t get to do that unless you change teams. You cannot just up and decide to go take over another server, like BG deciding to declare war on FA and take them over and force them to live under their rule.. you cannot even kill players on your own team… You don’t even get to determine the structure because of the limitations not being minimal as required to be a sandbox game. GvG is like two opposing payers kicking the ball back and forth on a soccer game and keeping their own score in their head. That doesn’t make the soccer game a sandbox.
You can stack the team on any sports game. That doesn’t make it a sandbox. I am not ignoring any of it, I am viewing it within it’s context. Changing teams/ stacking teams/ kicking the ball back and forth( GvG) doesn;t change that the game mode has a structured scoring system that is determined by the developers, just like soccer is scored by goals, and not by kicking the ball back and forth. No matter how many times you kick the ball back and forth, it isn’t going to change how the game itself is scored.
Them adding PPK makes GvG add points, but that was still determined by the developers, not the players. If the developers didn’t choose to add PPK, it wouldn’t matter. Players trying to do what they can to gain what little freedoms they do have in a very structured game mode doesn’t change the fact that it is still a structured game mode.
(edited by lil devils x.6071)
You guys are silly.
But highly entertaining non the less.
Anet’s on the right track with some recent wvw updates. The links aren’t working imo (specially this newest link, wtf)
As far as YB is concerned. I challenge players from BG/TC to play a week on YB and not use siege. Seriously, 1000 gems for a lesson on perspective. You guys want a challenge? Try fighting off a BG map queue with 6 people.
Props to cA/ ND for xfering and being a part of the solution and not the problem.
Matchups need more volatility to avoid stuff like this happening.
Losing servers need to lose more glicko. Winning servers need to gain more glicko. We do not need “comeback” mechanics. We need bigger score stomps to create bigger glicko deficits to let matchups evolve faster.
As an example, T4 on NA will not change due to the massive glicko wall that separates them with T3. This is unfortunate since the 4 server link team is stomping the other 2. Considering the links won’t change for another 2 months, that’s a long time to play without being able to lift yourself out of it besides transferring (which isn’t a solution as it makes the problem worse).
Anet’s on the right track with some recent wvw updates. The links aren’t working imo (specially this newest link, wtf)
*As far as YB is concerned. I challenge players from BG/TC to play a week on YB and not use siege. Seriously, 1000 gems for a lesson on perspective. You guys want a challenge? Try fighting off a BG map queue with 6 people. *
Props to cA/ ND for xfering and being a part of the solution and not the problem.
You assume we haven’t been in that position ourselves. You haven’t even fought against the truly gigantic servers of the past. For 1.5~2 years, BG’s OCX – SEA – EU would simply bunker down against JQ’s OCX and SEA and SoR/TC’s EU and early NA. Did we use siege in our keeps, towers and camps? Of course we did. The difference is also that we would leave siege range to fight open field when the opportunities presented themselves.
Then again, I’m not a hater on YB’s use of siege. You’ll never beat the old JQ at that. When they siege bunkered, holy mackerel the bunker was real.
Every server uses siege when it suits their purposes. Pretending otherwise is naive.
WvW is definitely not dead. We had queues on all four maps at reset in T3. And even had good fights Saturday morning. Then it died down into the inevitable boring everyone has their home BL and lets just fight on EB situation. There are still problems.
The above posts by Kilo and Reverence illustrate a few of these problems (NA perspective).
(edited by Johje Holan.4607)
Every server uses siege when it suits their purposes. Pretending otherwise is naive.
It’s fine that they use siege that’s totally fine, but do we really need walls that cant be broken? T1 is cool; T2 is ok; T3 is close to impossible to take! It’s so hard to bring a door down when we cant even damage it hard enough with 5 superior rams!
Also I’m considering changing the title of the post because WvW isn’t actually dead.
Every server uses siege when it suits their purposes. Pretending otherwise is naive.
It’s fine that they use siege that’s totally fine, but do we really need walls that cant be broken? T1 is cool; T2 is ok; T3 is close to impossible to take! It’s so hard to bring a door down when we cant even damage it hard enough with 5 superior rams!
wait what?
show me where is that invencible door lol…. that souund like awfull bad commander tactics nothing more….
with pressure everything is easy to take….
