Hire open wvw commanders > alliances, eternal balance tears or nerfbats.

[LetoII.3782]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Put it this way ... if WvW is SO bad that Anet has to pay people to play in it ... it's time to shut that aspect of the game down.

That's not how supply and demand works.

Is Anet going to pay someone to lead MP runs? or dungeon runs? Or raid training? or any of the OTHER things people get a benefit from in this game? Opening that Pandora's box is something NO ONE should consider.

Sure, why not have some dungeon masters?It's not as far fetched as you imply.

If GW2 is so bad that they need to pay employees to play it as some kind of 'master' to encourage people to continue to play the game,

Somebody's never tried pen and paper RPG'sOnce upon a time NOT having a DM would be a weird concept. WoW went with glorified NPC billboards for narration and now the whole genre can't think outside the box <,<

Even WoW wouldnt be as succesful as WoW if it launched today, aping that single phenomena like it's a path to instant riches hasnt worked, since. It's long since time studios stopped thinking it will.

[Obtena.7952]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Put it this way ... if WvW is SO bad that Anet has to pay people to play in it ... it's time to shut that aspect of the game down.

That's not how supply and demand works.

Is Anet going to pay someone to lead MP runs? or dungeon runs? Or raid training? or any of the OTHER things people get a benefit from in this game? Opening that Pandora's box is something NO ONE should consider.

Sure, why not have some dungeon masters?It's not as far fetched as you imply.

If GW2 is so bad that they need to pay employees to play it as some kind of 'master' to encourage people to continue to play the game,

Somebody's never tried pen and paper RPG'sOnce upon a time NOT having a DM would be a weird concept. WoW went with glorified NPC billboards for narration and now the whole genre can't think outside the box <,<

Even WoW wouldnt be as succesful as WoW if it launched today, aping that single phenomena like it's a path to instant riches hasnt worked, since. It's long since time studios stopped thinking it will.

Again, I'm not talking about having or not having DM's ... I'm talking about Anet paying people to play the game. Are you saying when you played RPG's, even P&P RPGs ... you PAID your DM? We didn't ... no one else I know did. Anet shouldn't either.

[LetoII.3782]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Put it this way ... if WvW is SO bad that Anet has to pay people to play in it ... it's time to shut that aspect of the game down.

That's not how supply and demand works.

Is Anet going to pay someone to lead MP runs? or dungeon runs? Or raid training? or any of the OTHER things people get a benefit from in this game? Opening that Pandora's box is something NO ONE should consider.

Sure, why not have some dungeon masters?It's not as far fetched as you imply.

If GW2 is so bad that they need to pay employees to play it as some kind of 'master' to encourage people to continue to play the game,

Somebody's never tried pen and paper RPG'sOnce upon a time NOT having a DM would be a weird concept. WoW went with glorified NPC billboards for narration and now the whole genre can't think outside the box <,<

Even WoW wouldnt be as succesful as WoW if it launched today, aping that single phenomena like it's a path to instant riches hasnt worked, since. It's long since time studios stopped thinking it will.

Again, I'm not talking about having or not having DM's ... I'm talking about Anet paying people to play the game. Are you saying when you played RPG's, even P&P RPGs ... you PAID your DM? We didn't ... no one else I know did. Anet shouldn't either.

And I pointed out theyve already paid people to play, just only in sPvP. Lets chase each others tail more.Edit: Hobby shop guy definately got paid. A bag full of dice didnt come cheap xD

[Obtena.7952]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Put it this way ... if WvW is SO bad that Anet has to pay people to play in it ... it's time to shut that aspect of the game down.

That's not how supply and demand works.

Is Anet going to pay someone to lead MP runs? or dungeon runs? Or raid training? or any of the OTHER things people get a benefit from in this game? Opening that Pandora's box is something NO ONE should consider.

Sure, why not have some dungeon masters?It's not as far fetched as you imply.

If GW2 is so bad that they need to pay employees to play it as some kind of 'master' to encourage people to continue to play the game,

Somebody's never tried pen and paper RPG'sOnce upon a time NOT having a DM would be a weird concept. WoW went with glorified NPC billboards for narration and now the whole genre can't think outside the box <,<

Even WoW wouldnt be as succesful as WoW if it launched today, aping that single phenomena like it's a path to instant riches hasnt worked, since. It's long since time studios stopped thinking it will.

