Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Current state of WvW


Ceramix.5419

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:Current state of WvW in 1 picture.

YJERfNr.jpg

What is this skill called "screenshot" in the chat? Sounds exiting, how much damage does it make?

i thought that screen was about the low ranks. so basically saying that there is plenty rather new players while the long time players seems to reduce in numbers.

I have about 700+ hours in WvW and my rank is that low, guess why i hate the mount unbalance and what i have been doing all those 700 hours. I got 35 of those ranks in the last 2 weeks too btw, while farming tomes of knowledge by capping things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Anput.4620 said:Current state of WvW in 1 picture.

YJERfNr.jpg

What is this skill called "screenshot" in the chat? Sounds exiting, how much damage does it make?

i thought that screen was about the low ranks. so basically saying that there is plenty rather new players while the long time players seems to reduce in numbers.

I have about 700+ hours in WvW and my rank is that low, guess why i hate the mount unbalance and what i have been doing all those 700 hours. I got 35 of those ranks in the last 2 weeks too btw, while farming tomes of knowledge by capping things.

if thats your rank after 700 hours, that indeed explains alot about your threads. at first i thought you just exaggerating or dumb, but it seems you really dont know how to get encounters aside from camping a roadside. the mount has issues but getting encounters is not one of them, use the map and find your prey. and hey you might find fun ways to fight much larger groups without directly attacking them ;)

as for this thread here, anet tries to sell WvW as a competitive mode with all the scorings, tiers, winning skirmishes and matchups etc. while it gets ruined by population inbalance. so either one needs complex scoring systems that can make the modes competition based on the knowledge that population will be inbalanced or one needs to completly shift the competitive focus of the game, maybe from matches to single encounters wich would make it more akin to an open pvp mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:as for this thread here, anet tries to sell WvW as a competitive modeNo they dont. They've never tried to sell WvW period.

yeah thats why WvW achievements are under 'competitive' section and why we have a scoring that adds up towards the end of the week, why we have tiers and even a leaderboard on the frontpage.

edit: nvm, i should read before i reply :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:as for this thread here, anet tries to sell WvW as a competitive modeNo they dont. They've never tried to sell WvW period.

which is both funny and sad.

when you think of it, once you finish all the PvE content and get most of the gear you wanted, what would you do (the same repetitive thing where everything is predictable aka. raids, fractals and general PvE) for? in the end, the only thing that seems to survive in most games is the competitive part where players battle players as even though you may play the same maps over and over again what always changes is the opponent, and no two opponents even running the same gear are the same.

I don't understand how this fundamental aspects eludes most. and this is one of the main aspects that is worth monetisation, and creating content for. there's so much revenue behind this that they just haven't discovered in 6 years. and it's right in front of them, this whole time.

but what do they add instead of enriching the competitive experience. mounts? laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MUDse.7623 said:as for this thread here, anet tries to sell WvW as a competitive mode with all the scorings, tiers, winning skirmishes and matchups etc. while it gets ruined by population inbalance. so either one needs complex scoring systems that can make the modes competition based on the knowledge that population will be inbalanced or one needs to completly shift the competitive focus of the game, maybe from matches to single encounters wich would make it more akin to an open pvp mode.

With the full knowledge that they are working on Alliances (supposedly), the problem remains with the +1up +1down system. Last link, for 8 straight weeks, my server placed 2nd in T1 NA. Guess which server we had the joyous privilege of fighting each week? Finally after the relink we dropped down to T2, only to place 1st that week, so guess where we ended up after weekly reset..?

Seeing 1x T3 Tower, 1x T3 Garri and 1x T3 Keep each defended by 40-50 people who only come out when someone else attacks, mirrored across all maps concurrently, gets old very fast.

Since there is no reward for winning, why does it matter that we have a server at ranked as #1, or #2, or #5?

Instead the servers and links should be matched against each other on a rotating bases, working to avoid the same servers meeting up week after week after week.

