This game mode is not all inclusive

[Warlord.9074]

I feel like the direction that the developers have taken with this game mode has been to say this is an all inclusive game mode but cater to a type of play style, and or player base that is not shared by everyone.

 

The player base that enjoys this style of game play has then introduced this notion of power dynamics, where Guild groups and organized squads, metas comps and skilled game play is bad. Anyone who utilize game mechanics and and the combat system becomes overpowered, and is every bad name in the book and and ruining the game mode.

 

For the developer you need to ask yourself just why is that a thing and how does that make the game fun to play for anyone involved. You try to make everyone happy but in the end what you are doing is just catering to those players by introducing mechanics that just make the game mode more unplayable every time. Slowing the game mode down. It is like the qoute from star trek and the borg said "resistance is futile" so the player can pull every tactivator, build all the siege in the game, use siege disable and every trap and still lose.

 

Then they come and complain here on the forums about that, but the point is they do not deserve to have won because they did not put forth the effort to win that battle, or they did not have the numbers to have a chance. It is like a broken record around here.

 

Creating an alliance system changing matchup systems, merging servers all of that doesn't do anything to adress the core issues with the game. You are still going to have players that are just better at the game who are going to win the fights and farm the casuals and giving the casuals just more bodies and more tools to cheese the game doesn't change that it just creates a larger bag farm for the better players. And as long as you are agreeing to the power dynamics that these players use to argue that none of that is going to change. They will still come on the forum to complain about things like siege needs more buffed and we need more jumping puzzles like red bl in the game etc etc.

 

[Gwaihir.1745]

Good thing everything doesn’t have to be all inclusive. You might be more suited to mobile gaming.

[Kaiser.9873]

So lemme get this straight....People good at the game SHOULDN'T be able to farm casuals new to the mode?

[Ubi.4136]

Nothing can "save" wvw at this point. As long as transfers exist, players will just keep jumping in mass to 1 server (or alliance) to have an easy mode farm vs smaller (or just less organized) groups. The only thing the "fighters" want to do now is run around flipping near empty paper structures for easy loot and ranks. The only thing alliances are going to do is change the "label" on who is fighting and slow down how fast people can bandwagon to an easier matchup, but they will find a way to abuse it so they can continue to ktrain.

[Justine.6351]

Yeah there isn't really a way to narrow the gap between good players and bad players, populous servers and ghost town servers, without dumbing down the game's combat and wvw to the point it becomes uninteresting.

 

>! Pretty sure the 3 responses above me didn't comprehend what you were trying to say.

[Warlord.9074]

ya the 3 post above Justine don't get the point.

[Mokk.2397]

The boon spam is the final nail in the coffin for WvW. Before Path of Fire Smaller groups had half a chance to defend against or even defeat moderately larger groups.Now your up against full stacked boons nonstop.Now it's no longer a game of skill but a game of who has the biggest team.Linking did little to resolve this issue as it doesn't consider the frequency of players at given times of the day or the actual number of players in a server that actually play WvW. An alliance system will cause even more exclusion because if your guild doesn't comply to the meta wills of the alliance it will simply get kicked(excluded) or players get kicked (excluded). It's just handing more power to the largest guilds and hence the leaders of those guilds.And as we all know ,power corrupts.Yet the skill balance remains unbalanced .

[HazyDaisy.4107]

Farming casuals, newbs, solos, groups half your size etc doesn't equate to good, it equates to sad. For those getting farmed, little has changed and little will change with alliances or any mechanics or builds that get added, deleted, nerfed or intervention countered.

 

Had people stuck it out on guest servers they'd be better prepared for what's headed their way...eventually, but most wanted to go to "good" servers aka better population servers that usually end up doing little more than fighting..I mean ppting lower population "bad" skill servers and then they have the nerve to call it skill when they win, defender advantages when they are denied ppt and boring pvding when the outnumbered just give up.

 

The devs didn't' put us where we are or where we're headed, the majority did, so buckle up and let's see exactly how much "skill" is out there.

