Now… Who is not going to be able to hit?
my guess is the first however many.
It’s an interesting concept, though. So play it forward… what if incoming damage sources are limited in some way? Does that break up blobs? What’s the projected actual impact both on skilled and less skilled groups? How does it impact player behavior?
I like your questions as its why I created the thread but I cant answer them without testing it out.
snipples
youre saying 50 players and all their calculations for stats/traits/buffs vs 30 is better? if it is I really don’t get how this works lol. as for how it would effect fights, I cant agree to anything unless I tested it out myself.
You may get people calling out others for being low level, and doing minimal damage.
pretty sure most of the low levels are in eotm. regardless, if you get hit by 20 people repeatedly you are going down.
snipples
since you cherry picked that quote, I cant take your argument seriously.
I didn’t cherry pick anything, those were very clear statements made by an anet employee on the design philosophy of professions and combat for the entire game. You should put more thought into what I’m saying and come up with some constructive responses instead of deflecting.
You obviously didn’t put much thought into your suggestion, and it also shows your limited understanding of the game.
Then you should have asked Gaile to repost that in the “sticky” section here, because it clearly lays out what the devs are looking for from players when posting feedback.
I did send her a PM (for what it is worth).
Perfect!
We already have a thread about posting feedback
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/How-to-Give-Good-Feedback-1
“[the link itself]”
Yep. I am already aware of that. Problem is this section of the forums lacks a sticky of that subject. We only have a don’t do this list. Yes, people could venture into that section. Topics in this section suggest that people ignore that post, or haven’t ventured into that part of the forums. Perhaps having something similar to that notion in this section might help.
While this topic on Etiquette was derailed all over the place, I had already suggested putting that topic into the WvW forums :
I think some of you made a good point. The title of that thread about undesired forum topics didn’t have a very clear title. I just swapped it out to “Inappropriate Forum Topics.” Think that works?
Dwayna bless you.
If you believe we need a completely separate thread to call out what defines a match-up thread, I can make one. I rather admire Chinchilla’s one-liner on that topic as a definition. I’m hoping to not have a lot of “housekeeping” threads, so am hopeful the one will work.
Another post shouldn’t be necessary now that ‘bad’ things have an identifiable place. This probably concludes this whole thread, but there is another side of the coin that could be addressed. What is considered a good or engaging topic? While there is a past post that discusses it in detail back in the general forums, but I find that I usually don’t visit there (this might be true with other people in specific sections). So again, people are potentially unaware of something that could benefit.
You could copy pasta that into the WvW forums (and presumably other sections) or recreate one in the style of “Inappropriate Forum Topics” with provided forum examples.
….
Since the suggestion wasn’t taken yet, I did this myself in order to help. Cheers love!
Then you should have asked Gaile to repost that in the “sticky” section here, because it clearly lays out what the devs are looking for from players when posting feedback.
This suggestion is not going to happen. WvW is the go to place for “open world” pvp stuff. The devs are not going to devote resources to this, especially when it breaks the entire game design and while wvw, professions, combat… need a lot of work. You want gvg pvp stuff? Form a guild and go to wvw, eotm, os and set up guild fights in your guild hall…
Too dogmatic.
There is so much this game needs, and special attention to organized gvg battles is not one of them.
This could very possibly be the case. Which is why this here is called a suggestion/idea, nothing more. I just wanted to see what everyone thinks. If most people think that is a bad idea (looks like that is the case), I am perfectly fine with dropping it.
The word you were looking for was “pragmatic”…
…
OP is clearly suggesting it either on specific maps or specific instances on a map that’s been changed to accomodate PvP.
…
Make a “war” and “peace” state of that shift all the time, some way to join a faction and you’re set.
…
The problem is if you actually want this truly integrated into the world,
…Just to clarify that I do mean parallel PvE and WvW instances running together. You don’t want to join the war? Game goes on in the PvE instance as it was done until today, no change, end of story, we do not want to upset PvE fans.
This is nicely summed up in your last sentence:
Just tossing this into existing maps will probably be very awkward and require breaking basic megaserver tech in order to split instances depending on whether people want to enter a warzone instance or not. New endgame maps for it is the superior solution.
I only disagree with the last bit. We get instances from open world map in living story, so running parallel instances does not sound infeasible to me, plus reuse of map content/existing assets sounds like good economy. Not sure what this would imply in dev cost for managing player numbers/additional mechanics. As I said, that is a valid concern.
This suggestion is not going to happen. WvW is the go to place for “open world” pvp stuff. The devs are not going to devote resources to this, especially when it breaks the entire game design and while wvw, professions, combat… need a lot of work. You want gvg pvp stuff? Form a guild and go to wvw, eotm, os and set up guild fights in your guild hall…
There is so much this game needs, and special attention to organized gvg battles is not one of them.
We already have a thread about posting feedback
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/How-to-Give-Good-Feedback-1
“The ArenaNet Team recognizes that, as a forum member and a player, you may want to share your feedback about the game. We welcome your doing so! We cannot reply to every thread on the Guild Wars 2 forums, but rest assured that most are read.
