Guild Wars 2

oneply.9586:

lil devils x.6071:

NeXeD.3042:

lil devils x.6071:

oneply.9586:

lil devils x.6071:

It does when those objectives are in the environment by definition of what PVE means. Player vs environment is exactly that.

If the player is forced to kill the other players to win, that is pvp, that isn’t the case with any map but courtyard.

i challenge you to win a game in ranked/unranked q without attacking another player. even get a team together and none of you attack another player. let me know how that works for you.

I have already done this, it is actually very easy to win without killing if you go in with your guild and you bind/ stun/ chill knock back the crap out of them.. They just cannot move the whole game, and yea they get angry to say the least . LOL

I will go grab 4 eotm pugs. We will do khylo. if you can beat me and my pugs without killing a single one of us I will give you 100 gold. If you can’t all I want is you come back here and say you were wrong. Sound fair?

No, since I am not even on the game right now, nor can I get on the game right now, nor is anyone from my guild to play you. You have to spec all the builds to be able to play that way, and that takes effort…

lmao!
what a total joke

You would have to raise the stakes to make that worth anyone’s time. That is only 20g a piece split, I spend more than that on getting nubs to scout towers. LOL

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Roe.3679:

oneply.9586:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.

There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.

If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.

And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…

I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.

Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that

You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.

I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.

Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”

It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.

So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.

Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps

talking to a brick wall isnt really worth it.
he has his own personal definition of what pvp is and therefore no matter what the REAL definition is he wont accept it.

plus what i find funny is by his concept of pve then everything is pve and pvp doesnt exist in any game anywhere. cause every game takes place in an environment that is not player controlled. /headmeetwall

Their stance is just that only deathmatch is pvp, even though it’s just a mode among pvp, whether it is MMOs or first person shooters or whatever.

pvp = player killing became popular in rpgs primarily, and then carried over to FPS, and other genres.

Actually, the wiki states:
" In computer role-playing games, PvP is sometimes called player killing or PKing."

This means that it’s not a fact, but players prefer calling it like that.
Though, GW2 doesn’t call PvP player killing otherwise we’d only have TDM.

It’s nice you’ve found a lot of other games that do fit within your idea of PvP.
Guild Wars does not fit in it, so yay to you but you’re wrong.

At least regarding GW2.

That is like saying that " sometimes a dude is referring to a guy…"

If that is what many people understand it to be, that is what they expect.

You’re just assuming some words holds your definition, because you agree that most people think the same way as you.

Just because it might be popular to some, doesn’t mean it counts for the entire population.

You should start a thread in WvW, how WvW is actually PvE because of your definition. Wonder how that will turn out

MOST people who have played many computer RPGS , yes, because that is what they called it in all of them. SO much so, they added it to wiki for a reason. If I were playing candy crush, I would expect them to not know what people meant by pvp.. but not in an mmorpg.

Since I have played most mmorpgs past and present and in every single one of them they called player killing pvp, yea I expect the same would apply here, since this is a mmorpg as well.

NeXeD.3042:

lil devils x.6071:

NeXeD.3042:

lil devils x.6071:

oneply.9586:

lil devils x.6071:

It does when those objectives are in the environment by definition of what PVE means. Player vs environment is exactly that.

If the player is forced to kill the other players to win, that is pvp, that isn’t the case with any map but courtyard.

i challenge you to win a game in ranked/unranked q without attacking another player. even get a team together and none of you attack another player. let me know how that works for you.

I have already done this, it is actually very easy to win without killing if you go in with your guild and you bind/ stun/ chill knock back the crap out of them.. They just cannot move the whole game, and yea they get angry to say the least . LOL

I will go grab 4 eotm pugs. We will do khylo. if you can beat me and my pugs without killing a single one of us I will give you 100 gold. If you can’t all I want is you come back here and say you were wrong. Sound fair?

No, since I am not even on the game right now, nor can I get on the game right now, nor is anyone from my guild to play you. You have to spec all the builds to be able to play that way, and that takes effort…

Ok. I’m not either. My stance is I can give you all the planning in the world but you won’t beat me without killing any of us no matter how you build. Accepted? I’ll give you as much time as you need all I need is pugs.

SO what you are saying is you are a better player than the scrubs we played before so we will have to kill you and just chain the pugs instead? Silly, what is that going to prove?

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Roe.3679:

oneply.9586:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.

There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.

If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.

And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…

I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.

Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that

You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.

I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.

Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”

It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.

So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.

Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps

talking to a brick wall isnt really worth it.
he has his own personal definition of what pvp is and therefore no matter what the REAL definition is he wont accept it.

plus what i find funny is by his concept of pve then everything is pve and pvp doesnt exist in any game anywhere. cause every game takes place in an environment that is not player controlled. /headmeetwall

Their stance is just that only deathmatch is pvp, even though it’s just a mode among pvp, whether it is MMOs or first person shooters or whatever.

pvp = player killing became popular in rpgs primarily, and then carried over to FPS, and other genres.

Actually, the wiki states:
" In computer role-playing games, PvP is sometimes called player killing or PKing."

This means that it’s not a fact, but players prefer calling it like that.
Though, GW2 doesn’t call PvP player killing otherwise we’d only have TDM.

It’s nice you’ve found a lot of other games that do fit within your idea of PvP.
Guild Wars does not fit in it, so yay to you but you’re wrong.

At least regarding GW2.

That is like saying that " sometimes a dude is referring to a guy…"

If that is what many people understand it to be, that is what they expect.

NeXeD.3042:

lil devils x.6071:

oneply.9586:

lil devils x.6071:

It does when those objectives are in the environment by definition of what PVE means. Player vs environment is exactly that.

If the player is forced to kill the other players to win, that is pvp, that isn’t the case with any map but courtyard.

i challenge you to win a game in ranked/unranked q without attacking another player. even get a team together and none of you attack another player. let me know how that works for you.

I have already done this, it is actually very easy to win without killing if you go in with your guild and you bind/ stun/ chill knock back the crap out of them.. They just cannot move the whole game, and yea they get angry to say the least . LOL

I will go grab 4 eotm pugs. We will do khylo. if you can beat me and my pugs without killing a single one of us I will give you 100 gold. If you can’t all I want is you come back here and say you were wrong. Sound fair?

No, since I am not even on the game right now, nor can I get on the game right now, nor is anyone from my guild to play you. You have to spec all the builds to be able to play that way, and that takes effort…

BlueDragon.7054:

lil devils x.6071:

Roe.3679:

lil devils x.6071:

oneply.9586:

last night i started getting really annoyed with the map selector, 4-5 games in a row on this dang map. it only ever happens when i play ranked q. so boring to do the same map over and over again.

@lil devils
Player vs Player
Whats not pvp about conquest maps?

Player vs Player is KILLING other players, Player vs Environment is interacting with the environment. When the environmental elements are the primary focus it is a PVE centered game with PVP elements, you can kill players to win, but it is not necessary to win. That isn’t full PVP. The only full PVP map they have is courtyard, the rest are PVE maps with PVP elements.

In courtyard you can get one kill and perma stealth the team as time runs out. Is that pvp? Objectives to fight over don’t make things automatically PVE.

It does when those objectives are in the environment by definition of what PVE means. Player vs environment is exactly that.

If the player is forced to kill the other players to win, that is pvp, that isn’t the case with any map but courtyard.

Player vs Player is player AGAINST other player, it doesn’t necessarily mean killing them. Even Mario Kart is a pvp game if you play it online or in the local vs mode.

Yes, but it is a matter of what people expect by popular usage of the word. Like calling someone a " dude". You would expect that to mean a " guy" not an " elephant butt hair" regardless what the dictionary might say. LOL usually they refer to pvp = pking and pve games to win against other players as " competitive multiplayer" to make sure there is no confusion.

Pvp as understood in computer role playing games = pking. Sure you can have MANY ways to compete against other players, hell we had gambling in many games where you can win whatever they stake, that does not mean anyone considered that pvp either.

