The Future of WvW...

[Aeolus.3615]

> @KalasDelRio.8921 said:

>("snip" condi bombed all the text :o )

> Too many existing WvW players, like myself, are far too hung up on the past and want things to go back to the way they were. Only difference with me is that, I want to discuss our next move properly before we just blindly leap. And I'm willing to entertain compromises in order to secure a better future for WvW.

 

The past is not how the game is at, they managed to overwhelm the game with boon, condi, lots of stuff, the graphical clutter OMG, they rather add more, wich will happen with next expantions...for sure, add more of the same to force players go more broken (easy builds that carry vs others equal ), than stop and give a good iteration to the game, even start porting (wich IMO would be the best option) stuff from gw1 like stances worked, shouts worked, even how stability and make a hybrid version to gw2, how cc worked from gw1, hexes could fix the condi lameness and how easy is to play with condi (i as well played with condi) i know how it works.

 

To talk next move in first place it is needed a dev and ANet whilling to listen players problems officially, and as well players dont give random toughts for their benefit only, but give ideas of how can the game be improved as a whole, EVEN if it means to touch the classes.

 

> @Rennie.6750 said:

> The problem isn't feedback, the problem is the community wants the game mode to be turned into something that it's not. It's a RvR game mode, there's no room for GvG in theory, yet you see people complaining to get that all the time. Provide feedback within the parameters of the game mode. Roaming isn't the priority. GvG is an afterthought. As soon as everyone can agree on this then we can start discussing the issue the game mode may have, because spamming irrelevant feedback is pretty much useless.

 

...No WvW isn't even a RvR/AvA mode......... trust me it isnt, just because u have sides with collors does not means it, and WvW, and community does not want GvG cause they know how unskilled this game is, even Anet knows that, reason they never wanted to add GvG's.

 

And no, the problem is not the comunity to an extent, but actually feedback from it and from ANet, players want the game to get easy for them w/o find a middle term that would improve the gameplay for every one, so basicly most only helps themselves, by the other hand ANet (it looks like it) does not care, cause making the game better for almost every one, would/might mean to make game harder for the real population target they had in mind, change pve skill/class design ( that is holly can not be touched), remmember Anet prefered to remove stats from pvp than actually tweak class to become more balanced while class lost important stat set for pvp, to remove overperformance Anet prefered to hide it..

Most RvR actually work decently with Guild versos guild, here on gw2 not.... its just who can spams more and hit more waters, and that is nothing.

 

 

 

P.S double post lol... gona get banned xD, cant delete this one not merge sicne i tough i was adding to the last«, and sorry for the bad engrish.

[Svarty.8019]

On the positive note: WvW works.

Aside from the fact that mechanics akin to Scourge shade mechanic cause irritating pirate ship meta that most WvWers seem to dislike (the ones who were on TS that I talked to agreed with this),

I think we want more of the same:

* Variety. Guild tactics etc.

* Map variations, but *think* about the permutations for players this time. Remember

** players don't want to fall off cliffs or into random holes when running as a zerg,

** there should be obvious routes from A to B

** there should be a reason for enemies to take each objective on a map, not just a random tower near spawn like on desert map

** etc

 

Now the negative:

We've all made positive suggestions countless times before but what's the point when there's neither response nor acknowledgement?

[coglin.1496]

> @KalasDelRio.8921 said:

> > @Swagger.1459 said:

> > > @SloRules.3560 said:

> > > > @KalasDelRio.8921 said:

> > > >

> > > > Before, we were a bunch of people who all wanted the same thing out of WvW: Badges, Bags and the ability to Spam 1 against our foes until they died.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You lost me here.

> >

> > Felt the same way, but I looked it over just because. Found nothing substantial to move wvw forward.

>

> You're looking for an all-fix answer without even trying to contribute yourself. But thanks for reading, I guess.

>

> And if you can't see the sarcasm in the "Spam 1" remark then it's probably for the better that you don't.

 

Then why try to suggest you intend a serious and honest discussion, only to lay out bad sarcasm, just to lash out at others who mention how it was ineffective to to the level of hurting your point?

