How can we get wvw back to the skill based game mode it used to be?

[coro.3176]

> @"Gorani.7205" said:

> PS: Individual player skill needs to matter more again too, because seeing 90% Scourges in WvW at the moment is an illustration of an out of balance profession situation that is beyond L2P issues.

 

100% agreed. Part of it, I think is safety in numbers and the reward structure. If you fight a heroic 1v3 at great personal risk and win, you get .. 3 bags. If your zerg fights a completely safe 60vs30, you get .. 30 bags.

 

If you're the average player, which would you choose? I mean, I try to play for the former rather than the latter 'cause I'm bored and don't care much for the rewards, but most players don't share that mentality.

[Cogbyrn.7283]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> > @"Cogbyrn.7283" said:

> > Also, I never understood why people made a meme out of playing for ppt. It's like playing chess and mocking your opponent for trying to checkmate your king, or hopping into sPvP and mocking the other players for trying to cap objectives, or jumping into a PvE raid and mocking your teammates for trying to kill bosses. Points are the objective.

> >

>

> It's more like playing pick-up soccer (or football for non-Americans) and having one team playing extremely defensive and sitting on a 1-goal lead. Like, sure. That will win you the game.. but we're just playing for fun here. It's not a tournament. There's no prize for first place. Let's just kick the ball around and play a fun game.. yeah?

 

This is actually an age-old argument I've seen spanning all manner of games, and the general conclusion I've come up with is that every single person will have a slightly different interpretation of what "playing for fun" really means. That team in your example that started playing defensively on a 1-goal lead probably has fun playing to win. The benefit of having fun while playing to win is that the rules and objectives are clearly defined, while simply "playing for fun" is an enormous spectrum of expectations and goals that you can't begin to predict about someone.

 

One of the biggest problems of any open world PvP game is that to thrive, you pretty much need all types of players, but that necessarily means that you'll create scenarios where basically everyone is unhappy with how things turned out at one point or another. Which, should be fine, but the part of "instant gratification" that no one focuses on, "gratification", seems to suggest all players should find pleasure in their gaming experience. When they don't, they go looking for something else that will be more gratifying, so open world communities start to die.

 

I think the general anti-tryhard sentiment is a defense against the sting of losing which might otherwise get a person to leave the game, but I don't think it's beneficial for anyone at all long-term.

 

All that being said, it's OK to recognize that someone else is playing a different game than you and to accept that running into them will be a less fun experience for you than you're looking for. I just don't think the general derisive tone behind it, on both sides of the fence, is useful.

[coro.3176]

> @"Cogbyrn.7283" said:

> This is actually an age-old argument I've seen spanning all manner of games, and the general conclusion I've come up with is that every single person will have a slightly different interpretation of what "playing for fun" really means. That team in your example that started playing defensively on a 1-goal lead probably has fun playing to win. The benefit of having fun while playing to win is that the rules and objectives are clearly defined, while simply "playing for fun" is an enormous spectrum of expectations and goals that you can't begin to predict about someone.

>

 

That's certainly true, but other players don't enjoy playing against that team. They just take their ball and go home .. which is what we see in WvW. Servers just disappear for the week. They tank out of T1.

 

> I think the general anti-tryhard sentiment is a defense against the sting of losing which might otherwise get a person to leave the game, but I don't think it's beneficial for anyone at all long-term.

 

Disagree. I can only speak for my server, but people are legitimately unhappy when we are winning. As mentioned, people intentionally try to lose to avoid playing against some of these "winning"-focused servers. It's not because it's too difficult. It's because it's not fun. People (on my server at least) don't want to spend hours sieging and countersieging or playing the supply game all night to take one keep. They just want a big chaotic open-field fight.

 

 

I think the best solution will be for ANET to hurry up and finish the guild alliance system. IMO, we need to shuffle these servers so there's more of a mix of all player types on each team at any given time.

