Hey Non WvWers, what turns you off about WvW?

[Batel.9206]

I tried a tiny bit of WvW last night - and quickly discovered that my dinky computer can't handle a zerg. *At all*. All of my graphics were turned to the lowest possible settings. I was quite a ways off from an enemy zerg and everything became a slideshow (no surprise, then, that somebody in the zerg saw me, beelined straight for me, and turned me into roadkill in five seconds - I didn't even see him coming until I was already half dead).

 

So that's an automatic "nope, can't do this" from me. Which is too bad...WvW looked like a lot of fun, and for the short bit that I was just roaming with a friend, I really enjoyed it.

[TokyoGhost.6492]

I think the maps are way too big. If it was me, I would shrink them by double :)

 

Im sure if they where smaller, I would mainly play WvW.

[mbhalo.1547]

There is no goal. No one cares about score. Winning doesn't mean anything. Zero excitement. Everything flips back and forwards, its just boring. Also lots of veteran WVW-rs are very strange people, lots of toxicity and drama as well.

[Garkus.2183]

i would assume being a 'non wvw'er' would mean you don't wvw so it must be the idea of going to wvw that is unappealing

[Skugga.5298]

1) Community

The GW2 community has changed a lot, I remember the beta days and it was so much different, everyone was having fun and helping one another. Now there are only a handful of WvW guilds and if you don't like those guilds you are out of luck, then you can play solo.

People only follow specific guild commanders.

 

2)Class unbalance

When GW2 launched I really felt like this game was in a very good shape balance wise, compared to other games. I was able to have fun and create unique builds, this is truly gone now. If you don't follow the meta builds you can't really kill a fly anymore. I miss seeing other builds.

 

 

[Mewcifer.5198]

I think what a lot of people who don't like WvW would prefer is a more battlegrounds type game mode which would be between PvP and WvW.

 

Larger teams than PvP (something like 10-15 per team) with a longer match time. A battleground could have clear objectives that are either getting into the enemies area and taking something (capture the flag), collecting all the locations on the map (a sort of king of the hill with multiple hills), or a mode that is similar to WvW in that you want to hold valuable resources to increase supply and use the supply to build things or upgrade what you have so you can burn down what the enemy has.

 

The maps would be smaller than WvW and the teams would be smaller. Objectives would have to be designed so that you can't just zerg it and so the teams would have to think strategically.

 

But the toxicity would still be there. Maybe even worse since less people = they are more likely to see someone they think is doing things wrong and focus on attacking them. And it wouldn't be a "fix" because it would just be a new gamemode. And I doubt anet wants to devote resources to a new gamemode, especially if they have no idea whether or not it would be liked or earn them any additional income.

[Deimos.4263]

I play WvW a lot, but the few times I've truly *enjoyed* WvW were when I turned off /map and /team, got on our guild discord and just had fun with my friends.

[TheAgedGnome.7520]

> @"mtpelion.4562" said:

> > @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > > @"Rook.5143" said:

> > > 3) You get nothing for **holding a position**. To me **personally** this is a flaw in WvW. There is absolutely minimal reason for players to garrison a captured point. I don't see why there is any reason for not having a minimal exp tick, over time, for those holding a position, an exp tick that can be increased by building defenses.

> > There is problem with whole "holding position / garrison" thing - that means you need to **station** live people there, usually. And people most of the time are not even a little bit happy about staying somewhere in backline, away from the fight they came here for, in the first place. They get bored and start to leave the defensive position, or the game mode itself. It's just no fun, you don't know when some fun will come your way. Will it be in 5 minutes? In 20 minutes? Never, until your side wins? People left there will get impatient and salty.

>

> They should have little mini events at all defense locations and if you do them you should be able to get up to full participation. Also, if you have been defending for a certain number of minutes, you should get a reward (not a full reward, but something) every time your team takes a new location as a "thanks for defending which allowed us to go take this camp/tower/keep".

 

This would be nice, as long as it is done in a way that doesn't benefit AFK farmers who would inevitably park an army of toons there for hours on end.

[Acheron.4731]

> @"TheAgedGnome.7520" said:

> > @"mtpelion.4562" said:

> > > @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > > > @"Rook.5143" said:

> > > > 3) You get nothing for **holding a position**. To me **personally** this is a flaw in WvW. There is absolutely minimal reason for players to garrison a captured point. I don't see why there is any reason for not having a minimal exp tick, over time, for those holding a position, an exp tick that can be increased by building defenses.