[SkyShroud.2865]

If you think pve open world is inclusive, that is only because of its sharing mechanism in gw2 where everybody wins. That isn't true for majority of the games.

 

In WvW, Raid, FoTM, Dungeons, it is never once inclusive. This much is obvious. Yet, compare to the latter 3, WvW is more inclusive such that they can't really kick you off the server. Though, exactly due to this, people chose to stack as a workaround. If not, you get "toxic" treatment. This is a reality, people only wants to play with decent players, people only wants to win, people only wants benefits. People just don't want to deal with people who are not interested in achieving any of those.

 

If you really want a inclusive community, your only option is a game that has very very little population. Only such a game will have such a community because every person counts.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Mokk.2397" said:

> The boon spam is the final nail in the coffin for WvW. Before Path of Fire Smaller groups had half a chance to defend against or even defeat moderately larger groups.

 

...of equal skill a builds. But over the weekend I joined many a pugmander squad, where 15 players charged, scattered a stomped a group at least twice that size that was sieging a tower.

 

They lost for all the right reasons:

- no organization or leadership

- poor group composition

- poor skill (they ran in all directions)

 

Seems like its working as intended.

 

Now if you feel that a 15 person squad doesn't stand much of a chance against a 25 person squad, where both have the same level of organization, composition and skill, well welcome to the real world and again, working as intended.

 

[Straegen.2938]

Skill should always be a major factor in determining the outcome of a fight. A rock, paper, scissor combat system is important as well but a good "paper" player should be able to beat a poor "scissor" player.

 

What is missing in GW2 WvW is inclusive mechanics and the a significant key to that is rewards. WvW should be a highly rewarded experience rather than its current state where players make 10% or less than PvE players. "Loot boxes" aka "slot machine" systems drive players. Without it WvW will continually shed players without many new ones coming into the game mode.

 

Also the downstate/rally mechanic is VERY unfriendly to casual players even though it was meant to be the opposite. I don't want a carebear anywhere near my fights so much so I will break off when one is in the mix. A new or casual player is a liability in most fights due to the downstate/rally mechanic. On the no downstate week, I enjoyed having new players near and offering help where I could. I know several guilds that run tagless for the same reason.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

it doesn't matter what anet says lol... some people prefer winning over "inclusiveness", what ever that means. guess what, some things are more effective then others, and whoever is the most effective is usually the winner. facts of life bruh.

 

now there are some lame mechanics that mess this mode up sure, but none of them are listed. instead you bash on organization, which is a joke or a bad troll.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

If it used the PvP amulet system with no stat restrictions and allowing those with infusion slots to get that bonus, it would be a lot more inclusive for new players.

 

As it is now, a fresh 80 coming in with his mix of rares and exotics getting curb stomped by the first all-Ascended and infused roamer that finds him will not want to come back.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> If it used the PvP amulet system with no stat restrictions and allowing those with infusion slots to get that bonus, it would be a lot more inclusive for new players.

>

> As it is now, a fresh 80 coming in with his mix of rares and exotics getting curb stomped by the first all-Ascended and infused roamer that finds him will not want to come back.

The gear system has never been an issue, but rather the amount of points - last I checked PvE gear has somewhere around 1000 extra points over PvP amulets.

 

Thats the same as someone running berserker amulet in PvP... with 2000 toughness.

 

[aspirine.6852]

I thought you meant not inclusive because of the profession hate you get when you do not have the correct one.

That better players can farm casuals all day, so be it. They are better, either in numbers, way better in playing the game or the biggest problem I think, by not including the professions that they do not think fit this game mode. That last thing is the only thing that is wrong in this game mode imo.

[Dante.1763]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> Nothing can "save" wvw at this point. As long as transfers exist, players will just keep jumping in mass to 1 server (or alliance) to have an easy mode farm vs smaller (or just less organized) groups. The only thing the "fighters" want to do now is run around flipping near empty paper structures for easy loot and ranks. The only thing alliances are going to do is change the "label" on who is fighting and slow down how fast people can bandwagon to an easier matchup, but they will find a way to abuse it so they can continue to ktrain.