All I want is for anet to get rid of stupid fortified walls, everything else is pretty cool I guess.
actually it is easier to atack than defend (towers/keeps are ment to be lost not to hold to avoid stagment), need to take into account blob composition, more aoe/range/cc the better, just keep the pressure, knwo how to coutner siege, it will be easy.
if we didnt have t3 lvl, well a keep could be take in 2 minutes max
meanwhile these 2 months wvw is dead for me, got paired with cancer/blob srevers, all they do is cluster range aoe spam, dumb gameplay….
Back to black desert where grind is way more fun, at least there i can do pve….And guilds ment something.
(edited by Aeolus.3615)
actually it is easier to atack than defend, need to take into account blob composition, more aoe/range/cc the better, just keep the pressure, knwo how to coutner siege, it will be easy.
Of course with the added mortars, cannons, burning oils, ballistas, 7 arrow carts, and trebuchet with poisonous cows hitting the zerg of course. You don’t need a platinum-titanium alloyed wall to add to the equation.
Every server uses siege when it suits their purposes. Pretending otherwise is naive.
True. But there is using siege and then there is using siege.
The other day we where 2 people capping a tower on a seemingly empty border. No scouts, no enemies around. We killed the lord, still no one in sight (and we did keep a very close eye in all directions as it was the border tower by hills opposite our spawn).
We capped it easy.
And 5s later the first trebuchet round from hills hit.
We ran to hills (only T1 btw), spotted two trebs there and thought eh its just some guy on a treb, lets dump a ballista down.
We where promptly showered by 2 or 3 arrowcarts.
Now before you ask… of course it was a German server. They had been there all along, just waiting for the color of the tower to change so they could start shooting with siege. Because of course.
- “Off prime time play” – was that screenshot from T4 a result of the QuadLink having off-prime coverage? Surely they’re more even during prime? Anyway, the likings didn’t fix coverage.
That screenshot is T1 around the time I rage logged from boredom after karma training for 3 hours straight. We didn’t even have a lot of people – squad capped out at around 30 people usually hovering at around 25, with maybe 5 people hanging out not joining squad. This isn’t even BG being too big, unless you call a 30-35 man pug zerg big.
Matchups need more volatility to avoid stuff like this happening.
Losing servers need to lose more glicko. Winning servers need to gain more glicko. We do not need “comeback” mechanics. We need bigger score stomps to create bigger glicko deficits to let matchups evolve faster.
As an example, T4 on NA will not change due to the massive glicko wall that separates them with T3. This is unfortunate since the 4 server link team is stomping the other 2. Considering the links won’t change for another 2 months, that’s a long time to play without being able to lift yourself out of it besides transferring (which isn’t a solution as it makes the problem worse).
Per McKenna in the 6/24/16 World Linking post: “We have reset glicko volatility and deviation for all worlds to the same value, but have left their rating unchanged (this includes worlds that were previously guest worlds but are now host worlds). Just to reiterate, resetting glicko volatility and deviation will result in greater rating shifts in the first few matches. This will give worlds the opportunity to move into their ideal matchup tier much faster.”
Hopefully this will help, as being on one of the other server pairs in T4, I don’t relish fighting the 4-server blob groups for 2 months straight…
- “Off prime time play” – was that screenshot from T4 a result of the QuadLink having off-prime coverage? Surely they’re more even during prime? Anyway, the likings didn’t fix coverage.
That screenshot is T1 around the time I rage logged from boredom after karma training for 3 hours straight. We didn’t even have a lot of people – squad capped out at around 30 people usually hovering at around 25, with maybe 5 people hanging out not joining squad. This isn’t even BG being too big, unless you call a 30-35 man pug zerg big.
Man we could do better than that and we’re in T3. What’s up with TC and YB?
Of course if we were to fight BG my #3 issue, fairweathers, would come into effect. And BG would be queued and we’d disappear.
- BG is just too big. For any tier. In order for Anet to make linkings to give a good T1 how many servers would they need to link? And to link enough to give 24/7 coverage, would NA Prime have massive queues?
The problem with BG is that JQ isn’t there. It takes a certain level of nuts to want to be at the top, to want to PPT, and to want to play the way we’ve played for 3 years. It’s obvious the Dev’s don’t want JQ in T1 again. They will simply keep gimping and locking. That’s the problem with the game mode now, it’s no longer about building a World and being competitive. It’s just log in, run around looking for bags, then logging out. Because of that mindset, BG won’t be challenged for first again. That is, not until some of them leave the game out of boredom.
