Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Does WvW need a total scrap and revamp in your opinion?


Recommended Posts

no matter what Anet seem to do, nothing seem to be bringing long term life into WvW.Population issue can never be solved in its current form. Only gimmicks like Warclaw mount seem to bring people into WvW.Does WvW need to be totally scrapped and redone from the ground up for it to be a success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible to understand what you imply since you spent zero time explaining what we are supposedly voting for.

If we're talking about stats, skills and systems balance, then yes.

If we're talking about population balance: all they need to do is pull their heads out of their behinds and design a map-based balance system (see past suggestions). The reason things have not changed and is taking such god damned long time is because they are Arenanet and are needlessly trying to reinvent the wheel, as with any change they've done to WvW for the past 7 years. It's how things tend to end up with underwhelming attention: insufficient, inaccurate, rare to begin with and followed up by invalid outcome analysis.

If we're talking about the fundamentals of the RvR concept, then clearly no. Aside from the fact that new rotational actually good maps would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing for Anet to do if the PLAYERS CHOOSE to imbalance the population.

Unless they implement a hotjoin system and reduce matches to like 2hrs lol. But then wvw would die probably faster because it would carve out the week long community effort.

Anet cannot make people play wvw when they are losing (fairweathers). Again, this is all on the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cambeleg.7632 said:It needs to be total and absolutely rebuilt. With balance between sieging and fighting, with a real balanced population system.

Note: Alliances won't be this revamping system, sorry.

You're going to have to accept that pure balance will never happen in a 24/7 game mode that supports 50+ on each of three sides per map. It can only happen in low cap pop instances like battlegrounds from Wow. So you can spit on alliance in every thread, but there isn't any better options other than make wvw not wvw.

The biggest thing that will happen with alliances is huge pug populations will be spread out to other servers every 8 weeks, so a server doesn't have to be locked for years on years on years because their population is so far ahead of every other server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with the actual game, they just need to figure out why so many players put so much energy into avoiding even fights and either prevent them from doing so or ideally prevent them from wanting to do so . . .

You can't have meaningful pvp play if the bulk of your playerbase is afraid to lose . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:yes. links, bloodlust needs to goThats not a scrap and revamp, what exactly are you voting for here?

it is for me. unless there is a definition of terms set on top where there isn't one. :PDoesnt need that much definition.

Bloodlust is a very small part of WvW and you could delete with minor impact. removing it is nowhere near a "total scrap and revamp".

Removing the links would just make regular servers. Increasing the amount of tiers and emptying out EB and all borders because reasons is nowhere near a "total scrap and revamp", its just adjusting the population and tiers. Its the same with alliances, if thats what you meant to refer to - its a change in how the matchups and population works, but it does zero difference to WvW otherwise, hence nowhere near a "total scrap and revamp".

So the OP said total scrap and revamp. What you seemingly want is neither. Unless thats exactly what you want but failed to mention what total scrap and revamp of WvW it is.

Which is why I'm asking what you really voted yes on.

And why this poll is silly. Because probably 90% of those voting yes will have lots of ideas somewhere way, way short of a "total scrap and revamp" yet they are coerced by a public poll to say yes because they simply want things to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Knighthonor.4061 said:no matter what Anet seem to do, nothing seem to be bringing long term life into WvW.Population issue can never be solved in its current form. Only gimmicks like Warclaw mount seem to bring people into WvW.Does WvW need to be totally scrapped and redone from the ground up for it to be a success?

The game is a ktraining scrubfest full of mechanics that inherently favour bad players so yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, WvW could well do with a total revamp. The reward structure needs to be changed up, the incentives to play need to be changed, the mechanics can need a good revamp.

Target goals should be:

  • more build diversity. Currently out of 27 professions what feels like 5 and a quarter are zerg-viable (support firebrand, heal scrapper, DPS Spellbreaker, DPS Rev, DPS Scourge - and one or two chronos are needed)
  • make the game, the fights and the PPT interesting for both the winning and the losing side
  • active maps - enough activity so that a map feels alive, while also preventing queues as much as possible
  • more content (more maps, more events, more things to do!)
  • team spirit - enable people to play with the people they want as much as possible (obviously balance / matchup pose limits to this goal)

