Guild Wars 2

Causation does not equal correlation, your claim is flawed in so many ways.

My random claim. Selling skins on the gem store makes far more money than transfers ever could in a year, thus WvW doesn’t get attention.

ryston.7640:

I see a number of calls for 20v20 or classic 8v8

The reason this wont work in gw2:

Rallying on stomp turns large battles into stupid cluster kittens

a good even fight, both teams lose 3 people to downed state in the open, and then one team gets a stomp

now its 20v17+2, and the 17+2 have a secondary objective (get rezs off) to deal with. the thing just snowballs.

This game really isnt fun in fights sized more than 3v3, and 2v2 usually feels better.

blame kittenty development, like i do.

It really depends on the game format. It would work fine for a Death Match. With the cap point format there would need to be maps close to the size of the BL’s w/o way points so positioning would actually matter.

Anet has made it clear they’re not going to support the large scale GvG crowd anyway so this whole topic is somewhat moot.

Shiren.9532:

Krakah.3582:

cubed.2853:

I like it. New content, new mechanic. Supporting small scale skirmish. That’s exactly what I missed a little bit. I’m so happy to get something like that.
Dear wvw team, please dont forget, the happy people mostly dont write something, because they are happy! I’m an exception :-)

This only rewards Zerg Blobs more. This will only get worse with the leagues once the top T1 servers are 24/7 blob stomping the everyone else. This in no way helps other servers that can’t compete in the coverage game.

The incentives are wrong.

The assumption here is that players in a wipe out match up will care about the score. At this point players in matches like SoS vs TC vs SoR don’t really care about PPT. The objective at that point is to find good fights where you can get them (or PvE for the week). I suspect fighting over the ruins is actually going to be one of the more popular activities in blow out match ups.

That’s the problem for all sides, the losing server pugs stop showing up and go PvE. The few WvW only guilds also show up less during those matches for the week. If the goal is to make PvP as unappealing as possible to the masses, then Anet is right on track.

Tekyn.5376:

Sube Dai.8496:

What do people think, yes or no?

I see this a compromise for the large number of people who dont want ascended gear in the game. Make it pve only.

Anet will lose people with their current implimentation while trying to please the grinders…so why not do both. I doubt any of the pve grinders play wvw anyway.

Current Vote:

Yes: 46 (56%)

No: 36 (44%)

No.

If you want equal fights go to sPvP.

SPvP hot-join system is inherently not balanced, but keep trying.

DevonCarver.5370:

Doing so would invalidate the time people spend acquiring that gear. I think the heart of your post is in the right place, but what we would rather do is make possible for people to get the gear by playing WvW with a sprinkling of PvE, rather than the other way around.

You’ve purposefully walked into the age old power creep issue of every MMO PvP format.
It looks like there’s a conflict internally about PvP at Anet in general. Your introducing a competitive scoring system with leagues and brackets, but ignoring actual game mechanics for balance.

TheAmpca.1753:

Ah I see what you mean. However, you have to take into account that winning an open field fight wont make your server win. It CAN make your server do better if it is say an open field fight in a keep but there Arrow Carts and such can be a great numbers equalizer.

What I see the problem is, is that sticking in a ball will provide superior individual loot for players and wont really hurt the server because PPT is quite meaningless. I think an appropriate response to this would be to increase rewards for having superior PPT since a mass of people at one spot can only contest one position and thus provide inferior PPT control.

It’s down to risk vs reward with the majority of zerg play. A player has little reason to improve their play while in a zerg blob as the rewards are high and the risk is very low.

Your example of PPT being meaningless is flawed. The cause of inferior PPT does not correlate to zerg play. Not all zergs are created equal, some do well others do not.

You also overlook risk vs reward for distance and travel across and within maps which promotes blobbing. There is low risk to lose PPT when a 60+ blob can port across single/multiple maps to counter an in map flank or cross map pressure.

If you are in a T1 server all of the above should be very very noticeable, and in no way should zerg blobbing be promoted or encouraged.

cubed.2853:

I like it. New content, new mechanic. Supporting small scale skirmish. That’s exactly what I missed a little bit. I’m so happy to get something like that.
Dear wvw team, please dont forget, the happy people mostly dont write something, because they are happy! I’m an exception :-)

This only rewards Zerg Blobs more. This will only get worse with the leagues once the top T1 servers are 24/7 blob stomping the everyone else. This in no way helps other servers that can’t compete in the coverage game.