The purpose of this post is to provide a little guidance about how to give thoughtful, well-presented, and constructive feedback. Keeping a feedback or suggestion thread on-topic and relevant increases the likelihood that members of the Development Team will read the feedback and share it with their team members, even engage in the thread, if time allows.
If you create a feedback thread, we would appreciate it if you monitor the thread and send reports to the moderators when things veer off-topic or when the content of the thread becomes disruptive. Moderators then can kitten post content to ensure the conversation is on the right track. Do keep in mind, though, that it’s not appropriate to report a post simply because it contains a different opinion than your own.
When posting feedback, please keep these considerations in mind:
Suggest improvements: “What can I suggest that will make this game content better?”
How do you think this particular element or aspect of the game could be improved?
What changes to other Guild Wars 2 content resulted in improvements that you liked?
How have you seen this particular problem solved in other games?
Give details and examples: Not a generic “I don’t like this!” but a specific “I think this could be improved by {suggestions}.” And if someone asks a question about the topic, don’t just answer it — explain why you answered the way you did.
Present opinions as opinions, not facts: Not “This is the only possible change” or “Your idea will not work” but “This is my idea” or “I believe {alternative suggestion} would be the better because {reasons}.”
Speak from experience: If you’re offering an opinion on new or changed game content, get experience with it before commenting. If you offer input on a profession, skill set, or game mode, be sure you have sufficient background in the subject to validate your opinion. Opinions are welcome, but they’re always best when they’re grounded in fact and experience and, again, when they’re presented as a personal opinion and not an immutable fact.
Be accurate: If your feedback includes inaccurate information, readers may discard it completely. Do some fact-checking and read through a thread before joining in. This helps you avoid making redundant or inaccurate comments.
Use references: If there’s a dev forum post, a blog post, an interview, or an external resource, include links in your post so that readers can see you’ve done your homework and have reviewed previously-released information before offering feedback or making a suggestion.
Avoid making it personal: Resist arguing with a person, but by all means debate a point being made. Not, “I think your idea is bad” but “I would prefer to see this handled a different way {details} because {reasons}.” Not “I know the game better than you,” but “In playing GW2 I have found…”
Don’t take things personally: By the same token, don’t be offended if someone disagrees with your opinion or suggests alternatives to an idea you’ve put forth. Also, if you make a suggestion and the developers choose to move in a different direction, don’t let that bother you or color your opinion, but review the changes with an open mind and offer your thoughts without rancor.
Share positives: Not all feedback involves a suggestion on how things could be changed or improved. Sharing your thoughts on things that you like in the game is helpful, because your satisfaction can help steer us in the right direction with future development.
As you can see, what you are saying is important, but how you are saying it is equally important. Your strongest points will be lost if they are delivered without details, if they’re presented in an aggressive or unpleasant tone, or if they are buried in a huge wall of meandering text.
By considering the points above, your feedback will be focused on providing solutions to problems rather than simply focusing on the problems. It will shine a light on content that you enjoy, so that we’re aware of that fact when making future updates and developing upcoming projects. These things are the heart of what we’re looking for from your feedback, and both will result in the best game possible!"
(edited by Swagger.1459)
Nothing pvp related is being added to pve. Special maps for guilds are not going to be added either. Please use wvw, eotm, spvp, os and guild halls for all your pvp needs.
does anyone know if there is a limit to the amount of damage sources? if so whats the number? seems like that would be a good place to balance the game mode. hot brought so much more damage, and servers have gotten much more polarized. if there is no cap, perhaps putting one at 30 people could help smaller groups (and possibly lag by a huge margin). I’m pretty sure it would only benefit the smaller group. thoughts?
The incoming target damage source cap seems incredibly unlikely to be a thing – it seems to make resolving attacks much more complicated and without much, if any, payoff.
How would the game communicate to me as an attacker whether the target is already at the damage source cap?
How would conditions be considered? Does an attacker get to apply multiple condis (both by type and stacks) and hence get to bypass the 30 cap in a way that direct damage attackers cannot?
Would situations be created where a bunch of very small damage packets are taking up potential damage slots for bigger hits?
Would damage packets be lost/nullified if the target was at 30 already, or pass to the next sub 30 target?As a general rule of thumb, players are very good at identifying something that doesn’t work or feel fun/good, or iterating and potentially overly powerful combinations. Players are generally awful at proposing solutions to those same issues.
A better approach would be to identify what exactly is the ‘problem’ and have a discussion around the specifics of that problem.
This is the problem with GW2…
http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/
“Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose. You see a lot of sports that are defensive, like American and European football, and you see that defence wins all the time and that defence is often the best offence. We’ve developed a system where, hopefully, offence is the best defence. That you don’t want to say “what are they doing, how can I counter them?” instead you want to say “I’m doing something and I’m doing it well enough that they have to counter me.” I think that’s a much more interesting approach, as it’s then not about reacting but becomes that the best players are trying to make others react to what they are doing, which creates a more dynamic environment.”
The devs completely butchered heal and non heal support designs in exchange for a “whole game is built very offensively on purpose” because they felt it “creates a more dynamic environment.”… and they were wrong.
