Remove PvP from WvW

[nthmetal.9652]

@Gop.8713 said:

@nthmetal.9652 said:

@Gop.8713 said:There does seem to be a large number of players in wvw who revel in avoiding combat, or at the very least avoiding combat that they might lose, either by adjusting their server, numbers or build. The primary focus of those of us on the forums who enjoy wvw should be geared towards creating a mode that encourages combat, not winning or losing . . .

As I have said before, I will say again: There are a lot of fights you learn you (not as in you, personally - the general "you") cannot win. Either due to personal skill level, build, equipment, class you're on. Why would you possibly take a fight that you will most like not win?Bc fighting is fun. Fighting and winning is more fun than fighting and losing, but fighting and losing is still more fun than not fighting, and by a much wider margin . . .

While I agree - I mean I mainly play WvW - I do not find fighting fun when the outcome is always the same, when I see no improvement or change, and when it's constantly bad for me. And I think there's a lot more people who think like me:I am from Gandara, and we do not well in the fights against, let's say WSR. In the weeks, where WSR and possibly another fight-heavy server is against us, I see less activity in WvW overall. Big brain: Getting steamrolled all the time, is not fun.Fighting is fun, when there actually is a fight, as in: When you have a chance.

The game surely gives you nothing for it. No lootbag. No participation. No nothing.Whether this should be addressed is a debatable point. It wouldn't be good to reward losing, bc it risks turning players who run into players who lose on purpose, which is probably even less fun than not fighting. But at the same time anet has removed all of the costs from fighting and losing, but ppl are still afraid to fight, so that didn't seem to be enough . . .I sure as hell would not take such a fight.Why not though? What is your perceived cost . . ?

Lost time (since I do not get anything out of it - not even participation), frustration. Often enough there are types of roamers, which wear me down either with a surprise attack instantly, or whittle me down with constant pressure, while I barely can scratch them. I'm sure it's fun for them. But for me? There is not a feeling of "I could possibly win this" - because I cannot. You maybe can, but I cannot. Not on the builds I play, with the equipment I have and with the player skillset I have developed.

I do realize there are some very good players out there, who know exactly what they can and cannot take, but a lot are like me. They do well in specific contexts (in my case zerg fights,guild fights, fractals, PvE) and do not well in other contexts (duels, roaming). The game teaches me again and again that I will do badly in certain situations. It provides no help and no incentive to improve, and I personally have decided that I am playing a game. I work on areas I feel I am having fun in - like those mentioned before - I am willing to sink time into that, but I am not willing to sink time into stuff that annoys me. THis is a game. This is not a job. And especially when the game gives nothing back in certain areas, I'll not be wasting my time.

So, maybe stop blaming other players,Where does the post you quoted blame players? If you read it I believe you will see it advocates changing the mode, not the players . . .look to why things are as they are and ... you know .... accept them. There's good reasons for the things being as they are.I don't believe there are. I believe there are bad reasons. Idk though, I could be wrong. Bc I can never get anyone to actually tell me how they feel they benefit from avoiding fights that are already completely free from consequence . . .

The time I spend not running back from spawn is time I can spend attempting to flip an objective, reach my zerg, maybe stop a Dolyak or take a sentry. While especially the latter ones are not my preferred activities, they are still better than getting your head bashed in.

And dragging the warclaw into it is just ridculous. It has little to nothing to do with that.I didn't mention the warclaw though. But if you wanted to bring it up it was actually a bit of a boon in this context, as it allowed players who like to avoid combat an easier way to do so, which wasted less time for the willing participants in the mode. Now with the lance we're kind of back to where we were before, but on balance the good probably outweighs the bad there . .

No, others dragged the Warclaw into it :)

[Gop.8713]

After reading replies I think it might be helpful to give additional examples of the kind of behavior I'm lamenting when I say players log in to avoid pvp, since I've seen several fighting 'wastes time' or 'interferes with some other goal' replies now . . .