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

>Look at the stability change from the march patch a few years ago (this was done for PvE mechanics btw).

iirc, that change was specifically aimed at WvW, to do exactly the thing it ended up doing (cutting the hammer trains down to size).

 

> @Orpheal.8263 said:

> its sad to see, that a company like ANet has become so extremely money driven in regard of their decisions and how fast they fix things in this game, unlike in GW1, where broken thigns got fixed alot quicker and wherre the game wans't reliant on a gemstore to finance everything, because there you got every 6 months new content in form of more standalone games that sort of worked liek expansions and due to it comign fix every 6 months, there was a steady income of money, so there was no need for a gemstore at all....

Leaving aside that GW1 had its own in-game store (that sold basically the things GW2's does, but only accepted real money), the development of GW1 was unsustainable. That's why they scrapped the fourth campaign and cobbled the scraps into EotN, then started making GW2 instead.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @Spurnshadow.3678 said:

> >Look at the stability change from the march patch a few years ago (this was done for PvE mechanics btw).

> iirc, that change was specifically aimed at WvW, to do exactly the thing it ended up doing (cutting the hammer trains down to size).

>

Nope. There was a huge blog post about this on anet official site. It was done for PvE in anticipation of HoT as many of their monsters, like the Wyvern, would have a lot of CC mechanics.

[Malerian.8435]

I would agree with OP for the most part. I may have said a few things differently, but it would eventually round up to the same thing. I myself (in moments of frustration) sometimes say to people anet does not listen. But they actually do. They just are not going to comment on every post or idea that we have. I am not thrilled with some changes in WvW. But tbh it was never perfect system.

 

We just have to gently nudge them in the right direction, instead of demanding they fix it all right now. I bet we would get more accomplished with honey, rather than vinegar.

 

Just my two cents for what it is worth.

[Svarty.8019]

> @Malerian.8435 said:

> We just have to gently nudge them in the right direction, instead of demanding they fix it all right now. I bet we would get more accomplished with honey, rather than vinegar.

What do you mean by, "accomplished"?

Actual change or an actual discourse?

[Bournster.2607]

Hello all.

 

I have been a vet WvW since launch. I so much enjoyed the small scale fights. I actually moved from a high populated server to a low one just so i could have those kinda fights.

 

WvW atm we cannot really call WvW. Its more like Farm Vs Farm. The biggest Zerg gets the loot and that's all there is to it (no skill involved). I remember when in Serious WvW we could wipe a full 30/40 man blob with 15/20 guildies. We have not got that option anymore. The Zergs are too bloated and the top tier servers are too bloated....

 

I know it would cause some upset to people/guilds that are in communities. But to fix the WvW issue with it being over populated just get rid of the servers completely.

 

Give GUILDS the option to pick a side to play WvW.

 

Green

Blue

Red

Anet will then sort the guilds into rankings based on how many points they earn and then it makes it more competitive. If a guild earns a good amount of points in a week people who have contributed will get loot based on the rank of the guild.

This then makes it more Guild base and makes a better community with in a guild rather then a server.

 

If a player is un-guilded then they just get the option to play as a color and will be assigned to a Server with there rank. like they have a ranking system in PvP.

If a player does not wish to Rep there guild in WvW then give them the option to do so.

 

Lets make the Word Guild Wars mean something in the game. Its all about having fun in a game with people you want to play with.

 

[Sovereign.1093]

less main servers. More link servers. Make it happen.

 

Population disparity is the only problem. imo

[DeadlySynz.3471]

Server identity has been long gone due to both a vast population drop and the ability to transfer. That will never come back. The only way any type of "identity" will ever take place again is if the game becomes Red vs Green vs Blue, or Faction vs Faction vs Faction. Then and only then once the remaining populace of players pick sides (and are forced to re-pick if need be to ensure balance), players can once again have some sort of identity and pride.

 

We have to look at the main issue with WvW at the moment, and that is population and/or coverage disparity.

 

If we unlink the servers, then those servers would essentially have to be closed because there simply isn't enough people to keep them going even remotely competitively. Those players have to go somewhere otherwise they will quit. Even if they all moved to the same server (any one of the open ones), that server still wouldn't have the population/coverage that BG does, so the main issue isn't fixed.