> > > There is problem with whole "holding position / garrison" thing - that means you need to **station** live people there, usually. And people most of the time are not even a little bit happy about staying somewhere in backline, away from the fight they came here for, in the first place. They get bored and start to leave the defensive position, or the game mode itself. It's just no fun, you don't know when some fun will come your way. Will it be in 5 minutes? In 20 minutes? Never, until your side wins? People left there will get impatient and salty.

> >

> > They should have little mini events at all defense locations and if you do them you should be able to get up to full participation. Also, if you have been defending for a certain number of minutes, you should get a reward (not a full reward, but something) every time your team takes a new location as a "thanks for defending which allowed us to go take this camp/tower/keep".

>

> This would be nice, as long as it is done in a way that doesn't benefit AFK farmers who would inevitably park an army of toons there for hours on end.

 

There use to be manual upgrades that individuals would have to queue... but at your own expense.

There is currently a feature called squad participation in which you stay behind to scout/guard a structure but get squad/zerg credit when they capture objectives.

Most commanders are more than willing to give squad participation for people to keep an eye on things and shout for help in /m when needed.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Balsa.3951" said:

> > @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said:

> > Well, I play mainly WvW and let me tell you why: in any game, open world PvP is my go-to. In this game we get WvW so it's good enough.

> >

> > But if you want to know why some people go WvW/PvP and some stay in PvE, it's actually very simple: some people have no competitive spirit. Not saying that in a bad way of course, just some people have 0 interest in competing with each other, maybe they find it stressful or whatever.

>

> But some go spvp and hate wvw I think it’s more than about competitive

 

WvW is worse than SPvP in at least one aspect. It does not have the awful participation mechanic.

[Khalisto.5780]

I've played a fair bit of wvw, then I realized it's just a number competition. Most populated server wins, 2 organized zergs the bigger one wins. The coverage is also important, the server with most asians have an advantage because they are covering the night time. This conclusions made me quit wvw for good.

[Mewcifer.5198]

> @"Khalisto.5780" said:

> I've played a fair bit of wvw, then I realized it's just a number competition. Most populated server wins, 2 organized zergs the bigger one wins. The coverage is also important, the server with most asians have an advantage because they are covering the night time. This conclusions made me quit wvw for good.

 

I am honestly not sure how this would be a surprising thing. If you have a team of 20 vs a team of 50 then it seems obvious that the team of 50 is going to have an advantage.

 

But the servers get paired together to keep populations roughly equal, and the match-ups try and pit servers of roughly equal ranking against each other.

[Jetra.1238]

Same reason I wasn't a fan of Online Battlefield, big maps where you don't see anyone and you get killed by some random roamer. Fights are mesh fests of going forward, backing up, going forward, backing up, constant skirmishes across ravines so it's almost purely range fighting. The amount of "tactics" involved is pretty much have a bunch of guys and hope your army is bigger.

 

The fact there is a meta and people get mad if you don't follow it is absolutely hilarious. Granted it probably does help, but if you have 1000 people with a proper build and 10 without one, don't see the issue. I'm sure you could still get away with a mass of units in general as long as your army > their army.

 

Mostly the "area too big for me" who likes to be part of fights, do ganking (which apparently is frowned upon but I spent 3 years doing that in league so if it works of course I'm going to abuse it, I lack any honor with PvP), and generally want to take objectives. When the nearest one is five mile hike, I'm less likely to participate especially when the horde is halfway across Tyria.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> I think what a lot of people who don't like WvW would prefer is a more battlegrounds type game mode which would be between PvP and WvW.

>

> Larger teams than PvP (something like 10-15 per team) with a longer match time. A battleground could have clear objectives that are either getting into the enemies area and taking something (capture the flag), collecting all the locations on the map (a sort of king of the hill with multiple hills), or a mode that is similar to WvW in that you want to hold valuable resources to increase supply and use the supply to build things or upgrade what you have so you can burn down what the enemy has.

>

> The maps would be smaller than WvW and the teams would be smaller. Objectives would have to be designed so that you can't just zerg it and so the teams would have to think strategically.

