Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Game over


Ricky.4706

Recommended Posts

> @Ricky.4706 said:

> > @Aeolus.3615 said:

> > Players can only choose between some segmented areas(instanced maps) and select some tasks(ofense, defense, troll server) that are natural in any kind of factions vs faction gameplay.

> >

>

> but not everyone plays by the same rules - which brings me back to the thread topic - in the current system of rules - the person with the most points wins, to get the most points you need a stacked server, round the clock coverage and the strongest defensive strategy possible.

> With those rules, BG won wvw - game over.

 

Yeah, 'cause EU doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

well the impression I get from everyone is that would only introduce more lag - so it would only complicate matters - further, saying it's game over in NA servers is giving EU the benefit of the doubt that their #1 server would / can strip BG of their position, - else BG would win and it would be game over for EU, NA - and Asia ?

 

again, I'm not saying wvw = game over - I'm saying by the current rules - this game is over and BG won, time for a rematch ...new rules ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ricky.4706, i think WvW is working as intend in the ANet eyes, dont forget that WvW was anounced a place for pve players try to fight each other, since most pve'rs dont like to fight players, so this was to be some ice breaking between pve and pvp, I dont think Anet will change the rules, since all the "rules" they have been tweaking were glicko variables and ataching servers to wich others due population drop.

 

WvW was always to be won by the server who has more population coverage anyway, if its stale, its not wrong either, server rank only ments coverage anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I neither agree nor disagree with that - but am hoping in sharing and discussing our observations from this pov - helps anet gain insight on what can help balance and fix wvw - its not all on anet alone either, it's on players ....whatever system may come, needs to take under consideration that some people will be sandbox about their approach and cause an inbalance in competitive gaming.

 

also setting a platform to explain that PVE is not the same as PVP - because ....the "Rules" are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That means ANet need to get out of cater/carry pve players with damage and class mechanics... they will never do that...

The game was designed actually to be easy for the most dull of the players be good in pve.

Anet have stated they wont balance classes if that means afect the pve... for some reason they removed some trinkets from pvp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Ricky.4706 said:

>

>

> again, I'm not saying wvw = game over - I'm saying by the current rules - this game is over and BG won, time for a rematch ...new rules ?

 

but you stated : > @Ricky.4706 said:

> >

 

> With those rules, BG won wvw - game over.

 

 

So... WvW includes EU.

 

It's typical of this forum though. People forget EU exists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that goes back to nerfing the queen in a chess set because it has too much power. it's supposed to have that much power but the rules are only 1 queen per side.

this is the approach that I'm saying to remove the concept of op builds - because op vs op is a form of competition.

 

what if for example, the translation of this in rule form is that you can bring your op character, but it won't add points to your score ? - what if the rules were, only healers can score, how much would that change the game ? lol

 

now it wouldn't be a matter of getting the most kills, but keeping your healers alive so they can score.

 

this isn't saying this should be the rule or a suggestion, this is to show an example of how much rules can change the way the game is played to a point that character balance / op builds are irrelevant. suddenly the only way to win is to be a support guardian tank. - now limit that to only 10 guardians per server that can log on to wvw for the healer matches. heh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if, capping a building didn't make a score, only player vs player points determined the score ? capping buildings only gave you buff bonuses in the area and a safe space to hide, but irrelevant to the score. that would redefine how wvw is played.

 

that would be a re-match. ok, new rules!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Ricky.4706 said:

> in old D&D days, there was this spell called dispel, this skill had the ability to remove all your buffs and allow you to basically be one shot.....for competitive play it was agreed that dispel was not allowed and instant disqualification. A tournament would have been impossible without that rule - especially since at the time mages depended on buffs for protection, where as fighter class depended on armor.

 

In 3.5/pathfinder, casters, especially arcane casters put up insane crazy buffs that fighters/rogues etc couldn't hope to match (even with obscene amounts of gold). Clerics could basically turn themselves into fighters whilst still being primary casters. Having some spells to counter that bullshit helped to put a bit of a leash on late level mage OPness and force them to not rely on all-day buffs to keep their shit afloat.

You're talking about a system where as of about level 11~ mages throw save-or-die spells your way. Being able to shut down their shit so that the fighting types could actually stab them is a completely okay counterbalance in my book.

 

Unless you're talking about anything before 3.5. I only played a couple sessions of 2nd edition before hopping on the 'nope' train. Holy hell was that system ever broken.