[aspirine.6852]

Step one would be nerf necros. That would be the very first thing. This is just getting insane. We are up against vabbi, I swear they run just necro :P

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> > @"Cogbyrn.7283" said:

> > This is actually an age-old argument I've seen spanning all manner of games, and the general conclusion I've come up with is that every single person will have a slightly different interpretation of what "playing for fun" really means. That team in your example that started playing defensively on a 1-goal lead probably has fun playing to win. The benefit of having fun while playing to win is that the rules and objectives are clearly defined, while simply "playing for fun" is an enormous spectrum of expectations and goals that you can't begin to predict about someone.

> >

>

> I think the best solution will be for ANET to hurry up and finish the guild alliance system. IMO, we need to shuffle these servers so there's more of a mix of all player types on each team at any given time.

 

It may be.

 

However, what happens when those fight focused people form alliances with like minded people?

 

And there are 4-5 alliances with these people..

 

And they are spread across 3-4 tiers...

 

And stuck with progressively different PPT focused people and alliances...

 

Forming on one or two alliances would be worse.

 

Likely it's going to make a few more

People unhappy.

 

Personally, I am good with either style with our Havoc, so, I can see benefits to facing different groups.

 

I think the PPT (and anti PPK) along with the PPK (and anti PPT) crowds have the largest potential for disappointment.

[Aeolus.3615]

Start playing gw1 and drop the lamers/casuals mmo :) is one of the ways to fix it

AB is WvW w/o walls on shrines/cap places.

[reddie.5861]

my opinion from a guy who didnt do any blob fights since they released HoT till now..

 

the problem is obviously boon corrupt i mean look at this.

Boons are converted as follows:

 

Boon Condition

Aegis Burning (1 stack, 3 s)

Alacrity Chilled (3 s)

Fury Blinded (5 s)

Might Weakness (5 s)

Protection Vulnerability (3 stacks, 8 s)

Quickness Slow (3 s)

Regeneration Poison (6s)

Resistance Immobile (2 s)

Retaliation Confusion (3 stacks, 5 s)

Stability Fear (1 s)

Swiftness Crippled (10 s)

Vigor Bleeding (2 stacks, 8 s)

 

so, yesterday and today i decide to join blob again.

Basically blob fighting used to be stab up and off you go right? but since we playing condition wars and warriors are back and resistance in generally flys around cus of that durability rune.

 

anyway so we start the fight i touched 1 shade or w/e i touched im immobilized.. nice im dead.

2nd fight i fucking dunno why i even got immobilized first time same shit happend i got caught i got insta run over by train of scourges..

 

so i ask why fuck i get immoblize all the time then i got told (never knew never really care as roamer) that resistance is turned into immobile, but my setup doesnt give me resistance yet i kinda got it perma flying around cus of people using durability rune or warriors popping it i dunno.

 

 

anyway the point is RESISTANCE KILLS YOU.

so dont use resistance..

 

 

same with swiftness it kills u when u need to re position you self cus your enemy is clearly stronger but u could use something to your advantage but takes little run half your blob gonna get caught cus swiftness is a thing that every1 wants and has more or less. so your backline slowly gonna get absorbed..

 

then we have stab which i realised today when i got like chain feared in million times..

 

so in reality Anet doesnt want us to be immune to conditions cus it will "immobile your ass"

neither they want us to stab up and be like bosses cus they will just fear u leaving u no control over char and prolly die also.

neither they want us to re position our asses which always goes slowly if needed to be done fast in order to win bigger blob or stronger one then u cus swiftness gives u cripple thus making u being sucked up in blob..

 

i never followed the meta either, but hey who cares i made a scourge and gotta say this class is so beyond stupid in WvW pre hot i thought wells where already good at tagging stuff beside the "lootstick guard" i thought necro was amazing at tagging.

well now with shades and marks and wells and w/e u choose for skills your self its amazing.u just randomly throw shit around and u tag like a idiot while pumping out massive amount of conditions.