- BG is just too big. For any tier. In order for Anet to make linkings to give a good T1 how many servers would they need to link? And to link enough to give 24/7 coverage, would NA Prime have massive queues?
The problem with BG is that JQ isn’t there. It takes a certain level of nuts to want to be at the top, to want to PPT, and to want to play the way we’ve played for 3 years. It’s obvious the Dev’s don’t want JQ in T1 again. They will simply keep gimping and locking. That’s the problem with the game mode now, it’s no longer about building a World and being competitive. It’s just log in, run around looking for bags, then logging out. Because of that mindset, BG won’t be challenged for first again. That is, not until some of them leave the game out of boredom.
I disagree with you entirely. The problem is not that any particular server is locked or not locked. The problem is that some people decided to overstack some servers and game the system mechanics in unintended ways and literally screwing everyone else to the point where it almost collapsed the entire game mode, which really wasn’t that long ago if you recall.
Now that something is actually being done about these overstackers are crying foul. Nevermind that they caused all these issues IN THE FIRST PLACE and this is all a very predictable outcome. Can you even think of what it would be like now if the downward spiral would have continued without any intervention ? Even you guys in T1 started to run out of people to play with / against, what is currently being done is the only thing keeping it all afloat. T1 and overstacking in general is like kitten on the rest of us that has grown so big that getting rid of it would be like amputating a limb, which is also very bad. So we’re all unfortunately stuck with it.
- BG is just too big. For any tier. In order for Anet to make linkings to give a good T1 how many servers would they need to link? And to link enough to give 24/7 coverage, would NA Prime have massive queues?
The problem with BG is that JQ isn’t there. It takes a certain level of nuts to want to be at the top, to want to PPT, and to want to play the way we’ve played for 3 years. It’s obvious the Dev’s don’t want JQ in T1 again. They will simply keep gimping and locking. That’s the problem with the game mode now, it’s no longer about building a World and being competitive. It’s just log in, run around looking for bags, then logging out. Because of that mindset, BG won’t be challenged for first again. That is, not until some of them leave the game out of boredom.
I disagree with you entirely. The problem is not that any particular server is locked or not locked. The problem is that some people decided to overstack some servers and game the system mechanics in unintended ways and literally screwing everyone else to the point where it almost collapsed the entire game mode, which really wasn’t that long ago if you recall.
Now that something is actually being done about these overstackers are crying foul. Nevermind that they caused all these issues IN THE FIRST PLACE and this is all a very predictable outcome. Can you even think of what it would be like now if the downward spiral would have continued without any intervention ? Even you guys in T1 started to run out of people to play with / against, what is currently being done is the only thing keeping it all afloat. T1 and overstacking in general is like kitten on the rest of us that has grown so big that getting rid of it would be like amputating a limb, which is also very bad. So we’re all unfortunately stuck with it.
Nope, you my friend are completely mistaken. This Dev intervention that’s taking is going to be the end of the mode in the long term. Stacking was the player solution that kept the mode going for as long as it has. Stacking allowed for variation in the Tiers which allowed for a greater range of player preferences and play styles. Like I said, the T1 play style is unique and different than T2 and below. It’s why keeping it separated was healthier for the game mode.
Let’s not lose sight that the game mode had lost a lot of players since launch. Heck, 6 months after launch and there already wasn’t enough players in NA to cover the 24 Worlds. That’s why a couple years ago players began asking for an Alliance system and Server merges.
WvW is definitely not dead. We had queues on all four maps at reset in T3. And even had good fights Saturday morning. Then it died down into the inevitable boring everyone has their home BL and lets just fight on EB situation
Not anymore
The biggest problem with wvw right now is the return to the Alpine BLs. They’re too small and make blobbing almost a must.
From the release of HoT, until the return of ABLs, YB won almost every matchup. Not because of siege humping or all of the other things people are whining about, but because it took a heck of a lot longer for those 50 to 60 person blobs to respond and one-spam everything in their path.
If you want to make wvw more competitive, go back to DBLs, or put some more space in ABLs.
People want 15 to 30 person fights, not having their group of 20 constantly mowed down by 40 or 50 person blobs.
Hell, add in a diminished returns setup so that you get less rewards if there are more than 30 allies in a 2500 range, or something.
Kill the blobs and you’ll save WvW.