 

~ Kovu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Ricky.4706 said:

> what if, capping a building didn't make a score, only player vs player points determined the score ? capping buildings only gave you buff bonuses in the area and a safe space to hide, but irrelevant to the score. that would redefine how wvw is played.

 

Likely would only make the zergs larger to reduce casualty potential. As a small group participant I hate this idea as we usually run into the thief/mes roamer that excels at escape and is annoying to pin down for a kill but then eventually get caught by a zerg that will sacrifice us to your new point god.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya, i know what you mean, most (not all ) of my wvw experience has been outnumbered, but we hold our own all the same.

I'm not really suggesting it as a rule - but merely highlighting how the rules affect the game.

 

Point being, I think fixing wvw is more about setting "good" rules - and not endless balancing of what is perceived as an op build. if it's so op, then a new rule can be that only 20 of that op class / build is allowed in the match at a time.

 

what agreement can players come up with as rules that would be worthy of a score. Right now the wvw score is not worthy, that game is over.

Re-match, new rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys literally came here to cry, not a single constructive thing was said here just tears. Do you people expect to come into pvp/wvw which are competitive game modes suck and not be reprimanded in a team game?

 

What do you guys think you playing in a vacuum?

Go back to PvE where you can play your single player game where your free from other peoples criticisms and can play how ever you want no matter how bad you or your build is.

 

Geez...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Ricky.4706 said:

> the current way of scoring is not working - at the moment it's game over.

> Your post said nothing to address that point. in fact you complained about complaining. No one is complaining, the idea is to understand what can help wvw.

 

It wasn't a complaint, it was a statement and a suggestion you may disagree with what i said and that's cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Ricky.4706 said:

> rofl, then the game was won by the masochist community by that pov ? hehe!! -smh-

>

> gw2 itself, is so e-sports ready - but something about it, prevents it from becoming e-sports.....and pondering this thread, it's the rules.

> If you make no rules in poker.....just the best hand, then want to bet me 1 million dollars ....and say anything goes .....I'll give my deck 4 aces and let you choose any 4 matching sets of the rest of the cards in the deck because I want to be fair lol!! - my opponent would say that's cheating....and I'd say show me the rules that say's it's not allowed, now about that million dollars!

>

> There really are no rules in wvw to prevent someone from making their deck 4 aces.

>

> It's also probably why so many people say, mmorpgs will never make a good esports, because most games don't really set precise rules that cause balance, it's not the actual game and the software - it's the agreement between players that - this is the builds we allow for this match.

>

> Like boxing, no rabbit punches, no eye gouges, no groin kicks.......if anything goes....then poke you in the eye, kick you in the kittens and I won. Game over.

 

That's cool then I'll give my deck Ace. King. Queen, Jack, and a Ten, in all spades. GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a philosophical observation of what can be done to fix wvw of inbalance. it's not just balancing skills and population, it's balancing rules.

 

Everyone seems to be playing wvw from their own pov of what wvw is, and the truth is there are multiple ways to play wvw.... we need to find rules that establish a score that makes winning worth it......

 

Right now T1 servers are tanking to avoid fights, this is a defect.....blaming this on anyone from developers or players is not the solution, understanding what creates a respectable score is. Until then, according to the current rules, BG won wvw ...in NA - but I'm pretty sure they'd take down T1 asia and europe as well from their well crafted system that beat the current rules in wvw. - thus game over, we need to establish / define what a rematch is and come up with new rules to have a do over. - not simply a - "every one re-stack, and bandwagon to the next server that's going to win"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire thread is literally just you chest thumping BG's bizarre desire to "win" and pretending like you're being philosophical and neutral or something.

 

You realize you're the only server that cares even a little bit? You're not winning anything if you're the only ones playing your game. The rest of us realized a long time ago that "winning" WvW is meaningless and the content and gameplay itself is the reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Hiraldo.7954 said:

> This entire thread is literally just you chest thumping BG's bizarre desire to "win" and pretending like you're being philosophical and neutral or something.

>

> You realize you're the only server that cares even a little bit? You're not winning anything if you're the only ones playing your game. The rest of us realized a long time ago that "winning" WvW is meaningless and the content and gameplay itself is the reward.

 

Maybe we should all be like Mag. We can demonstrate our clear superiority by losing, quitting, complaining, and making excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...