⚔️ I Would Love A "sWVW" Option and Here's Why...

[Whiteout.1975]

@Justine.6351 said:If there were the demand for this type of concept and for it to play out the way you think it would,eotm and/or stronghold would be a thing

I think you are better sticking with your stronghold example. Eotm is far too Casual IMO. So I'll go with stronghold...

Stronghold is actually a very good example overall honestly. However, I only recall there being 1 map. You can't Play with 10-25 (just some higher number) People at a time. Greater reliance on skirt (door breakers) to act like siege etc. I guess Stronghold is as close as it get's currently to what I'm looking for... I would just like it to be more WvW related. Something like stronghold briefly touches upon WvW concepts, but doesn't quite grasp it... If that makes sense. Probably the best example you could have gave though... So well done seriously :+1:

[Knighthonor.4061]

I been suggesting a while ago a new Old AV like design to WvW. Still can have long battles like Old AV and can still have PvPvE aspect like Old AV, but much better balanced numbers wise.

[L A T I O N.8923]

It...kind of sounds like old Alliance battles

[Whiteout.1975]

@"L A T I O N.8923" said:It...kind of sounds like old Alliance battles

Yea, I never really got to play old Guild Wars. I was playing Runescape before picking up GW2. However, some of my friends here always talked about how great GW was regarding battles especially. IMO, if you already have something great... You should try to keep those "great" qualities about it then.

[Whiteout.1975]

Had to redo this comment since someone got offended by it somehow. Just took my best guess as to where. As I can't imagine it being anything else I already wrote.

1.) The important thing is creating an attraction to GW2 as a whole. Not Just 1 mode. I would not fault a player or the effect's they may bring forth... If that player choose's to do a different activity. Or even other game entirely. I just recognize that it's their choice (as much as mine) to spend time playing where they like to. However, the purpose is to allow diversity... Because obviously we as human being's happen to also be diverse. It's not like we are some clone enslaved to a particular way of being. Thus, because we are diverse... We can now more easily attract a larger audience. Due to being separate from one another. This is not a "bad" thing. We should want a larger audience for GW2.

• "sWvW' just better allow's for a large longtime want's and appealing characteristic's to happen; despite this overall diversity. This idea is just to further appeal to a very large, more competitively driven, audience.

2.) "sWvW" is relevant. I have already gone and tried to highlight some main point's in the OP. And how "sWvW' could more easily allow for longtime player "wants" to happen. Also, how such "wants"/fixes could be more easily achieved in a structured WvW environment. Given it's format. As opposed to WvW as is currently.

3.) People naturally enjoy a more respectable form of competition. How would you like playing against the guy that has about all the right card's available to them? People naturally wouldn't like being treated so inconsiderately and unfairly 90% of the time. Due to being against heavy handed odds. "sWvW" easily allow's for a much more fair and respectable environment to take place. Thus, should be more appealing regarding this.

• WvW deserve's the people it attracts. Simple as that. Same fore any game/mode. "What?... you gonna fault me for not running a Dungeon/Fractal with you too". There is absolutely no justifiable reason why people should be or feel forced to play a particular way/game/mode they do not entirely enjoy or enjoy at all.

4.) Time - I'm not convinced in the time it would take to fix the problems of regular WvW anymore than the time it would take to develop "sWvW". Furthermore, it would appear like some problems would be better handled and easier to handle in a "sWvW" environment vs strictly a WvW environment. Infact, I have reason to believe, that what solution's could be applied to WvW. May not or will not transition as smoothly; like they better would a sWvvW environment. Thus, in continuation of doing so towards regular WvW. You could easily have wasted more time towards the solution of various problems. Never actually reaching their appropriate and respectable potential. Like what is more easily achieved in a sWvW environment. Given the higher likelihood to appeal to some of such solutions. And again, I've already shown the general "appeal" sWvW has towards these solutions given it's "structured" environment. Being in better favor of such solutions to problems; given that environment.

And for the record... Sometime's you have to risk being offensive in order to THINK. Even if that was never the intention.(See 22:00 -22:35) Unless you're living under a rock and don't know the video already.

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"L A T I O N.8923" said:It...kind of sounds like old Alliance battles

Yea, I never really got to play old Guild Wars. I was playing Runescape before picking up GW2. However, some of my friends here always talked about how great GW was regarding battles especially. IMO, if you already have something great... You should try to keep those "great" qualities about it then.