The biggest problem with wvw right now is the return to the Alpine BLs. They’re too small and make blobbing almost a must.
From the release of HoT, until the return of ABLs, YB won almost every matchup. Not because of siege humping or all of the other things people are whining about, but because it took a heck of a lot longer for those 50 to 60 person blobs to respond and one-spam everything in their path.
If you want to make wvw more competitive, go back to DBLs, or put some more space in ABLs.
People want 15 to 30 person fights, not having their group of 20 constantly mowed down by 40 or 50 person blobs.
Hell, add in a diminished returns setup so that you get less rewards if there are more than 30 allies in a 2500 range, or something.
Kill the blobs and you’ll save WvW.
Sure, kill the fun of the largest group of players in the game and that will save it, right? How about how being dead wrong on the subject? WvW populations tanked after DBL was released. So that’s certainly not saying much for the DBL. Also, who are “these people” that want the 15-20 man fights? Many of us are in WvW for LARGE SCALE COMBAT. 15-20 is not large scale at all.
- “Off prime time play” – was that screenshot from T4 a result of the QuadLink having off-prime coverage? Surely they’re more even during prime? Anyway, the likings didn’t fix coverage.
That screenshot is T1 around the time I rage logged from boredom after karma training for 3 hours straight. We didn’t even have a lot of people – squad capped out at around 30 people usually hovering at around 25, with maybe 5 people hanging out not joining squad. This isn’t even BG being too big, unless you call a 30-35 man pug zerg big.
It really comes down to priorities. You had 30-35 in EBG. There was also a K-train on YBBL. Home BL comes first. We rally 15-20 for home defense and leave EBG to rot. Every… Single… Day.. At that time (SEA)
The biggest problem with wvw right now is the return to the Alpine BLs. They’re too small and make blobbing almost a must.
From the release of HoT, until the return of ABLs, YB won almost every matchup. Not because of siege humping or all of the other things people are whining about, but because it took a heck of a lot longer for those 50 to 60 person blobs to respond and one-spam everything in their path.
If you want to make wvw more competitive, go back to DBLs, or put some more space in ABLs.
People want 15 to 30 person fights, not having their group of 20 constantly mowed down by 40 or 50 person blobs.
Hell, add in a diminished returns setup so that you get less rewards if there are more than 30 allies in a 2500 range, or something.
Kill the blobs and you’ll save WvW.
Sure, kill the fun of the largest group of players in the game and that will save it, right? How about how being dead wrong on the subject? WvW populations tanked after DBL was released. So that’s certainly not saying much for the DBL. Also, who are “these people” that want the 15-20 man fights? Many of us are in WvW for LARGE SCALE COMBAT. 15-20 is not large scale at all.
I think people tend to forget that the blobs are in fact the majority of the players in the game all having fun together in the way they enjoy and that removing them from the game means to run off the majority of the players in the game. So what they are actually saying is " run off the majority of the players from the game and this will somehow make it better?" LOL
In order to have a blob you have to have A LOT of players. Removing that means removing A LOT of players. DOH! they don’t think about it like that..
The biggest problem with wvw right now is the return to the Alpine BLs.
Kill the blobs and you’ll save WvW.
Blobs = the majority of the players in the game having fun the way they enjoy. That is what you are proposing they kill. Players returned to the ABL because they enjoyed playing on it. The DBl was empty because players did not enjoy playing on it. You are actually suggesting they kill the game mode.
(edited by lil devils x.6071)
JQ had two map of tiny queue during SEA. It was said that JQ only run 30-40 size during their previous link. If that is true, the amount of casuals in JQ is huge and that explain why JQ is full and should continue to be full, along with the dormant populations.
JQ always had 1-2 map queue vs BG/TC (in T1) in SEA, they’re not really fairweather. Those FOO, WvW FUG guys always show up regardless of ppt score.
You assume we haven’t been in that position ourselves. You haven’t even fought against the truly gigantic servers of the past. For 1.5~2 years, BG’s OCX – SEA – EU would simply bunker down against JQ’s OCX and SEA and SoR/TC’s EU and early NA. Did we use siege in our keeps, towers and camps? Of course we did. The difference is also that we would leave siege range to fight open field when the opportunities presented themselves.
Then again, I’m not a hater on YB’s use of siege. You’ll never beat the old JQ at that. When they siege bunkered, holy mackerel the bunker was real.