• Map chat call goes out for help with 5ish at nnc, we respond with maybe twice their number, but half our guys hang out at the edge of spawn waiting to see how the fight goes before they decide whether to join in . . .
• Solo set cata on keep outer, two of my side happen along and decide to join, two of their side jump over the wall and my guys run away, but not before taking the time to actually type 'run away' in say chat smh . . .
• Solo set cata on keep outer, map call when wall is at 50%. By the time the wall is down it's around 7v3 but they clear our cata with siege. I call to clear siege and that I'm going to resup, by the time I get back all our guys are gone and not answering map . . .
• This one was actually really fun up until the end. One dedicated player from a certain very blobby server was scouting a keep while it tiered, was at around 40/80 when I started cataing outer. Other guy was hopeless pvp and I was well placed so he was unable to clear with counter siege. I kept cataing, he kept repairing, coming out a few times to try clearing by hand but failing. I had the wall open and the keep virtually out of sups near t3, but nobody answering map calls, which was fine, w/e. But then a tag actually shows up like a miracle and announces that they are here to flip the paper keep on the other side of the map. I replied with the situation and they proceeded to flip the undefended paper keep on the other side and left the map . . .
• Guy tags up at spawn and announces he's forming a roaming squad, open invite. Tags down several minutes later bc he didn't get enough ppl. For his 'roaming' squad . . .
• Solo roaming and x pops on camp. Arrive in time to catch enemy player(s). They run away. This one happens a LOT . . .
• Guy tries to run and I catch him, so he stands there and lets me kill him rather than fight back. This one doesn't happen as much as the last one, but it happens often enough that it makes me sad . . .
• Guy fights (yay) but starts to lose/fails with opening burst so runs away. All the way away. Like back to spawn. Which is the same exact outcome that results from losing. Like, exactly . . .
• All is quiet. Except chat, which is lamenting the lack of opportunities to fight. I spend considerable time tiering a keep, creating a nice, juicy target, which does in fact attract the enemy (yay). All the chat warriors fail to respond, continue to lament the absence of fighting opportunities . . .
• This is the one from the other thread. Solo roaming, x pops on camp, I don't make it in time (I know. It's sad but it happens. You've got to get past it. It will be okay. Keep moving forward.) I go for the fight anyway, in the guy's new camp, with is RI'd sup, bc why not nothing to lose and guy STILL runs away . . .

So if you're all mounted up and running as fast as you can to some attack or defense and you see a bad guy and think to yourself "omg I wish I had time to stop and fight that bad guy rn bc I love fighting and fighting is awesome and that's why I'm here rn in the fighting place but I have somewhere else to be so I can't stop and do the fighting so I'm very very sad rn" then I'm not talking about you . . .

For the ppl I am talking about, what I want is some explanation of what they imagine themselves to be losing when they fight, or gaining when they avoid a fight. But none of them have ever been able to give me any. My guess is that they're afraid they might lose, which is ridiculous bc they're losing anything they would have lost anyway by avoiding the fight, and more significantly the fight is seldom decided by any personal attribute of the combatants anyway. It's pretty much all numbers, builds and matchups, so who cares? I'd love to explain this to them in hopes that they would feel better and start fighting, but they usually explain it to me before I get the chance, which is truly baffling . . .

The other potential explanation I've come to believe relates to this . . :

@"ThomasC.1056" said:My opinion is WvW should be made so that the objective, as in "what to do" and "what gets you rewards" should be something that's not fights, but that may involve fights. That's the point of keeps, towers and such. You're more or less supposed to manage structures and prevent the opposite side from managing its, and as such, you're bringing fights, because you're supposed to protect your stuff, and go to enemy territory for that purpose. It's only my opinion, and I think other players might be looking for something else in the game mode.I think this is a good description of what I would like wvw to be as well, and I think it's also a good match for the wvw system anet actually created. The trouble with it is since the objective is not fights, but only 'may involve' fights, there are players who decided the goal was to obtain the objective while avoiding fights . . .

Instead of 'let's attack this and see if we can get some ppl to come fight us' it became 'let's attack this and see if we can flip it before the other side gets here'. Instead of 'let's tier this up so someone will come try to flip it' it became 'let's tier this up so no one can flip it'. So not only is fighting not the objective, it's an obstacle to avoid . . .