Roe.3679:

oneply.9586:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.

There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.

If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.

And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…

I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.

Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that

You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.

I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.

Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”

It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.

So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.

Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps

talking to a brick wall isnt really worth it.
he has his own personal definition of what pvp is and therefore no matter what the REAL definition is he wont accept it.

plus what i find funny is by his concept of pve then everything is pve and pvp doesnt exist in any game anywhere. cause every game takes place in an environment that is not player controlled. /headmeetwall

Their stance is just that only deathmatch is pvp, even though it’s just a mode among pvp, whether it is MMOs or first person shooters or whatever.

pvp = player killing became popular in rpgs primarily, and then carried over to FPS, and other genres.

oneply.9586:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.

There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.

If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.

And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…

I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.

Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that

You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.

I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.

Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”

It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.

So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.

Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps

talking to a brick wall isnt really worth it.
he has his own personal definition of what pvp is and therefore no matter what the REAL definition is he wont accept it.

plus what i find funny is by his concept of pve then everything is pve and pvp doesnt exist in any game anywhere. cause every game takes place in an environment that is not player controlled. /headmeetwall

I just linked from Wiki that pvp is called player killing… Facts? LOL
No, I am not a " brick wall". She* has played MANY PVP games, and they ALL required player killing.. Just pointing out that is what people expect it to mean.

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.

There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.

If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.

And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…

I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.

Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that

You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.

I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.

Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”

It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.

So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.

Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps

You should understand this is ALSO what is primarily understood by players in the realm of PC games:

“In computer role-playing games, PvP is sometimes called player killing or PKing.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_player

That is what they expect when you are discussing " PVP" regardless of game. People have different definitions of what PVP can consist of, however, Player killing is pretty universal among computer gamers, and this is a computer role playing game, so it is expected.
Wvw was advertised as having PVE involved, so it was expected to be there. They didn;t advertise PVP to be PVE. LOL

Jski.6180:

lil devils x.6071:

Jski.6180:

Stander wvw give good rewards as things stand there needs to be a way to use BoH to buy food and 2ed food. Not the strongest type but a scaled down version but just strong enofe to have something to fall back on if your out of gold and at the same time still keep the TP relevant from the wvw comunitly.

An added though:
I still think they need to remove EotM from effectively any thing in the stander wvw BUT add in a reward at the end of the match. So the side that took 1st would get a lot more then 2ed and 3ed. At the same time make it much harder to crate new overflow maps of EotM you should not be able to spam maps till you find one your side is wining on or simply one that is new.

If you want to go as far as making a only EotM wepon skin / armor set you may end up turning EotM into more of an open pvp map then we see in the stander WvW. Imagen ppl trying to win EotM and not just there for loot from fliping things alone.

I think they should be able to buy EVERYTHING used in wvw with Badges though. They can just make the higher tier stuff cost more badges, such as higher tier food, weapons, armor, superior siege, guild siege ect. Just increase the badges according to the value of the item. If they just increase the badges according to the value, I do not see a problem with being able to buy anything used in wvw with wvw currency.

If they wish to improve the number of defenders in wvw, they will have to focus on personal player rewards and individual loot for the defenders, or it will still be too Ktrain focused. The only way I see the help resolve the pay to win issues of wvw is to make wvw self sustaining financially for players. If everyone playing has the ability to earn enough to play wvw in wvw the impact of players dumping their credit cards into wvw on wvw will be less, since it helps even the playing field. Currently players spend a ton in RL $$ paying for scouts to sit in towers, best siege, weapons and armor for guilds, Best food and stones, paying for entire guilds to transfer, running all buffs ( Power vitality toughness ect..) on towers and keeps.

Allowing all wvw players to be able to better afford these things just from playing wvw would reduce the imbalance between those dumping a ton of credit card cash into wvw and those who do not. It helps even out the playing field because everyone could afford the same toys to play with as well, and not just the Credit Card players. right now as it is sometimes you have the situation of one server being equipped like an NFL team and the other server being equipped like a pee wee football team.. that doesn’t make for good gameplay. ( And YEA, I speak from experience, I AM a credit card player, it sure as hell isn’t fair to the other guys how much I spend on this game. I am the one with the advantage here. * LOOKS GLARINGLY OVER AT ANET* Yea, you know how much we blow on this. LOL)

You got to keep the TP relevant still and keep gold worth something allowing ppl to buy every thing with BoH would cause a lot more problems in the long run its best to let BoH get the food one below the best. I am not sure how rune / sigil should work out but if they did let you buy some with BoH (only old ones) they need to be account bound.

What you buy now with BoH isn’t account bound though, you buy regular siege.. you could sell it in the TP and Buy superior siege with it, but regular siege as it is is so worthless it isn’t even a good reward. Since they already have this implemented in the game, I do not see why changing the rewards would be an issue. Unless they invent a currency just for wvw ( not obtainable in EoTM) to buy stuff for wvw I am not seeing why they should not just reward wvw players accordingly. If they limit the wvw rewards to those who actually play wvw, they are not going to dumping them on the market because they are going to spend them in wvw instead.

Guardian of Angels.9867:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.

There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.

If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.

And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…

I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.

Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that

You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.

Celtus.8456:

Are you guys enjoying the extra popup that allows your choice between 3 out of 5 total maps? How did we ever live without this feature?

I don’t vote on the maps anymore, I know I can win on all of them.

It is terrible.. Even worse it spins around and then picks the one that ONE person chose when everyone else chose the same map.

SobeSoul.6910:

lil devils x.6071:

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.

There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.

If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors. If the score was entirely based on killing players it would be PVP only, not PVE with PVP elements.

oneply.9586:

lil devils x.6071:

It does when those objectives are in the environment by definition of what PVE means. Player vs environment is exactly that.

If the player is forced to kill the other players to win, that is pvp, that isn’t the case with any map but courtyard.

i challenge you to win a game in ranked/unranked q without attacking another player. even get a team together and none of you attack another player. let me know how that works for you.

I have already done this, it is actually very easy to win without killing if you go in with your guild and you bind/ stun/ chill knock back the crap out of them.. They just cannot move the whole game, and yea they get angry to say the least . LOL

oneply.9586:

lil devils x.6071:

oneply.9586:

last night i started getting really annoyed with the map selector, 4-5 games in a row on this dang map. it only ever happens when i play ranked q. so boring to do the same map over and over again.

@lil devils
Player vs Player
Whats not pvp about conquest maps?

Player vs Player is KILLING other players, Player vs Environment is interacting with the environment. When the environmental elements are the primary focus it is a PVE centered game with PVP elements, you can kill players to win, but it is not necessary to win. That isn’t full PVP. The only full PVP map they have is courtyard, the rest are PVE maps with PVP elements.

are you not competing against other players for the same objectives?

and pvp doesnt mean deathmatch, which is a mode within pvp.

No you are not necessarily sharing the same objectives, some play to win, some play just to kill, entirely different objectives. I have had pvp matches where no one tried to kill me even once, they only tried to hide then score. Not much of a PVP experience there..

Sorel.4870:

lil devils x.6071:

oneply.9586:

last night i started getting really annoyed with the map selector, 4-5 games in a row on this dang map. it only ever happens when i play ranked q. so boring to do the same map over and over again.

@lil devils
Player vs Player
Whats not pvp about conquest maps?

Player vs Player is KILLING other players, Player vs Environment is interacting with the environment. When the environmental elements are the primary focus it is a PVE centered game with PVP elements, you can kill players to win, but it is not necessary to win. That isn’t full PVP. The only full PVP map they have is courtyard, the rest are PVE maps with PVP elements.

Yeah, chess is also a PvE game because you have to move pieces and you can’t just smash the board on your opponent’s face, so boring! Sorry mate, but some of us do enjoy a little strategy added to the killing. And yes, as a team you do need to kill players to win. The only PvE aspect of it is when players die to Svanir.

Chess isn’t a pve game if playing against other players because the chess pieces ARE the weapons, no different than a sword, or an arrow.

