PvE Players... Do you think GW 2 would be better without PvP and WvW?

[Veprovina.4876]

No. Hell no.

If they remove PvP and WvW the only thing Anet would ever develop and dorce you to play with locking everything behind the content is raids and fractals since that's all they care about lately.

 

And don't get me wrong, i like fractals and do them from time to time but more people play WvW than raids yet anet still forces you into that content regardless. Just look at the latest LW episode. Legendary, story part and a sittable chair all locked behind a raid that maybe 2% of the players actually play. The Palawadan meta is literally called a raid on palawadan. It's good fun that meta but come on, really subtle Anet, not so hidden messages on what you want people to play.

 

Look at fractals. A lot of them have raid mechanics now.

 

What this game really needs is a big WvW update, not more raids. Since that's all you'll get if they remove WvW and PvP. More raids.

 

Gotta please those 20 people who play them right?

 

And it's not like open world isn't getting stuff. What have you missed that you would have gotten? They make new stories, expansion with tons of fun maps to play on, gliding, mounts. What are you missing in PvE exactly?

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> That's a very complex question which eventually have no real answer.

I think its a very simple question that really doesnt deserve an answer.

[Lord Kreegan.8123]

I like open-world PvP -- REAL open-world PvP with servers dedicated to that purpose -- and WvWvW and set-piece battlegrounds just aren't the same thing. They leave me cold...

The WvWvW gimmick is an offshoot of DAoC's PvP system that everyone was so in love with; realistically, it didn't work all that well, either, once the new car smell wore off. ESO tried it, too, and it doesn't work for them very well, either. There's always too much lag, too many jerks, too little in the way of actual tactics -- it's all ZERG Vs. ZERG -- and with GW2 and a lack of real character roles (no real healers, crowd control, or tanks; everyone is DPS) it's even more ludicrous.

[mercury ranique.2170]

Would you be better off without an arm? or a leg?

Just cause some do not like it, doesnt mean it isnt part of GW2. You see them as seperate parts, but I see them as part of the whole.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Question asks "PvE Players..."

 

I am not. Which is partly why I chose other.

 

Ignoring the technicality for the moment. Guild Wars 2, was a $40 (In Murica) with 3ish game modes (you can argue WvW is just bigger-er pvp). So essentially, 3 games for the price of 1. Regardless of the individual quality of such "games," this was an excellent value proposition at the time. Removing any part of this would ruin that value. Especially considering each one could not stand on it's own at $40 when compared to other games that purely focus on one. Regardless of my tastes, this is important to note.

 

P.S. I only really play WvW a little bit anymore. While back then I played all three modes pre-HoT, but I only WvW-ed post-HoT.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"Lord Kreegan.8123" said:

> I like open-world PvP -- REAL open-world PvP with servers dedicated to that purpose -- and WvWvW and set-piece battlegrounds just aren't the same thing. They leave me cold...

> The WvWvW gimmick is an offshoot of DAoC's PvP system that everyone was so in love with; realistically, it didn't work all that well, either, once the new car smell wore off. ESO tried it, too, and it doesn't work for them very well, either. There's always too much lag, too many jerks, too little in the way of actual tactics -- it's all ZERG Vs. ZERG -- and with GW2 and a lack of real character roles (no real healers, crowd control, or tanks; everyone is DPS) it's even more ludicrous.

 

Character roles isn't limited to the ancient concept of healer, cc/support, tank, dps. WvW is where build variety truly shines, the only gamemode that brings out the versatility of GW2's versatile combat system. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone playing WvW runs nomad gear spamming 1

[TwilightSoul.9048]

I play mainly PvE but I really enjoy punching people in WvW really hard and taking care of some objectives and I would honestly miss WvW if they removed it.

PvP however can go down the drain. It used to be fun at some point but at the moment (or rather for quite a while now) some classes are so incredibly dominant and superior that playing PvP is absolutely no fun anymore. Talking about solo q here and obviously my personal opinion, I'm sure some people will disagree.

