Are people satisfied that WvW has devolved into zerg v zerg fest?

[Belorn.2659]

WvW is not PvP. It is in the name. sPvP is PvP. WvW is server vs server, or rather the guilds within a server vs the guild of an other server. Almost everything they added to WvW has had a connection to guilds, with mounts being a rather large exception.

 

Alliances would be the large patch to cement this. Their design is not to destroy zergs, but to structure them towards guilds.

[Belorn.2659]

Its not one player vs an other player mode. Sorry. Some people like to roam and pretend it is spvp, and more fun for them if they enjoy it, but wvw is about the battle. The one thing WvW has consistently asked for is better GvG support, not arenas where players can do one-vs-one fights. Guess why? The game already have a PvP mode where player can test their skill against other players.

[Burnfall.9573]

stepped in wvw; all i was seeing was red aoes bombing everywhere. Players on each sides spamming power/condi- damages everywhere resulting in instant deaths. It is not about using strategic skill play- it is about who can spam bad broken design mechanics/skills the quickest to win.

 

**In one word: WvW has once again has become a wasteland of Trash piling on top on 6 years+ of unresolved Trash**

 

Satisfied??

[Kylden Ar.3724]

Amen.

 

If I want to defend circles with no fortifications and no siege and no counter siege and eventually fights when the supplies run out, well, I can go to PvP for circle king of the hill.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

> 2. What we have is a product of no player collision. Everyone can just walk through each other. I don't think I need to explain to anyone here what an absolute nightmare of trolling and body block cheesing player collision would be in WvW.

 

If collision was a function they could turn on and off I wouldn't mind a week of it in WvW actually. Collision does force anti-stacking and to me that's a good thing. Tank walls aren't a thing in this game but in other games that had collison and WvW style of play your positioning was important. Collision was also a big counter to larger force wins logic that at times we see here. Again if it was an off/on setting that would be a test I would like to see run in WvW, IMO. But agree for those that have not tried a collision WvW game mode it could be rough. As far as trolling, wasn't that big of an issue in other games, would there people, sadly probably but wouldn't call that out as a reason to not to have the function.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > >Real war is a kitten

> > Well it's a good thing I didn't bring up "REAL WAR" then. Christ, you people and your "but but real life" arguments. Sad.

> > >and dying because some guy ganked you from behind while you were fighting someone else

> > You say this like it doesn't already happen. *coughThiefMesmerCoughAndnowprobablystealthScrapperCough*

> >

>

> Bruh...

>

> > You know... like a war.

>

> Come on now...

 

All the logics... ?

[Deaeira.2651]

> @"Belorn.2659" said:

> WvW is not PvP. It is in the name. sPvP is PvP. WvW is server vs server, or rather the guilds within a server vs the guild of an other server. Almost everything they added to WvW has had a connection to guilds, with mounts being a rather large exception.

>

> Alliances would be the large patch to cement this. Their design is not to destroy zergs, but to structure them towards guilds.

 

Apart from claiming objectives, there's no advantage in mechanics that guilds have.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

If wvw isn’t pvp than why can I kill two opposing servers and them kill me? Is my game mode bugged :(

[displayname.8315]

> @"Deaeira.2651" said:

> > @"Belorn.2659" said:

> > WvW is not PvP. It is in the name. sPvP is PvP. WvW is server vs server, or rather the guilds within a server vs the guild of an other server. Almost everything they added to WvW has had a connection to guilds, with mounts being a rather large exception.

> >

> > Alliances would be the large patch to cement this. Their design is not to destroy zergs, but to structure them towards guilds.

>

> Apart from claiming objectives, there's no advantage in mechanics that guilds have.

 

They get guild siege that's a decent advantage. Some kind of missions or quests they can do, paired with more xp buffs and otherwise. Pretty handy seeing guildmates on the maps too.

[DemonSeed.3528]

Anyone can use guild siege though, it's not exclusive, you can get them on tp.

[displayname.8315]

> @"DemonSeed.3528" said:

> Anyone can use guild siege though, it's not exclusive, you can get them on tp.

 

Only they make it or it used to be that way. Used to be very expensive to buy at least. Just agreeing alot of WvW mechanics are used/generated by the guilds.