Roe.3679:

lil devils x.6071:

oneply.9586:

last night i started getting really annoyed with the map selector, 4-5 games in a row on this dang map. it only ever happens when i play ranked q. so boring to do the same map over and over again.

@lil devils
Player vs Player
Whats not pvp about conquest maps?

Player vs Player is KILLING other players, Player vs Environment is interacting with the environment. When the environmental elements are the primary focus it is a PVE centered game with PVP elements, you can kill players to win, but it is not necessary to win. That isn’t full PVP. The only full PVP map they have is courtyard, the rest are PVE maps with PVP elements.

In courtyard you can get one kill and perma stealth the team as time runs out. Is that pvp? Objectives to fight over don’t make things automatically PVE.

It does when those objectives are in the environment by definition of what PVE means. Player vs environment is exactly that.

If the player is forced to kill the other players to win, that is pvp, that isn’t the case with any map but courtyard.

SobeSoul.6910:

Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol

No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.

oneply.9586:

last night i started getting really annoyed with the map selector, 4-5 games in a row on this dang map. it only ever happens when i play ranked q. so boring to do the same map over and over again.

@lil devils
Player vs Player
Whats not pvp about conquest maps?

Player vs Player is KILLING other players, Player vs Environment is interacting with the environment. When the environmental elements are the primary focus it is a PVE centered game with PVP elements, you can kill players to win, but it is not necessary to win. That isn’t full PVP. The only full PVP map they have is courtyard, the rest are PVE maps with PVP elements.

Guardian of Angels.9867:

I second this post and will add the request:
Don’t vote for Courtyard.

I disagree, that is the only map I want to play on. Courtyard as far as I am concerned is the only PVP map, the rest are PVE maps. Ideally we could sign up for maps, not " matches" and if no one wants your map, you just get to wait.

MY vote is ALWAYS vote for courtyard!!! LOL
I add the request to burn SKY Hammer with fire.

Bertrand.3057:

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Tom Gore.4035:

As long as the rewards remain way below PvE levels I’m fine with increasing them.

Why should it be way below PvE rewards? In my opinion the PvE players are already a very privileged bunch. They get the most stuff, the most updates, the best rewards and Anet in general caters a lot to the PvE players. PvP got some much needed love as well, but us WvW players are still stuck with the same old maps and an extra pseudo-WvW map used for karma training or leveling alts. On top of that the rewards we get are super lackluster.

Wow, did you even read the post? It has nothing to do with PvE player entitlement, take off your blinders and consider the bigger picture instead of giving a reactionary response based on your own entitlement as a player.

The reason why WvW rewards cannot be carelessly increased is because there is a risk of breaking the game mode if you do so. WvW is less rewarding than PvE partly because opposition from other players makes it impossible to get the maximum amount of rewards.

If you make WvW rewarding enough to be an enticing destination to PvE players, some of them will try to game the system so that they can maximize the rewards. This is exactly what happened in Edge of the Mists, where you now have some groups that are very toxic to anyone who tries to PvP in that zone. By encouraging people whose intent is to blob up and avoid fights, you will ruin the one appeal that WvW has to its core player group, which is diverse and challenging PvP encounters. If you lose these encounters, WvW players will leave the game no matter how generous you make the rewards.

I’m not say WvW rewards should be left as they are, but they can only be increased if the whole system is changed so that zerging and PvD is not the optimal way to earn rewards in WvW.

Regarding your specific suggestions: It doesn’t matter if you make it a reward track system if the reward track is advanced the same way WXP is advanced right now. As well, tournament rewards need to be implemented very carefully because if you just make it rewarding to play on the winning server then you just encourage stacking on a single server.

The problem is what they are giving rewards for and what rewards they are giving, not the player resistance. Highest personal rewards in wvw should be from killing other players. You should get most loot from kills. 2nd most loot should be from defending, 3rd loot from capping. That is the only way to have both offense and defense teams and to prevent the K train like EoTM. Personal player rewards must take precedent over just team rewards. Winning itself is a reward as well, and should have a personal reward as well.

As with most games, PVP rewards should be much greater than PVE rewards, and WVW is a more expensive form of PVP and should be rewarded the highest of them all. In most games with PVP, Player killing gives the most rewards in the game hands down, as you are fighting real players and not AI. WVW and PVP should give more loot than dungeons if implemented properly. It is only " carelessly implemented" if they only give rewards for capping causing an imbalance, and not give enough rewards to compensate for what players spend to play wvwv.. OH wait.. that is what they did in the first place. Solving the imbalance they originally created isn’t carelessly implementing rewards, it is solving the problem that already exists. This is something MANY other games already learned and GW could use what they have already learned on this.

aspirine.6852:

Did any of you play GW1? The WvW rank, together with the PVP rank should give you another currency(Faction in GW1) you can spent on things. Like the Zaishen keys in GW1 that you could use on the island to open a specific reward chest.
This chest could give you any drop in the game, and cant remember for sure but I think it also had some drops specific for this chest.

I played GW1, though I think they would have to do more than just that though to resolve the issues with player rewards in wvw. We don’t want wvw turning into an EoTM kTrain, so we ALSO have to make sure the rewards are implemented properly to prevent that from happening. We ALSO need players to be personally rewarded for defending as much if not more than capping, so we have people playing offense and defense more effectively. Those rewards you mentioned would be additional rewards, since wvw uses resources that pve and pvp do not, they also need more access to those resources in wvw.

For example, no one I know uses regular siege because it is considered garbage. It either 1) needs to be made more powerful or 2) give them superior siege instead. Regular arrow carts are probably the most useless item made in the game. Since in order to be able to compete in wvw the players needs access to the resources they use in wvw, and not just the garbage items. maybe also allow them to trade in multiples of regular siege to upgrade to superior or guild siege. wvw players ALSO have to use their own $$ in wvw to upgrade keeps, towers and camps, as well as have multiple sets of equipment/ food depending on what they are doing. You have zerg builds/ roaming builds/ defense builds and people usually carry their equipment on them to switch. It is not as simplified as it is for PVE or PVP, and costs a ton more to play it.

In PVE you make $$ for your time in effort. IN PVP you make $$ for your time in effort. In WVW you spend money, and quite a bit of it for your time and effort. That is the problem here that must be resolved. If you are NOT spending money in wvw you are just leeching off someone who is, it shouldn’t be like that.

Bertrand.3057:

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Aberrant.6749:

No, not clueless. Unless you’re staying up 24/7 doing zerg busting all week you’re not going to be making much of a difference in the overall PPT. Coverage and numbers > skill. Seems more that you have illusions of grandeur… which confirms my point about zerg busting inflating egos.

Yes, clueless. Absolutely clueless.
You don’t have to be present 24/7 to make a difference. By your logic you yourself don’t make a difference either. In fact no one makes a difference according to you.

Zerg busting guilds working closely together with the main zerg can make a HUGE difference. Any zerg commander can tell you that. Just ask Of Disco, Prosecute, or Choo. They love us (zerg busting guild) because we give them some breathing room to actually cap stuff without getting blobbed down every 5 seconds.

He didn’t say you make zero difference. He said you don’t make much of a difference.

After your zerg-busting guild has gone to bed, if you only have one server left with a zerg running PvD they will flip all of the maps within 1 or 2 hours. Unless you have zerg-busting guilds online 24/7, that PvD will mean far more for PPT than any of your coordinated efforts.

In terms of “difference”, think of it this way: How much PPT do you lose if you lose a primetime player (especially if there is a queue so someone will fill their place) versus a player who plays off-peak? The difference going from 5 to 10 players, or 10 to 20 players, or even 50 to 100 players, is much more than the same difference in raw numbers near or past the population cap. What would the PPT gain be if your guild stopped playing primetime and started playing at an hour when WvW activity was at its lowest?