Also, the devs knew that various players like to have various support roles to play, like healer, but they cut those out intentionally and made a meager attempt with HoT to change course…
“Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers, it wasn’t my job to talk to others about it directly, so I’m unsure how heavily other people were consulted. I know some were skeptical and were worried. A lot of people like to play healers and liked to play monks in Guild Wars 1. That being said, it’s not a secret around the office that I do not like to play healers, so I wasn’t too sad to see them go!”
So, in relation to the OP, this game is still all about the damage spam with light support. Until this “offensively” designed game changes to a “balanced” design game , nothing will change to help smaller teams function better.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
If you believe we need a completely separate thread to call out what defines a match-up thread, I can make one. I rather admire Chinchilla’s one-liner on that topic as a definition. I’m hoping to not have a lot of “housekeeping” threads, so am hopeful the one will work.
this would be very helpful as I am genuinely confused when I see harmless (or just frustrated) threads by some random server person closed then a bg one that stays open.
What are you talking about? All match up threads get closed.
does anyone know if there is a limit to the amount of damage sources? if so whats the number? seems like that would be a good place to balance the game mode. hot brought so much more damage, and servers have gotten much more polarized. if there is no cap, perhaps putting one at 30 people could help smaller groups (and possibly lag by a huge margin). I’m pretty sure it would only benefit the smaller group. thoughts?
No, there is not a cap… No, this suggestion will not do anything meaningful for wvw… No, the devs will not implement such an idea…
The answer you are looking for is… better heal and nonheal support designs, roles, skills, support friendly UI options… so smaller groups can function and perform better with quality support “stuff” behind them.
If i remember correctly, that number was mentioned already somewhere around the April patch, when MO took over. So nothing has changed since then.
Check this out!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/48zlyd/im_mike_obrien_here_with_gw2_dev_team_ama/
“We have about 120 devs working on the live game, 70 devs on Expac2, and 30 devs on core teams that support both. Within these groups we have cross-discipline teams with focused missions. For example on Live we have the PvP team, the WvW team, the Fractals team, the Raids team, the Living World team, the Legendaries team, and a couple others. The teams are charged with carrying a feature from inception and design through completion. When they finish, we typically package work from multiple teams into a single release, then we hand it off to release teams for final voice integration, localization, QA, and release management.”
So “about” 220 people by MO’s statement, and now they have “nearly 400 people”!
Der HYPE ist real!
(edited by Swagger.1459)
assuming you dont need the fury from tiger? i know lynx is the best for condi ranger but i wasnt sure if it still was for power since power ranger typically doesnt have Expertise Training
Take a look.
[Looks into Crystal Ball] I see…. more Black Lion weapon skins!
Maybe Legendary Black Lion skins???
Things are getting serious folks! The hype train might be ready to leave the station!
https://guildnews.de/interview-mit-horia-dociu/
“wir sind immerhin inzwischen fast 400 Leute bei ArenaNet”
“We are, after all, nearly 400 people at ArenaNet”
…Makes you wonder what absolutely super amazing wonderful things are coming down the pipeline for GW2!
Better engine capabilities and optimization?
An epic proportions profession overhaul that will completely blow our minds?
Customizable UI?
Crazy cool total wvw revamp?
The mother of all expansions that destroys any expansion throughout mmo expansion history?
Dwarf, Kodan and Tengu playable races?
5-10-15-20… new Elite Specializations???
All of the above and way more than we could possibly imagine???
What do you all speculate?
(edited by Swagger.1459)
I’m aware of Tyler’s posts, which if you read them don’t ever promise a 3rd borderlands map. I just wanted to clarify that nowhere in the polls did we say anything about creating a 3rd borderlands map, even though that is stated as a ‘fact’ over and over again on the forums.
“if the community does not accept this map, we will not be making new maps for WvW.”
Community still doesnt accept this map so please remove it since no new map is being worked or will ever be worked on.
Alternative facts, again. Face it, you dbl whiners would never be happy unless wvw was exactly changed to your liking, and screw the rest of the playerbase. Heck, this has been beaten like a dead horse during the original polls……
Again, as I said before…..don’t like dbl? Don’t play it. Don’t force the rest of the playerbase to conform to your limited ‘vision’.
Edit: Here is Tyler’s actual post, rather than the mythical one you keep posting…..and it has a much different meaning than the supposed quote you listed in the above post….please note the last sentence, which has an entirely different meaning than your supposed quote from Tyler……which was actually a quote from other posters, NOT Tyler.
“Just to clarify. The Simultaneous Borderlands is a system that better supports a third map, than the rotation strategy. So an additional map would be more likely in that respect. However, our development priorities are still community driven. We wouldn’t start building another WvW map unless it was put to a vote, and won.”
Well said.
Also, don’t like it, don’t play it. Raids don’t affect the rest of the game in any negative way.
That’s your opinion. I happen to disagree with that.
Very good, then please share your supported opinion. We don’t battle with single sentences.
Any thing can be the best thing to the game, and it won’t require 100% of the population to like it. From an objective point of view, raiding is one of the best things that happened to GW2
Subjective (and highly subjective at that). Their very existence had an impact on the game that for many players is really negative.
Then I recommend you rebuke my argument with a less subjective one, not with a more subjective one.
Having raids as endgame content is good for the game, but the lack of difficulty settings offered by the devs created a polarizing effect on the community.