>

> But the toxicity would still be there. Maybe even worse since less people = they are more likely to see someone they think is doing things wrong and focus on attacking them. And it wouldn't be a "fix" because it would just be a new gamemode. And I doubt anet wants to devote resources to a new gamemode, especially if they have no idea whether or not it would be liked or earn them any additional income.

 

It's really a shame that GW2 doesn't have anything like WoW BGs (or arenas). I really enjoyed games like Warsong Gulch and Alterac Valley when I played WoW years ago. Here we just have conquest or WvW. It feels lacking.

[Taylan.2187]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> Hey Non WvWers, what turns you off about WvW? And what may get you interested in playing it more often?

 

It used to be that it quickly turns into Walking Simulator 2019, so I'm very happy about the mount.

 

I don't normally play much since I'm on a busy schedule, but during my two-week holiday I came back to GW2 and ended up playing WvW 90% of the time because the annoyance factor of getting from point A to B is drastically decreased with the mount, especially with the speed boost in terrain owned by your team.

 

All those hating on the mount must be really patient players. :-P

[bluberblasen.9684]

> @"Xaiveer.6832" said:

> Wvw doesn't not take advantage of the technologies and ideas offered to pve. All the maps are flat compared to vertically of HOT. Why not add a map where a keep is floating in the air and the only way to it is via updraft or pact airship. Bring in the air skills from Bloodstone Fen fight in the air. Fight on Airship. Repeal the air invasion from the keep ect.. Allow for air invasion and move the champion underground. Try new stuff ect...

 

no !

fucking no !

stop with that shit!

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Taylan.2187" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > Hey Non WvWers, what turns you off about WvW? And what may get you interested in playing it more often?

>

> It used to be that it quickly turns into Walking Simulator 2019, so I'm very happy about the mount.

>

> I don't normally play much since I'm on a busy schedule, but during my two-week holiday I came back to GW2 and ended up playing WvW 90% of the time because the annoyance factor of getting from point A to B is drastically decreased with the mount, especially with the speed boost in terrain owned by your team.

>

> All those hating on the mount must be really patient players. :-P

 

100% agree. I was never into WvW before and this was one of the main reasons for it. Walking across these huge maps looking for action is just obnoxious. The warclaw makes it so much more enjoyable for me! After years of barely touching WvW, lately I'm doing nothing but roaming!

[Trise.2865]

Threads like this.

[zityz.6089]

I do enjoy WvW from time to time, but since the beginning , it just feels like a flashy hamster wheel with 3 hamsters on it.

 

One's running really fast, one's spinning around the wheel, and one is kind of hanging on, gets off and gets back on. At the end of the day, no matter how hard your running, you're still just running on a wheel that goes no where and feels like it has no impact, no matter how you run on it.

[otto.5684]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> Hey Non WvWers, what turns you off about WvW? And what may get you interested in playing it more often?

 

Gear. If WvW has standardized gear like sPvP, I would play it often. I would not play any PvP in any game that even provides a slight advantage to other players depending on their gear. Also, not big fan of zergs.

 

And as a ref I am a Platinum sPvP player. I am no novice by any means.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

I’m a wvw player and what turns me off wvw the most is the ridiculous scourge spam,how can anyone at arenanet spend 5 minutes in the game mode and not be like wow this is not good at all. Not surprising though I gues.

[trixantea.1230]

What turns me off WvW are troll guilds that gank smaller groups.

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > I tried pretty hard to get into WvW a few years ago, but generally I agree with a lot of the posts above, the zerging/large group combat is the real problem for me. It feels like you're playing as a single unit in a strategy game, but there's no actual strategy - in part because there are no win conditions (I guess the win condition is just: have the most points when the time runs out). I tried roaming, but I either encountered groups that I obviously couldn't beat, or got spiked by permastealth thieves.

> >

> > I don't think there's anything that would attract me back to it though. For me, the combat system and skill system in this game are at their best with very small numbers of players (I find 1-3 is probably optimal, and even 5 is too many). Fights involving large numbers of players just feel (and look) like a mess to me, and in WvW this is exacerbated by the fact that the fights are always unbalanced - my experience was that you either win easily, or have no chance of winning at all, depending on which side happened to have the most players. I have similar feelings about large group events in PvE - I usually enjoy big events like world bosses and the big HoT group events for the spectacle rather than the gameplay, so I tend to do them once and then never go back.