Oh please I’ve fought both with and against JQ and against BG, in general JQ is no different from BG in its use of siege. There are outlying cases like Cloudfly using open field siege often but he is not representative. And for the past 2 years BG’s OCX has run big blobs with Dawn and KNM in OCX time, JQ when Merc/Defy were running may have been larger but it wasn’t by a large number. Problem with BG mostly in that time period was they refused to split up the zergs.
JQ had two map of tiny queue during SEA. It was said that JQ only run 30-40 size during their previous link. If that is true, the amount of casuals in JQ is huge and that explain why JQ is full and should continue to be full, along with the dormant populations.
Hello… JQ’s had the best Sea in game since forever! How about complain to the Dev’s to unlink JQ? This way we can replace the NA we lost the week before the last linking. Then return to T1 where we’re supposed to be.
JQ had two map of tiny queue during SEA. It was said that JQ only run 30-40 size during their previous link. If that is true, the amount of casuals in JQ is huge and that explain why JQ is full and should continue to be full, along with the dormant populations.
Hello… JQ’s had the best Sea in game since forever! How about complain to the Dev’s to unlink JQ? This way we can replace the NA we lost the week before the last linking. Then return to T1 where we’re supposed to be.
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
JQ always had 1-2 map queue vs BG/TC (in T1) in SEA, they’re not really fairweather. Those FOO, WvW FUG guys always show up regardless of ppt score.
Well, I was told by JQ people themselves that they always get outman during T2 SEA on their previous link. Only on this reset they are queuing hard.
(edited by SkyShroud.2865)
JQ had two map of tiny queue during SEA. It was said that JQ only run 30-40 size during their previous link. If that is true, the amount of casuals in JQ is huge and that explain why JQ is full and should continue to be full, along with the dormant populations.
Hello… JQ’s had the best Sea in game since forever! How about complain to the Dev’s to unlink JQ? This way we can replace the NA we lost the week before the last linking. Then return to T1 where we’re supposed to be.
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
JQ always had 1-2 map queue vs BG/TC (in T1) in SEA, they’re not really fairweather. Those FOO, WvW FUG guys always show up regardless of ppt score.
Well, I was told by JQ people themselves that they always get outman during T2 SEA on their previous link. Only on this reset they are queuing hard.
Well I guess people don’t want to fall lower and are doing something about it instead of QQing devs for once. I was surprised to see JQ and a lot of AR people (guild tags I’ve never seen) walk yaks to bay and drive off 20-30 man zergs while staying pinless at 4am in the morning.
The biggest problem with wvw right now is the return to the Alpine BLs. They’re too small and make blobbing almost a must.
From the release of HoT, until the return of ABLs, YB won almost every matchup. Not because of siege humping or all of the other things people are whining about, but because it took a heck of a lot longer for those 50 to 60 person blobs to respond and one-spam everything in their path.
If you want to make wvw more competitive, go back to DBLs, or put some more space in ABLs.
People want 15 to 30 person fights, not having their group of 20 constantly mowed down by 40 or 50 person blobs.
Hell, add in a diminished returns setup so that you get less rewards if there are more than 30 allies in a 2500 range, or something.
Kill the blobs and you’ll save WvW.
Strongly disagree here about DBL. Some people liked it no doubt, but let’s not pretend that populations didn’t take a nose dive. ABL actually revitalized participation. And wether the WvWvW community likes to admit or not, most players zerg when the option is available. This is exactly what Anet has been fostering over the years so no blobs, no WvWvW. We’d have private tags already. Plus if most players preferred 15 or even 20 man fights, the GvG scene would still be really active with much more guild diversity and unfortunately that’s not the case.
And I have to disagree with you again about why YB was winning. It always comes down to coverage. However, from playing with and against YB I saw the same things, among them, the preference for capping empty structures (which is basically what you described by the way and that’s something they did plenty on DBL thanks to the off putting terrain). Wasn’t competitive then either. People were just as annoyed and bored fighting siege and scattering pugs back then as you are getting run over by map blobs now. Sorry but I have to confiscate your rose tinted glasses.
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
It’s always something negative with you isn’kitten Break this community, break that World, all you want to do is break everything other than your own. How very non awesome of you friend.
JQ had two map of tiny queue during SEA. It was said that JQ only run 30-40 size during their previous link. If that is true, the amount of casuals in JQ is huge and that explain why JQ is full and should continue to be full, along with the dormant populations.