 

I would guesstimate that if Anet imposed population/coverage equality using BG a a measuring stick (making as many servers as possible equal their coverage & population) we'd likely have 5 servers with a real struggle making it 6. We obviously can't have 5 servers, so the next logical step would to be to knock it down to 3 which now leaves us with Faction vs Faction vs Faction. Do that, then add the EotM map to the fray as the 4th scoring map so people actually play this map again. So now players can pick from EBG, Alpine, Desert BL, and EoTM. Then you will likely have healthy population and coverage all the time all throughout the day. There will be que times at certain times (obviously reset), but players didn't seem to have a problem sitting in monolithic ques 3-4 years ago when competitiveness was high, so they certainly shouldn't now.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> Server identity has been long gone due to both a vast population drop and the ability to transfer. That will never come back.

 

You triggered me here.

 

> The only way any type of "identity" will ever take place again is if the game becomes Red vs Green vs Blue, or Faction vs Faction vs Faction. Then and only then once the remaining populace of players pick sides (and are forced to re-pick if need be to ensure balance), players can once again have some sort of identity and pride.

 

What's the difference? If anything, you just killed the remaining people who still cares.

[Aridon.8362]

Funny you mention all of this, my guild actually spoke with a dev assigned to WvW about this mind you I intend on keeping the identity and job title secret, but basically he said people like the linked servers and the desert BL. Also to add to your dilemma people think they're good at their classes because they can 3v1 a person down or condi spam them to death. Go figure, this game kinda sucks anyway I debate a lot about quitting altogether considering the number of flags I keep receiving by anet on these forums for saying stuff that triggers all their social justice warriors, and how soft a lot of the players have become.

[Sovereign.1093]

people do not like links or dbl. ppl are just fans so they tolerate the game.

 

[DemonSeed.3528]

I personally hated the idea of linking, but I am open to the idea of accepting change even if it's against my choice if it will help steer the game in the right direction (the jury is still out on whether it has helped or not though). With regards to dbl, I love it.

[Nuka Cola.8520]

At this point i don't care. JUST DO SOMETHING. WvW is becoming more stale than 5years old dungeons.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> Funny you mention all of this, my guild actually spoke with a dev assigned to WvW about this mind you I intend on keeping the identity and job title secret, but basically he said people like the linked servers and the desert BL. Also to add to your dilemma people think they're good at their classes because they can 3v1 a person down or condi spam them to death. Go figure, this game kinda sucks anyway I debate a lot about quitting altogether considering the number of flags I keep receiving by anet on these forums for saying stuff that triggers all their social justice warriors, and how soft a lot of the players have become.

 

Yea and also WvW = PvE

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> people do not like links or dbl. ppl are just fans so they tolerate the game.

>

 

people dont like DBL for 2 reasons:

 

The 1st is because they cant hide on the close tower or keep, it has more place to happen open fights, and that makes it harder to ktrain so they want a alpine to get ktrain w/o much effort, the 2nd reason is because the game lacks mechanics for WvW, Anet fixed that by adding rewards, rather than new mechanics, and DBL design and size shows how this game is lacking them, DBL is to good for what gw2 is, a game that does not offer much but pretends to offer alot.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > people do not like links or dbl. ppl are just fans so they tolerate the game.

> >

>

> people dont like DBL for 2 reasons:

>

> The 1st is because they cant hide on the close tower or keep, it has more place to happen open fights, and that makes it harder to ktrain so they want a alpine to get ktrain w/o much effort, the 2nd reason is because the game lacks mechanics for WvW, Anet fixed that by adding rewards, rather than new mechanics, and DBL design and size shows how this game is lacking them, DBL is to good for what gw2 is, a game that does not offer much but pretends to offer alot.

 

DBL is the ktrain map. Too far to defend on time (so people just don't defend), too tall that makes traversal annoying, too gimmicky that makes it annoying.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > people do not like links or dbl. ppl are just fans so they tolerate the game.