Again, that is a server imbalance issue, not a reward issue, adding rewards actually helps bring players in that would be otherwise in the silverwastes farming to get their wvw money. If they didn;t have to leave wvw to go farm to play wvw, you would also have better coverage. However, that isn’t going to solve the problem alone, the problem is there are not enough players for the number of servers present, thus they should either 1) reduce the number of wvw servers or 2) make wvw not attached to servers. Only way to resolve the coverage issue you are bringing up. The coverage issue is separate from the issue of reward though.

Currently only about 6 wvw servers are capable of 24/7 coverage. If the server is organized properly like they are on JQ, the guilds all work together to set times they run so that you have a commander ready to take over when one is ready to leave. On JQ even though we have the numbers to run ques on all maps during NA prime, we do not, and the ques are not bad due to guilds working together and setting their runs at different times. The issue you are discussing is an " age of the game " issue where the game needs to reduce the number of servers as other games do to address the population issues, they are failing to properly maintain the game by not doing so. That is not the same issue however of player rewards being imbalanced for wvw. What you may think is the lowest time on your server, we can be running ques on all maps, that isn’t consistent for all servers, it is due to having too many servers than you have population to support those servers, and not implementing proper population controls.

If they reward players more for player kills AND for defending, you will also see more players doing that instead of Ktrain as well as increase the overall population and coverage. EoTm is a joke and not taken seriously by most players. Implementing player rewards for defending and player killing is the opposite of what EoTM does, and thus it would not work the same.

Chimppossible.1829:

I disagree to some degree witn you lil devils x

Inside the game, living story, dungeons, fractals all inside game even pvp I agree that all players should be able to choose their server, so they can play with friends, fam etc.

But for Wvw I disagree pure from observing the facts. In the small two years that I played Wvw and I am an WvW addict I do not play for anything else I met a lot of ppl, I am quite open and make easy contact. i know more then 100 ppl in the game and I only met one time a few fam members playing at wvw. Almost all players are on their own playing besides guild members. So it would not stop WvW gaming at all if ppl are free to choose servers inside the game but for Wvw are spread by the computer.

You got 2 scenrios..

A. What we got now…it is simple math, how it is now will slowly break up servers in the end only the higher Tier will be fun. 10% of my list went now within a year to higher tier and i asked them..“do you like it, we miss you. You will be back?” the answer is in almost all cases.."No, we wont come back its way more equal here not outnumbered, siege is more build cause more ppl are there etc. So slowly the pressure on lower tier becomes higher and ppl game for fun for joy not to have stress and allready know the outcome, to easy or way to heavy. Its rare to have a balanced match. Guilds also leave and jump and that also puts heavy pressure on the ppl that stay behind.

B. You spread ppl equally and most ppl wont care cause the matches will be way more fun…true challenges! Way less predictable. Way more rewarding by how hard you work for it then instead by numbers or a difference in nightcap. If we go on like this for guilds its also less fun in future…Only at high tier its playble but then all is blob and zerg……how boring and predictable!

So no choosing at all, i agree end game! But all freedom choosing for a server just not WvW absolutely not end game.

*But this should have happened at the start of Wvw at Gw2. It is probably now not possible anymore.

Or C. The only alternative is fusing servers but then you have to look at night cap also else its still invain.

The lower Tiers also have a way to high pressure on their siege, way to little ppl to tag cause it is not popular. Rewarding it would help. I agree it is easier said then done of course it cost time and there for money from programmers to do the job but it is duable. Like a max of 1 time rewarding for the last ten min a siege has to be tagged. Then only the person who tags it in those last ten min gets a small bonus. Ppl are then also more linked to the defense of a server. Same with points for building and finnishing siege. Make that a bit more! Pull ppl a bit more to also that part of the game cause in the end it gives all a better game experience.

SO what about all the players who only play wvw and do nothing else in the game? What about the thousands of guilds who play all their games together and just move from game to game only playing wvw and large scale pvp? Why would they play Guild wars if they could not play it the same way they play every other game they play together? I would not play this, nor would my guild or family and friends if we could not choose our wvw server.

Jski.6180:

Stander wvw give good rewards as things stand there needs to be a way to use BoH to buy food and 2ed food. Not the strongest type but a scaled down version but just strong enofe to have something to fall back on if your out of gold and at the same time still keep the TP relevant from the wvw comunitly.

An added though:
I still think they need to remove EotM from effectively any thing in the stander wvw BUT add in a reward at the end of the match. So the side that took 1st would get a lot more then 2ed and 3ed. At the same time make it much harder to crate new overflow maps of EotM you should not be able to spam maps till you find one your side is wining on or simply one that is new.

If you want to go as far as making a only EotM wepon skin / armor set you may end up turning EotM into more of an open pvp map then we see in the stander WvW. Imagen ppl trying to win EotM and not just there for loot from fliping things alone.

I think they should be able to buy EVERYTHING used in wvw with Badges though. They can just make the higher tier stuff cost more badges, such as higher tier food, weapons, armor, superior siege, guild siege ect. Just increase the badges according to the value of the item. If they just increase the badges according to the value, I do not see a problem with being able to buy anything used in wvw with wvw currency.

If they wish to improve the number of defenders in wvw, they will have to focus on personal player rewards and individual loot for the defenders, or it will still be too Ktrain focused. The only way I see the help resolve the pay to win issues of wvw is to make wvw self sustaining financially for players. If everyone playing has the ability to earn enough to play wvw in wvw the impact of players dumping their credit cards into wvw on wvw will be less, since it helps even the playing field. Currently players spend a ton in RL $$ paying for scouts to sit in towers, best siege, weapons and armor for guilds, Best food and stones, paying for entire guilds to transfer, running all buffs ( Power vitality toughness ect..) on towers and keeps.

Allowing all wvw players to be able to better afford these things just from playing wvw would reduce the imbalance between those dumping a ton of credit card cash into wvw and those who do not. It helps even out the playing field because everyone could afford the same toys to play with as well, and not just the Credit Card players. right now as it is sometimes you have the situation of one server being equipped like an NFL team and the other server being equipped like a pee wee football team.. that doesn’t make for good gameplay. ( And YEA, I speak from experience, I AM a credit card player, it sure as hell isn’t fair to the other guys how much I spend on this game. I am the one with the advantage here. * LOOKS GLARINGLY OVER AT ANET* Yea, you know how much we blow on this. LOL)

Aberrant.6749:

No, not hyperbolic. I’m just not talking about only T1 like you seem to be. There are other tiers you know…

Most guilds on TC/BG/JQ teach people outnumber or run tatics by example at the very least.

No, not clueless. Unless you’re staying up 24/7 doing zerg busting all week you’re not going to be making much of a difference in the overall PPT. Coverage and numbers > skill. Seems more that you have illusions of grandeur… which confirms my point about zerg busting inflating egos.

Not trolling. I’ve played on many servers. It’s not like I’m the only person that I know that plays gw2 and I’ve played on multiple accounts. I’ve been over at friends houses who play on other tiers. Seems more like you can’t even fathom anything beyond T1 even existing.

There is a thread on the first page of this sub forum (it’s directly below this one while I type this response, lol) about people being heavily spawn camped. They are getting farmed. Seeing as you missed even that, I find your statement highly dubious to say the least.

Both EOTM and regular WvW yes. There are constant events for everything. Kill a yak that doesn’t even fight back? Get some get some karma Xp gold Wxp. Walk into a green circle? Get some karma Xp gold Wxp. Kill a single vet mob? karma Xp gold wxp. It’s all over the place all the time.

Sorry you find bags that contain t5/t6/cores/lodestones or kitten each on the TP to be worthless junk. I disagree, so I would be happy to accept all of your “junk” heavy loot bags. <3

Downed players are easier to kill than things in PvE or PvP. In PvE you generally need to kill several things during an event to get credit (there might be some random ones I’m forgetting, I think you might be able to afk for one of the guild missions in a circle?).

So you don’t even include things you get from WvW rank up chests as loot you get from WvW? I don’t even…

You’re probably confused because you seem to think that WvW is something harder and more serious than it is.

