Sandbox or Themepark?

Which design model would you prefer for WvW?

SandboxWvW used to be competitive. Commanders were revered, players took proud presenting their worlds, high tier ranking was a glory reward worth fighting for. Players created the contents.

ThemeparkPast few years ANet has removed all competitiveness and world identity from WvW. It has become a place were you work towards events, or Warclaw, or next armor skin. Winning a matchup is completely irrelevant. ANet creates the content.

Having it as "Themepark" according to your defintion - takes away the point of actually having WvW. I mean: Similar stuff can just be done in WvW. The other option (Sandbox) seems much better.

I remember back then 2013 when I actively played GW2 and was in WvW every now and then ... players already capped and lost Stone Mist Castle just for event rewards and achievements - instead of getting to that nice feeling to have full upgrades and trying to defend it a very long time. (But then again the "night capping" was a problem back then ... when low amount of players during night would only make you lose upgrades which back then costed gold.)

@Korgov.7645 said:WvW used to be competitive.

WvW has never been competitive.

Servers used to tick for 500+ at various off-peak times because they had more players on than the other two servers combined (go see Vizunah right back at the start of the game for example), playing when your opponents are asleep, at work / school does not make for a competitive game.

@Korgov.7645 said:Winning a matchup is completely irrelevant.Kind of sad, that today some ppl need rewards or a deeper sense of life to make them play a game . . .. . . play . . . a game

Nonetheless, I understand ppl that are just bored with winning after 7 years, and thus create their own sandbox version of this game mode. Might be a bit of a problem in an open-world team game though.

I would love the sandbox, but it is actually impossible to create in the current circumstance. They have to get balance sorted first . . .

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:WvW used to be competitive.

Nightcapping and population were the major topics back then. Because players cared about winning.

Nowadays the discussions revolve around events, how Warclaw or rewards could be improved.

Themepark is a great model. There are lot of successful references, new content requires no innovation, and development cost is minimal due reuse of assets. When you attach the best rewards on new content, the players will come. No matter how poor the content is. For an investor this is a no brainer.

I feel the competitive minded players have moved on and got replaced by a different demographic. Thus this poll.

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:WvW used to be competitive.

I want the competitive fights to come back to WvW, but coverage/stacking did nullify any reason to try if it was horribly unbalanced. Idk how that will ever be achieved with players being able to manipulate key variables in matchup results (transferring and tanking into tiers for example). I'd like to think there is a way to bring back the competition and still including new content (like event based maps... Never would happen, but it'd be a massive shake up). I could think of 1000 things that could potentially make the game mode far more enjoyable, but that's where you truly see how far the game mode has fallen... I'd like to think maybe we could have a bit of both, but I'm greedy.

I don't think WvW has ever been a "sandbox" so to speak. If matches had no scoring it might have been closer.

well, wvw is in no way a competition without official tournament recognition.

Sandbox imo is a must lol, themeparks are way way to limited to what devs add to it, w/o any option of interaction of the player.

The only thing we have that is a sanbox element is placing siege.More option IMO are needed to improve the gamemode.

Maybe not a pure sandbox game, but some sorta of hybrid system, a themepark with lots of sandboxing elements and zones, could be the easy way to add more mechanics to the gamemode w/o messing it to much.

There is no competitiveness left in WvW. If you are not running a massive k train zerg then you are logging in to get your pips and/or warclaw achievements and logging out. WvW is essentially PVE with somewhat of an opportunity to fight other players as long as you are not getting rolled over by the massive zergs that run around hitting doors. It is so sad that WvW has turned out like this. :'(

@"Ben K.6238" said:I don't think WvW has ever been a "sandbox" so to speak. If matches had no scoring it might have been closer.

We used to be able to use fireworks, tonics would also work so there were a few animal zergs running around from time to time, everything was handled manually by players in the sense of upgrades, siege wasn't buyable it was valuable resource that players shared with their commander and there was no loot unless you farmed bags and badges (resources ) off enemy players or so to speak.

Id say it was pretty sandboxy back in the early days

Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...

No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.

15 charrs 2

15 charrs 1

@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...

No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.

The competition is the sandbox element. Teams trying to organize around whatever freedoms allowed by the developers to beat the enemy. Sure you could extend these freedoms to include castle building, team armory, unlocking team traits, or whatnot.

Now you could ask whether the measure of success should be set by ANet or by the players in a sandbox model. I think the ANet should set the goal and leave it to the players to fight their way to the top.

There is a leaderboard for worlds, but ANet destroyed it by blocking transfers on whim, manually adjusting ratings and introducing the world linking. We also had tournaments but ANet decided not to continue them.

@Korgov.7645 said:

@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...

No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.