Locking the best armors behind raid content, as reward carrots, was also a poor idea.
Profession “balancing” for 2 years was done with raids in mind first, and this hurt all other pve content, wvw and spvp. …Think about this… Many wvw players have begged the devs for years to get rid of the problematic ghost thief, and it wasn’t fixed until a solo player beat a raid boss on that build…
Again, raids are great end game content, but they were poorly implemented and alienated a huge portion of the casual playerbase unnecessarily. That was completely avoidable and the wrong approach considering the devs know 100% that the majority of the playerbase are casuals.
how did raid balancing hurt pve ? You can litteraly run any build in open world and be succesful. Fractals are skill based meaning as long as you dont die and can do mechanics and also know hoe your class work you can do then with whatever build ( ever mango pie staff aaing nomad guard ;-;). So long as your group doesnt care for the fastest clears and they just want to do their t4 or whatever tier (sonce fractals are a joke really). Wvw yes im with you diff balancing ftw and them caring about the game mode, but you cant blame the raid for the fact anet doesnt care about wvw or the fact that a 1 man dev team for wvw cant do much ( dont hate the player hate the game)
Just stick to the main message from that paragraph and point… “Profession “balancing” for 2 years was done with raids in mind first”.
Also, don’t like it, don’t play it. Raids don’t affect the rest of the game in any negative way.
That’s your opinion. I happen to disagree with that.
Very good, then please share your supported opinion. We don’t battle with single sentences.
Any thing can be the best thing to the game, and it won’t require 100% of the population to like it. From an objective point of view, raiding is one of the best things that happened to GW2
Subjective (and highly subjective at that). Their very existence had an impact on the game that for many players is really negative.
Then I recommend you rebuke my argument with a less subjective one, not with a more subjective one.
Having raids as endgame content is good for the game, but the lack of difficulty settings offered by the devs created a polarizing effect on the community.
Locking the best armors behind raid content, as reward carrots, was also a poor idea.
Profession “balancing” for 2 years was done with raids in mind first, and this hurt all other pve content, wvw and spvp. …Think about this… Many wvw players have begged the devs for years to get rid of the problematic ghost thief, and it wasn’t fixed until a solo player beat a raid boss on that build…
Again, raids are great end game content, but they were poorly implemented and alienated a huge portion of the casual playerbase unnecessarily. That was completely avoidable and the wrong approach considering the devs know 100% that the majority of the playerbase are casuals.
Interesting vids as usual, but too bad these weren’t done a long time ago when the feedback would have been more relevant. I’m sure the devs are way too deep into the next xpac for any of this info to be useful.
Like the old MMOs, where they allow players to set up stall by having an interactable pop-up chat box where I can type for example:
" Selling T6 Mats here "
And the chat box will remain there while I afk so it acts as my trading stall to sell stuff. Players can click my chat box to access a storage trading window where I would have left my stuff to sell with their corresponding prices.
This makes the game more interactive where players really have to run around checking out various stalls to buy the stuff they want.
Also, it makes getting certain items harder and forces players to explore the world to farm their own mats and items.
Trading Post makes things too centralized and easy to obtain. It kills the spirit of MMO world exploration and interaction.
While we are at this, scrap “search for party” functions too. This again centralizes everything and reduces the flavor or world immersion.
Using the same function as above, allow us to set up chat boxes where we can type:
" Join this party to do Tequalt " etc.
This really opens up the game to more immersion and is what MMOs should be like.
So many games are adopting the “convenience” route of having centralized TP and centralized everything that it kills the flavor of MMOs.
that’s where alternate Free accounts can help actually.
The free account sets up stall and afks.
The main account gets to go shopping looking at each store and what is on offer while finding the best price.Shopping guys!
Real shopping!
Window shopping.
I would like to suggest that you think your ideas through much more, instead of posting on a whim… This idea is not going to happen, and you know that it’s not going to happen. The entire system of trade and economy “stuff” are set in stone, and they work really well.
Also, free accounts have limitations for a reason, and we don’t need to encourage plagues of gold sellers in this game.
Again, please think your ideas through more carefully.
Or we could remove all secondary weapons from all professions because you don’t think they are used or useful?
You ever fight other players in melee with a ranged weapon or that scenario vice versa? Because that’s the hard choice an engi and ele have to make while all other professions have optional access to both… and weapon kits aren’t suitable replacements for engi, and they come at a cost of losing a slot skill in the process.
I have a question in response to your questions…
What will it hurt to have the option of using a secondary main weapon, like every other profession besides ele?
Also, maybe you don’t, but ppl swap weapons all the time and have various builds designed around different weapons.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
Weapon kits are not a viable replacement for the lack of a secondary weapon.
The improvement…
Option 1- Same as now. Equip 1 weapon and have access to weapon kits.
Option 2- Equip 2 weapons, but lose access to weapon kits.
Also, add a lot more weapons to engi. I’m sure you could toss in a bunch without making players wait years for elite spec weapons…
You are very welcome for this amazing idea!
Access to 2 weapon slots. Assign 2 attunements per weapon slot, that are changeable out of combat. Reduce skill cooldowns dramatically.
Example…
Weapon slot 1- Staff with Fire and Air Attunements.