When you take (arguably) the 2nd and 3rd best NA servers in the game, and their warscore combined doesn't even equal that of the #1 server, it shows you just how egregious this silly system is. I'm seeing guild mates and guilds leaving the server because while we easily compete in T2, we invariably end up in T1 the following week, and it's just a giant slough dealing with The Server That Shall Not Be Named week in and week out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Turkeyspit.3965 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:as for this thread here, anet tries to sell WvW as a competitive mode with all the scorings, tiers, winning skirmishes and matchups etc. while it gets ruined by population inbalance. so either one needs complex scoring systems that can make the modes competition based on the knowledge that population will be inbalanced or one needs to completly shift the competitive focus of the game, maybe from matches to single encounters wich would make it more akin to an open pvp mode.

With the full knowledge that they are working on Alliances (supposedly), the problem remains with the +1up +1down system. Last link, for 8 straight weeks, my server placed 2nd in T1 NA. Guess which server we had the joyous privilege of fighting each week? Finally after the relink we dropped down to T2, only to place 1st that week, so guess where we ended up after weekly reset..?

Seeing 1x T3 Tower, 1x T3 Garri and 1x T3 Keep each defended by 40-50 people who only come out when someone else attacks, mirrored across all maps concurrently, gets old very fast.

Since there is no reward for winning, why does it matter that we have a server at ranked as #1, or #2, or #5?

Instead the servers and links should be matched against each other on a rotating bases, working to avoid the same servers meeting up week after week after week.

When you take (arguably) the 2nd and 3rd best NA servers in the game, and their warscore combined doesn't even equal that of the #1 server, it shows you just how egregious this silly system is. I'm seeing guild mates and guilds leaving the server because while we easily compete in T2, we invariably end up in T1 the following week, and it's just a giant slough dealing with The Server That Shall Not Be Named week in and week out.

TL;DR - its fun to stomp on t2 but its not fun to be stomped on t1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@primatos.5413 said:Even with n high end pc with full settings and 130 fps in three-way fights it lags like hell bcz of idk .. too much calculations at a time (gameserver sided) or whatever ^^

Sorry but I don’t get all the lag talk. I run on a laptop, ASUS ROG gaming system. 150mbps internet. No lag 99% of the time. Once in a very rare moment I get a bounce here and there.

Then again I’m in Canada where the internet is clean and fast. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SoulSin.5682 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:Why do i get more fps in ARK boss fights, which is also an unoptimized game than Gw2 zergfights lol.

Because every game under the sun optimize every encounter and map of the game taking control of how much elements can be at your screen at the same time at given times. So your computer never overloads in calculations and starts to drop FPS.

In an MMoRPG its
impossible
to control how many players can be at your screen at any given time. Since as long people can access the map we will have more and more players that may or not be in the same spot using skills or not.

In ARK, as well as any game, there will be just that much elements in the screen for your core processor calculate movements and interactions.In GW2 WvW, there can be hundreds of players at the same place at big wars. Your CPU starts to have trouble calculating everything and your FPS drops.

Thats one of the reasons why a good core processor has always being an important piece of hardware for MMo players. You GPU usually only takes cares of textures and other post processing effects and hardly overloads.You CPU tough, is crying bricks in the middle of WvW. Hence the reason that reducing the number of visible players and disabling animations are the best to increase FPS in this game mode.

Back in the days of Lineage II, Ultima Online, WoW and even GW, it was pretty common for active players of war-style PvP modes (anything that involves a lot of players) to overclock the CPU to increase FPS.

Some recent Battle Royalle games doesn't suffer from this problem because its rare to have too many players at the same spot in those giant BR maps. Plus squads are small so 99% of the time players are only having small skirmishes. So they don't feel that impact most of the time.

Nothing here is correct.