I believe anet realized this, saw how stagnant many of the maps became as a result, and nerfed defenses to create more flipping of even the most tiered, tacticed, sieged-up structures, and therefore, hopefully, more fights. But players either don't realize it or don't seem to care, as so many are still hanging on to fight avoidance as a primary goal . . .

If I'm wrong ofc that's great, bc that means someone somewhere knows what is actually keeping the players described from engaging in fights, and we can finally start working on changing the mode in such a way as to create that perspective less frequently . . .

[Voltekka.2375]

@"Gop.8713" said:After reading replies I think it might be helpful to give additional examples of the kind of behavior I'm lamenting when I say players log in to avoid pvp, since I've seen several fighting 'wastes time' or 'interferes with some other goal' replies now . . .

• Map chat call goes out for help with 5ish at nnc, we respond with maybe twice their number, but half our guys hang out at the edge of spawn waiting to see how the fight goes before they decide whether to join in . . .
• Solo set cata on keep outer, two of my side happen along and decide to join, two of their side jump over the wall and my guys run away, but not before taking the time to actually type 'run away' in say chat smh . . .
• Solo set cata on keep outer, map call when wall is at 50%. By the time the wall is down it's around 7v3 but they clear our cata with siege. I call to clear siege and that I'm going to resup, by the time I get back all our guys are gone and not answering map . . .
• This one was actually really fun up until the end. One dedicated player from a certain very blobby server was scouting a keep while it tiered, was at around 40/80 when I started cataing outer. Other guy was hopeless pvp and I was well placed so he was unable to clear with counter siege. I kept cataing, he kept repairing, coming out a few times to try clearing by hand but failing. I had the wall open and the keep virtually out of sups near t3, but nobody answering map calls, which was fine, w/e. But then a tag actually shows up like a miracle and announces that they are here to flip the paper keep on the other side of the map. I replied with the situation and they proceeded to flip the undefended paper keep on the other side and left the map . . .
• Guy tags up at spawn and announces he's forming a roaming squad, open invite. Tags down several minutes later bc he didn't get enough ppl. For his 'roaming' squad . . .
• Solo roaming and x pops on camp. Arrive in time to catch enemy player(s). They run away. This one happens a LOT . . .
• Guy tries to run and I catch him, so he stands there and lets me kill him rather than fight back. This one doesn't happen as much as the last one, but it happens often enough that it makes me sad . . .
• Guy fights (yay) but starts to lose/fails with opening burst so runs away. All the way away. Like back to spawn. Which is the same exact outcome that results from losing. Like, exactly . . .
• All is quiet. Except chat, which is lamenting the lack of opportunities to fight. I spend considerable time tiering a keep, creating a nice, juicy target, which does in fact attract the enemy (yay). All the chat warriors fail to respond, continue to lament the absence of fighting opportunities . . .
• This is the one from the other thread. Solo roaming, x pops on camp, I don't make it in time (I know. It's sad but it happens. You've got to get past it. It will be okay. Keep moving forward.) I go for the fight anyway, in the guy's new camp, with is RI'd sup, bc why not nothing to lose and guy STILL runs away . . .

So if you're all mounted up and running as fast as you can to some attack or defense and you see a bad guy and think to yourself "omg I wish I had time to stop and fight that bad guy rn bc I love fighting and fighting is awesome and that's why I'm here rn in the fighting place but I have somewhere else to be so I can't stop and do the fighting so I'm very very sad rn" then I'm not talking about you . . .

For the ppl I am talking about, what I want is some explanation of what they imagine themselves to be losing when they fight, or gaining when they avoid a fight. But none of them have ever been able to give me any. My guess is that they're afraid they might lose, which is ridiculous bc they're losing anything they would have lost anyway by avoiding the fight, and more significantly the fight is seldom decided by any personal attribute of the combatants anyway. It's pretty much all numbers, builds and matchups, so who cares? I'd love to explain this to them in hopes that they would feel better and start fighting, but they usually explain it to me before I get the chance, which is truly baffling . . .