Weapon slot 2- Dagger/Dagger with Water and Earth Attunements.
Out of combat I decide to switch attunements…
Weapon slot 1- Staff with Fire and Water Attunements.
Weapon slot 2- Dagger/Dagger with Air and Earth Attunements.
You’re very welcome for this amazing idea!
Part 1: How did the expansion go?
Part 3: Season 3 and major overhauls
I am sharing this here because I believe WP did an awesome job, no, grande job in wording the thoughts many of us had. A few more videos are incoming, I’ll update this list.
Umm, your “part 5” link leads to a google search of sandwiches…
The lack of communication certainly doesn’t inspire anyone or generate buzz on mmo social media outlets. Look at massively op and see all the uninteresting fluff gw2 stuff they have…
As for communication here, well that’s tied into what’s being released, and that’s much of the same old out of touch profession patches, same old events, maybe an interesting gem store item here and there, and now a new zone once in a while with currency grind to keep it relevant… and a whole lot of silence in between… And when we do get something decent, like ranger sword not rooting and ghost thief cut after 4 years of begging, the players are so happy that it’s like the heavens and earth shook and a miracle occurred…
This is a great game, that I have poured a lot of cash into, but the devs miss the really important stuff a lot and are way too quiet… I could completely understand some “secrecy” around here if gw2 was a top grossing mmo game that really wants to keep hush hush from competitors, but they aren’t. The top grossing mmos all communicate way more, provide road maps to future content, tackle problematic issues more frequently and have open testing servers… Anet makes zero sense at times and seems out of touch in many areas, but oh well.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
We are not getting a “hard mode” for open world pve.
Want hard mode? Do raids, high level fractals, spvp and wvw.
All this salt by people who don’t realize that when the meta changes dramatically (as it is apt to do in wvw), you basically salvage a set of gear (because who buys a bank tab every patch) and make a new one. It’s less about the 5% difference between exotic and ascended (though that difference can be substantial because we’re talking big-team games), and much more about the cost of keeping gear up to date, and the IMMENSE cost of meeting the current meta due to the maguuma 4-stat gear.
I’m asking for gear in wvw to operate similarly (though not exactly) like that of spvp. Both because I like to change characters so I don’t get bored, and I’m tired of protracted rants by fight guilds about how someone doesn’t have the right to take up a slot in WVW because they’re not ascended and infused and meta— which they currently have a point about in T1 at reset.
Sorry, but the gearing system for wvw isn’t going to change. The devs might add ascended vendors to wvw, but that’s it.
This is all we know…
Tyler Bearce.3427:
“The Tier 1 Weapons will be made available in an upcoming Reward Track, much like the armor already is.
We haven’t fully decided how to distribute the T2 Weapons and Armor yet. Though, we are currently leaning towards players purchasing them with a currency that they’d earn as a match reward. We may also set rank requirements for the various pieces, so you’d need to be a relatively high rank(1-2k) to purchase a full set."
I made some corrections to your statements
That’s called mansplaining in other contexts. Anet said that WvW is inspired by RTS. They have also referenced DAoC. I never excluded DAoC in any statement I made. It is off-topic to enumerate a long list of what inspired WvW when highlighting one aspect of it yet here you are “correcting” it. No one “corrects” you over omission of your gaming history before you make GW2 comments so stop responding on this thread if the only reason you are responding is to bog down the conversation with off-topic minutia. Go start a new thread about what inspired WvW if you are so passionate about it.
And this is where the communication from you goes in a cyclical pattern. Constantly selectively quoting and unable to address the key points. You can’t even provide a clear and detailed description of what this “guild centric” wvw would look like… I can go through every comment you have made and clearly see you dodging my comments at each step.
WvW was inspired by daoc’s rvr. Rts games were used as inspiration to create the dbl. Both of those were very clear… You are completely ignoring the entire design intent (a rvr mode modeled after daoc) for wvw here and are trying to force some rts stuff to feed your narrative about making an “organized wvw” (organized/structured.. which you denied originally then admitted later), where the predominant form of gameplay and structure revolves around guild “units”… This is yet another “let’s turn wvw into some glorified guild battle ground because all other forms of play are lesser, and nothing (not rewards, lag fixes, profession updates, … and the gambit of truly important things to get more players and guild playing…) but guilds with save gw2 wvw”…
Either provide specific details and coherent arguments to back up why the entire mode should change, or give up, because nothing you have brought up would convince the devs to change or gain acceptance by the majority of players who have come to prefer this daocesque rvr mode.
Edit- and if you think this “guild centric organized wvw” is the answer, you are completely wrong. If this ever came to pass (which it won’t thankfully) you can enjoy an empty wvw while players are off in 2 other rvr games that are capturing the spirit of rvr, one of which happens to be a successor to the very much loved daoc. As is, anet is going to have a tough time matching up with what’s coming and you want to really kill of rvr in gw2 by pushing this idea.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
And that’s right, wvw was inspired by rvr in daoc, not rts games as you stated.
RTS quotes demonstrably came from Anet, as did DAoC quotes. There’s nothing wrong about making that statement.