[Deaeira.2651]

> @"displayname.8315" said:

> > @"Deaeira.2651" said:

> > > @"Belorn.2659" said:

> > > WvW is not PvP. It is in the name. sPvP is PvP. WvW is server vs server, or rather the guilds within a server vs the guild of an other server. Almost everything they added to WvW has had a connection to guilds, with mounts being a rather large exception.

> > >

> > > Alliances would be the large patch to cement this. Their design is not to destroy zergs, but to structure them towards guilds.

> >

> > Apart from claiming objectives, there's no advantage in mechanics that guilds have.

>

> They get guild siege that's a decent advantage. Some kind of missions or quests they can do, paired with more xp buffs and otherwise. Pretty handy seeing guildmates on the maps too.

 

True, I forgot guild siege. The guild missions don't give any game advantage though.

[Belorn.2659]

Let see here:

Anet create guild missions for different modes. One mode for PvE, one for PvP and one for WvW.

Anet created tactics which is object upgrades created by guilds.

Anet created guild siege.

Anet created "GvG" arenas on WvW maps.

Anet want to create alliances which make servers based on guilds.

 

To me that is a rather strong design indication about where anet is going with WvW. It also match the community on the server I am on. WvW players are not there for the rewards, and especially not veterans that historically spent gold on upgrades. People go to this content because having the server fight other servers create a community bond between players, which is very different from the sPvP experience most player seem to have. The impactful moments in WvW is when your friends, team, guild or even whole server managed to achieve something impossible. An impossible defence against uncountable foes, a daring sneak attack against a keep, a several hour tug of war over SM. Back in the days when I recruited people to try WvW those were the things that got people hooked.

 

What is not as fun is karma trains and unbalanced matches, mostly because it doesn't have any of those remembable moments.

[DemonSeed.3528]

I agree with most of what you said, but unfortunately not many want a challenge anymore.

[Deaeira.2651]

> @"Belorn.2659" said:

> Let see here:

> Anet create guild missions for different modes. One mode for PvE, one for PvP and one for WvW.

> Anet created tactics which is object upgrades created by guilds.

> Anet created guild siege.

> Anet created "GvG" arenas on WvW maps.

> Anet want to create alliances which make servers based on guilds.

>

> To me that is a rather strong design indication about where anet is going with WvW. It also match the community on the server I am on. WvW players are not there for the rewards, and especially not veterans that historically spent gold on upgrades. People go to this content because having the server fight other servers create a community bond between players, which is very different from the sPvP experience most player seem to have. The impactful moments in WvW is when your friends, team, guild or even whole server managed to achieve something impossible. An impossible defence against uncountable foes, a daring sneak attack against a keep, a several hour tug of war over SM. Back in the days when I recruited people to try WvW those were the things that got people hooked.

>

> What is not as fun is karma trains and unbalanced matches, mostly because it doesn't have any of those remembable moments.

 

The GvG areas designated by ANet are in remote places (OS and EOTM) for a reason: they are not supposed to interfere with the actual matchup. If guild missions and gvg areas are indications for ANet making WvW only for guilds, I could say WvW was made for roamers because there are sentries and camps. It is _also_ for guilds as it is for unaligned players.

 

By the way, the point I wanted to make is that the influence of guilds is mostly social, not ingame benefits: tagging up, testing builds, creating groups of various sizes, motivating people. In my opinion, this is a much bigger contribution than dropping a few guild catas from time to time.

 

Edit: make first sentence better readable

[Taylan.2187]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> maybe if they had collision 1 space 1 person it would strain the server less

 

Having to run collission detection on 50 entities in a tight spot would cause (a lot) more strain, not less.

 

Can't believe no one else pointed this out. Am I the only real nerd here? :-P

[Vancho.8750]

> @"Taylan.2187" said:

> > @"Vancho.8750" said:

> > maybe if they had collision 1 space 1 person it would strain the server less

>

> Having to run collission detection on 50 entities in a tight spot would cause (a lot) more strain, not less.

>

> Can't believe no one else pointed this out. Am I the only real nerd here? :-P

Age of Conan did it seems good. And the characters already have collision with the world on top of that there is already melee attack assist option. The server is already tracking your location and every skill you do. Also the idea is to make it so that people don't clump on top of each other, then again collision should probably be only with allies so it doesn't break most skills. Thanks for making me read up on the subject, but from what i can understand is highly dependable on the engine , most of the game is ran on buffs and the movement is client side, i don't believe that 1 more buff inside the spam will be that hard to handle, but i don't know exactly how the code of GW 2 works behind the scenes so it could be impossible. And instead of saying this is wrong, no more argument, done, suggest something that will stop players clumping in 5 pixels, cause that shit looks stupid any way you look at it.