 

could go on for ever about this class or even other classes but this scourge is main problem in WvW

[Cogbyrn.7283]

> @"coro.3176" said:

>

> That's certainly true, but other players don't enjoy playing against that team. They just take their ball and go home .. which is what we see in WvW. Servers just disappear for the week. They tank out of T1.

 

That's usually why sports tend to separate into leagues, and it sort of felt like the tiers resembled that somewhat back in the day. People just didn't like playing the same groups over and over again, which I also never understood. I loved running into consistent enemies and building rivalries, it made it more interesting and personal for me instead of encountering Anonymous Roamer #17385.

 

> @"coro.3176" said:

> > I think the general anti-tryhard sentiment is a defense against the sting of losing which might otherwise get a person to leave the game, but I don't think it's beneficial for anyone at all long-term.

>

> Disagree. I can only speak for my server, but people are legitimately unhappy when we are winning. As mentioned, people intentionally try to lose to avoid playing against some of these "winning"-focused servers. It's not because it's too difficult. It's because it's not fun. People (on my server at least) don't want to spend hours sieging and countersieging or playing the supply game all night to take one keep. They just want a big chaotic open-field fight.

>

>

> I think the best solution will be for ANET to hurry up and finish the guild alliance system. IMO, we need to shuffle these servers so there's more of a mix of all player types on each team at any given time.

 

I see your point, and I worded my thought more carelessly than I should have. I was trying to get back to work quickly so I just let it flow right out of my brain. In some cases I still think that people poke fun at someone who is "trying hard" because they feel compelled to defend their own ego, and in general it isn't an uncommon phenomenon for people to think "trying" at anything is uncool.

 

As far as not wanting to siege or countersiege for hours, I simultaneously understand and wonder what your ideal night of WvW would look like. Would you just roam between objectives, run into some other big zerg, and duke it out for a few hours before breaking up and logging off? You aren't forced into making bids on keeps/SMC, and you shouldn't have to siege/countersiege a tower for hours. I would expect that hitting things like towers/camps in quick succession would draw an enemy force out, at which point you can intercept them while they are en route to a siege. Do the "winning"-focused servers just bring groups that are too large to steal objectives back, so you never end up fighting a force at the size you want?

 

At the end of the day, I think this helps highlight how many different things people want out of an open field experience, and they are (I think, anyway) largely mutually exclusive. You want a big chaotic open-field fight, but due to the nature of WvW, you either need to specifically organize it with an opposing server, or try to manufacture it. The former is something I've seen done starting years and years ago, and the latter is a necessary evil since objectives are specifically designed to focus players into areas for conflict. Simply running around the world at random probably isn't going to net you a big chaotic open-field fight.

 

Another thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that downtime between periods of excitement heightens the excitement. Tension built while you don't get exactly what you want heightens the experience when you finally get it. It's a very delicate balance between finding enough fights and not finding enough fights, and I have no idea how they could possibly solve that problem. I'm skeptical that a "guild alliance" system is going to do it.

[coro.3176]

> @"Cogbyrn.7283" said:

> > @"coro.3176" said:

> >

> > That's certainly true, but other players don't enjoy playing against that team. They just take their ball and go home .. which is what we see in WvW. Servers just disappear for the week. They tank out of T1.

>

> That's usually why sports tend to separate into leagues, and it sort of felt like the tiers resembled that somewhat back in the day. People just didn't like playing the same groups over and over again, which I also never understood. I loved running into consistent enemies and building rivalries, it made it more interesting and personal for me instead of encountering Anonymous Roamer #17385.

>

> > @"coro.3176" said:

> > > I think the general anti-tryhard sentiment is a defense against the sting of losing which might otherwise get a person to leave the game, but I don't think it's beneficial for anyone at all long-term.

> >

> > Disagree. I can only speak for my server, but people are legitimately unhappy when we are winning. As mentioned, people intentionally try to lose to avoid playing against some of these "winning"-focused servers. It's not because it's too difficult. It's because it's not fun. People (on my server at least) don't want to spend hours sieging and countersieging or playing the supply game all night to take one keep. They just want a big chaotic open-field fight.

