Suggestion to support GvG oriented players

Hi everyone,

First of all, all my support to the ANet dev team. Despite what you may read very often on forums, your game is incredible. There is a reason why we always come back to it in the end ! I sincerelly hope what happened is for the better and not the worst, and that this industry at large will become more "normal" one day ...

Back to the topic ! There are two kind of people that play WvW :

• The ppt guys. They want a 50+ group going foward, facing no ressistance, taking castle after castle while eating their pizza. As you can already feel, I am not one of those. But everyone play the game it's own way, and currently WvW structure serves them well, except when everything is already T3.
• The KDA guys. Taking a castle ? Who cares ?! A battle cross at the other side of the map ? "GOGOGOGOGO". Arrow carts ? Annoying. Sieging ? Annoying. Every thing else outside of fighting . Annoying. Why those people even play WvW for god sake if they don't like any feature in it ?? Because the thrill of a good fight is addictive. Because one epic fight can make 3 hours of running around worth ! I am comming from this second group, and currently, WvW doesn't give us a lot of tools to play with.

You will never be able to create a game mode where both those groups are happy. It's impossible. If someone can enjoy both at times, a group almost always have only one goal, farming structure or farming players.

Create dedicated environment for people looking for fight, and balance existing WvW for ppt players

The entire suggestion come down to this. But how to create a proper fight environment for WvW players ?

What kind of environments ? Map dedicated to large scale fights. Why not use Guild Wars lore to draw inspiration from. It would for sure make me more involved into the tyria lore !Open grounds fight (or closer grounds map for that matter, diversity !) and objective based interaction (capping an area, escorting a ram ...) could all be part of a scenario that each team compete in. The better you perform, the more rewards for your squad and server !Only one thing, avoid sieging equipment as much as possible. If we have to escort a ram, bots are maning it. Once we go to the gate, if arrow carts there is, they are very very limited in numbers and once again, bots manned. The sieging is here to create a unique fight scenario, not to repeat what already exist in current WvW. You could have supply based interaction for siege equipment, but once again, all of this is just to create fight scenarios ! Keep the sieging part as simple and non intrusive as possible (don't do bastion mistakes in pvp ...).

The squad scale. From 15 to 50, that environment should be enjoyable. 15 players are very often smaller guilds. The GvG community organized itself around 20 format for example, but also we have commanders that enjoy leading huge 50 men squad against another 50 men squad. This really comes down to map design to allow the very different playstyle coming with each scale to be enjoyable. For example, a corridor if 15 vs 15 ? Not that big of a deal for attacking team when compared to a 50 vs 50.

Should both squad have the same size all the time ? Why not promote reasonnable outnumbered fights ? Like if you are 20, you can face up to 30. If you are 35, you can face up to 50 ? Of course, outnumbered = more rewards.

How to match squads properly to avoid stomps ? Here comes a real problem. What i would say however, is that current WvW doesn't give anet any way to control matchmaking, this system does. I would take two variables into account to rank a squad : A commander MMR that will influence matchmaking a lot, and individual players MMR (half and half in terms of influence ?).

Integrate all of this with current WvW pannel without asking players to directly join maps ! One of the goal of this suggestion is also to avoid 60 long queues, by having players in a separate space with its own matchmaking.

Duration ? Up to 25 minute big max i would say. It forces DevTeam to keep things simple and 20 minutes of pure fight is often exhausting enough we will need a break, especially commanders !

Of course such a system could be tested with a lot of downgrades to begin with.

Proper matchmaking ? As i said, we don't have proper matchmaking in WvW yet. Commanders could submit their squad, saying they want to face up to a certain squad size. Another commanders agree to fight them through a list interface.

Scenarios ? Tbh, at this point in time, we don't care. Give us a map, even interesting spot of existing WvW maps or castle, limit siege to rams and catas (or put a drastic limit to Arrow Carts number), and we will have fun.

Rewards ? Most WvW rewards are already condensed into two things, lootbags and pips. Keep both system in place, with a bonus chest at the end for winners and crafting materials for everyone one to replace synth once again at the end. That way people are pushed to stay in game even if they are loosing.