Again, I'm not talking about having or not having DM's ... I'm talking about Anet paying people to play the game. Are you saying when you played RPG's, even P&P RPGs ... you PAID your DM? We didn't ... no one else I know did. Anet shouldn't either.

And I pointed out theyve already paid people to play, just only in sPvP.

I'm not arguing they didn't. That didn't work out for them anyways which just proves my point. It's not like this game is a huge draw for it's sPVP so ... maybe paying people to play ISN'T that great an idea.

The topic here is paying someone to play the game, like it's a job. My point still stands. There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the business model and the game if Anet has to pay people to play the game just to keep their non-paid players from leaving.

[Riba.3271]

Commanders don't want to lead because all the objective humping meta. There are plenty of players, just leading isn't even close to as fun in the old days when you used brain to counter siege taking your time breaching objectives instead of having constant disadvantage in fights. There was plenty of unupgraded objectives to run around when you didn't have numbers, now everything upgrades to t2 in an hour. And defenders were forced to tag up to get a commander else they lose it, which gave commanders purpose to stay logged on and attackers something to fight.

Now defenders just cloud without commanders and usually win against majority of groups, the mediocre ones, and get completely decimated by good commanders. But they still maintain high winrate and can hold key objectives while boring out good enemy commanders so they have no reason to start tagging up or organising themselves.

Queue all the scouts crying "OBJECTIVES ARE TOO EASY TO TAKE!" and "ORGANISATION/COMMUNICATION SHOULDNT BE NECESSARY TO DEFEND!". These kind of cries were exactly the reason behind the circus of a infrastructural balance that HoT was that led to eventual downfall of WvW once people started recognizing changed objective gameplay trends and lack of meaningful decisions.

Its simple to fix WvW, start with nerfing claim buff and shield gen bubbles to oblivion while increasing upgrade times. Unfortunately having knowledge of how things should be doesn't equal power to correct them. And no, fighting on openfield isn't enough because groups aren't equally strong or big in 99% of the cases, sometimes one side needs closer respawn, chokepoint or an AC to give the enemy side a meaningful challenge.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Threather.9354" said:Commanders don't want to lead because all the objective humping meta. There are plenty of players, just leading isn't even close to as fun in the old days when you used brain to counter siege taking your time breaching objectives instead of having constant disadvantage in fights. There was plenty of unupgraded objectives to run around when you didn't have numbers, now everything upgrades to t2 in an hour. And defenders were forced to tag up to get a commander else they lose it, which gave commanders purpose to stay logged on and attackers something to fight.Which remains players own fault for creating this kind of environment. Because they've been scoffing at the smaller groups for years and telling everyone to stack on a single "fight tag" - hidden of course - or gtfo the border. Clouding is "dirty", havoc is "ppt kittens". Its not until you have a 20 man meta boon ball guild with 75/25 minstrel builds that you deserve respect for being the better players, because of course you do.

[Riba.3271]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Threather.9354" said:Commanders don't want to lead because all the objective humping meta. There are plenty of players, just leading isn't even close to as fun in the old days when you used brain to counter siege taking your time breaching objectives instead of having constant disadvantage in fights. There was plenty of unupgraded objectives to run around when you didn't have numbers, now everything upgrades to t2 in an hour. And defenders were forced to tag up to get a commander else they lose it, which gave commanders purpose to stay logged on and attackers something to fight.Which remains players own fault for creating this kind of environment. Because they've been scoffing at the smaller groups for years and telling everyone to stack on a single "fight tag" - hidden of course - or gtfo the border. Clouding is "dirty", havoc is "ppt kittens". Its not until you have a 20 man meta boon ball guild with 75/25 minstrel builds that you

deserve

respect for being the better players, because of course you do.

Its the meta, if you don't need commander or organisation to defend, the commanders have less incentive to be online.

If you'd lose objectives, youd be forced to pull yourself together. Its how human improvement and cooperation works in general: You want something. If what you want is impossible due to infrastructural reasons or is already achievable and easy, you wouldn't put effort in it. And thats what defending now is: Piss easy. Get 2 strong groups, face them against each other, the attacking strong group will lose 100% of the time by a landslide and the defender doesn't even have to use brain or siege, just run at them at the same time.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Threather.9354 said:Get 2 strong groups, face them against each other, the attacking strong group will lose 100% of the time by a landslide and the defender doesn't even have to use brain or siege, just run at them at the same time.Thats not how reality works.