> >

> >

> > I think the best solution will be for ANET to hurry up and finish the guild alliance system. IMO, we need to shuffle these servers so there's more of a mix of all player types on each team at any given time.

>

> As far as not wanting to siege or countersiege for hours, I simultaneously understand and wonder what your ideal night of WvW would look like. Would you just roam between objectives, run into some other big zerg, and duke it out for a few hours before breaking up and logging off? You aren't forced into making bids on keeps/SMC, and you shouldn't have to siege/countersiege a tower for hours. I would expect that hitting things like towers/camps in quick succession would draw an enemy force out, at which point you can intercept them while they are en route to a siege. Do the "winning"-focused servers just bring groups that are too large to steal objectives back, so you never end up fighting a force at the size you want?

 

The typical situation goes like this:

 

- log in, NA prime. Join home borderland for some WvW. Enemy has nightcapped all of our keeps and T3'd them. Sigh.

- have a small group of 10-15 players. go looking for someone to fight. find them. similar size group but they all sitting in the T3 east keep on siege firing cannons and arrow carts at us. boring..

- okay, so they won't come out to fight. let's break in and make them fight. attempt to find a spot to attack, but there are 5 superior arrow carts at every siege point. sigh...

- go set up trebs far back from the keep. immediately get counter-trebbed. build shield generators and cycle bubbles. enemy builds their own shield generators and cycle bubbles in front of the wall. trebs are getting in for like ~1% a minute. enemy is building more shield gens and repairing the wall.

- small group of 10-15 is extremely bored at this point. call for help from other borderlands. no one will come because they don't want to deal with the above situation. EBG is queued over 100. The other borderlands are outmanned.

- maybe we eventually get in, storm the walls, clear defensive siege. set up for an attack on the inner walls. enemy pulls emergency waypoint, runs over our 15 with their 60. repairs walls to full, rebuilds defensive siege..

- alt-F4 and go play overwatch/fortnite/whatever

 

In my ideal WvW:

 

- objectives do not get fortified walls/gates/etc

- defensive siege does much less damage, especially to players (eg. arrow carts)

- any successful defense or offense should primarily involve players fighting players rather than playing the siege game

[DeadlySynz.3471]

I'd argue it's the dead opposite from the way it was from the first 2-4 years. There is literally 0 skill in mighting up, getting unlimited stability, leaping in, and pressing 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1. All the while alienating several classes. This was terrible terrible unskilled game play. At least now players are forced to think about what they're doing, when they're doing it, and their actual group comp. This seems to peeve a lot of people hence the salty complaining about overpowered classes.

 

Can't leap in anymore pressing 1, you'll be lit up with conditions. Can't give yourself a hoard of boons, they'll all turn to conditions. Can't simply run necros unhinged as Rangers will rip them apart. Then stability (thankfully) has now been given stacks instead of sitting on players with 100% up time.

 

The only argument against unskilled play now is the spellbreaker. A class that can seemingly just run in and run out completely immune to everything thrown at them. This class simply shouldn't exist.

[getalifeturd.8139]

There is no melee because the high risk high reward philosophy doesn't exist anymore. Only braindead passive ranged gameplay where you drop circles or dodge circles. Every expansion will be the same with more circles to avoid. We should just program robots to play the game perfectly for us because at this point we're playing against the game mechanics not each other.

 

Full dire/trailblazer armor vs full nomads/minstrel. There's your backline and frontline but in reality they're the same. You can't push into scourges and warrior bubbles without feeling suicidal and the gameplay suffers for it. There is no fun anymore just watch your health get filled up with conditions and remove them or die.