> > >

> >

> > people dont like DBL for 2 reasons:

> >

> > The 1st is because they cant hide on the close tower or keep, it has more place to happen open fights, and that makes it harder to ktrain so they want a alpine to get ktrain w/o much effort, the 2nd reason is because the game lacks mechanics for WvW, Anet fixed that by adding rewards, rather than new mechanics, and DBL design and size shows how this game is lacking them, DBL is to good for what gw2 is, a game that does not offer much but pretends to offer alot.

>

> DBL is a ktrain map. Too far to defend on time (so people just don't defend), too tall that makes traversal annoying, too gimmicky that makes it annoying.

 

Well, the times to reach places are just a few seconds more than Alpine bl :\, but yeh to make those times it is way to gimmick.

But imo that show how empty the game is that Anet covers it with lame gimmicks design rather than implement good mechanics.....

 

Another thing that Anet is doing awfully that might be the real culprit of this situations it that they make a larger sever vs smaller severs ktrain farming and nothing more iin this gamemode, while bigger server just needs to ktrain(Anet loves this since is everythign this game offers basicly) all the smaller server need to do is cap back and create gameplay for the biggest server to ktrain back, this might be the reason ANet dont want defense to work, properly, and why offense is easyer than defense in most cases.

 

Sorry about the bad english :<

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > people do not like links or dbl. ppl are just fans so they tolerate the game.

> >

>

> people dont like DBL for 2 reasons:

>

> The 1st is because they cant hide on the close tower or keep, it has more place to happen open fights, and that makes it harder to ktrain so they want a alpine to get ktrain w/o much effort, the 2nd reason is because the game lacks mechanics for WvW, Anet fixed that by adding rewards, rather than new mechanics, and DBL design and size shows how this game is lacking them, DBL is to good for what gw2 is, a game that does not offer much but pretends to offer alot.

 

it was new and unfamiliar is why i think ppl disliked it.

 

when my guys left, i left, and dbl is why they left.

 

wvw with friends or foes is fun.

 

if anet didnt change the bls fast just one at a time, we would have no problems. people need time to adapt to change.

[primatos.5413]

What future ?

[Guizao.4167]

> @"KalasDelRio.8921" said:

> **Okay, so let me preface this thread with a disclaimer that I don't intend to come across as salty, whining or just complaining a whole bunch about WvW. I genuinely would like for this thread to act as a place for constructive and progressive discussion about the future of WvW and the direction it should take. If you don't feel as if you can contribute to this thread in a similar fashion, please try to refrain from posting at all. Thank you.**

> ___________________________________

>

> So I reached out to an ANet Dev in-game to try to get their views on the idea of Unlinking the servers, since this seems to be a fairly hot topic amongst the community right now. Naturally, they were hesitant to say anything due to ANet's current stance on the matter or lack thereof. So rather than just bombard my thoughts and opinions directly towards the Dev, I've decided to write this on the Forums & Reddit where I will then direct said developer to view it and hope that they respond, however, I also invite all of you to weigh in with your own views too.

>

> Right, so first of all, it seems to me that there's a pretty big divide over the idea of Unlinking the servers, with the main arguments for and against the topic being Server Identity & Population Issues. Personally, I'm on the Server Identity side of things but I'm trying to look at it from a wider angle than that. So I asked myself, "Why do I care so much about Unlinking?" The answer is simple: I've been playing WvW since the first Beta Weekend Event, I've seen and played through every iteration of WvW up to its' current version and I miss the old days. I miss the old tier system, even for all its' faults. I miss being a part of a community that was built on Server Identity. & I miss how seriously people used to take WvW on a weekly basis, toxicity aside of course.

>

> Now if like myself, you consider yourself a WvW Vet, I'm sure you probably do too. But therein lies our biggest problem. Right now, the WvW Community is vastly different from how it used to be. Before, we were a bunch of people who all wanted the same thing out of WvW: Badges, Bags and the ability to Spam 1 against our foes until they died. Over the years, with WvW stagnating and the long communication drought with the Devs, we have lost a lot of those original players. But with the changes that have come in over the past year or two (Pips, Reward Tracks, F2P, PoF) we've gained a whole bunch of new WvW players who don't know any different from the way WvW is now. In fact, a lot of them enjoy the current version of WvW and are likely to be the ones against unlinking the servers, but who can blame them? Not us, that's for sure. Add that to the fact that PvE players can now run in WvW more casually than ever for their Rewards and you'll probably find that the odds are pretty stacked against us.