Especially build diversity and keeping everyone engaged in the game should be top priority. I still can'twrap my head around why any designer of an MMO would think that it's a good design, if you end up with just five professions viable for mass battle PvP and that with only one specific spec and equipment. I know, there's always gonna be better or worse and better classes and builds to play, not even Thanos could achieve perfect balance and harmony. But we have to be able to do better than this. Target goal should be that for every profession, ideally for every spec, there should be a way to make it viable for the zerg.The same goes for roaming, though I feel the pain is a bit less intense here. There seem to be more professions / specs viable as good roaming classes.To introduce more diversity it is maybe not enough to simply look at profession design, but at game mechanics in general: One problem might, for example, be the ability to stack AoEs indefinitely. (I know there are different opinions on this. I just use this as one possible example at mechanics that might need to be reworked and possibly only for WvW).

As to making the game more attractive, interesting to all sides? I am sure, everyone on any server out there has witnessed this: You run a squad of 20,30 or more people, sometimes even a full blob and encounter a tight, well-organized enemy zerg. Or maybe just one that's better composed than your own. Maybe they just have a tight guild group at their center, keeping things together. Whatever the cause: You run against them and no matter what you do, you cannot beat them. You get a few downs here and there, but almost no kills, while they can what feels like YOLOpush you. The difference is so vast, that there's not even a chance to get a proper fight running.For the winning zerg this might be fun, for the losers probably not so much. I don't find it fun. Maybe your comm is not exclusively looking for fights, then you try to evade them, get objectives, PPT, while they ... well.... they tend to follow you. There's a successful fight to be had - from their perspective. Maybe your comm is a fight commander and actually tries to fight and not PPT. I already described how that goes.Until your comm has had enough. Not feeling succesful, they tag off. Your players have very few lootbags, in the worst case not even participation, and surely no feeling of success.And then the enemy comm can tag off just as well. They wanted fights, they were successful, but now there's nothing to fight anymore.That's the state of the game we want to achieve?I think it would be much better, if more often you'd be facing more balanced fights. Obviously with more build diversity you'd also have more fight diversity, because the holy squad compo (as described in the paragraph above) wouldn't be as defining for a fight as it is right now. However, failing to achieve that, if the game would offer rebalancing mechanisms that would be good for both the winning and the losing side: You'd end up with fairer fights, or at least with longer and more interesting fights. The whole game mode would be more attractive.

Obviously making the game more attractive to winners and losers is a big undertaking, as it would not only mean introducing some kind of handicap system, but as you don't wanna take the feeling of success away from the winning side, you'd also wanna think about rewards.

More content: More maps are probably a good thing, more map diversity. Maps with short distances, maps with long distances. Maps with more terrain hazards, maps with less terrain hazards. More events, more things to do: Maybe we could have the ability to build barricades. Maybe using the roads on the maps give you a speed bonus, while being offroad would slow you down. Maybe we could have little villages to help and protect - more content in case there are currently no enemies on the map and there's not enough to do. Yeah, I am sure some people will feel revulsion pondering the idea of having more PvE-like content in WvW. I wouldn't.

The necessary underlying changes would be huge IMO and thus would result in a revamp of WvW more than patches and fixes to the current mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Does WvW need to be totally scrapped and redone from the ground up for it to be a success?

Going to quote this, because it's a little different from your poll question.

To be a success, yes. It just doesn't work as a competitive game mode and never really can, because the competition can never be even.

But in GW2, rebuilding it is probably throwing good money after bad, so I'd advise against that as a business decision. They'd be better off trying again in a new game that's actually devoted to PvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:The game is a ktraining scrubfest full of mechanics that inherently favour bad players so yes.

That is simply not true. My own server has ... let's say 'issues' with discipline when it comes to fights. And the result is: We lose fights. We win PPT, anyone can do that, even the fight-heavy servers could PPT. It's not hard. But bad players are definitely not favored by the mechanics of this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@"Cambeleg.7632" said:It needs to be total and absolutely rebuilt. With balance between sieging and fighting, with a
real balanced population
system.

Note: Alliances
won't
be this revamping system, sorry.

You're going to have to accept that pure balance will never happen in a 24/7 game mode that supports 50+ on each of three sides per map. It can only happen in low cap pop instances like battlegrounds from Wow. So you can spit on alliance in every thread, but there isn't any better options other than make wvw not wvw.

The biggest thing that will happen with alliances is huge pug populations will be spread out to other servers every 8 weeks, so a server doesn't have to be locked for years on years on years because their population is so far ahead of every other server.