Anyways I’ve made my opinion clear. I don’t feel like bumping this thread up anymore.

Uhh.. How about NO? Never heard of ANYONE teaching outnumber or run on JQ. Out number or run is not playing the game properly. Instead, they teach actual battlefield strategy and tactics, positioning, proper builds, buffs, skills needed for combat ect..

(However, I think this explains why so many JQ commanders say they should go TC just to teach them how to fight because they are clueless, and we can wipe 40 with 15.. LOL)

I have played on multiple servers, and never did we use blob mentality, that was for the people who don’t know how to play. L2P, then comment on how wvw actually works. NEWSFLASH: WVW IS A FORM OF PVP. I know that may be hard for you to understand, but it is actually pvp, and large scale battles in other games is ALSO pvp and much better rewarded. In other games PVP is highest loot in game, and it should be. Wvw IS PVP and should be rewarded equally. Currently the frequency of the loot in wvw is greatly lacking and should be at least comparable to other games rewards for pvp.

Gameplay imbalances are separate issues and should be addressed individually, but have no bearing on player rewards for wvw pvp.

Aberrant.6749:

lil devils x.6071:

If wvw rewards were implemented properly, you would earn more in wvw than you would dungeons due to wvw costing much more to do than just about anything in the game. Making wvw unaffordable for all players isn’t exactly making for a good game. Once you buy siege, influence for buffs, food, upgrades, it gets expensive to play. Pretty much wvw is PAY TO WIN and it shouldn’t be that way. If done properly, you would even have something left over to upgrade your gear after buying all that stuff, but it is a money sink instead.

It is indeed pay/zerg/coverage to win, thus not really balanced or competitive. That’s exactly why it shouldn’t be rewarded as much as other aspects of the game which are better balanced.

That makes no sense, in other games it is rewarding to be competitive, and it is much more balanced than gw2. To help balance it , wvw should be self sustaining not requiring you to do anything else to enjoy it, just as you can enjoy pvp without doing anything else. Many games the pvp gives more personal reward to players than pve, and it should. Coming from full loot, no safe zone pvp games, the idea that players should not be rewarded for pvp in wvw makes no sense what so ever.

Giving players rewards would help remove some of the pay to win imbalance issues, since you would be able to support playing wvw by playing wvw, and not just by credit card. LOL

Wvw Players spend more real cash on the game than anyone else, they deserve some loot too. For some wvw players, wvw is the entire game, as they do nothing else, and would rather play another game instead of being forced into pve. A game mechanic is supposed to be bringing in players, not sending them elsewhere, it needs to be resolved.

If wvw rewards were implemented properly, you would earn more in wvw than you would dungeons due to wvw costing much more to do than just about anything in the game. Making wvw unaffordable for all players isn’t exactly making for a good game. Once you buy siege, influence for buffs, food, upgrades, it gets expensive to play. Pretty much wvw is PAY TO WIN and it shouldn’t be that way. If done properly, you would even have something left over to upgrade your gear after buying all that stuff, but it is a money sink instead.

It is situational of course, however, If you are in wvw and you allow players to get away to kill yaks, take camps and tap keeps, you are scoring for the other team. People do play wvw to win and taking up space on the map and not actually helping your team is not being a good team player.

Chimppossible.1829:

Chimppossible.1829:

I put my own 2 cents in it.
(Snipped because it exceeded the character limit)
So the main flaw Anet made is at the beginning of Gw2 let ppl choose a server including guilds. It would have been way better if ppl where spread randomly by the computers database over servers and fixed to it. Then you get matches that would be way less predictable and servers couldnt be wrecked by guilds that move to higher tier. It would make guilds grow loyalty to their server and in the end it would give more fun for all!

I find it very wrong that ppl who build siege all day gain way less points then ppl taking tower, keeps and camps all day. A lot of ppl dont want to throw, build or tag siege. It would help if this was more rewarded by Anet! And yes it would give a more fun game cause siege makes keeps are less easy to be taken and are easier to defend….so again more rewarding fun gaming for attackers and defenders.

So reward siege builders more and start rewarding siege taggers! Even it was for little points.
It would help the game for sure!

Only a real minority now throws siege, builds siege and tags siege. I can know cause for a small year a spent roughly 60 gold for throwing siege a month, building tagging siege.

The lower tier u go the more there for ppl are under strain, if this was all a bit more rewarded it would for all servers but for sure the servers with less ppl a lot more fun and less restraining.

Last point. Hackers become more of a problem and i expect this problem to slowly increase.

I also wanne thank Anet for all the hard work and giving us a great game

Every game allows you to choose a server, if it did not people would not play the game. Many people play this game with family, friends and with guilds that they play all of their games with, if you could not play with your family and friends, why would you play the game at all when you are looking for a game to play with family and friends?

The issue is the same in all games, When a game comes out it has more players and it can support more servers, however as the game ages players move on to other games reducing the number of players and causing imbalances such as we are experiencing now. What many games do is then shut down servers to fit the population, Anet has not yet done that, as having the number of servers available should be determined by how many players are actually playing wvw, and it is not, nor can it be resolved with the current framework.

You would have to either a) remove the number of servers available or b) make wvw not tied to server in the first place. Those are the only ways to really resolve the imbalance. The problem is you do not have enough people playing wvw, you cannot force people to play so unless they resolve the numbers of servers, there is not really a way to have it balanced. It would be better if EVERYONE moved to the higher tiers then shut down the lower tiers all together to resolve the 24/7 coverage issue. Only like the top 6 servers are capable of 24hr coverage. Right now, server loyalty is the primary obstacle preventing this from being resolved due to many not wanting it to be their server that is closed down.

The issue with wvw Defense/ seige ect. is wvw is not self sustaining financially. You should be able to make more in game $$ to play wvw buying siege, influence for buffs, upgrades, food and make a profit for new weapons/ armor ect just from playing wvw and you do not. People who cap get personal reward chests and XP , defenders do not, so you have a ton of people wanting to K train and very few wanting to defend. WvW should be more profitable than dungeons and it is far from being so. Giving the team points does nothing to help the guy spending a fortune on siege to do so pay for it. Players need personal reward to make wvw sustainable financially. They should make wvw more profitable than dungeons to defend and more people would do it.

In regards to not allowing players to pick their own server, that would kill the game. Failing to allow people to choose servers= dead game, it doesn’t work. It would kill the game entirely, as entire guilds, families and friends will go to games that will let them play together instead, only leaving isolated players that have no loyalty to friends and family they play with, and that is not enough to support an entire game. Guilds are more than just people you talk to in game, hell many guilds get together in person and party and hang out together. I play with real family and friends, and blood is thicker than pixels. LOL

pepper.6179:

lil devils x.6071:

The only way a reset would work is if they say had a meteorite hit all the servers, made fewer new ones and made everyone choose from those forcing everyone into more populated servers. However, if people could not get their entire guilds on servers, they would be rightfully infuriated.

now now, we aren’t dinosaurs

If we aren’t Dinosaurs, maybe Conodonts? LOL

They need to put in Guild golems.. since everyone keeps calling them that anyhow. XD
I agree that wvw needs more toys to play with, just make sure you can trade them this time.. it is lame you cannot send disablers. No point in even having non tradables in game.

joneirikb.7506:

lil devils x.6071”

That is why they need to make more maps like EBG, and resolve the issues with the borderlands. The problem is though the maps they are trying to fix the borderlands with will only make less people want to go to it instead of more if it is as linear( choke point to access map), and with " treacherous heights and traps" as their interviews suggest thus far. If they resolve the problem with the borderlands maps, and have more maps that are as enjoyable as EBG, then it will resolve the problem. Even low pop servers have everyone trying to go to EBG. If they had more than one map as enjoyable as EBG. They would be able to spread the population out on the different EBG style maps instead of have people who would rather sit in que for EBG while standing in Lions arch than go to a BL.