 

Pretty much this. My server would constantly end up fighting Blackgate when it was *THE* server to be on, and i ended up quitting WvW until we werent fighting them. Its simply not fun to run into groups of 10 or more by yourself simply because your server doesnt have the same numbers as the server you are fighting.

[Optimator.3589]

It's inclusive enough. Snowflakes with weird builds/bad gear can run around flipping camps or sentries or scouting or something. And they can provide fodder for the players who do take the time to optimize themselves.

 

To paraphrase Orwell, we're all equal here. Some of us are more equal than others, though.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

> @"Kaiser.9873" said:

> So lemme get this straight....People good at the game SHOULDN'T be able to farm casuals new to the mode?

 

What separates a good from a bad player though? To avoid this being a match-up thread, i'll say this: Those that think they are good at the game mode are actually quite bad, like beyond bad. The incessant transferring and stacking is the issue. Those that stack think they are good, but they are anything but. When they lose, they grab more numbers; when they still lose, they grab more. If they can't win, they either log off, switch maps, or hide.

 

Anet has facilitated the stacking behavior by allowing transfers when they shouldn't allow them at all. The core issue of the game isn't a balance between whose good or bad (frankly it's not hard to run forward with a larger group pressing 1), the core issue is mechanics in place allowing players stack creating a mismatch. Delving down even further, the core issue is more-so the behavior of these certain players that continually try to stack themselves. This is where the OP is right in the sense that alliances aren't going to fix this.

 

There is a clear reason why both servers and players alike actively try to avoid T1, it's to avoid the "flavor of the month server" that people have stacked to. Then when that server loses their link (which is likely going to happen this time around as well), that server crashes and burns. Due to player behavior in wanting easy mode, they stack to the next server with a link, end up in T1, then players actively try to avoid facing that server.

 

Anet could easily do a couple of things to alleviate this behavior, which requires very little work on their part.

 

1) Don't allow links in T1. The second a server is set to move up with it's link to T1, that server's link gets recycled down into T4. It's absolutely futile for players to even attempt to stack themselves anymore. The servers currently can't seem to hold a lot before going full, so any attempt to stack a server in a particular time-zone (which repeatedly happen) will inevitably send that server down at least into T3 with a large absence of fights (we've already seen this). Then the argument I hear is "but I want to play with my friends or guildies that are on the full host server". Well your host server friends and you can transfer off to a linked server, and you'll remain together indefinitely no matter what tier you end up in. Do we see them doing that? NO, they want easy mode, it has nothing to do with playing with their guildies or friends.

 

2) Cap the maps at 20 players max. Then IF all maps have 20 people, the cap on each map is increased to 25, and 25 will remain the max with 100 people total in WvW at any given time. If by some outside chance over a course of weeks it's shown that ALL servers on average are constantly que'ing all maps, increase the cap to 30 per map. Outside of reset, 95% of the time servers will never reach that cap. "But I want to play with my guildies on the same map".. ya well very rarely do we see 20-25 guildies running together, even on reset, so this is not a viable argument by any stretch. This solves the horrific lag many people face during large clashes, but most importantly, it STOPS the blobbing. So why stack to a server if you can't blob people down? I repeatedly see this, a group of 5-10 people repeatedly taking down a group of 20-25 on one of the stacking servers. The only way these players with stacking behavior will survive is if they simply just get better, which will happen when they are forced to fight evenly.

 

Frankly, I wish Anet would implement both.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

wow, 20 per map? That... is pretty much one guild squad. And yes, I am on a server where guilds are able to put up squads like that. Let me guess... you are on NA? Just because NA is broken that one is not true for EU. Also '20' or '30' or even a '50' cap would just kill wvw even faster than Mirages and Daredevils are currently able to.