 

There is a big difference between as people call unskilled play and what is actually fun. Old Hammer Trains were fun and so was the game but every expansion increases the power creep. I mean Arenanet actually had to add healers to a game with a manifesto that said they wouldn't. Why would they do that except because the game's DPS was reaching 1-shot levels and fights were not happening only ganking.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again when everybody else has quit this game all that's left will be the trolls and gankers. What happens when the next expansion comes out and Arenanet adds more power creep to the game? Players only complain if they can't kill somebody. Nobody cares if they 1-hit others because people are biased and subjective. True objective balance is impossible because the human race is competitive and vengeful.

[Cogbyrn.7283]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> > @"Cogbyrn.7283" said:

> > > @"coro.3176" said:

> > >

> > > That's certainly true, but other players don't enjoy playing against that team. They just take their ball and go home .. which is what we see in WvW. Servers just disappear for the week. They tank out of T1.

> >

> > That's usually why sports tend to separate into leagues, and it sort of felt like the tiers resembled that somewhat back in the day. People just didn't like playing the same groups over and over again, which I also never understood. I loved running into consistent enemies and building rivalries, it made it more interesting and personal for me instead of encountering Anonymous Roamer #17385.

> >

> > > @"coro.3176" said:

> > > > I think the general anti-tryhard sentiment is a defense against the sting of losing which might otherwise get a person to leave the game, but I don't think it's beneficial for anyone at all long-term.

> > >

> > > Disagree. I can only speak for my server, but people are legitimately unhappy when we are winning. As mentioned, people intentionally try to lose to avoid playing against some of these "winning"-focused servers. It's not because it's too difficult. It's because it's not fun. People (on my server at least) don't want to spend hours sieging and countersieging or playing the supply game all night to take one keep. They just want a big chaotic open-field fight.

> > >

> > >

> > > I think the best solution will be for ANET to hurry up and finish the guild alliance system. IMO, we need to shuffle these servers so there's more of a mix of all player types on each team at any given time.

> >

> > As far as not wanting to siege or countersiege for hours, I simultaneously understand and wonder what your ideal night of WvW would look like. Would you just roam between objectives, run into some other big zerg, and duke it out for a few hours before breaking up and logging off? You aren't forced into making bids on keeps/SMC, and you shouldn't have to siege/countersiege a tower for hours. I would expect that hitting things like towers/camps in quick succession would draw an enemy force out, at which point you can intercept them while they are en route to a siege. Do the "winning"-focused servers just bring groups that are too large to steal objectives back, so you never end up fighting a force at the size you want?

>

> The typical situation goes like this:

>

> - log in, NA prime. Join home borderland for some WvW. Enemy has nightcapped all of our keeps and T3'd them. Sigh.

> - have a small group of 10-15 players. go looking for someone to fight. find them. similar size group but they all sitting in the T3 east keep on siege firing cannons and arrow carts at us. boring..

> - okay, so they won't come out to fight. let's break in and make them fight. attempt to find a spot to attack, but there are 5 superior arrow carts at every siege point. sigh...

> - go set up trebs far back from the keep. immediately get counter-trebbed. build shield generators and cycle bubbles. enemy builds their own shield generators and cycle bubbles in front of the wall. trebs are getting in for like ~1% a minute. enemy is building more shield gens and repairing the wall.

> - small group of 10-15 is extremely bored at this point. call for help from other borderlands. no one will come because they don't want to deal with the above situation. EBG is queued over 100. The other borderlands are outmanned.

> - maybe we eventually get in, storm the walls, clear defensive siege. set up for an attack on the inner walls. enemy pulls emergency waypoint, runs over our 15 with their 60. repairs walls to full, rebuilds defensive siege..

> - alt-F4 and go play overwatch/fortnite/whatever

>

> In my ideal WvW:

>

> - objectives do not get fortified walls/gates/etc

> - defensive siege does much less damage, especially to players (eg. arrow carts)

> - any successful defense or offense should primarily involve players fighting players rather than playing the siege game

 

Why would you keep slamming your faces into a keep wall that is heavily fortified and adequately defended when you know that you have another layer to try to punch through, and that they can just pull the emergency waypoint? Why not take a group of 10-15 and harass towers/camps instead on enemy BLs right up near their home waypoint? I'd be much more surprised if every tower had people manning siege by default at all times, there's only one way into them, and it's less of a high value defensive target for a 60-man zerg to suddenly flood into.