Snipped for length

lil devils x.6071”

Honestly though, for the low population issues with NA, I do not see that being resolved unless they basically destroy all but 6 servers and add more maps to handle the population, since NA only has 24/7 coverage on 6 servers. IT is a player issue, or rather a lack there of, that causes the imbalance. They cannot force people to play, if there are not enough players there, there are just not enough players.

The problem is NOT that there isn’t enough players. The problem is that there are not enough players at all times of the day. The problem is PPT/Points and Coverage/Timezones, and this CAN NOT be solved by destroying servers. UNLESS you create so much quest that people aren’t allowed to play in NA Prime. That for one, would make me move back to EU server.

lil devils x.6071”

IF they only had say 6 wvw servers, then they added and withdrew maps according to population times to handle the ques, it could solve the problem. They could have more maps during high population times, then take those maps away during low population times it would be much more balanced, and little to no ques.

Except for the whole 6 servers part, this is an interesting idea. Change the amount of maps to the amount of players. There are some problems with this:

• If you remove 1 Borderland it becomes very unfair, so you would need to remove ALL 3 borderlands at the same time.
• What happens with ownership, upgrades and PPT on borderlands ?
• How do you kick players ?
• How do you open them up again ?
• How long timers/safety margins are these builds around ?
• How does PPT change with the different amount of maps ?

(Note, ALL numbers are just examples I took out of my head on the fly)

With the current maps, I think that if the population falls under a certain number, removing all 3 borderlands by Freezing them, give a 15 minutes warning, after that just freeze them out, no PPT etc, and you can’t enter them except for your home map for the services at citadel. But put everything on RI or otherwise non-capture-able. When the numbers is large enough that you’re close to get a que on EBG again, open them up again.

If the numbers are large enough that you can start queing 3 maps, then open another copy of EBG. And keep it up until you no longer have the total number to fill more than 2 or 3 maps.

When maps are closed down, give a 15 minutes warning, then forcefully move them out of the map to another map, enemy BL to friendly BL, EBG" into EBG unless to many then select BL to go to.

Let us say that it counts the average over an hours period to decide if it needs more or less maps, to avoid sudden spikes or mass leaving the map (still game-able somewhat).

And since I have no idea how the current Glicko system counts the PPT points, just use percentages of the PPT to affect the glicko.

If we moved away from the “home map” system, this would be much easier, as we didn’t have to worry about the equality of home BL’s, and could just add or remove single maps as needed.

*

Also, please stop Blanket Stating.

I was addressing the issues being brought up in his post, EBG is the most popular map, and runs the highest ques among ALL servers. That does not mean that people do not run on BL, that just means that MORE people run on EBG. This is a fact of the game. Less people run on the other maps, if they want to have less people in que, they need to have more maps like EBG or they will still be sitting in que for EBG. Making other types of maps does not resolve the issue of the majority of players wanting to play on EBG.

EoTM IS a testing ground for what they want to implement in wvw.. so yea we do have an idea of how this works. From the information they have provided in the interviews and what they have tested in the EoTM wvw test map also sounding just like what they describing, we can get a pretty good picture of what is happening here.

Shiren.9532:

joneirikb.7506:

ammayhem.5962:

coglin.1867:

Neglect? Like all of the changes coming up in the expansion?

You mean adding another map the lower servers don’t have the people to cover? In addition to the already empty maps that are currently in…

The new WvW map is not making a 5th map in the weekly match-ups, it is another “borderland” map, which will begin to rotate the other borderland maps. So each week you will get EBG + 3 borderland maps, and the borderland maps will be a random mix of the OLD BL and the NEW BL. So you can end up with 2 new BL’s and 1 old BL for example.

TLDR: Still 4 maps.

Which will still mean three mostly empty maps while everyone queues for EB.

A recent interview with Colin really concerned me about the future for WvW. A new map is fantastic but WvW has much bigger problems than a stale map atm.

Colin was talking up all the fun design feature of the new map, how holding objectives was more meaningful and ArenaNet had focused more on making defence matter but the biggest problem with defending has always been rewards. PvDoor is more rewarding that defending unless bad zergs are playing bag delivery simulator. When specifically asked about the rewards for defending Colin’s reaction was almost as if he hadn’t even considered it a big problem – he certainly didn’t indicate they had been actively looking at how to make defence more rewarding.

It really feels like ArenaNet are out of touch with the biggest issues facing WvW atm. Server stacking is bleeding lower tier servers dry. The instability of servers, the rise and fall of bandwagons – these things are tearing guilds apart. When half the guild transfers (around 250g atm) the other half is left behind, tearing apart the community these players had grown to love. WvW is about community and the current tier system, the instability of servers and the decreasing population is very hostile to maintaining a healthy guild and server community unless you make a safe bet on a T1 server.

Already we are seeing a situation where OCX/SEA/EU guilds on NA servers are basically forced to transfer to T1 servers or risky T2 servers if they want to actually play against anyone and have a decent chance to recruit. Think about that for a minute. When they do transfer, some of their members stay behind (can’t afford to, want to remain with friends, the new server is their racial enemy etc) and that pushes people away from GW2.

WvW doesn’t need a new map as badly as it needs some kind of solutions to population problems facing servers, the inability for non-NA guilds to get fights outside of two tiers and the fact that you can map maps as strategic as you want, rewards are the only incentive that will mater.

That is why they need to make more maps like EBG, and resolve the issues with the borderlands. The problem is though the maps they are trying to fix the borderlands with will only make less people want to go to it instead of more if it is as linear( choke point to access map), and with " treacherous heights and traps" as their interviews suggest thus far. If they resolve the problem with the borderlands maps, and have more maps that are as enjoyable as EBG, then it will resolve the problem. Even low pop servers have everyone trying to go to EBG. If they had more than one map as enjoyable as EBG. They would be able to spread the population out on the different EBG style maps instead of have people who would rather sit in que for EBG while standing in Lions arch than go to a BL.

Honestly though, for the low population issues with NA, I do not see that being resolved unless they basically destroy all but 6 servers and add more maps to handle the population, since NA only has 24/7 coverage on 6 servers. IT is a player issue, or rather a lack there of, that causes the imbalance. They cannot force people to play, if there are not enough players there, there are just not enough players.

IF they only had say 6 wvw servers, then they added and withdrew maps according to population times to handle the ques, it could solve the problem. They could have more maps during high population times, then take those maps away during low population times it would be much more balanced, and little to no ques.

dancingmonkey.4902:

I don’t think you understand what your reading. No one is attacking your opinion. It seems to me that folks are taking issue with you claiming to speak for others. For all anyone knows, you are fabricating other players opunions. It is entirely reasonable for you to limit yourself to speaking solely for yourself. If others have opinions, allow them to voice them.

I enjoy WvW and untill they detail the specifics, and more likely, after I try the open beta, I will make decisions based on my experiences. My T1 server mates that I talk to, and my guild have left me with the impression that they feel the same. This is simply my feel of it though. I do not claim to speak for them. They are capable of doing that themselves. Just like the folks you claim to speak for.

IF you have a conversation in a server channel, are you going to go ask every single person in that conversation to go post what they said simply because some guy on the internet wants to call you a liar? No that is immature and pointless. That is an attack on my character, as it is calling me a liar. I do not appreciate being called a liar, nor do I feel I have anything to prove. That is just a personal attack rather than addressing the content of what was posted.

dancingmonkey.4902:

butch.8136:

You guys found the expansion patchtnotes regarding WvW somewhere? /s

No. That is part of the provlem as I see it. Certain posters are being too presumptuous in that respect as well as pressuming they speak for more then themselves.

No, we are just responding to what they stated here:
http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-interview/
http://www.tentonhammer.com/interview/gw2-heart-thorns-interview-mike-o%E2%80%99brien-and-colin-johanson

coglin.1867:

I see. So your claiming to speak for other’s, yet avoiding any proof. Got it. Being a commander, from a large T1 server guild myself, I feel it might be wise to simply discuss your own opinion, instead of trying to add false weight to it by claiming you speak for others. This is a great place to state your opinion, and discuss it. As well, it is a great place for others to post their opinion, and discuss it. It probably isn’t the best place to claim what other people’s opinions are, and try to create an artificial discussion.