The other potential explanation I've come to believe relates to this . . :

@"ThomasC.1056" said:My opinion is WvW should be made so that the objective, as in "what to do" and "what gets you rewards" should be something that's not fights, but that

may

involve fights. That's the point of keeps, towers and such. You're more or less supposed to manage structures and prevent the opposite side from managing its, and as such, you're bringing fights, because you're supposed to protect your stuff, and go to enemy territory for that purpose. It's only my opinion, and I think other players might be looking for something else in the game mode.I think this is a good description of what I would like wvw to be as well, and I think it's also a good match for the wvw system anet actually created. The trouble with it is since the objective is not fights, but only 'may involve' fights, there are players who decided the goal was to obtain the objective while avoiding fights . . .

Instead of 'let's attack this and see if we can get some ppl to come fight us' it became 'let's attack this and see if we can flip it before the other side gets here'. Instead of 'let's tier this up so someone will come try to flip it' it became 'let's tier this up so no one can flip it'. So not only is fighting not the objective, it's an obstacle to avoid . . .

That would also depend on the attacking server. Some prefer to farm the defenders, until the defenders run out of patience and give up. Mainly overstacked "fight" servers do it.I believe anet realized this, saw how stagnant many of the maps became as a result, and nerfed defenses to create more flipping of even the most tiered, tacticed, sieged-up structures, and therefore, hopefully, more fights. But players either don't realize it or don't seem to care, as so many are still hanging on to fight avoidance as a primary goal . . .

Anet buffed siege wep damage to that end, I believe. But it has served towards the opposite direction, as well, with people using 6 rams on a T3 tower which melts in less time than it takes to show the "contested" swords. Yes, watch towers scouting etc are certainly there, but PPTers will... PptIf I'm wrong ofc that's great, bc that means someone somewhere knows what is actually keeping the players described from engaging in fights, and we can finally start working on changing the mode in such a way as to create that perspective less frequently . . .

[nthmetal.9652]

@Gop.8713 said:

• This one was actually really fun up until the end. One dedicated player from a certain very blobby server was scouting a keep while it tiered, was at around 40/80 when I started cataing outer. Other guy was hopeless pvp and I was well placed so he was unable to clear with counter siege. I kept cataing, he kept repairing, coming out a few times to try clearing by hand but failing. I had the wall open and the keep virtually out of sups near t3, but nobody answering map calls, which was fine, w/e. But then a tag actually shows up like a miracle and announces that they are here to flip the paper keep on the other side of the map. I replied with the situation and they proceeded to flip the undefended paper keep on the other side and left the map . . .

I'd call that a win. Instead of bothering with a defended keep, take an undefended one. Maybe attention of the enemies was sill on the defended one ... worry about that one later. Or not, depending on other priorities.

• Guy tries to run and I catch him, so he stands there and lets me kill him rather than fight back. This one doesn't happen as much as the last one, but it happens often enough that it makes me sad . . .

I am definitely guilty of that one. Why? Well those guys that catch me are often thieves - especially Deadeyes with their re-stealthing mechanic. No chance for me to beat them. Or Mesmers. I like mesmers, but dueling them is a nightmare. Clones + stealth + teleports make it impossible for me to win. Better warriors may succeed, I have never, at least not solo. Or rangers. Apart from superior range, they also have superior mobility. Oh, and stealth.What happens if I actually fight back against them and have some success? They disengage. I can't catch them because I don't know where they are, or because they have double or triple my mobility. Then they re-engage. I can't recover enough. Repeat. Repeat again. In the end, I am dead, or they have escaped. I never win these fights. I can't escape either.Since I never win, fighting back is a waste of time. Just staying there and allowing them to burst me down at least ensures I'll be back at spawn quickly.

Instead of 'let's attack this and see if we can get some ppl to come fight us' it became 'let's attack this and see if we can flip it before the other side gets here'. Instead of 'let's tier this up so someone will come try to flip it' it became 'let's tier this up so no one can flip it'. So not only is fighting not the objective, it's an obstacle to avoid . . .

You are at least partially, maybe even absolutely right. In order for this to change, the game would need to bring more of an incentive to go into a fight, regardless of the outcome. Yes, I am even saying: Also reward the losers! Reward people for trying. Buff the losers. Whatever! What's the worst that could happen: People game the system. But people on both sides will game the system, and in the end you will still have more conflict and activity than currently. I'd call that a win for everyone.