 

But I also think that Arenanet should stop their raid-nonsense and shouls start to increase the Open World Teamsize. I honestly don't understand why they put so much effort into a part of the game that holds such a minority of players. They could take better care of fractals instead which is almost the same as raids except not quite as susceptible to toxic people due to smaller group size.

[JVJD.4912]

I mostly pve, i do get the bite to WvW sometimes but for short while , i haven't pvp since 2014 however

 

That said , No i am against the removal of the other two modes as there are players who like it and its not hampering my play-style in anyway

[Nick Lentz.6982]

Those two modes are pretty much the end game.

The only thing WvW needs is proper (separate) balancing and fixes for wall hopping. Maybe another map. That's it.

 

PvP- just balance and release a map once in a while. Not 3 years :p.

[RoseofGilead.8907]

It'd be a bad idea to remove either game mode. Also, we don't need two-to-three new polls every day . . .

[TheQuickFox.3826]

Of course not. Sure, there are problems, but ditching the entire game modes is not a solution.

[Furious.2867]

There should also be a "THIS POLL IS REALLY LAME" option

[ThunderPanda.1872]

Where's the get rid of PvE, and only keep PvP and WvW option?

[sweetrules.8359]

I'd be okay with them removing PvP. Not WvW though. They constantly balance WvW around PvP even though PvP has different stat sets, lower stat caps, Set 5v5 structure, and altogether just different way of being played. WvW should have been separated from PvP balance long ago, but they still haven't done so.

[frickenreesh.7068]

WVW and PVP were part of the "3 pillars" of the game but since the release of Raids and to some extent now fractals have replaced them with far less resources focused on WVW an PVP. It's almost like when ANET said they we're not going to support Dungeons anymore, they forgot to say WVW and PVP with that so they half way do things and give shines just to keep us quiet. I would really like to see PVP and WVW get its own DLC or new game or expact. linking it with your account from GW2, I would even pay a sub. fee to get the support that it needs with content on more frequent timeline.

[Catty.3894]

ಠ_ಠ This is such a joke thread.

[Rauderi.8706]

For as much as much as I don't like PvP, I recognize that it's an accepted play style for any MMO (the four player types theory, etc). And as long as it's compartmentalized, it's healthy for the game.

 

(And if you listen to WvW players, it's not like they're investing much time into the game mode anyway. :P)

[Grim West.3194]

Pesonally, I find all PvE ultimately boring. Even GW2's which imo is probably the best around. Prefer RvR, which in GW2 is called WvW.

 

There aren't many choices for RvR in current mmos. So as bad as GW2's version is, if it didn't exist I would have very little incentive to come back to this game at all.

 

[Kalendraf.9521]

I'm fairly PvE-centric, but I find WvW a welcome diversion at times, and I often try to at least do some WvW dailies. PvP isn't my thing, but I still manage to do some PvP dailies as well.

 

My bigger complaint with the game modes is that they've gone and locked specific rewards behind each gaming style, forcing players to grind a specific style for certain rewards. I wish they'd stuck with a very limited set of universal currencies such as Karma to let players play whichever content they want and continually earn credit to spend toward any reward they're seeking.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"FitzChevalerie.1035" said:

> well duh if you ask pve players if they think wvw or pvp is needed, theyll say no.

>

> wvw players or pvp players would answer the same with a reverse question

 

Would they really? Maybe I've overestimated them then, because that would be incredibly foolish. Without the PvE elements of the game, it would have shut down four years ago, and they wouldn't have been able to keep playing PvP.

 

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> Question asks "PvE Players..."

>

> I am not. Which is partly why I chose other.