Sorry for that long post ! WvW is an awesome game mode when good fights are taking place. Just give us proper in game tools to have such fights !

Gl HF ! And once again, all my support to Anet dev team !

Your initial premise is flawed. There is a large segment of the population that likes to siege a structure to fight. And will run towards OJs across the map.

But more GvG support would be great. I wish we would see more of it.

we've been asking for anything like this since launch friend. it will never happen. as live design support for the game dwindles - not even due to layoffs. due to the natural downward trend of any game over time - the likelihood of creating a new game mode dwindles with it. at the end of the day, this is a pve game. resources will go to pve content.

I wasn't clear enough Strider, my bad. We like fighting in keeps, but not the long and painfull sieging aspect. I do agree that fighting in keeps is actually interesting, arrow carts create a certain pressure, canon too, and that's why i suggest that sieging could a part of my suggestion. Simply, reduce the sieging aspect and focus on the fight aspect while the sieging is done.

Having to sit 10 minutes under 6 AC firing isn't fun for most of us.

Do we agree ?

It seemed so easy. There's already a way for guilds to instantly fight each other on demand.... the guild hall.

However, the guild hall uses pve mechanics and is thus a sham. And I've been saying this for years, but nobody cares.

@ArchonWing.9480 said:It seemed so easy. There's already a way for guilds to instantly fight each other on demand.... the guild hall.

However, the guild hall uses pve mechanics and is thus a sham. And I've been saying this for years, but nobody cares.

i think on the last WvW stream, where they announced the announcement, they said they are still looking into ways to apply WvW rules to the guild arena.i would prefer the rules applied to the hall itself and NPC to join teams for all the guildhall and not just the arena, then you can design the terrain you want to fight over on a much larger space.

You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there. Five or six years later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

@Kenoki.2830 said:I wasn't clear enough Strider, my bad. We like fighting in keeps, but not the long and painfull sieging aspect. I do agree that fighting in keeps is actually interesting, arrow carts create a certain pressure, canon too, and that's why i suggest that sieging could a part of my suggestion. Simply, reduce the sieging aspect and focus on the fight aspect while the sieging is done.

Having to sit 10 minutes under 6 AC firing isn't fun for most of us.

Do we agree ?

On those points? Yes.

@borgs.6103 said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there. Five or six years later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

but its true. a fair fight among even sized groups is not efficient, when you play to win the match.while it certainly would be nice to have a mode that supports larger groups than conquest, but still managable unlike worlds, with matches in a competitive timeframe (not 168 hours!), WvW is simply not that mode.

Sorry Anet doesn't support make believe dead game modes. There is more player support for mounts than GvG. FACT!

You're basically asking for rated battlegrounds of wow.But you're a few years too late for this.

Also there's a line between a GvG guild and a "fight" guild that just wants to free bags. One doesn't want siege, but want to be in lords room killing people as they file into a keep, they seem to be more interested in shooting fish in a barrel than taking on other guilds competitively. Essentially all they want to do is freely walk into a keep and run around lords room for an hour killing people that file in for the "bag farm". The other shouldn't really care cause gvg's don't take place in structures anyways, plenty of open areas to fight including multiple arenas which are collecting dust I'm sure. How many times GvG guilds actually scrim or fight in a week anyways? vs just running around for bags.

Let's look at the GvG tournie, I'm sure a lot of "full time competitive GvG guilds" will be in there... sure makes sense to design a brand new system for them at a time when there's basically 2 wvw devs left, if you can call them that.

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there.

Five or six years

later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

What people did not consider then and hopefully have started to wisen up about is that the "GvG" players are the players leading the pickup groups and forming their core.

When those players disappear, the appeal of tagging up disappears and subsequently, tags disappear.

That is a real and prevalent problem in the game mode now (in EU in particular). Even if some people may be roamers at heart and not directly affected by it, the attentive ones realize that it is one form of content dwindling from the mode and those players does not or will not come to roam. That different styles and scales exist in WvW is very much its appeal.