Of course I accept a certain % of variation in the numbers, Xene. I'm not this naive, having previous experience in MMOs. But, said this, since devs said that one of the values they'll consider valid about Alliances will be the hours you spent in the Border of the Mist, I can say without doubts that Alliances won't be a success at all, but just same "thing" (I'll avoid a crappy name for this, for the sake of avoiding mods to overwork with me, no need to thank me the effort) with different name in the end.

Said this, servers can accept a, let say, 5% of variation in the cap for controlling this balance of populations, plus closing servers that were clearly empty or make a tier system where servers with similar numbers would stay playing in the same tier, avoiding these stomprolling matchups that made many to leave the game mode 'cos frustration and rage mixed.

Time ago, I suggested this tier system, before the lame Linking system started to mess the game mode, with detail. Sadly, since forums were "vacuumed", was lost in the Mist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Does WvW need to be totally scrapped and redone from the ground up for it to be a success?

Define success? Some people think WvW is great, while others take time out of their day to post negatively about it, even though they no longer play the game.

That comes down to expectations. And there certainly are players whose expectations do not match what WvW is, or more commonly, what it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, in part. One thing I don't understand is why it's still all the same game mode. I don't think WvW is a mode unto itself, it's just a wide open PvP area.

If there were more modes, along the lines of capture/hold, infiltration or just really any possible scenario of one side vs another two it would make it infinitely more interesting to me. Why not have one world hold SMC, while the other two attempt to take it? If SMC is taken, it resets. I've had some really fun battles when three groups get to inner on SMC at the same time. The number of scenarios you could play out with 100+ players is staggering to consider and we have.. one. (well 3 if you consider alpine bl/desert bl I guess). Rotate scenarios weekly.

Right now it's more like an FPS deathmatch.. over.. and over.. and over.. and over.. No change = stagnation, and it certainly is right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure what you mean by total scrap and revamp.here is what I would do in conjunction with alliances:

bring back wvw tournament and make it like pvp seasonsmake defending matter morede-emphasize siege vs siegerework aoe to make it work for smaller groups while also reducing laghave a competent balance team that nerfs op stuff and buffs up stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, yeah this will be good...

Basically different people want different things out of WvW, it's a very open ended game mode, and everyone have different perceptions about it and how to play it. In short you'll never get anyone to agree on a single thing. Even if they agree they hate PPT and loves fights, they won't agree on how to bring those fights, etc.

With that in mind, should ANet completely remove WvW and create something new ? That depends entirely upon what they want to accomplish with the mode and/or a potential new mode to replace it with.

So what is the goal?

Simple fact is, that ANet never told us, so we don't know. For all we know, WvW could be working exactly as they intended. Unless they tell us, we can't know.


An example:

Let us say that WvW works exactly how ANet wanted it to, it does exactly what they planned, and they feel no further change is needed.

But players doesn't play the way they imagine or planned, players keep doing things they feel is against the purpose of the mode, and doesn't get motivated by what they had planned us to be motivated about.

In that case you have a situation of: The mode does what we want, but players doesn't do what we expect/want/wish. In that case should they change something that they think really is as it should be, and could work as it should do, except that players doesn't?

Or should they scrap what they have, and make something else entirely that doesn't fit their ideas and visions at all ? And replace it with something they don't know how will work, how well it will be received, and likely piss off at least half the user base that was playing WvW because it isn't what they imagined WvW should be.

In all seriousness, I can see compelling reasons for ANet to just leave it and ignore it. Not only economical ones.


Also if they did scrap and made a new one, I'll bet some gold it would be Battle Royale, since it's so pop these days. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cambeleg.7632 said:

Simple fact is, that ANet never told us, so we don't know. For all we know, WvW could be working exactly as they intended. Unless they tell us, we can't know.

This is an attempt to joke, right?

Please, Jone, tell me this was an attempt of joke.

Not a joke, though it is unlikely that it turned out as they intended.

But it is fully possible that the mode itself is designed exactly as they planned out/wanted. And they just didn't predict how players would mess that up. It's a surprisingly common mistake in game design :p

When you're designing a game or a game-mode, you have to try to predict how players interacts with it. It's very easy to get blindsided by your own bias and perceptions, and not see how the game/mode can completely collapse under cynical gamers trying to exploit every system they can find. Or just flat out avoiding PvP in a PvP mode etc.

Players are always the problem ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...