The incentives are wrong.

Vote: No

The bloodlust buff doesn’t promote smart play. It rewards Blob game play, which is just lazy. Smarter map buff reward would be some +% to yak supply, +% building speed, +% repair speed, etc…so as not to give lazy advantage to blob field fights.

Another thing is to also make the center holding points reward different buffs depending on what is being controlled. Thus it’s not an all or nothing for the less populated servers.

Edit:
After reading other input, swap variation with outnumbered and bloodlust would be a solid solution. I play on a server winning it’s tier, and it’s no fun when the other servers stop playing by monday.

Lanimal.6541:

People who are arguing for the changes need to realize that we want this option not because it harms GvG but its just a terrible change period. They should not have a straight stat boost; they want incentive to capture these points make direct wvw mechanics that work with these buffs.

1/2/3 Bloodlust Buffs – Upgrades go 10/20/30% faster in HOMEBL
1/2/3 Bloodlust Buffs – All Friendly Yaks carry 10%/20/30% more supply

These are just two quick ideas; they would not directly give a massive advantage to the blobs and also they would add a new layer of tactical innovation for the ppt players. A straight up stat boost is horrible ; same way wxp encouraged blobbing; same way tradeable siege made t1/t2 NA omegaddons. I like that the lake encourages people to split up more to get the buff than just blob on one dorito but a straight up stat increase is still lazy developing.

/signed, I agree that raw stat buffs does not promote smart game play. T1 NA wants smarter play, less blob rewarding Anet.

Also to play off your suggestion, it would be great to see the center area holdings give a buff depending on what points are being held as well. Thus it’s not an all or nothing for one side only.

JinDaVikk.7291:

Its still so insulting that they don’t think new players can use new skills. Lets all just be pure rng, that teaches new players every skill they need. And after the stuff he said about rangers they might as well completely get rid of engi and ele as they obviously don’t see us as possible professions.

Also if the devs think this about rangers I wonder how BADLY they play themselves.

That reminds me of the dunning and kruger effect. It’s possible the skill ceiling/floor is using the dev team own skill as a reference. Now where the Anet dev team ranks themselves would be interesting.

From the GW1 GvG/HA days when their devs would scrim the player base. They were around the average of the skill curve, not awful not great.

PariahX.6970:

SykkoB.9465:

U cant blame it on the players or high tiers blah blah zergs

WVW has a player cap IF the game cannot handle it when there is a que or the player cap is reached for the bl, THEN anet needs to lower the cap cause its THere engine failing

also shouldnt buggs/lag be getting fixed or less the longer a game is out and not worse ?

/agree with Syk, I like your spark kiddo ANET needs to show us what lower WvW map populations caps feel like so we can start making some choices from there. If this is more than just a problem on the overfull worlds then there is a lot more work to be done.

On the downside, I am not surprised things actually get worse over time instead of better. That is a well documented problem with code in general. The more cooks in the kitchen and the faster there is turn over and movement between departments the more spaghetti code you are going to end up with. I get the feeling ANET grew really quickly there for awhile, got a lot of shake up and had some baseline changes with new ideas doing things the original engine design never dreamed of.

I do not envy them the work they have yet to do but I also know changing their WvW map populations caps is something they can do easily and quickly. I just expect they are waiting to do so until they have some other elements in place to make the transition more manageable and less of a kitten screaming contest when it hits.

On that note, I’d be interested to see Anet use optimal map caps, and just make multiple small maps clustered for each BL & EBG.

Ditto same error, currently affecting access to WvW maps.

milo.6942:

could you imagine telling your old gw1 friends? “hey guys they made a separate game/minigame that is based on gw1 pvp using gw2 graphics! they have same gvg maps that we used to play!” anet would have instant respect from all of us disillusioned veterans.

It would be the biggest tease ever if announced as part of an expansion.

@OP, being in a party helps with bag drops, this is of course on the condition your group can defeat the opposition.

glittergirl.4162:

Thank you to everyone who has been so helpful, I have received so many pm’s. Our intention is now to break T1 or stack an already stacked server, but as Leaders yourself, I hope you understand the need to hold your guilds’ well being above all.

Since the goal is to be in T1, working for that with TC would bring better competition, and allow for T1 servers to rotate more.

Breaking a Tier with blowout matches would reduce participation, and not be healthy for WvW.