As for the topic as a whole Strider has already said it. The phrasing or framing of the topic was rather poor and false, disproven by essentially every friday. However, more attention to actual GvG? Sure, because it is guild content and guild content leads to player-organisation which will spill into public or pickup content. It is good for the mode. Happy closed tags = more open tags too.

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there.

Five or six years

later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

@MUDse.7623 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there.

Five or six years

later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

My point is that the people who run closed tags (guild) and who run open tags (pickup) are largely the same. That accounts for the low rebirth.

You make those players happy by dishing out guild-level side-content and that will spill onto the server-level main-content. It will create rebirth.

Almost every commander worth his or her salt has started out commanding their friends and then moved onto commanding the public (with help).

That is the eco-system that has been interrupted by Anet actively discouraging guild-play in the past (hopefully, no longer).

Almost every commander that draws a crowd now is very old and has their root in an old guild (often, multiple commanders are from the same guild).

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there.

Five or six years

later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

I've been saying this for years now, but people don't seem to understand. As for ANet they seem to actively try and ignore it.Every commander that i follow with joy, i can track to some GvG guild.

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there.

Five or six years

later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

i am unsure what you expect of me.i just said that most of these 'gvg guilds' do not play the mode to win, not objective based, therefor not as intended in seeking fair or challanging fights. i am well aware that they provide many of the commanders, but that doesnt change the fact that fair fights are not efficient in WvW. i am also not sure if they really would still provide as many commanders, if they got a seperate more competitive mode, tailored for their scale. but it probably would be good for both the GvG guilds and the casual WvW players. WvW has some design issues that force it to be played casual, mostly the match duration and teamsize being too big. having people in there that are more invested into the combat system, farming the casuals, is not really good for the casual popluation.

@MUDse.7623 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there.

Five or six years

later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

• They do both. And/or they only do open now, but did do both. I can't think of anyone who did do open but now just does closed.
• That goes for bridging the PPT/PPK divide as well. We did both, the divide is a result of malbalance and broken mechanics. Fridays prove it.
• Every guild I can think of, with recurring closed tags (ie., GvG size), also has one or more public figures and takes objectives when it matters.
• Even the top5 regional GvG guilds do. It's just that the malbalance and broken mechanics makes it not matter.

As far as "fair fights being ineffective", the mode is built around fair fights. It has regions. It has map caps. It has a core map design based around equation. Everything about it just screams fair-fight design. It is just that some of that is broken because it has not been adressed in 7 baby-cat years.

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:You know that time around 5 or 6 years ago when someone with an Anet tag told the GvG players in WvW that they're playing the game wrong? That stigma's still there.

Five or six years

later, it's still effing there.I've been surfing around, reading comments and reactions on the current news about the game, and sadly, I'm still encountering comments about that fiasco.

• They do both. And/or they only do open now, but did do both. I can't think of anyone who did do open but now just does closed.
• That goes for bridging the PPT/PPK divide as well. We did both, the divide is a result of malbalance and broken mechanics. Fridays prove it.
• Every guild I can think of, with recurring closed tags (ie., GvG size),
  also
  has one or more public figures and takes objectives when it matters.
• Even the top5 regional GvG guilds do. It's just that the malbalance and broken mechanics makes it not matter.guilds running open tags still doesnt mean they would actually compete to win the match. sure they go for objectives but either to seek fights or to keep their puggies if they would wipe in a fight. they rarely try to dominate a map, only a fight. they would start using siege much better and split more often if they would actually try hard half as much as they do in a fight.As far as "fair fights being ineffective", the mode is built around fair fights. It has regions. It has map caps. It has a core map design based around equation. Everything about it just screams fair-fight design. It is just that some of that is broken because it has not been adressed in 7 baby-cat years.

@MUDse.7623

As far as the GvG commanders when running tags may not ‘win’ or work towards server objectives for the week, but they provide engaging and fun content for those that like to follow a tag and Zerg when the DO run open.

Sure, there are guilds and commanders that openly work towards staying in their tier (well mostly avoiding T1) but they DO tag up and run allowing people to join in the content they create.