Desert BL was designed to try to encourage more RTS like elements. That isn’t all that was added. Tactivators allowed for some more strategic play and those are WvW-wide. Don’t forget the new Squad UI and especially shared participation, which was meant to help incentivize the scouting role.
Adding more strategic and tactical elements to maps is vastly different than what you are proposing.
It’s really good to see you picking up and using my talking points btw.
You back to your “gvg battlegrounds” kick? You don’t own talking points, especially not ones that were created by Anet. Nor do you get to cherry-pick Anet talking points. At this point what is your purpose here in continuously responding on the thread I created and put words in my mouth by cherry-picking and taking something out of context of the whole conversation? You already contributed your feedback about how to encourage guild-centric play through better rewards for it and you seem to have nothing further to add.
I made some corrections to your statements, that you dismissed, but used them later in your conversations.
How about this, why don’t you bullet point exactly what a revamped “guild centric” wvw would be like from top down instead of vague comments? Like what would the patch notes look like from the devs if this were implemented?
And that’s right, wvw was inspired by rvr in daoc, not rts games as you stated.
RTS quotes demonstrably came from Anet, as did DAoC quotes. There’s nothing wrong about making that statement.
Desert BL was designed to try to encourage more RTS like elements. That isn’t all that was added. Tactivators allowed for some more strategic play and those are WvW-wide. Don’t forget the new Squad UI and especially shared participation, which was meant to help incentivize the scouting role.
Adding more strategic and tactical elements to maps is vastly different than what you are proposing.
It’s really good to see you picking up and using my talking points btw.
I can’t say ANET was inspired by RTS or not (really off topic probably lol). However, there are strong correlations to RTS. After all people often refer to blobs as zergs. Do I need to say which RTS that word comes from?
Yes, it is off-topic, but if you are interested, Game Director Colin Johanson kept using the RTS analogy in interviews regarding Heart of Thorns when talking about how they wanted to bring more strategic thinking into WvW (think tactivators and shrines). RvR of course comes from DAoC.
I.e., “Johanson said they want to continue building on the idea of players being units in a massive RTS for the game’s world-versus-world mode.”
Edit: here are two fun old threads from 2013 to read about RTS and posters touched on a lot of points we are making in this thread.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Guildcraft-Applying-RTS-logic-to-WvW
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-if-we-turn-WvW-into-a-RTS
Bolded… through map mechanics. DBL map was inspired by rts games. It’s also the least liked map… and you can let that be an indication as to how your topic would be received if the game went down the "organized rtsesque wvw " route.
And that’s right, wvw was inspired by rvr in daoc, not rts games as you stated.
No Chaba, gw2 wvw was not isnpired by rts… it was inspired by
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_versus_Realm
Started in a game called…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Age_of_Camelot
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World
Under “Trivia”…
“The inspiration for World versus World came from Dark Age of Camelot’s realm vs. realm battles.”
And if you try to change the spirit of wvw into some structured “4 guild units with 20 players each with 20 spots left over for randoms with special protections vs 2 other sides consisting of 4 guild units with 20 players each with 20 spots left over for randoms with protections”… then you kill the open world sandbox pvp gamemode that wvw was designed to be.
Edit- “So in the end, “guild-centric” means an organized WvW”… and there ya go… “organized wvw” aka structured wvw aka structured gameplay.
You want anet to redesign wvw to favor “guild centric” aka gvg play with more population cap restrictions
We can stop here. You continue to equate “guild centric” with gvg and think it has to do with population cap restrictions so that’s your problem.
Nah, you should probably read on and learn from your own words.
You can attempt to deflect all you want, but at least I know anet will never kill off the open world style pvp sandbox that wvw is… At least you’ll still be able to enjoy your structured “guild centric” gameplay in OS and guild halls.
“Structured gameplay” means you are not reading. You are out of rational arguments. The beauty of forums is that people have the option to clarify OP to those who are following the conversation closely.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
Well, I’m assuming the devs will continue to add more reward tracks. 2 hour skirmishes are coming with rewards and skirmish currency to purchase rewards. Also, judging by the devs comments on t2 mistforged gear, there might be vendors that sell stuff based on rank. Perhaps wvw specific guild rewards will be offered as well… Beyond those, I wouldn’t want to see any other reward systems.
We are not getting any tournaments at this point, the focus will be on 2 hour skirmishes.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent with the release of legendary armor that you’re making ascended the new exotic. This is fine for PVE players for the most part, this is not OK for WVW players. If you reduce the difference between exo and ascend you fun afoul of PVE players (who by their very nature want gear grinds to be insurmountable for anyone that comes after them— this is not sustainable development), if you increase it, then WVW is effectively pay to win via ascended leather/metal/cloth.
For WVW to remain fair (4-stat combinations aside), raiders and PVE grinders can’t be given a stat advantage. The only people would and will be upset by the following suggestion are the very same people exploiting the current situation for an advantage: Scale all gear in WVW to the ascended equivalent of its stat combination. I’m in full ascended and I really wouldn’t be upset by greens equalling my gear so long as the stat combo is the same.
It’s a compeditive environment, when you do sweeping changes like you did with conditions, it ruins the meta (which, whether you’d like to believe it or not, most people adhere to lest they be stomped by those who copy the meta) and we end up in a totally different situation— it’s more difficult for us than PVE players to keep up with your ability changes because we have to basically build a new set of gear/jewellery whether by making the inscription and throwing it in the mystic toilet or crafting a new set entirely.