Hello… JQ’s had the best Sea in game since forever! How about complain to the Dev’s to unlink JQ? This way we can replace the NA we lost the week before the last linking. Then return to T1 where we’re supposed to be.
lol where we are suppose to be aye. Funny funny.
I love reading all the exaggerations in these types of threads. Makes me rofl.
They need to just make another game variant that pins three teams of 20 or 30 players against eachother in 20 minute long matches. No objectives other than one big capture ring and alot of killing in the middle of an open field map. Instead of the matchmaking being made based on servers you’re on just have a place to go register a team for a match then bam you get thrown into matchmaking…OR SOMETHING.
Atleast We’d get our fights, and you all still get to hump an arrow cart in 8 hour shifts in ABL
even godzilla thinks its a great idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDWQQNDTea0
(edited by Brutal Augus.5917)
How many of us remember the real World vs World?
Map of Europe 1000 AD to present
https://youtu.be/9LfdXoL3Xck
World History 3000 BC – 2013 AD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewd4l2rD2_U
actually it is easier to atack than defend, need to take into account blob composition, more aoe/range/cc the better, just keep the pressure, knwo how to coutner siege, it will be easy.
Of course with the added mortars, cannons, burning oils, ballistas, 7 arrow carts, and trebuchet with poisonous cows hitting the zerg of course. You don’t need a platinum-titanium alloyed wall to add to the equation.
Again, bad commander for what it seems… clean siege first? no?
Want to build 5 rams under a burning oil and QQ?
Want to atack PVD gate when theres a treb pointed to that door?
There are ways to counter the ac showers, dont QQ if u want to pvd gate or build a kata glued into a wall.
Balistas what?? there are several places in almost all keeps where a bali wont reach…
Yes ive seen blobs quitting t2 towers because they were bad to loose to a normal ac doing 100 damage to siege and 300 to players….. does that means t2 is to strong to?
I BET the only reason a commander has to pull from atacking a t3 is when the defense groups overwhelms in numbers, and for sure will jump or portal bomb de atackers…
But even that can be a tricky situatioin when u pretend you pull off and keep pressuring supply and yaks, by leaving a havok team behind.
EOTM is your place…
(edited by Aeolus.3615)
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
It’s always something negative with you isn’kitten Break this community, break that World, all you want to do is break everything other than your own. How very non awesome of you friend.
Negative? Nah, I’m being extremely objective. If you lose one map queue of casual SEA, you can fill up your NA with 1 additional map queue. It is completely logical.
Strongly disagree here about DBL. Some people liked it no doubt, but let’s not pretend that populations didn’t take a nose dive. ABL actually revitalized participation.
Heh, and yet you pretend that guildhalls grind, guildhall wvw upgrades, guild cata nerf, auto upgrades, elite specalizations, didn’t happen when HoT came out at the same time as dbl. Or that the stabilization fix, server links (which is the biggest factor in seeing more players), didn’t happen when abl came back.
Dbl drove people away sure, but let’s not pretend it was the only thing that put wvw in a bad spot for 6 months, or that Abl was the lone savior of it.
Strongly disagree here about DBL. Some people liked it no doubt, but let’s not pretend that populations didn’t take a nose dive. ABL actually revitalized participation.
Heh, and yet you pretend that guildhalls grind, guildhall wvw upgrades, guild cata nerf, auto upgrades, elite specalizations, didn’t happen when HoT came out at the same time as dbl. Or that the stabilization fix, server links (which is the biggest factor in seeing more players), didn’t happen when abl came back.
Dbl drove people away sure, but let’s not pretend it was the only thing that put wvw in a bad spot for 6 months, or that Abl was the lone savior of it.
Oh I definitely agree that it wasn’t the only thing that drove people out of WvWvW. When my guild still raided we’d run around on DBL looking for fights and other than stopping some PvD blobs that would immediately leave, the fights were few, roaming was even worse. One of our officers even tried organizing nights to get other guilds on the map, people just didn’t want to bother with it and it was just groundhog day around SMC. If anything DBL served as a crown to all that Anet got wrong with HoT WvWvW updates.
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
It’s always something negative with you isn’kitten Break this community, break that World, all you want to do is break everything other than your own. How very non awesome of you friend.
Negative? Nah, I’m being extremely objective. If you lose one map queue of casual SEA, you can fill up your NA with 1 additional map queue. It is completely logical.