LuLs it’s Illum all over again.

If Ectos were to be a drop per chest, I’ve yet to hear anyone on the server getting them or see any drops from the chests.

Only a WvW commander gets to drive the karma train, until he gets the train killed, then they disperse.

Faux Sheaux.6179:

What’s the opposite of a ranger?

That one.

Your playing it wrong.

nakoda.4213:

what if…

there were a “tournament training” achievement line which offered rewards and titles for successfully engaging tournent specific needs such as…

- an achievement for 25 wins for each map in rotation (each)
- an achievement for 100 kills vs each profession (each)
- an achievement for time spent within x range of an enemy node under attack
- an achievement for time spent within x range of a friendly node under attack
- an achievement for 250 over all kills while assaulting/defending
- an achievement for 25 revives

once all achievements are earned, the “tournament ready” title unlocks, and said player can queue for tourneys regardless of rank

this could be a series of challenges offered by a drill sergeant npc, and make a viable platform for progression based rewards

what if…

Or….just let TPvP be pre-made only and let the community sort out if they want to run with low ranks. Solo que really should be for SPvP only for the time limited player base.

AvengerCap.7983:

The only conspiracy is that there is a conspiracy to not conspire.

I refuse to conform to conspire with the lack of a conspiracy. <3

Deniara Devious.3948:

Handin.4032:

The differences in tiers was mostly in populations, and the servers stay that way until they get lots of transfers, or people leaving. If you minimize the difference, while the population difference stays the same, there will be a higher chance of blowouts, not a lower.

I would want to correct you a bit:
The difference in the performance of a server in WvWvW lies in the WvWvW coverage. By coverage I mean how many active players are participating WvWvW at each hour. A server with superior coverage wins and a server with lower coverage loses.

A high population server isn’t necessarily doing that well in WvWvW, if its players are mostly interested in pve. Thus their WvWvW coverage can be low for many hours per day. For example SFR has been a medium population server, yet they can muster several 30+ WvWvW guild teams at same time and have full maps with queue from afternoon to late evening.

A correct way of match making should be mostly decided based on WvWvW coverage. I am sure Arenanet has all the data related to this.

Agreed, the current rating isn’t taking the ratio of PvP population per server into account.

Another example is NA server pop across most servers are “Very High”. Which under the odd Anet philosophy of global server pop for rating is taken into account, all servers should be near equal.

Obviously not the case since it’s the PvP population that determines the rating which is 7% or less of a server. Basically Anet your using the wrong variables to determine rating.

As others have mentioned, the real issue is the map size, it’s just to small to foster small ops.

Right now a Mega Zerg can cross the map in time to save whatever location is being hit by a small ops team. The way point mechanic is also a big reason this is also the case, more so when 60+man float teams can just way point in from another map to save a keep etc…

With much larger maps Mega Zergs would be forced to breakup into multiple smaller response forces to maintain territory. Also over extending becomes the hazard it should be.

Since this got necro’d up, lets add in what niche role Anet wants the warrior to be for arenas?

It’s a very contradictory wagon your trying to fix with new addons vs fixing the fundamental problems with the core game format.

There’s a strong case for why even bother having match scores given the current game play structure.

Akisame.9508:

I didn’t even see a single group enter the dungeon!

gw2lfg.com, it’s where you go to find a group. Alternatively for some real fun, you can help your server in WvW or do some SPvP.

Lara.6740:

Any suggestions?

WvW and SPvP.

Lord Kuru.3685:

What we need is for Anet to start encouraging people to play WvW to roughly even out populations.

Fixed that for you. If you ever get bored enough to run a Q&A with the PVE crowd you’ll find out there’s little reason for them to touch any form of PvP.

The skill lag is mostly from the terrible timer mechanic. As much as people want to QQ to the PvP team, this is really on the shoulders of the main core dev team.

aophts.9862:

I want to start a new char, but last time with my lvl 50 RANGER i had a hard time with groups for dungeons. Do i still need to choose between WARRIOR or GUARDIAN to not be kicked from a party?

Ignore the care bear haters, come out and PvP. The only hate is from people dying from rangers, and their tears are delicious.

Johje Holan.4607:

For all those worried about blowouts, hopefully this will force the intended 2v1 where the weaker servers gang up on the powerhouse. No longer can you use the excuse of fighting for second to avoid going down a tier – because it doesn’t matter any more. That is not what will determine your next match.