Alliance battles kind of died off because they buffed rewards for other gamemodes

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Justine.6351 said:If there were the demand for this type of concept and for it to play out the way you think it would,eotm and/or stronghold would be a thingPretty much came here to say this. We've had stuff like the OP wanted introduced before, and it's largely been ignored by the playerbase. I actually feel for the devs in that regard; Yeah, they could have made way more out of WvW than they have, but when you consider the playerbase and their past reactions to the new stuff they tried to introduce, I can hardly blame them for not bothering sometimes.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@"Justine.6351" said:If there were the demand for this type of concept and for it to play out the way you think it would,eotm and/or stronghold would be a thingPretty much came here to say this. We've had stuff like the OP wanted introduced before, and it's largely been ignored by the playerbase. I actually feel for the devs in that regard; Yeah, they could have made way more out of WvW than they have, but when you consider the playerbase and their past reactions to the new stuff they tried to introduce, I can hardly blame them for not bothering sometimes.

Alright to be fair... I think it's important to try to understand why people reacted the way they did. And if what was delivered... Was in fact... Appropriately delivered.

For instance Tournaments: We've always had the issue of Population Imbalance due to Transfers. When they delivered Tournament's it wasn't because people didn't ultimately want "Tournaments". People where upset because the Tournament's were delivered in an very unbalanced setting. To quote myself from before...

• "How would you like playing against the guy that has about all the right card's available to them? People naturally wouldn't like being treated so inconsiderately and unfairly 90% of the time. Due to being against heavy handed odds."

The result was of course going to be disappointment. If that issue was never present... I can guarantee we all would have seen and felt a far better response.

Just gonna Skip to present day with Warclaw. The people that Warclaw suited how they play... They seemed to love it. Opposite of that. The people whom Warclaw neglected how they play... Seemed to hate it. Surprise surprise.

Now, I'm not saying people don't overreact. However, at the heart of a lot of issue's/reaction's. There is usually actual justification to them. It's more the fault of poor delivery and execution by @Anet. That could be better be avoided with a higher amount of consideration. Not saying that's easy to do. However, if you look as some of the delivery... It shouldn't have been too hard to foresee certain issue's ether.

Conclusion... @Anet really needs to work on delivery and execution <3

I mean even now with alliance's the delivery is taking absolute age's. All we can hope is that they really succeed in their execution :+1:

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@"Justine.6351" said:If there were the demand for this type of concept and for it to play out the way you think it would,eotm and/or stronghold would be a thingPretty much came here to say this. We've had stuff like the OP wanted introduced before, and it's largely been ignored by the playerbase. I actually feel for the devs in that regard; Yeah, they could have made way more out of WvW than they have, but when you consider the playerbase and their past reactions to the new stuff they tried to introduce, I can hardly blame them for not bothering sometimes.

Alright to be fair... I think it's important to try to understand why people reacted the way they did. And if what was delivered... Was in fact... Appropriately delivered.

For instance

Tournaments

: We've always had the issue of Population Imbalance due to Transfers. When they delivered Tournament's it wasn't because people didn't ultimately want "Tournaments". People where upset because the Tournament's were delivered in an very unbalanced setting. To quote myself from before...

• "How would you like playing against the guy that has about all the right card's available to them? People naturally wouldn't like being treated so inconsiderately and unfairly 90% of the time. Due to being against heavy handed odds."

The result was of course going to be disappointment. If that issue was never present... I can guarantee we all would have seen and felt a far better response.

Just gonna Skip to present day with Warclaw. The people that Warclaw suited how they play... They seemed to love it. Opposite of that. The people whom Warclaw neglected how they play... Seemed to hate it. Surprise surprise.

Now, I'm not saying people don't overreact. However, at the heart of a lot of issue's/reaction's. There is usually actual justification to them. It's more the fault of poor delivery and execution by @Anet. That could be better be avoided with a higher amount of consideration. Not saying that's easy to do. However, if you look as some of the delivery... It shouldn't have been too hard to foresee certain issue's ether.

Conclusion... @Anet really needs to work on delivery and execution <3

I mean even now with alliance's the delivery is taking absolute age's. All we can hope is that they really succeed in their execution :+1:

Yep, can't say I disagree. Most of the criticisms that were levelled at new content were valid, people tend to take it waaaaay to far tho. So yeah, I don't think people are wrong, nor do I think ANet are perfect, but I'd say that historically things have been handled badly by both ANet and the community, and I can understand why this fuels the prevailing attitudes of both groups. It just sucks because it leads to a community that's so cynical that they're impossible to please (I fall into this group too often myself) and a developer that is afraid to take chances for fear of the backlash.