>

>

"So what do we do? "

> Well first off, it's no use for us to kick and scream about the opposition. They like WvW the way it is right now and they seem to very much be in the majority of voices heard by ANet. So if ANet is hearing from them that everything's great with regards to WvW, you can bet your kitten that they're not going to change a thing. Meanwhile, all we seem to have are a bunch of regurgitated threads and polls banging on about unlinking the servers every week without much afterthought for what happens next.

>

> I think we really need to evaluate what we're asking of ANet by unlinking the servers. The whole idea of the Linking in the first place was to patch the glaring population issues we had with the old system. So to go back to that would be disastrous for everyone involved. Sure, we'd probably get our beloved identity back, but it wouldn't be long until we're stuck in the same situation we were before the Linking happened. ANet wants to avoid that at all costs and we do too. Thus, we need to have a reasonable discussion as to how things should progress after the unlinking and come up with a proposal that ANet will be able to take seriously. It's all well and good screaming and hollering for an unlink, but what good is it if we're only going to land right back at square one?

>

> This is where I believe our biggest dilemma lies. The ability to come together and talk things out as a Community. Right now, the WvW Community, if you could even call it that, is shattered. We've got several factions pulling in all different directions and nothing is getting done or discussed for that matter. This, I believe, is why ANet plays a lot of its' cards related to WvW so close to their chest, because they can never gauge who they're going to kitten off by announcing new ideas. Now I've heard rumours, as to whether or not they're true I don't know, that ANet would love to invest more resources and appoint more than one dedicated developer for WvW to help address all of our various wants, needs and opinions. But why would they go through all that effort if they're only going to be pulled from pillar to post and hounded by a fractured WvW Community, who can't even vote on polls without them devolving into a big old salt-fest?

>

> Now I can already hear a few of you:

> _"Why should we be the ones to have to do something?"_

> _"This is ANet's game, they should fix it first."_

> Etc.

>

> But my point here is this: The WvW Community has always been difficult to cooperate with, a fact that was highlighted by the Desert Borderland debacle. ANet invested a lot of time and effort into that map, going so far as to reach out to specific WvW Guilds to play-test it, and we shot it down completely. Now, who's fault was that? It can't be ANet's, since they were supposedly following the feedback from their play-testers. So It can only be us. Why? Because WvW has never really had a central voice, a person or group of people that listens to the Community and uses their platform to speak to ANet like Wooden Potatoes does for PvE. We're just a bunch of separate WvW Guilds, with our own agendas, who only speak up when there's something to complain about. We don't have our own space to come together and discuss WvW matters as a group, we certainly don't utilize the one we've been given at least. (I suppose you _could_ mention GW2wvw but that was mostly full of trolls and kitten-talking)

>

>

"So where do we go from here?"

> Well, it's up to you guys really. Either we can continue to kitten and moan about _'the current state of WvW'_ and hope that ANet finally does something that'll please everyone (unlikely) without any sort of feedback or direction from us? Or we man the hell up and start coming together to hammer out what we really want from WvW and in which direction we want it to head in a manner that ANet can cooperate with?

>

> A lot of you will probably try to shoot me down from the get-go, spouting some over-used statement about how _"ANet never listens to us!"_ But that's the exact kind of reaction I've been talking about. I look around the WvW forum and I see a hell of a lot more communication between us and the Devs than we've ever had before, so why not capitalize on that for the future, rather than moaning about things that have happened in the past?

>

> I think we also need to accept that there are always going to be opposing sides to every idea or decision related to WvW, especially where our current Community is concerned. But if we can just work together as an _actual_ Community, there's no reason why we can't all agree on a compromise that suits both parties in the end.

 

I don't play WvW that much, but I honestly think it would way better if WvW were instanced GvG (guild vs guild). This game lacks serious and dedicated GvG content, like the one we have in GW1.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > people do not like links or dbl. ppl are just fans so they tolerate the game.