Also who the f calls himself a nerd get off your high Warclaw.

[Kaiser.9873]

> @"Grim West.3194" said:

> I don't mind zerg play in RvR as long as other types of play like Havoc and roaming are viable.

>

> Havoc is not really a viable play style in GW2. Yes it has limited uses, but for the most part GW2's version of small group play is garbage. But after 6 years, I doubt ANET will ever fix it.

 

I kind of disagree. Havoc in WvW has essentially been take camps, take towers, snipe the enemy zerg as they engage your main force. These are very much essentials to WvW. I dunno what you're looking for out of your havoc play, but these are fun to me.

[Dreddo.9865]

First it is not always about numbers but quality in numbers. There are numerous examples where smaller but properly organized and knowledgeable squad can **easily** eliminate much bigger numbers.

 

Second towers, camps, etc are finely balanced into the mode. You can't expect to defend a tower solo right? But an upgraded tower with some decent static defense and some people can either hold for enough time so reinforcements arrive, even push back the enemy zerg.

 

The mode needs badly a refresh and warclaw was definitely a step towards the right direction - hopefully there are more yet to come.

[Taylan.2187]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> > @"Taylan.2187" said:

> > > @"Vancho.8750" said:

> > > maybe if they had collision 1 space 1 person it would strain the server less

> >

> > Having to run collission detection on 50 entities in a tight spot would cause (a lot) more strain, not less.

> >

> > Can't believe no one else pointed this out. Am I the only real nerd here? :-P

> Age of Conan did it seems good. And the characters already have collision with the world on top of that there is already melee attack assist option. The server is already tracking your location and every skill you do. Also the idea is to make it so that people don't clump on top of each other, then again collision should probably be only with allies so it doesn't break most skills. Thanks for making me read up on the subject, but from what i can understand is highly dependable on the engine , most of the game is ran on buffs and the movement is client side, i don't believe that 1 more buff inside the spam will be that hard to handle, but i don't know exactly how the code of GW 2 works behind the scenes so it could be impossible. And instead of saying this is wrong, no more argument, done, suggest something that will stop players clumping in 5 pixels, cause that kitten looks stupid any way you look at it.

> Also who the f calls himself a nerd get off your high Warclaw.

 

LOL, I call myself a nerd because I am one. Unsociable computer programmer and all.

 

You're right though, it depends on the existing mechanics and how this new mechanic would be implemented. Chances are, the server already has to do all related computation. I'm pretty sure it won't reduce the strain on the server though. It might increase, or remain the same. Movement can't be entirely on the client side, otherwise teleportation cheats would be possible. (And even if they get you permabanned, F2P accounts that use them would keep popping up...) The client has to send the command to move in a direction, and the server decides where the character actually ends up being and sends that info back to the client. (To make things a bit smoother, the client probably also does its own movement calculation, but then the position info from the server overrides the local one. Hence the "jumping around" during lag.) So the server has to do the collision detection, and having to do that with more objects can't possibly reduce lag.

 

Also I agree that the massive AoE spamming on one area gets pretty stupid/annoying. I think the idea to limit the number of AoE stacks that can be applied to an area is a good one. I wonder how much Anet goes through these forums to take ideas.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Taylan.2187" said:

> Am I the only real nerd here? :-P

 

[Optimator.3589]

You don't need a bigger blob. You need a better blob.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

Well zerg vs zerg is what the mode is built for; however, it's not often zerg vs zerg but zerg vs much smaller group.

[Vancho.8750]

@"Taylan.2187"

The new social awkwardness could work here, but toned really down, maybe they could put it like and event to test it like the no down state one. To tell you the truth i have no idea what kind of magic they use to keep the servers running when all the conditions and boons fly around in the matter of seconds in small spaces.

[Duckota.4769]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> Well zerg vs zerg is what the mode is built for; however, it's not often zerg vs zerg but zerg vs much smaller group.

 

Show me where it is said the game mode is designed specifically for zerg vs zerg, Please and ty.