If SoR is matched up with FA and DB, then FA and DB should gang up on SoR. If they fail to do that and get blown out, its their own fault. It would be bad strategy to not gang up on SoR.

Now if its two T1 servers vs. a T3 server, then hopefully, the T1 servers choose to fight each other rather than both stomping the T3 server. I mean people complain all the time about not being able to find a fight. Well find the fight instead of picking on the weaker server.

Even if both FA and DB pushed SoR, they would still lose the match just from off hours coverage. Time zone WvW population inequity is the root of why matches have not been consistently competitive.

The match shuffle will help with the stale matches, what it doesn’t address as many have mentioned countless times is the how coverage is the ultimate decider for a server.

I would like to know if Anet has any plans to adjust rating based on player numbers per time zone. This would help with the server shuffle as well since servers with say on a simple scale of 0 – 10 having a +7 EU coverage, which is some metric of % of the que through EU time. You’d not want to match with say a mid or lower tier server with +0 for recorded population participation with that time zone.

The above could also allow for handicaps to servers that clearly do not have said coverage if there are going to be T1 vs T5 servers.

Handicaps can be much like other sports a free head start or maybe some server buff, can even be made time zone specific, if the NA vs NA is not to out of whack.

Anyway, Anet please take more into account coverage in your matches.

A possible fix for warriors. Would be a mechanic theme focus to make them king of gap closing, much as Anet wants Thieves to be king of evasion/being slippery.

Updating gap closing to weapons would be the area to make this game play change without lazy stat buffs.

bhagwad.4281:

Lots of people here agree that PvP in GW1 was far superior to what we have here. And we had plenty of rewards. Chests for consecutive wins that had the possibility to drop awesome stuff, Zaishen keys using which you could open the zaishen chest for even more cool gear, a whole bunch of accomplishments and bragging rights.

“Fun” is nice, sure. But rewards are better.

Agreed GW1 PvP format is much more competitive.

Do not agree it was about the minor rewards. The majority of competitive PvP GW1 players used PvP only toons so the rewards were moot after full skill unlock.

Bragging rights are earned from community recognition, be it GvG, HoH, RA.

-[LLJK]/[DONG]

I’m seeing both friendly and enemy players rubber band from the lag. Ironically LA is totally fine.

Bumping for lag, unplayable at the moment.

cobrahorse.4329:

I think we all agree on that this game needs a test server where they can tweak stuff everyday for perfection. At least till now the internal testing did not work out so good…

Funny thing is if there were a set of test servers, the hardcore community from all time zones may make those the defacto PvP servers.

Still seeing players doing the yoyo bounce when jumping off hills buildings etc… so no it hasn’t been fixed.

The worst part is when players try to use movement skills and get yoyo’d back into zerg aoe.

I’m not sure porting over GW1 GvG would change much since it was still the same format as what we have now, capture node, kill guild lord.

Something about 8 player builds brought more group build diversity, as those that remember HA, Anet tried 6 players and it got reverted. Maybe 8 is that magic number that Anet just needs to suck up and make happen.

If anything were to be ported for GvG, it would have it’s best chance with the HA style multiple game modes randomized. At least it wouldn’t let one cookie cutter group comp dominate all the game formats hopefully.

Edo Tensei.8254:

vote for yes , i am tired of leavers. had 5 Games in a row today where in 4 Games 1 or 2 Guys did leave/go afk in Tpvp

That won’t help at all. A simple “/resign” for the team would resolve a lot of the non-competitive matches.

Matches can end and start again faster, without demoralizing losing teams.

Warlord.9074:

Krakah.3582:

Are you that bitter you would wish for last few competitive servers to just collapse with a dwindling overall PvP population?

If two out of the Big3 servers aren’t fielding players you may want to check your ego at the door, since the state of the game should be considered in a bad place for everyone. Wins with low competition are no fun.

No im not bitter im just trying to get to the truth. Are you guys throwing the match or are you guys just not fielding players. Whats the truth. Because the rumor is BG is intentionally throwing the match.

No known sankittenging of the match from BG guilds. JQ no idea why it’s a ghost town.

Warlord.9074:

BG pugs don’t want to play wvw when they are losing. They see they are going to lose and just give up. If BG doesn’t do better next week I expect the whole server to fall apart. The rest of the casual WvW on BG are doing PVE and cant be bothered to play WvW when they are getting new skins.