[Gop.8713]

@nthmetal.9652 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

• This one was actually really fun up until the end. One dedicated player from a certain very blobby server was scouting a keep while it tiered, was at around 40/80 when I started cataing outer. Other guy was hopeless pvp and I was well placed so he was unable to clear with counter siege. I kept cataing, he kept repairing, coming out a few times to try clearing by hand but failing. I had the wall open and the keep virtually out of sups near t3, but nobody answering map calls, which was fine, w/e. But then a tag actually shows up like a miracle and announces that they are here to flip the paper keep on the other side of the map. I replied with the situation and they proceeded to flip the undefended paper keep on the other side and left the map . . .

I'd call that a win. Instead of bothering with a defended keep, take an undefended one. Maybe attention of the enemies was sill on the defended one ... worry about that one later. Or not, depending on other priorities.Only if you see avoiding combat as the goal, which is the behavior I'm hoping to prevent. So what could we change here that would cause you to find fighting players more engaging than fighting npc's . . ?

• Guy tries to run and I catch him, so he stands there and lets me kill him rather than fight back. This one doesn't happen as much as the last one, but it happens often enough that it makes me sad . . .

I am definitely guilty of that one. Why? Well those guys that catch me are often thieves - especially Deadeyes with their re-stealthing mechanic. No chance for me to beat them. Or Mesmers. I like mesmers, but dueling them is a nightmare. Clones + stealth + teleports make it impossible for me to win. Better warriors may succeed, I have never, at least not solo. Or rangers. Apart from superior range, they also have superior mobility. Oh, and stealth.What happens if I actually fight back against them and have some success? They disengage. I can't catch them because I don't know where they are, or because they have double or triple my mobility. Then they re-engage. I can't recover enough. Repeat. Repeat again. In the end, I am dead, or they have escaped. I

never

win these fights. I can't escape either.Since I never win, fighting back is a waste of time. Just staying there and allowing them to burst me down at least ensures I'll be back at spawn quickly.

Instead of 'let's attack this and see if we can get some ppl to come fight us' it became 'let's attack this and see if we can flip it before the other side gets here'. Instead of 'let's tier this up so someone will come try to flip it' it became 'let's tier this up so no one can flip it'. So not only is fighting not the objective, it's an obstacle to avoid . . .

You are at least partially, maybe even absolutely right. In order for this to change, the game would need to bring more of an incentive to go into a fight, regardless of the outcome. Yes, I am even saying: Also reward the losers! Reward people for trying. Buff the losers. Whatever! What's the worst that could happen: People game the system. But people on both sides will game the system, and in the end you will

still

have more conflict and activity than currently. I'd call that a win for everyone.

You just acknowledged that you would stand there and let ppl kill you. That's less fun for everyone . . .

EDIT: Another thread made me remember another favorite to add to the list: Map call 'hey, let's go attack this', map replies 'we can't, we don't have enough ppl' :(

[Gop.8713]

After making all these posts pointing out how frustrating it can be looking for players to fight in wvw, I feel obliged to come in and say that this weekend at least has been great. Players willing to fight and die on all three sides, really good experience :)

[Thornwolf.9721]

with this logic they should also ban anyone who WvW's due to toxicity and also be done with it. Murder the player base and then turn around and murder the PvP player-base, remove the modes and just use those maps for some PvE content. (If we are being dramatic why not go ALL THE WAY.)

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Thornwolf.9721 said:with this logic they should also ban anyone who WvW's due to toxicity and also be done with it. Murder the player base and then turn around and murder the PvP player-base, remove the modes and just use those maps for some PvE content. (If we are being dramatic why not go ALL THE WAY.)

They kind of have.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

Been stepping out of WvW lately because it feels like no one wants to fight anymore. Sure, we get some decent battles, but often we'll run into "allies" who are just standing around looking at the enemies with no explanations. Its becoming more and more common..

I've even had some "allies" tell me to stop attacking a few times lately, even a commander at one point (?).