So what you expect JQ to force a sea guild to move off it then wait for at least a month and try to recruit more NA? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We love our sea guilds on JQ.
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
It’s always something negative with you isn’kitten Break this community, break that World, all you want to do is break everything other than your own. How very non awesome of you friend.
Negative? Nah, I’m being extremely objective. If you lose one map queue of casual SEA, you can fill up your NA with 1 additional map queue. It is completely logical.
So what you expect JQ to force a sea guild to move off it then wait for at least a month and try to recruit more NA? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We love our sea guilds on JQ.
You can send FOO over to Mag anytime. We love them LONG time. XD
"lil devils x.6071"snip
snip
There really isn’t a "middle ground" between PvE and WvW outside of openworld PvP without full loot and no score. And the truth is they cannot compete with the current openworld PvP games as that is not their " niche". Gw2 has different modes instead. PvE for the majority, PvP for small scale PvP and WvW for large scale PvP. The way you make that grow is know your "niche", and try to be the best on the market for that, not try to be to the " be all" because all the " be all" winds up being is being the "empty" because neither side will be fully happy with that. If they want to grow PvE they make Great PvE. To expand their PvP, you make great PvP, and to make the best RvR you make it the best RvR.
The problem is they are not trying to do that, they are trying to be the " be all" and that means you lose your dedicated WvW players while still having PvE players not coming in and staying. All that results in is neither side being happy and still looking for what they want. If they make it the best large scale PvP on the market and it gets promoted as such, players will come as word gets around. They would have to start over entirely in their direction and undo much of what they have done already to accomplish that though because that would mean listening to dedicated WvW players first and start with that as a base, then bring in ideas from elsewhere and test it out with the dedicated players and see if those new idea work before fully introducing them live. You start with the dedicated players and then improve from there first. They have never done that.
So your idea to fix the mode is to make it even more niche, and target it at a specific population. Instead of working on the current "semi-sandbox" mode they got.
The question is how large is that population? Is it enough to be worth it? Is it enough to even fuel enough servers to make this feasible? And how many other players will be kittened at the removal of a game mode they enjoyed, or see it take a completely U-turn compared to what they wanted?
I honestly doubt you’d get enough new/old players in to compensate that, no matter how hard they marketed it as the new coming of RvR. It is to late in the games life, and too many direct competitors coming up. And that big a change likely wouldn’t be feasible for GW2, and more properly aimed at GW3. In that regard they *might be better off* just terminating WvW entirely, mash it into EotM and call it a day, and move those resources into making GW3 instead.
---
I’m honestly wondering if you would have enjoyed a mode that worked on example 40vs40 structured matches. 3-4 hours matches, pre arrange time, set up teams of 40 on each side, and battle it out. It would be competitive, focus on the communication, comp, classes, strategy/tactics, let you do proper sieges etc. Don’t know about map perhaps a slightly smaller version of EBG.
Free XFers don’t work and HoD historically showed that. T1 never destacked to move to HoD for free tourney win, it was always the other servers in lower tiers that shuffled into HoD to stack it big.
There is no incentive to leave T1 unless your entire guild moves off and you like them more than the server. Or you hate the queues (which once again, are almost non existent again).
Instead of trying to destack T1, they should get more people into WvW so that T2/3 are also T1 competitive. T1 is basically the last place with somewhat 24/7 WvW action on NA and trying to gut that seems like a poorly thought idea.
I sorta agree, that’s why I think they should have just merged servers to create what you’re talking about. However, the counter argument is that people don’t like "Tier 1 playstyle".
I agree. What players don’t realize it isn’t actually a " tier 1 playstyle", it is called a healthy and active large scale PvP arena instead. For a massively multiplayer game mode to be healthy and successful, it needs to have massive amounts of people enjoying it together. They do not seem to want it to be a large scale PvP battlefield arena at all.
---
You suggest that healthy means crowded. Yet players and guilds leave when there is a crowd and they can’t get through a queue. A true healthy WvW is when there is a mix of styles to attract a wide variety of player because *WvW is a sandbox arena*. People leave the lower tiers when the population gets too low to support large scale battles. People leave T1 when the population gets too crowded to support guilds who want to run on their own without being nothing more than a 15-man "havoc" or "gank" for a pugmander blob. Everyone has their own reasons for playing and seek different goals out of the sandbox. Crowds have a habit of enforcing/imposing only one goal on a sandbox.