 

If you really want open field fights, attacking a keep since like the worst decision you could make. I understand that no matter what you do, sometimes it's difficult to catch anyone on open ground, and they've really made it a lot easier for zergs to respond to threats on various maps. As a 10-15 man group looking for open field fights, though, you have to go in understanding that sometimes you aren't going to find them. Two forces don't usually clash organically unless both are reasonably confident they might stand a chance.

 

With any luck, a new system will divide up the siegers, GvGers, etc., along with the various timezone populations, in order to provide a more balanced experience. Even then, though, it's worth making the effort to poke the bees nest itself instead of getting sucked into a long siege that results in a few seconds of chasing disorganized stragglers on walls once you break in.

[jalmari.3906]

There has never been any balance in wvw to begin with. And from what I gather it was never meant to be balanced. Just a way casual pver can go try some "pvp" with his/her shiny gear.

 

Very little has changed during the time. It was a shame that orbs were removed at least then you could gather up a group with some semi-meaningful objective.

 

WvW match results are made just by having most active players and night runners. It has nothing to do with skill. Maybe a little social "engineering".

 

Just accept it and just go have fun roaming or zerg around for bags. Or then go spvp, at least you get something for your efforts and you have something to do with results.

 

It would be nice to have working GvG mode but there isn't really.

 

 

[ArmageddonAsh.6430]

> @"Hollywood.3490" said:

> It's either cheese or get cheesed.

>

> Zerging: Do not even care about classes other than Firebrands and Scourges. Get stability and heals, lay down red carpet. Rinse and repeat.

>

> Roaming: Instagib someone, proceed to the next target. If missed, then disengage until CDs are back. Rinse and repeat.

 

I would debate just how skill based WvW ever was, the balance has NEVER been good enough for it to ever be considered skill based. Everyone one runs around with broken, boring cheese builds. Always have. There may have been times when it wasn't so bad but its NEVER truly been skill based. Class and build have ALWAYS been more important.

 

It's pretty much this. The longer the game has gone on. The worse the balance has become and the worse the player base has become because they have been to used to unbalanced cheese builds that do all the work. The game would die if it actually became skill based because most of the player base wouldn't be able to do anything. This is VERY heavily on Anets hands for their woeful attempts at balance but also partly on the player base for demanding that people run meta, there isnt really a choice. You play the META even if you find it boring or you are cast aside.

[Orpheal.8263]

> @"Dagger.2035" said:

> Two words...time travel. I would go back to a few days prior to the June 23rd 2015 release.

 

so much thns, thats the point I keep on saying too, where all this disaster took their beginning ...

[Malediktus.9250]

WvW was best when hammer trains still existed. Pirate ship meta is dull

[Garrus.7403]

> @"Seffen.2875" said:

>

> **WvW has not become less skill intensive. Rather the opposite. It has become more skill intensive.**

>

> But in the same mean, People are not keeping up. They either degenerate into scourges or they blame all their failures on scourges. The average pug is extremely uneducated. Does not understand his class. Does not understand fighting. Only understands that scourge is the root of all evil. (scourge is strong and is and has been a powercreep. But it is really not as bad anymore since he was nerfed a lot.)

>

 

I can agree with that. Scourge is ez to play. I play it alot but also my fb. Yesterday I played with my scourge and I was just wondering if ppl are afk and braindead. One fight I was 4k dmg behind a rev. He was first in overall dmg. I had 64 corrupts in this fights and I think 170k dmg. The next scourge did not even have above 100k dmg. And there were scourge who did not even had 15 corrupts. You are when you say ppl dont understand there class.