 

Also, what exactly is wrong with blobbing? There are people - like me - who actually enjoy 50v50v50 fights on weekends and 30v30v30 fights on the rest of the day. Roaming? Is just a bandaid waiting for the sweet action to start.

 

Oh wait, nothing is wrong with 'blobbing'. You just dont like it.

[Israel.7056]

I see competence hierarchies as a feature of competition not a problem that requires a solution. The wonderful thing about this game is that the bis gear is relatively easy to get which means that even completely new players can get on par with the guys who have played since launch in a matter of months instead of years which has been the norm in every other mmo I've ever played.

[gebrechen.5643]

As someone who play both on NA and EU I can at least confirm that this is mainly an NA problem. You NA guys broke that game mode over the years with your transfering and stacking of servers by getting paid for transfers or driving your weird "we go there for the fights - agenda" that never applied to your wvw environment. In the beginning guilds transfered for a gvg vs. some other guild as far as I remember, but after that no one really cared for good fights. You wanted to enjoy the superiority of your "group" or "prove something to someone" which needed no proof or wasn't even important enough.

If any guild would ever have "searched" for fights they could have stayed at their home servers and waited for matchups to happen. There was always enough to fight before you started stacking your NA timezones with "all the fight guilds". There are so many examples out there, choose your own. I mostly choose Maguuma for this, because it's the most obvious one next to Malvolents "alliance" stuff that left two or three servers in ruins by drawing players from one server to the next.

The alliance system won't change any of that until you don't change your behaviour.

Does really anyone think what didn't work in the last six years on NA suddenly starts working in year seven?

Maguuma, Tarnished Coast, Jade Quarry, HoD, Dragonbrand, Blackgate are dead, the new experiments Crystal Desert, SoS, *SoR are dead again too.

 

My expectation for the "soon" coming alliances is that one alliance, most likely the Kaineng one, will dominate over what's now FA and the rest will be unhappy lootbags. Prove me wrong. Right, you won't.

 

 

[Tiny Doom.4380]

Here's the official description of WvW, copied directly from the GW2 website. It clearly hasn't been updated in a long while, since it refers to "seasonal tournaments" and claims you can "gain experience normally", so it represents the original conception of the game mode:

 

https://www.guildwars2.com/en-gb/the-game/competitive-play/

 

> "Join World vs. World (WvW) for an epic PvP experience full of cunning strategy, earthshaking sieges, and pitched battles between hundreds of players. In this massive war, three huge armies—each representing their world—battle for control of the castles and keeps, raid enemy supply caravans, and clash in open-field battles on five massive maps in week-long matches and seasonal tournaments.

>

> The three Borderlands maps and a huge “neutral” center map are loaded with objectives that are worth points for the team that claims them, and successfully holding those objectives will make them more powerful over time. Players can band together to lay siege to castles, raid enemy supply caravans, clash with other players in truly massive battles, wreak havoc behind enemy lines, or build mighty weapons of warlike trebuchets and siege golems.

>

> While in WvW, your character is boosted to max level, and you will continue to gain experience and loot as you normally would while exploring Tyria. You can earn additional prestige by climbing up the world ranks, earned by contributing to the war effort.

>

> World vs. World—it’s PvP combat on an epic scale!"

 

It's clear from pretty much every paragraph that WvW is _supposed _to be about huge armies fighting huge armies, what we now call "blob vs blob". Look at the choice of descriptors : "truly massive", "epic scale", "huge armies", " There's absolutely no mention of anything related to roaming or small-scale fights. It doesn't look as though any of that was even considered as a selling point for WvW. If anyone wonders why ANet keep tweaking the feature set to encourage blobbing, there's your reason: it's what they always intended the game mode to be.

 

Edit: Also, "five massive maps"? Really? Including EOTM, perhaps? Or did one go missing somewhere along the line?

[Straegen.2938]

> @"Kaiser.9873" said:

> So lemme get this straight....People good at the game SHOULDN'T be able to farm casuals new to the mode?