>

> Ignoring the technicality for the moment. Guild Wars 2, was a $40 (In Murica) with 3ish game modes (you can argue WvW is just bigger-er pvp). So essentially, 3 games for the price of 1. Regardless of the individual quality of such "games," this was an excellent value proposition at the time. Removing any part of this would ruin that value. Especially considering each one could not stand on it's own at $40 when compared to other games that purely focus on one. Regardless of my tastes, this is important to note.

>

> P.S. I only really play WvW a little bit anymore. While back then I played all three modes pre-HoT, but I only WvW-ed post-HoT.

 

The PvP aspects were not such a huge selling point that the game would have done worse without them.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"FitzChevalerie.1035" said:

> > well duh if you ask pve players if they think wvw or pvp is needed, theyll say no.

> >

> > wvw players or pvp players would answer the same with a reverse question

>

> Would they really? Maybe I've overestimated them then, because that would be incredibly foolish. Without the PvE elements of the game, it would have shut down four years ago, and they wouldn't have been able to keep playing PvP.

>

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > Question asks "PvE Players..."

> >

> > I am not. Which is partly why I chose other.

> >

> > Ignoring the technicality for the moment. Guild Wars 2, was a $40 (In Murica) with 3ish game modes (you can argue WvW is just bigger-er pvp). So essentially, 3 games for the price of 1. Regardless of the individual quality of such "games," this was an excellent value proposition at the time. Removing any part of this would ruin that value. Especially considering each one could not stand on it's own at $40 when compared to other games that purely focus on one. Regardless of my tastes, this is important to note.

> >

> > P.S. I only really play WvW a little bit anymore. While back then I played all three modes pre-HoT, but I only WvW-ed post-HoT.

>

> The PvP aspects were not such a huge selling point that the game would have done worse without them.

 

I'd play WoW if it was just Guild Wars 2's PvE. Any other random freemium MMO. Houses, mounts, raids, guild halls, all that jazz. Even Everquest 2 had that!

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Halan.8951" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > > @"Aerlen.5326" said:

> > > > No.

> > > >

> > > > I don't care for WvW and I think PvP is nothing but a toxic breeding ground but there are people who enjoy both of those game modes. Why would I want to take them away? That's not going to benefit PvE any and a whole bunch of players are going to leave. Let them have their content, we can have ours.

> > >

> > > Why do you think it wouldn't benefit PvE?

> >

> > A better question would be, "Why do you think it would?"

> >

> > There is no hard and fast rule about which demographics spend money. Game companies correlate revenue with the size of the overall game population. Shrinking game population almost always leads to shrinking revenue. Companies offset high production costs these days via mass appeal. Reducing the size of the customer base is almost always bad.

> >

> Yet there're several threads of PvPers complaining about "unfairness" of playing against PoF specs (Scourge and Spellbreaker OP to sell expansion!), or a someone complaining that Marauder amulet requires having HoT. Enough to come to conclusion that PvP players are the stingiest with purchases.

>

 

So, you conclude based on "several threads" that PvP players are stingy. You're assuming that the opinions stated in threads are a true indication of trends in the population. You apparently did not conclude that the plethora of negative posts about mount skin costs would say the same about PvE players, -- since mounts are a PvE-only feature. Interesting.

[pah.4931]

Assuming this post was just a tongue-and-cheek post, so I won't go into any detail on its absurdity.

[Dovienya.6597]

It's disappointing to see the people lambasting others for exclusivity furthering the cause they seek to extinguish.

 

[Rhyse.8179]

GW2 combat and balance is designed 100% with PvP in mind. As a result, PvE balance, mechanics, and content have all been held back by the requirement that it be compatable with PvP balance and classes. For example, hard CC that would be godly for PvE balance and allow complex encounter design would be completely OP in PvP, thus there is almost no hard CC in the entire game (I don't consider a 2s stun to be cc; think more like Polymorph from WoW or Mesemerize from EQ). Same for healers and support classes. There should be no question that PvE would be better without these issues.

 

Note that's not the same as saying GW2 should remove PvP or some crap. It's an isolated statement about a hypothetical that has no chance of even.