Actually I am not even discussing only my opinions here, I am discussion what others brought up, only part of which I agree with and of course I am not going to go around discussing who said what from a private conversation on public forums, and to even ask someone to do such is absurd.

If you wish to know what people think, maybe you should ask around yourself and pay attention to what people say and you might come across opinions that differ from your own. I do not want my friends and guilds that I enjoy playing with to leave this game due to stale / poor content and that is why I am here. I am not going to go ask all 50 people that were in channel to come post on the forums silly, and the fact that you think you are entitled to tell people to do so , and make unfounded accusations against people you have not even met speaks volumes of your own character.

It appears you are too focused on how you see things to allow for open discussion, without actually discussing the points made you are choosing to attack and make false accusations against someone you have never met. I am well known on the servers I have played and currently play on and am an active member of the wvw community. I would not make false claims about a game, and to suggest such is immature and ignorant. I actually play this game with my real family and friends,have many friends from many servers on this game who know me and if they choose to post on forums that is their prerogative to do so, not your decision to make for them.

When I have people I enjoy playing with tell me they are leaving unless This game gets real GVG ( like 40 vs 40) and I have people I enjoy playing with tell me they are leaving if they put a stupid EoTM maps in WVW, I am not going to wait around for them to come to forums to talk about it, I am going to speak up and hope Anet hears before it comes to that. However, you think we should just wait around for them to post themselves, and make false unfounded accusations against people who have done you no wrong. That, sir, is uncalled for and terribly inappropriate.

If you wish to address the actual content of what I stated, rather than attempt to attack my character, we can have a discussion, but if you wish to attack my character, I bid you good day. You can rightly kitten off.

FYI- There are MANY T1 commanders, but very few good ones. If you don’t want creative commanding in game and more cool toys like portal bombs.. you would not be considered a good one.

Hamster.4861:

bumping because i’ve seen borderland rotation a lot in the last week in a bunch of posts.

and i’m a kitten like that.

From what I’ve read in the HoT expansion materials, is that we’re getting a better designed map for WvW. They’ve accorded a defensive advantage to whoever will hold the new map. I am excited to see how it turns out.

I like the way your maps sound better than theirs.. Theirs sound like we are getting another EoTM so far from what the interviews said. I think your ideas are better designed for WVW than theirs lol

I support! I like the idea of the maps being more friendly to large scale battles, the maps they have been proposing like EoTM.. are terrible for good WVW game play, this sounds wonderful though.

Johje Holan.4607:

lil devils x.6071:

joneirikb.7506:

lil devils x.6071:

No, and I know people would leave GW2 over it if it happened, it is far too linear of a map.

This is why I don’t want it to replace EBG. EBG is to important for the mode and a huge part of the players. Even my server have people that near refuse to leave EBG, and we’re a very roaming heavy server with very little zerging.

But yes, putting EotM in instead of a single Borderland would cause problems with the “home map” system. Which is also part of why I suggested in another thread to remove the “home map” idea, so we could have more variety in the the three non EBG maps.

But yes, make a slight change to the existing Borderland map so its a stand alone single map, and then put in EotM as a second map, and the new Ziggurat map as a third for example. And naturally EBG in the middle. I think that would be a really fun week.

We need MORE maps where you can attack from any direction though is the issue, with better landscape for large battles like EBG. . It is the landscape of the map that is the issue as to how the map actually plays, on BL you spend more time running around than actually in the action. Right now EoTM with it’s mega server would be ideal for GvG battles because guilds could fight so many more guilds from different servers that way.. but they don’t do that. You know why? The landscape is horrible for GvG , too much PVE implemented and it is just used as a leveling fast map so people can Ktrain. The problem is current wvw lacks more maps with good landscape like EBG, and with EB running the highest ques, people often rather sit in Lion’s arch waiting to go in than go to one of the other maps instead because they hate the landscape of the maps themselves. Anet adding more maps they hate isn’t going to help the situation.

Perhaps I’m not understand what you are saying or what you mean by “linear”.

I would say we don’t need another map where you can attack from any direction. Because what happens is it promotes PvD. If you lose a fight somewhere or fail at taking an asset, well lets just go somewhere else and attack where the enemy isn’t.

We do need a progression. It forces confrontation. It leads to more fighting with other players and less with doors and NPC’s.

That’s why I like the sound of the new map. It sounds like you can’t just run somewhere else and attack an unmanned asset.

Maybe you misunderstand. being able to attack from anywhere means you can cata from all sides, treb from camps and other strategic location.. how would that promote pvd?

The new map sounds like how they have the choke points on EoTM where you have to control that zone to access another part of the map. That does 2 things offensively 1) lets the enemy know where you are ruining any possibility of stealthy movement on the map and 2) Makes it so Roamers are null and void.

Defensively it 1) Removes unpredictability of where they will attack 2)makes it so you can kill box it making it virtually impossible to get through via siege.

Defense is EXTREMELY easy currently and boring already and no one does it because they want personal player loot.

“Towers are located at chokepoints in the new borderland map, and have walls around them that guard those chokepoints, so holding a tower actually helps you control movement in the map.” ~Colin Johanson
http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-interview/#page-1

On populated servers, this means you are going to have that choke point a battle shipped sieged up choke point that is going to be near impossible to get through. No unpredictability.. defense is the easiest part of wvw, not the hard.

Nothing should be unmanned if they are playing the game properly. The problem is they are not rewarding tower scouts and players are resorting to pay them gold to babysit towers.

coglin.1867:

lil devils x.6071:

All the changes that have many of the biggest guilds and commanders shopping for other games already, not to mention the updates will be completely anti roamer?

I am a commander in a large WvW guild. Since you disingenuously claim to speak for so many commanders and apparently entire guilds, would you mind listing those commanders and guilds please? I have not heard this, nor heard of them asking you to represent them. Please educate me.

As well, I am not privy to the details of how the update will fully effect WvW. As you appear to claim to know information not yet released, please enlighten me.

I do not speak for you, I am talking about what was discussed among friends on TeamSpeak on a tier 1 server, and no you are not entitled to know who said what unless you were there or they feel like discussing it with you. Yes, many have expressed dissatisfaction, in my guilds and in other guilds on the server and if they wish to speak for themselves they are free to do so. If you were not one of the people talking, I am obliviously not discussing what you have to say. I am a leader and commander as well, that does not suddenly entitle me to information on your friends either. LOL

Have you bothered to read the interviews?

http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-interview/
http://www.tentonhammer.com/interview/gw2-heart-thorns-interview-mike-o%E2%80%99brien-and-colin-johanson

joneirikb.7506:

lil devils x.6071:

No, and I know people would leave GW2 over it if it happened, it is far too linear of a map.

This is why I don’t want it to replace EBG. EBG is to important for the mode and a huge part of the players. Even my server have people that near refuse to leave EBG, and we’re a very roaming heavy server with very little zerging.

But yes, putting EotM in instead of a single Borderland would cause problems with the “home map” system. Which is also part of why I suggested in another thread to remove the “home map” idea, so we could have more variety in the the three non EBG maps.

But yes, make a slight change to the existing Borderland map so its a stand alone single map, and then put in EotM as a second map, and the new Ziggurat map as a third for example. And naturally EBG in the middle. I think that would be a really fun week.

We need MORE maps where you can attack from any direction though is the issue, with better landscape for large battles like EBG. . It is the landscape of the map that is the issue as to how the map actually plays, on BL you spend more time running around than actually in the action. Right now EoTM with it’s mega server would be ideal for GvG battles because guilds could fight so many more guilds from different servers that way.. but they don’t do that. You know why? The landscape is horrible for GvG , too much PVE implemented and it is just used as a leveling fast map so people can Ktrain. The problem is current wvw lacks more maps with good landscape like EBG, and with EB running the highest ques, people often rather sit in Lion’s arch waiting to go in than go to one of the other maps instead because they hate the landscape of the maps themselves. Anet adding more maps they hate isn’t going to help the situation.