>

> So if WvW had trinity like healers that played a role to keep groups alive, would you be interested? Group fights wouldn't be all about DPSing a number of dps.

>

> If not interested in this, what exactly would need to change to make group WvW fighting more appealing?

 

I thought WvW already had healers? In any case, it's not the lack of trinity I dislike in big groups battles. It's more of a combination of little things: the lack of player character collision, the prevalence of AoE and cleaving attacks, the ease of sharing boons with/gaining boons from allies without deliberately trying, the fact that damage is so high overall, and the fact that very few skills need to be targeted. The visual clutter doesn't help either.

[Knighthonor.4061]

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > I tried pretty hard to get into WvW a few years ago, but generally I agree with a lot of the posts above, the zerging/large group combat is the real problem for me. It feels like you're playing as a single unit in a strategy game, but there's no actual strategy - in part because there are no win conditions (I guess the win condition is just: have the most points when the time runs out). I tried roaming, but I either encountered groups that I obviously couldn't beat, or got spiked by permastealth thieves.

> > >

> > > I don't think there's anything that would attract me back to it though. For me, the combat system and skill system in this game are at their best with very small numbers of players (I find 1-3 is probably optimal, and even 5 is too many). Fights involving large numbers of players just feel (and look) like a mess to me, and in WvW this is exacerbated by the fact that the fights are always unbalanced - my experience was that you either win easily, or have no chance of winning at all, depending on which side happened to have the most players. I have similar feelings about large group events in PvE - I usually enjoy big events like world bosses and the big HoT group events for the spectacle rather than the gameplay, so I tend to do them once and then never go back.

> >

> > So if WvW had trinity like healers that played a role to keep groups alive, would you be interested? Group fights wouldn't be all about DPSing a number of dps.

> >

> > If not interested in this, what exactly would need to change to make group WvW fighting more appealing?

>

> I thought WvW already had healers? In any case, it's not the lack of trinity I dislike in big groups battles. It's more of a combination of little things: the lack of player character collision, the prevalence of AoE and cleaving attacks, the ease of sharing boons with/gaining boons from allies without deliberately trying, the fact that damage is so high overall, and the fact that very few skills need to be targeted. The visual clutter doesn't help either.

 

No that's not the same as a healer from trinity like I was talking about. No class has direct healing skills for allies.

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > > I tried pretty hard to get into WvW a few years ago, but generally I agree with a lot of the posts above, the zerging/large group combat is the real problem for me. It feels like you're playing as a single unit in a strategy game, but there's no actual strategy - in part because there are no win conditions (I guess the win condition is just: have the most points when the time runs out). I tried roaming, but I either encountered groups that I obviously couldn't beat, or got spiked by permastealth thieves.

> > > >

> > > > I don't think there's anything that would attract me back to it though. For me, the combat system and skill system in this game are at their best with very small numbers of players (I find 1-3 is probably optimal, and even 5 is too many). Fights involving large numbers of players just feel (and look) like a mess to me, and in WvW this is exacerbated by the fact that the fights are always unbalanced - my experience was that you either win easily, or have no chance of winning at all, depending on which side happened to have the most players. I have similar feelings about large group events in PvE - I usually enjoy big events like world bosses and the big HoT group events for the spectacle rather than the gameplay, so I tend to do them once and then never go back.

> > >

> > > So if WvW had trinity like healers that played a role to keep groups alive, would you be interested? Group fights wouldn't be all about DPSing a number of dps.

> > >

> > > If not interested in this, what exactly would need to change to make group WvW fighting more appealing?

> >

> > I thought WvW already had healers? In any case, it's not the lack of trinity I dislike in big groups battles. It's more of a combination of little things: the lack of player character collision, the prevalence of AoE and cleaving attacks, the ease of sharing boons with/gaining boons from allies without deliberately trying, the fact that damage is so high overall, and the fact that very few skills need to be targeted. The visual clutter doesn't help either.

>

> No that's not the same as a healer from trinity like I was talking about. No class has direct healing skills for allies.

 

I don't think direct targeting of healing/support skills would work in this game. In a large battle, you wouldn't reliably be able to select the ally you want to heal. Even if you were able to select targets through the party interface, it's not clear how you would know where the person you want to heal is in order to get in range. (Also, I think ANet explicitly said they don't want you playing through the interface in that way.)