The moment BG starts losing all the pugs get demoralized and dont want to play. Same with JQ. BG beats JQ one week and JQ gets demoralized then throws in the towel. I Really feel Unless your servers are winning none of the people who just came to your server to win will log in to play. You guys have a lot of these fair weather players that are only about wining. The moment the server starts losing these people quit or go find another server they can win on.

Are you that bitter you would wish for last few competitive servers to just collapse with a dwindling overall PvP population?

If two out of the Big3 servers aren’t fielding players you may want to check your ego at the door, since the state of the game should be considered in a bad place for everyone. Wins with low competition are no fun.

Tarin Twisted.4183:

LOL you know the real problem is that in order to get gear to be able to compete in WvW people are forced to do the special PvE events for the gear upgrades.

Ironic how players MUST PvE to be competitive in PvP. Imagine if they included content within WvW that would allow PvP’rs to get the same gear the PvE’rs get…we may actually have people back in WvW having fun!

The PvE crowd would have a kitten storm calling favoritism to PvP, but hey Anet likes to blow resources on displosable content.

Mixed ques for any game always have this problem. GW1 arena had it, yet GW1 HoH que didn’t since it was pre-made only que. Also the /resign let a team gracefully leave and not suffer through the match timer if they were being crushed.

Now for the fun circle jerk. Due to the low PvP population it’s a mixed que, and one of the many reasons the population is so low, is from the mixed que.

All the subjective good vs bad commander aside.

Commander Tag Wish list:
1. Option to purchase via badges
2. Account bound
3. Badge purchased tag be a different color than the one purchased via gold.

Kreedz.8127:

Also, the warrior needs changes in their weapons & traits, not so much in their utility skills, although some improvements to existing utilities would be nice. The signet buff’s were pretty good start.

The signet buff was lazy. The proper change would have been to make the signet actives a group buff/effect.

This adds smarter play to choose to keep the passive or use the active for the group.

BlackhawkSOM.6401:

Top 5 reasons why Guild Wars 2 hasn’t taken off:
1. Lack of Build diversity
2.Lack of Rewards/Incentive
3. No Separate queues/ Horribly designed Tournament system that failed
4. 1 game mode
5. Horribly designed leader board

My top 2 are lack of reward/incentive and seperated queues/tourny system. You can just tell there is a huge lack of funding in Guild Wars 2 pvp. Comparing the content from pvp and pve it seems so unfair.

…anyway good luck trying to revive this mess

Adding to that list, the god awful hot-join system. The basics of competitive play, teams must start with equal players per side. This is the first reason new players never return to PvP. Which in turn causes population stagnation and decline.

Part of why GW1 PvP succeeded was due to it’s basic infrastructure to keep matches competitive. GW2 has its hot-join servers mirroring an FPS game format. Maybe that’s were the dev line of “PvP for the sake of just killing” came from?

Also really miss the /resign command, to end non-competitive matches.

Thedenofsin.7340:

My question to you folks is: will it ever?

Nope, the window of opportunity has been missed.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Sprawl.3891:

and that’s why pvp is not popular nor watched by many and we have posts like this daily. you can disagree with me all you want but fact is there are very few who take pvp seriously and very few who enjoy watching streams and vids. the game mode is one of the many reasons this is the case.

Where are your facts lol? I don’t see 300 posts that spvp is failing. Just a handful of people who are trying to kill esports for whatever reason they want. sigh..

The lack of participation in game and in the forums is already a good indicator of the state of SPvP. Which relative to the rest of GW2 is very very stagnant.

SPvP had it’s chance at live when there was a critical mass of players. It will continue to stagnate without a prayer in hell of recovering. Think AoC, War Hammer, SWTOR as examples of lost opportunities when they had a critical mass of players.

As other brought up with the lack of resources, the burn to players is that GW2 PvP is a sad shadow compared to it’s predecessor.

luwe.1496:

Battlefield 3 has the “spot” button to tag targets for friendlies. Then it gives you a spotter bonus when that target gets killed. Something similar could be implemented here like a hotkey to spot a target that’s not in combat. That with an audio queue shouting Enemy Spotted would be great so that you don’t need to type “INCOMING” in map chat hurriedly.

TY for reiterating this game feature. It’s been suggested multiple times, I just have a feeling there’s some back end issue preventing such a thing from happening.