 

I think the issue is less about farming new players and new players not being welcomed and taught the ropes. The current WvW setup actively discourages veterans from guiding new players through the various areas. I straight up leave an area/fight when new players are around.

 

This in turn creates a hostile new player environment. Few if any new players will stick around after getting run over, and over, and over when they first step into WvW. Veterans should have an incentive to help new players and the game mode itself should have enticing rewards so new players have a vested interest in trying it out.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Straegen.2938" said:

> > @"Kaiser.9873" said:

> > So lemme get this straight....People good at the game SHOULDN'T be able to farm casuals new to the mode?

>

> I think the issue is less about farming new players and new players not being welcomed and taught the ropes. The current WvW setup actively discourages veterans from guiding new players through the various areas. I straight up leave an area/fight when new players are around.

>

> This in turn creates a hostile new player environment. Few if any new players will stick around after getting run over, and over, and over when they first step into WvW. Veterans should have an incentive to help new players and the game mode itself should have enticing rewards so new players have a vested interest in trying it out.

It already has as much "enticing rewards" as it can have. Whats next, simply give 1g to each player every tick?

 

This isnt really an issue with the game, rather its players. The longer a game goes on, the more elitists you get. No way around that except what the players have created themselves over the years - casual community guilds where players can learn before they move on to a dedicated guild and become said elitists.

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:

> Here's the official description of WvW, copied directly from the GW2 website. It clearly hasn't been updated in a long while, since it refers to "seasonal tournaments" and claims you can "gain experience normally", so it represents the original conception of the game mode:

>

> https://www.guildwars2.com/en-gb/the-game/competitive-play/

>

> > "Join World vs. World (WvW) for an epic PvP experience full of cunning strategy, earthshaking sieges, and pitched battles between hundreds of players. In this massive war, three huge armies—each representing their world—battle for control of the castles and keeps, raid enemy supply caravans, and clash in open-field battles on five massive maps in week-long matches and seasonal tournaments.

> >

> > The three Borderlands maps and a huge “neutral” center map are loaded with objectives that are worth points for the team that claims them, and successfully holding those objectives will make them more powerful over time. Players can band together to lay siege to castles, raid enemy supply caravans, clash with other players in truly massive battles, wreak havoc behind enemy lines, or build mighty weapons of warlike trebuchets and siege golems.

> >

> > While in WvW, your character is boosted to max level, and you will continue to gain experience and loot as you normally would while exploring Tyria. You can earn additional prestige by climbing up the world ranks, earned by contributing to the war effort.

> >

> > World vs. World—it’s PvP combat on an epic scale!"

>

> It's clear from pretty much every paragraph that WvW is _supposed _to be about huge armies fighting huge armies, what we now call "blob vs blob". Look at the choice of descriptors : "truly massive", "epic scale", "huge armies", " There's absolutely no mention of anything related to roaming or small-scale fights. It doesn't look as though any of that was even considered as a selling point for WvW. If anyone wonders why ANet keep tweaking the feature set to encourage blobbing, there's your reason: it's what they always intended the game mode to be.

>

> Edit: Also, "five massive maps"? Really? Including EOTM, perhaps? Or did one go missing somewhere along the line?

 

 

 

"Join World vs. World"

"battles between hundreds of players"

"battle for control of the castles and keeps"

"representing their world"

"week-long matches"

"World vs. World—it’s PvP combat on an epic scale!"

 

When the above was the priority, the game mode was good. When players lost interest their larger World Community, nor even the week long matches, and not even flipping keeps, that's when the mode fell apart. The problem with stacking is not the outcome of the matches as much as it's disruption to the World on the community level. When the dev's started linking worlds, that too was incredibly disruptive to communities. The ever shrinking World population caps and locks to force players to spread out, again that decision disrupted communities even further. So no, the mode is no longer inclusive by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Oh and no, Alliances isn't going to build meaningful or inclusive communities. So don't expect a revival of the mode from it.