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> I'd argue it's the dead opposite from the way it was from the first 2-4 years. There is literally 0 skill in mighting up, getting unlimited stability, leaping in, and pressing 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1. All the while alienating several classes. This was terrible terrible unskilled game play. At least now players are forced to think about what they're doing, when they're doing it, and their actual group comp. This seems to peeve a lot of people hence the salty complaining about overpowered classes.

>

> Can't leap in anymore pressing 1, you'll be lit up with conditions. Can't give yourself a hoard of boons, they'll all turn to conditions. Can't simply run necros unhinged as Rangers will rip them apart. Then stability (thankfully) has now been given stacks instead of sitting on players with 100% up time.

>

> The only argument against unskilled play now is the spellbreaker. A class that can seemingly just run in and run out completely immune to everything thrown at them. This class simply shouldn't exist.

 

Thing is that the mechanical skill of zerging during hammertrain wasn't the important part. It was the coordination and positioning that mattered. It was the efficacy of periphery groups. It was one big symphony of many small parts which demanded an understanding of what to do and when. And to be honest, I don't think the mechanical skill demands have increased. 11111 spam on guardian was because it was their best way to cleave in most situations. Guardians were a support and tank frontline role. Hammertrain got its name from Warriors using hammer to CC-lock and blast fields for sustain and damage.

 

Further, the small-scale scene at this prior point was all the rejects, but nearly every build in the game on them could be played and made to work in a competitive sense. This was what called for mechanical skill.

 

Today, the top-tier builds are just objectively better. They have higher stats and higher damage and better sustain and durability. They do not need context to gain an advantage. Cooldowns are so short that counting the seconds and timing skills is pointless. Everyone just rolls their face across the keyboard and hopes for a win.

 

Scourge, Mirage, Spellbreaker and A/S Warrior, FB, Daredevil, SA Deadeye, Pewpew double Signet of Stone Soulbeast and boonbunker Druid, Holosmith, trapper DH, FA Plasma Beam/Earth Weaver... none of these builds really require any degree of substantial thought when playing and are relatively easy and safe to play for their capabilities.

 

So much of the game's risk is gone. The ability to punish an engage or bad positioning is gone. A lot of builds are just all reward. So in the situations of small-scale where mechanics really matter, most fights playing off-meta are always at uphill battles and offer nothing better than what the stronger dominant builds are capable of otherwise doing.

[Legendary Defender.5631]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> Step one would be nerf necros. That would be the very first thing. This is just getting insane. We are up against vabbi, I swear they run just necro :P

 

Not necros in general, scourge just needs to be deleted

[Psycoprophet.8107]

Wvw is should be renamed to scourge wars mode

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > A fourth faction of NPCs, like Aetherblades, that will attack any point and take over it if no players attack it for too long, and no players were defending it. They would teleport in through an ether portal, pop siege, break the walls and take over it, turning the location to the 'gray' faction.

>

> That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how easy that would be to implement or whether it would eventually turn into something that got farmed or became so trivial that it is more like a mosquito flying in your ear rather than an actual threat.

>

> On variation is to allow a fourth, unallied team to enter the map, limited to maybe 10 or 20 people who must be in the same squad. With a limited number of respawns available. Make the reward juicy enough and lots of people would leave a queued map to see if they can survive long enough to neutralize objectives of the Red, Green, and Blue teams.

 

We kinda used to have that, before they took away [Commander Siegerazer](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Champion_Commander_Siegerazer) to help you break at least the closest tower to spawn when you had no coverage at all. They should bring that back, and maybe have him roam past that first tower a bit.

 

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> Start playing gw1 and drop the lamers/casuals mmo :) is one of the ways to fix it

> AB is WvW w/o walls on shrines/cap places.

 

I miss AB, and is what I expected WvW to be more like when I started. Now there's barely enough there to play it it seems like, least when I get on.

[Xterra.6172]

give back the ability to make plays to melee. that would be a nice start.