> > > >

> > >

> > > people dont like DBL for 2 reasons:

> > >

> > > The 1st is because they cant hide on the close tower or keep, it has more place to happen open fights, and that makes it harder to ktrain so they want a alpine to get ktrain w/o much effort, the 2nd reason is because the game lacks mechanics for WvW, Anet fixed that by adding rewards, rather than new mechanics, and DBL design and size shows how this game is lacking them, DBL is to good for what gw2 is, a game that does not offer much but pretends to offer alot.

> >

> > DBL is a ktrain map. Too far to defend on time (so people just don't defend), too tall that makes traversal annoying, too gimmicky that makes it annoying.

>

> Well, the times to reach places are just a few seconds more than Alpine bl :\, but yeh to make those times it is way to gimmick.

> But imo that show how empty the game is that Anet covers it with lame gimmicks design rather than implement good mechanics.....

>

> Another thing that Anet is doing awfully that might be the real culprit of this situations it that they make a larger sever vs smaller severs ktrain farming and nothing more iin this gamemode, while bigger server just needs to ktrain(Anet loves this since is everythign this game offers basicly) all the smaller server need to do is cap back and create gameplay for the biggest server to ktrain back, this might be the reason ANet dont want defense to work, properly, and why offense is easyer than defense in most cases.

>

> Sorry about the bad english :<

Yes, those "just a few seconds" being a great help when you can stand in the SW tower on DBL and literally see *nothing* in any direction, compared to standing in SW tower to literally seeing bay outer walls. Its not just distances - its content. As in, players you can see and fight. DBL is broken.

 

Anyway enough of that, I just wanted to say that Far Shiverpeaks EU had around 30-80 man queues on all borders this evening.

 

Ded gaem.

[primatos.5413]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > people do not like links or dbl. ppl are just fans so they tolerate the game.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > people dont like DBL for 2 reasons:

> > > >

> > > > The 1st is because they cant hide on the close tower or keep, it has more place to happen open fights, and that makes it harder to ktrain so they want a alpine to get ktrain w/o much effort, the 2nd reason is because the game lacks mechanics for WvW, Anet fixed that by adding rewards, rather than new mechanics, and DBL design and size shows how this game is lacking them, DBL is to good for what gw2 is, a game that does not offer much but pretends to offer alot.

> > >

> > > DBL is a ktrain map. Too far to defend on time (so people just don't defend), too tall that makes traversal annoying, too gimmicky that makes it annoying.

> >

> > Well, the times to reach places are just a few seconds more than Alpine bl :\, but yeh to make those times it is way to gimmick.

> > But imo that show how empty the game is that Anet covers it with lame gimmicks design rather than implement good mechanics.....

> >

> > Another thing that Anet is doing awfully that might be the real culprit of this situations it that they make a larger sever vs smaller severs ktrain farming and nothing more iin this gamemode, while bigger server just needs to ktrain(Anet loves this since is everythign this game offers basicly) all the smaller server need to do is cap back and create gameplay for the biggest server to ktrain back, this might be the reason ANet dont want defense to work, properly, and why offense is easyer than defense in most cases.

> >

> > Sorry about the bad english :<

> Yes, those "just a few seconds" being a great help when you can stand in the SW tower on DBL and literally see *nothing* in any direction, compared to standing in SW tower to literally seeing bay outer walls. Its not just distances - its content. As in, players you can see and fight. DBL is broken.

>

> Anyway enough of that, I just wanted to say that Far Shiverpeaks EU had around 30-80 man queues on all borders this evening.

>

> Ded gaem.

 

Not exactly dead .. but not worth playing it anymore because it became -thx 4 anet´s way treading it- more and more a pool of bandwagoning clowns .. and clowns in general .. players actually doing wvw bcz of armor not the gamemode itself .. 80 % of the players aren´t able to fight properly but will gank single opponents with 2 or more .. zerg fighting is about who is able to put more red circles down .. hope crowfall will do it better bcz rather playing another shitty NEW game than this shitty OLD one .. ^^

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"primatos.5413" said:

> hope crowfall will do it better bcz rather playing another kitten NEW game than this kitten OLD one .. ^^

No doubt it will!

 

Crowfall and Camelot Unchained, been killing the dead WvW since 2016... wait 2015. Or was it 2014? I cant remember when people first started saying they would kill WvW.