Legendary armor will have the same stats as ascended.
The entire gear system is fine and works.
I would much rather have resources and dev effort go toward bringing us professions 2.0, cleaning up traits, improving core profession stuff, improving existing weapons and slot skills, creating decent roles to choose from out of every profession, fixing problematic combat issues such as the condi and stealth systems, creating new elites, new weapons, new slot skills, … as opposed to this or mastery stuff. That can come later when the important things are tackled first and foremost.
You want anet to redesign wvw to favor “guild centric” aka gvg play with more population cap restrictions
We can stop here. You continue to equate “guild centric” with gvg and think it has to do with population cap restrictions so that’s your problem.
Nah, you should probably read on and learn from your own words.
You can attempt to deflect all you want, but at least I know anet will never kill off the open world style pvp sandbox that wvw is… At least you’ll still be able to enjoy your structured “guild centric” gameplay in OS and guild halls.
You want this mode to be all about the gvg, with all else secondary, but the devs won’t do that.
I never said I want it to be all about gvg with everything else secondary. You’re just ignoring whatever I wrote to substitute it with your assumptions.
We already know what WvW looks like without diversity. You say my comment about EOTM is elitist, and yet EOTM is what it is and there’s no guesses about how it turned out. That’s not an opinion, that’s how EOTM is played.
Are you conveniently forgetting what you typed in your op?
You want anet to redesign wvw to favor “guild centric” aka gvg play with more population cap restrictions, forced group limits and special “protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.”… You want a structured gvg environment first and foremost… and that’s not going to happen. Anet is not going to change the wvw sandbox into your gvg box.
In a recently deleted thread, I pointed out that Anet needs to do more to encourage guild-centric play in WvW.
Why?
Because WvW is boring without guild rallies – no matter the size. When all a server has to offer is a casual militia blob, that kills the fun for a lot of players as well as makes the activity on the server dependent upon a small number of pugmanders rather than a larger number of guilds. WvW should not be a numbers arms race.
Sabull said it best in his posts on this old thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Food-for-thought-for-ArenaNet/page/2#post5011003
“Essentially our dream (and I’m sure many of you hold the same) was and is that lets say with a zone cap of “100” we have 4 guilds of 20 guys from each server in the zone, with 20 left for roaming/camp parties and afkers (20/20/20/20/20). Instead what we have had (50/30/0/0/20).”
This is what “guild-centric” WvW looks like, with protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.
Guilds running separate not only allow for more fight options in WvW, they also help equalize numbers in fights so that population imbalances don’t seem so outsized. It also reduces skill lag because fights remain at a size the servers are capable of processing.
“GvG was born because WvW should be more like “GvG” (equal numbers, 20man guild centered).” “GvG (or large-scale TDM) did not born for e-sports, it was never about e-sports, ques, instanced arenas, pricepools, money. It was born to make WvWvW BETTER!”
Many ideas have been floated in the past to help steer WvW towards more guild-centric play. My post isn’t to summarize those ideas, only to shout out once again to Anet that guild-centric play is what really makes WvW tick and that’s what you need to focus on encouraging. You only have to examine the server transfer trends into other tiers/servers where there are actual guilds to fight against, not casual militia blobs.
Would be a nightmare to balance. Balancing this game is already hard enough, I’d rather we not complicate things further.
Yup
Remove immobilize would be nice but being immune to cc might be a bit much. It already blocks projectiles, and we have access to stability in Reaper Shroud if you are worried about cc.
The suggestion was really clear, not sure why you brought up the other stuff about cc and stab?
Pretty simple really, knockdown is a cc. Most of the time when Anet wants to implement a skill that, as you suggest, is immune to knockdown or whatever, they attach stability to the skill. This then prevents the skill from being interrupt by any cc, so long as a stack of stability remains.
So you see, I mention all of this because I don’t think I have ever seen Anet make a skill that is completely immune to only one form off cc. As I said, they instead go with attaching stability to the skill.
Now with that in mind, I can’t really see them adding stability to a skill that already destroys projectiles, does decent damage, has an aoe blind, is a leap finisher, and can be traited to corrupt boons. Especially since we already have pulsing stability from RS3.
Hope that clears things up for ya. ;-P
What you need to do is reread the suggestion…
This ability should remove imobilize and go trough enemys knoking them down like rev staff.
1. Remove immobilize.
2. Knock down enemies.
Does that clear it up for you? Are we on the same page now?
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
You remind me of that e-sports meme clip with the charr… You don’t care about the important things wvw really needs because you’re too enchanted with gvg stuff.
How about offering what you think “wvw really needs” instead of being insultingly hung up still on gvg after I took time out of my day to give you a thoughtful response? A response like yours indicates that you have nothing and every point I made is valid.
I already explained to you what would attract more players and guilds to play, but you want to ignore those facts. You’re too busy saber rattling about gvg rules in wvw, creating “safe spaces” for players around gvg play and coming off as an elitist with your eotm comments…
You want this mode to be all about the gvg, with all else secondary, but the devs won’t do that.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
Given it’s on a 6 second cooldown, it’s easy to argue that it’s overloaded already. 600 range dash, AoE Blind, decent damage, and projectile blocking.