Healthy =\= overcrowded though. Queues are a technical problem that could actually be solved, not one that is a problem that has to actually exist. WvW isn’t actually a "sandbox arena" due to their being an actual score. A sandbox PvP mode is open world PvP, like they have on some other games, which if implemented in this game means you could attack people in the PvE parts of the game world, but you cannot. WvW is a battlefield arena due to there being a score kept and actual objectives. In real "sandbox"
PvP zones, you can even build your own forts, there is no score and the players create their own methods of scoring against one another.You do have different playstyles within though and all playstyles work together on coordinated servers. The Roamers, havoc scouts, and zergs all work together on the more coordinated servers as they should as they all perform different roles that are beneficial to each other if they are good at their positions on the field. They are all communicating and helping one another work towards common goals. often on the lower servers, players left because the guilds there would not do that. JQ, for example, had many groups of 15- 20 all working together and were coming in 1st place every week for a looong time.
The only ones who are not beneficial to the team are the player who ignore their teammates and just do whatever they want instead of try and play as a team. It is like you are standing in left field and they are screaming at you to throw the ball in and you are saying " but but I wanna to catch this butterfly instead" so when that happens of course people are going to start yelling wondering WTH ?!! they are doing. LOL
On coordinated servers they still have Roamers, havoc, scouts, and zergs , and all of those playstyles are done quite well, just those groups have to work together rather than just do their own thing and ignore the rest of their team. What is misunderstood is that it being a large scale battlefield arena means that there are not numerous types of playstyles within. Of course there are, just like there are different positions on a baseball field. Just because there is a large scale battle going on does not mean there are not havoc battles, roamer battles, and scouting going on as well. Of course there is because that is all apart of the mode. That being part of the mode does not change that it is still a large scale PvP arena with a score.
Every time I read one of these posts, my head just keeps translating it into:
"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
"Johje Holan.4607"The fairweather effect. Just exacerbates #1 and #2. The QuadLinked servers may have had similar pops as the other linked servers in the previous weeks. But then something new comes along and people are like, Wow gotta go check out the 4-server link! And they suddenly have more people than ever before. Which demoralizes the other two T4 links and it gets worse.
This alone is probably why we will never get a fair and balanced WvW. The moment you wipe, or start losing in points, or lose your EBG keep or something. A bunch of players just log out, because they deem it pointless. As long as that happens, no matter how much ANet tries to even out population, re-linking, tries to change things. It won’t work.
This becomes even more apparent during "off-time", where 20 players can wipe 10 a couple of times, until most of them just log out or do something else. The last 4 players doesn’t stand a chance against the 20 enemies.
This certainly doesn’t feel like a war when everyone just stops and walk away every time they meet some resistance :p
If you feel like WvW is dead, I reccomend transferring. Some servers are very lively and in need of top tier players that can improve them.
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
It’s always something negative with you isn’kitten Break this community, break that World, all you want to do is break everything other than your own. How very non awesome of you friend.
Negative? Nah, I’m being extremely objective. If you lose one map queue of casual SEA, you can fill up your NA with 1 additional map queue. It is completely logical.
So what you expect JQ to force a sea guild to move off it then wait for at least a month and try to recruit more NA? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We love our sea guilds on JQ.
You know what is really unreasonable? Trying to be greedy on having the largest SEA yet also want to have a NA numbers that can put JQ in T1.
(edited by SkyShroud.2865)
How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?
It’s always something negative with you isn’kitten Break this community, break that World, all you want to do is break everything other than your own. How very non awesome of you friend.
Negative? Nah, I’m being extremely objective. If you lose one map queue of casual SEA, you can fill up your NA with 1 additional map queue. It is completely logical.
So what you expect JQ to force a sea guild to move off it then wait for at least a month and try to recruit more NA? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We love our sea guilds on JQ.
You can send FOO over to Mag anytime. We love them LONG time. XD
Hell no. We love them harder!
Good God no thanks you can keep them. We prefer to maintain a high KDR pls thanks.
JQ still thinks they are gods given right to Tier 1, and it’s okay to hold all of WvW hostage because they have 4 SEA guilds that refuse to move. It’s not Arena Nets fault you’ve lost all your NA guilds, again.. AND you can expect NA guilds to flock there and deal with that.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.