No, and I know people would leave GW2 over it if it happened, it is far too linear of a map. People want to be killed more by players, not falling off the world. People want to be creative with commanding and be able to choose what they attack, when and where. being able to attack anything from any point is much better game play and adds a level of unpredictability that is lacking in linear maps like this.

joneirikb.7506:

lil devils x.6071”

…

Regarding the new map and the killbox idea, we haven’t seen it yet, but I would rather guess that it means that you have to take a TOWER in order to get access to a KEEP’s door. Not a complete block of the BL’s Spawn. That would be rather silly, and I do have confidence in ANet to not make that kind of silly mistakes. As said, we don’t know yet, either or any way at all. But it makes the most sense that they use towers as restrictions to get to the actual KEEPs. So hold your horses and don’t sell the eggs before they’re hatched etc.

And just because they said that the map will include more use of heights etc, does not mean EotM style you trip -> you die. And I personally think that a map with lots of small heights that can be used tactically in combat, would be great fun! It is something I’ve wished to see more of, that would encourage some new strategies. If all the heights are roughly the height of a keep wall, you’ll only get some minor fall damage, and just have to run around to get back into the action again. Tactical!

(1) So far we haven’t been told the actual player numbers in Stronghold, it might end up actually being larger than 5vs5, who knows (well, ANet). So until they announce this there is no point arguing on this point.

(2) Do agree on giving rewards on defence, anyone willing to defend deserves to be rewarded!

(3) If ANet gave out an expansion pack with nothing but bug fixes, they would be lynched :p Also bug fixes is the task of the support, not of the expansion pack devs. Now I absolutely think they should put some more people on the support section to get things fixed faster, but that is their choice and their business.

And I personally think that more WXP traits and siege variations of the same (like guild golem) is just silly toys we get tired of in a couple of days anyways. Would much rather see them actually come up with some new features and even gasp maps, every now and then.

Also, we already have EBG, and I still don’t like it. I think it is good that they make more different maps, instead of creating just more of the same, encourage more variation, new strategies, different styles of play.

(4) Ironically, I think that the new BL with the bust the towers to get to the keeps will actually get you lot of what you asked for here. People will (most likely) be defending the towers better, and when it falls fall back to the keeps, and you can end up having battles between tower/keep, where group tactics, proper siege use etc will be very important. It will telegraph over the map and get people running to defend in no time, since losing one tower, could spell losing half the map pretty quickly.

And just to be contrary: We do actually get new weapons and skills… (specialization for each class) heck we even get a new class…

(*) Do agree that we really should be able to be self sustaining in WvW

On the whole I don’t really disagree with a lot of what you say, but just don’t like the way you say it as if “we” as in everyone wants exactly what you say, and there are quite a few people on these forums that dislike that people try to talk for them. I think that many would like what you suggest, probably a whole lot of the existing upper tiers, but that doesn’t mean everyone does.

It is fun reading your posts though, so thanks

Truth is I am indifferent to some of what is on that list personally, however, I would not stay if the people I enjoy playing with left as well. I am relaying what I have been told by groups of people on a T1 server, and then having friends from lower tiers telling me the same thing.. so it wasn’t exactly a small amount of people involved here. So far from the interviews they have given on the subject, it isn’t giving much confidence many wvw players are going to be content with it.

When we heard we are getting wvw updates everyone cheered… until they started talking more. Then I come back and everyone is exchanging new game links instead.

lordkrall.7241:

Seems like a rather silly timing for this thread, since we have rather recently gotten confirmation that we will get a new map and other big changes go WvW rather soon.

From what we have heard of the changes, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

TymX.8017:

lil devils x.6071:

TymX.8017:

As I see thieves they are the ultimate troll class in 1vs1 raming, but I can not imagine winnig 2vs2 or 2vs3 fights with me being a thief. If I kill someone with burst from stealth, I will stand there and watch as my friend and my wife get murdered horribly, remember I can’t run away from my group. Even if they can fight, they won’t take the game too seriously to learn how to be a good player, so we are already at a disadvantage.

@lil devils x.6071
What you said is true at average levels, but even is it sound arrogant to you, I am above average (if you are familiar with wildstar I had won in many1vs2,3,4 scenario in that action combat enviroment, not counting my wow and sw tor past.)A perfectly played engi will always beat a perfectly played guardian or warrior in a 1vs1 scenario. There are classes with higher skill caps and higher rewards. I’m looking for the highest skillcap/highest reward class. As I said I enjoy playing with all of them (aside from the nade engi).

It is not " arrogant" .. it is the reality of T1 LOL. GL taking a chokepoint roaming with 12 acs, 2 trebs, and 4 balis in your face. I solo T3 towers, and have 2 manned keeps. It is not about player skill when you are dealing with actual populated maps. What is arrogant is thinking you can can get past that roaming.

I come from Darkfall and EVE online , when I played wow and thought it to be a joke lol..

Oh I was only talking about the " best class for how you choose to play" part. I know nothing of choke points, and only a beginner in WvW.

Yes, they have classes that counter each other, but when roaming you do not get to choose what you run in to, so it is best to go with what you can play well in a style you enjoy. Roaming in wvw you run into all classes, so I think focusing on what you do well is the best way to go about it. It is pointless to have someone play a class if they do not do it well. Engis do not do so well against condi-Necros.

It depends on what you think GVG is. In Gw1 it was 8 vs 8… that isn’t even a skirmish in other games. In other games GVG is hundreds of people.

TymX.8017:

As I see thieves they are the ultimate troll class in 1vs1 raming, but I can not imagine winnig 2vs2 or 2vs3 fights with me being a thief. If I kill someone with burst from stealth, I will stand there and watch as my friend and my wife get murdered horribly, remember I can’t run away from my group. Even if they can fight, they won’t take the game too seriously to learn how to be a good player, so we are already at a disadvantage.

@lil devils x.6071
What you said is true at average levels, but even is it sound arrogant to you, I am above average (if you are familiar with wildstar I had won in many1vs2,3,4 scenario in that action combat enviroment, not counting my wow and sw tor past.)A perfectly played engi will always beat a perfectly played guardian or warrior in a 1vs1 scenario. There are classes with higher skill caps and higher rewards. I’m looking for the highest skillcap/highest reward class. As I said I enjoy playing with all of them (aside from the nade engi).

It is not " arrogant" .. it is the reality of T1 LOL. GL taking a chokepoint roaming with 12 acs, 2 trebs, and 4 balis in your face. I solo T3 towers, and have 2 manned keeps. It is not about player skill when you are dealing with actual populated maps. What is arrogant is thinking you can can get past that roaming. The issue is if you cannot acces the rest of the map unless you take a specific chokepoint, they kill box the choke point and then they don’t worry about you going around because you cannot.

I come from Darkfall and EVE online , when I played wow and thought it to be a joke lol..

I personally think any class can be the best roamer, it is just a matter of how you play it, I do not think there is any " best class" instead it is a matter of " best class for how you choose to play".

Although they are going to make it very difficult for roamers if what we have heard about the expansion is correct and they are creating tower choke points that will prevent roamers from accessing the rest of the map unless they take the choke point, at that point RIP roamers, because the chokepoints should be well sieged and defended unless you are on an empty sever.

Only a wvw player gets irate when their friends make them to go do Karka farming with them and they have been there a while and they start ranting that the Karkas aren’t dropping any bags and has to be told you gotta loot the corpse..
Where’s the BAGS??!! Why wont these things give me BAGS?!!! HAHAA!

I will never live that down LMAO.

Only a wvw player hasn’t started their personal story or the living story, and has no interest in doing so.

Only a wvw player complains about getting a key to chest because that means they have to open up a pve map to use it.