At most, all I would change is that you don’t stop moving on the very first hit on your target, instead continuing to move if they are no longer getting hit.
Meanwhile in wvw… there are a crap ton of incredible skills being spammed and players are bouncing all over… and this skill gets crapped on by enemies moving, pathing issues, and is completely shut down by 1 (of the thousand incoming) immob… All of this wonderfulness on the least mobile profession in-game that has 1 offensive mobile skill gated behind shroud.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
Like others have mentioned in this thread, we don’t think this would be a healthy feature for WvW. Many players will not participate in WvW if they don’t see a commander tag, and we try to avoid adding features that can be used to exclude players.
You really missed the point here.
There are ppl who already run in private group. This feature will give these ppl more benefits. And yet ppl who run pugmanding will still use public tag.
Or at least give ability to use marker in tagless group.
Nah, McKenna understands, it’s you who is missing the point.
How anyone can find something lacking in this skill is beyond me.
It’s pretty easy to envision if you are a pvp minded player.
As I already said in reply to this guys comment, it would mean increasing the skill cooldown to at least 20 seconds (more like 30s given rev skills have an energy cost).
Nah, shroud is already gated.
Remove immobilize would be nice but being immune to cc might be a bit much. It already blocks projectiles, and we have access to stability in Reaper Shroud if you are worried about cc.
The suggestion was really clear, not sure why you brought up the other stuff about cc and stab?
Going to highlight a quote because it would be a great improvement to the skill.
This ability should remove imobilize and go trough enemys knoking them down like rev staff.
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
You remind me of that e-sports meme clip with the charr… You don’t care about the important things wvw really needs because you’re too enchanted with gvg stuff.
@Previous 3 posts (too long to quote):
I don’t think that Chaba suggests turning WvW into GvG (though a GvG game mode would be great too, but that’s another topic). Instead:Reserving a fixed/variable amount of places on a WvW map for guilds, so is not taken up by unorganized militia, afk-ers and so on (many servers have EB map full of these, they are just crying for a “commander” but most won’t join the squad, won’t get in voice chat, aren’t using a WvW build, and are… really “special cases”, just taking up space there, being unable to compete and there’s a queue with more of these)
Even if that server has an organized force somewhere, they can’t get in. Same happened during “Tournaments”, when completely new players kept the maps full, so competitive WvW-ers couldn’t get in… Don’t even ask why is such a toxicity present if this is what happens regularly: the most rude server has the advantage, since they can remove more “casuals” from the map (and the server), and this SHOULDN’T be like this.I just added to that initial ideea (of reserving space for guilds) the balancing around the guilds: there has to be a contribution rating and guilds should be encouraged to spread, in order to create balance, or at least less one-sided matchups.
While everyone is welcome and WvW is inclusive (and that is good because brings in fresh blood, though should be way more attractive), the WvW is also competitive, even for those afk-ers, asking about “why WE lost X and Y, why aren’t we winning, why X guild left, and so on”. Notice the “WE”, as in they are also part of the team, though they hardly realize their role: that they are those dragging the team down and preventing any progress.
These can’t be solved by the community. Being rude is not something most of us like, you can’t expect it from us. Asking nicely works in time, slowly, but is very inefficient and it’s always a large percentage who doesn’t care enough to start changing and improving. There has to be a framework helping those who care, making them able to serve their team.
Nope, “Reserving a fixed/variable amount of places on a WvW map for guilds” is not the request in the op.
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
More guilds, more variety of guilds = more community organization = more activity.
Less militia standing around only defending or waiting for the single public tag guy to log in and form a map blob.
2 hour skirmishes with better rewards = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Fix lag issues = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Improve professions like we have begged since launch = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
…
When you say “gvg battlegrounds”, you’re letting the past gvg scenes color your perception. What I’m describing is more like the diversity we saw in WvW at the beginnings of GvG. Reread my OP: “Because WvW is boring without guild rallies”
Like jamesdolla above said, when there’s more guilds doing regular rallies in WvW, what I describe happens naturally.
Like Haematic pointed out, there’s no incentive right now for a player to chose “guild play” over “militia play” because the results are the same. So fixing lag issues and providing skirmish rewards only serves the purpose of “more people”, not “more guilds”. Results will still be the same.
Look, you wrote earlier even: “Want more incentive for guilds to play? Add better guild reward goals.”
Want to kill WvW? Turn it into EOTM pug blobs.
Yeah I know what you are trying to get at… “This is what “guild-centric” WvW looks like, with protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.”…
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
Yup, look at what I wrote earlier and let that absorb some.
“World versus World (also known as WvW) is a Player versus Player game mode where players from three different servers, or worlds, battle in the Mists. It features open-world combat on five large maps with up to several hundreds of players per map.”
“WvW is designed to accommodate players that would not normally participate in PvP. For instance, the high player limit means that a new player can get involved without immediately feeling pressured to contribute. In addition, objectives are available for a variety of group sizes, so players don’t need to be members of dedicated guilds in order to be productive.”
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
(edited by Swagger.1459)
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.