'* non-competitive in terms of "not trying to reach the game goal". E. g. duelists, fighting in duel areas instead of fighting for objectivs, or coms doing zerg fights for hours in SMC or close to spawn, ignoring objectives. To me that is sandbox, and non-competitive.

see this is how terms get mixed up and lose meaning.

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...

No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.

Competing against other players, developing strategies and counters, organizing with other players is living, open-ended content. The enemies always come up with something new you need to react to. A sandbox.

Events, armor skins, Warclaw are ANet defined rides you can take, enjoy for a while, and once completed, wait for ANet to release more content. Players do not have means to provide those rides.

"ANet's fault"... I'd rather say work well done. The vision was all along to turn WvW into the non-competitive themepark model. There are lot of players who enjoy that.

Dueling, GvG, zerg fight coms are sandbox, agreed. They are exclusive and not competing for the objective set by ANet: matchup victory. But something like KDR or just being able defeat the enemy.

@Korgov.7645 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...

No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.

Its not like in 2012 everyone planned to hardcore compete for the next 10 years, and suddenly Anet said: „No, we dont want that, we'd rather make it a themepark, where winning is completely irrelevant.“

Its because ppl got bored or exhausted, and as a reaction, Anet introduced events, rewards, warclaw, linkings, tournaments, to keep world and population numbers at a playable level. At least for my awareness.

The game goal is still fighting for objectives and thus winning the skirmish / match-up and climb the tiers. You just have to work with a linking partner now to obtain the goal. Does that make „winning completely irrelevant“? I dont see why.

Anet even provided more „sandbox“ tools, with the introduction of PPK, additional siege weapons (EDIT: including traps and tricks), tactics.

So if your question is less about the modus operandi („sandbox or themepark“) but more about „casual or competitive“, I can leave you a link, where I had the same question as you ;)https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61116/how-competitive-is-wvw-in-your-opinion

@Korgov.7645 said:snipple

so is your name a reference to vampire hunter d?

Think of it this way; what would become of WvW if it became a sandbox and winning had meaning?

Better yet, start another thread with a poll that asks the question "Do you want winning in WvW to be rewarded (1st, 2nd, 3rd place rewards)". Look at what the responses are, then you can directly correlate that poll with what this actual poll would reflect. I don't think people really understand what they are voting for here.

Look at it a different way, suppose the sandboxers got their wish, and winning had meaning in WvW. Then all the players who voted for it always ended up pitted against a couple of stacked servers ensuring they always lost; you always got 3rd place, and that's just the way it was. Many players bandwagoned and stacked themselves on a couple of servers ensuring that those who voted for sandbox would always lose, and there was nothing you could do about it.

A month passes, then another month, then another month, constantly 3rd place, then 5-6 months down the road, what's the likelyhood of one of these players speaking up in the forums about how they're always losing, how they are always outnumbered, and why has the stacking happened. Well the answer is crystal clear, they allowed winning to mean something.

Players can and will abuse the system (even more-so than they do now), if rewards become involved.

It's still a sandbox, you can place siege anywhere you want. You can play any way you want. This is because "winning the week" hasn't been the premise for a long time.

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...

No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.

Thanks for the link. I can agree with your observation that competitiveness had already declined back then. Having a break from WvW can emphasize how big of a change it was.

The problem with linking is that host worlds can no longer claim glory for winning. They got carried by the guest worlds. ANet decides the links, the coverage, which is probably the biggest factor to succeed in WvW. And of course the guest worlds' war efforts go completely unrewarded.

I think it is fair to say the poll is about competitiveness. Did ANet make the right choice by driving PvP minded players to exclusive, self-created goals only, and by adding other content to attract PvE minded players?

@"DeadlySynz.3471" said:Think of it this way; what would become of WvW if it became a sandbox and winning had meaning?

Better yet, start another thread with a poll that asks the question "Do you want winning in WvW to be rewarded (1st, 2nd, 3rd place rewards)". Look at what the responses are, then you can directly correlate that poll with what this actual poll would reflect. I don't think people really understand what they are voting for here.

Look at it a different way, suppose the sandboxers got their wish, and winning had meaning in WvW. Then all the players who voted for it always ended up pitted against a couple of stacked servers ensuring they always lost; you always got 3rd place, and that's just the way it was. Many players bandwagoned and stacked themselves on a couple of servers ensuring that those who voted for sandbox would always lose, and there was nothing you could do about it.

A month passes, then another month, then another month, constantly 3rd place, then 5-6 months down the road, what's the likelyhood of one of these players speaking up in the forums about how they're always losing, how they are always outnumbered, and why has the stacking happened. Well the answer is crystal clear, they allowed winning to mean something.

Players can and will abuse the system (even more-so than they do now), if rewards become involved.

True. The game mechanics in WvW do not support rewards for winning.

And ANet is fully aware of that. Back in 2016 they still planned to address this problem. But then changed their minds and decided to develop this game mode to an alternative direction.