Do they always open tag? No. Some may never. But even in guilds where the main driver doesn’t open tag, others will because it’s an opportunity for them to learn.

I doubt that a ‘GvG’ arena would be all these tags and guilds would do.

Sure some would camp there. But a large portion would still run in main WvW in order to continually refresh their numbers.

i think you misunderstand my intention. i never questioned them creating content and i didnt try to critize them for what they do. i just said that their playstyle doesnt match the mode design. that usually isnt a players fault, as the developer has enough tools to steer playerbehaviour. there is neither a match balance to compete for nor rewards to be gained from winning.
what the guilds would do with a decent GvG mode and training area is up to speculation and probably depends on if it is closer to spvp or WvW per design were they will be mainly looking for new members.

Back to the topic ! There are two kind of people that play WvWThat's why it's so hard for folks to find consensus on any topic regarding WvW, because each of us tends to assume there are just two groups. PPT & KDA groups are definitely huge, but they don't add up to all of WvW.

GvG is an interesting thing to people who like running with the same crew regularly, enjoys working on their teamwork. It's a rather small niche.I'm not at all against GvG; I just don't think catering to this group is going to result in more community interest in WvW.

@"ArchonWing.9480" said:It seemed so easy. There's already a way for guilds to instantly fight each other on demand.... the guild hall.

However, the guild hall uses pve mechanics and is thus a sham. And I've been saying this for years, but nobody cares.

Does anyone even use the Mists Arena?

Source: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mists_Arena

The Mists Arena was announced in response to interest in GvG arenas, alongside with plans for a larger, unnamed, deathmatch-styled sPvP custom arena map.

@Zephyra.4709 said:

@"ArchonWing.9480" said:It seemed so easy. There's already a way for guilds to instantly fight each other on demand.... the guild hall.

However, the guild hall uses pve mechanics and is thus a sham. And I've been saying this for years, but nobody cares.

Few. As it isn’t possible to fight guilds that share the same color as you.

One of the things asked for was an ‘Instanced’ arena to allow for fighting any guild at any time.

The hard part is that they created the arena in guild halls in such a way that it COULD meet MOST of what was desired at the start, if it was the size of the arena in obsidian sanctum.

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Zephyra.4709 said:

@"ArchonWing.9480" said:It seemed so easy. There's already a way for guilds to instantly fight each other on demand.... the guild hall.

However, the guild hall uses pve mechanics and is thus a sham. And I've been saying this for years, but nobody cares.

Dang, I completely forgot about the color/server divide in eotm. facepalm

I feel like they've really dropped the ball with limited options here. I agree, it sounds easy on paper but they'll probably run into 'technical difficulties'. I wish it were as easy as entering the arena switches balance to that of WvW standards.

I'm definitely on the PPT side and I must push back on your generalization.

I'm never in a 50-man squad outside of fights to save this or that objective. Nor do I expect to or enjoy taking empty structures. Backcapping things that aren't defended is a chore--I'd rather be on the frontlines harassing enemy objectives and aggressively scouting/defending my own. I only backcap because otherwise I can't defend/upgrade.
I am usually hunting and engaging small groups of enemies (1-5 people), maintaining supply lines (by fighting people) and fending off small-scale attacks (ideally by fighting people, but with siege if it's 1v3+). I also spend some time running supply to damaged structures as this helps me keep an eye on the areas I need to cover.

There is a false perception that the PPT crowd doesn't want fights. It's true that there is a K-Train crowd that only wants to K-Train, but their goal isn't PPT so much as loot...probably? I don't really understand them...it's like they took a wrong turn on their way to the Silverwastes. However, maximizing PPT can't be done without fighting. Backcapping constantly will always lose you the PPT game. You have to defend. You have to delay/break enemy upgrades. You have to engage other players in a variety of situations. And that's the fun part. PPT without fights is literally watching grass grow.

As for your suggestions, they sound like a totally different game mode. Could be cool for people that are into that, but it'd be a shame to toss out most of WvW just for them.