ARK is a mess as far as actual optimizations go, they are also huge maps with lots of PvE and PvP going on at all times.A single map of ARK could be the size of all 3 BL's and EBG together with even more players, and no, there is nothing optimized about each encounter, as it's up to players. This is not a linear console single player game. The biggest reason it does better even with horrible optimization is that it's based on Unreal Engine 4, where GW2 is based on a very old game engine used for GW1 that is based on the DX9 API. DX 9 was released in 2002 for windows 98 and XP, let that sink in....

DX10 was out long before development of GW2 even started, and DX10 was end of life when GW2 was released and by that time DX11 was only a year out from being end of life as well with DX12 right around the corner. However, GW2 was also aimed at a console port, and xbox at the time used a modified version of DX9, it seems later this project was scrapped however.

Yes, it is possible to control how many players are shown on your screen at one time in a MMO, it's called map caps for one, and culling for second, you must be new to the game and not remember when it didn't have settings in the graphics window for culling levels.

The CPU is not crying in WvW, or any area in GW2 actually, the CPU is actually going "thats all you got?", because the rendering pipeline is single threaded in DX9 and as such, even when your screen is full and FPS are tanking, your CPU is probably under half load, mine a 5Ghz 9900k sits around 20%. DX10 and DX11 are also not very good at multi threading but do much better than DX9 did, DX12 is the night and day change with multithreading, where WoW saw 25-30% FPS gains on even lowend CPUs, at that point the game was able to make use of the other threads and moved the bottleneck more to the GPU.

GW2 is not a demanding game, its a game that can't make use of 80% of the resources most computers have, because its based on a D3D API released when the highend CPU of the day was a single core (Pentium 4) 2Ghz CPU.

However FPS is only part of the problem, and with a powerful enough setup, can "get by" in most areas, however there is nothing a player can do about server and skill lag, which are the real evils in WvW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Anput.4620 said:Current state of WvW in 1 picture.

YJERfNr.jpg

What is this skill called "screenshot" in the chat? Sounds exiting, how much damage does it make?

i thought that screen was about the low ranks. so basically saying that there is plenty rather new players while the long time players seems to reduce in numbers.

I have about 700+ hours in WvW and my rank is that low, guess why i hate the mount unbalance and what i have been doing all those 700 hours. I got 35 of those ranks in the last 2 weeks too btw, while farming tomes of knowledge by capping things.

if thats your rank after 700 hours, that indeed explains alot about your threads. at first i thought you just exaggerating or dumb, but it seems you really dont know how to get encounters aside from camping a roadside. the mount has issues but getting encounters is not one of them, use the map and find your prey. and hey you might find fun ways to fight much larger groups without directly attacking them ;)

as for this thread here, anet tries to sell WvW as a competitive mode with all the scorings, tiers, winning skirmishes and matchups etc. while it gets ruined by population inbalance. so either one needs complex scoring systems that can make the modes competition based on the knowledge that population will be inbalanced or one needs to completly shift the competitive focus of the game, maybe from matches to single encounters wich would make it more akin to an open pvp mode.

I ran around before though, not camp a camp or something. I just ran in a big circle around the whole map and repeat. It is quite impossible when i roam on my weaver and get less than 5 fights in 2 hours.

I like to roam around in the open while right now i am actually forced to camp a camp or something to even get a fight on my nonranger. The game is just very frustrating as is right now, just countless toxic situations that make zero sense for a PvP mode like the one in the screenshot where i introduce my friend to the game and got them their gear, they get excited they did 50% of a mounts HP then realise it is BS balance and get really turned off by the mode. It just makes zero sense, especially to any PvP player that hasn't played this game like my friend, but then i get told "ThIs Is Gw2 nOt OtHeR gAmEs", but i am talking common sense in game-design here. Like how does any PvP dev justify this mechanic.

Also like i said i got 30 of those levels recently while ktraining for tomes of knowledge lol, and 20 ish before that must also be from warclaw day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:It is quite impossible when i roam on my weaver and get less than 5 fights in 2 hours.Then dont roam on your obviously meh weaver. We're not forcing you. Anet isnt forcing you. Class selection in the menu isnt there for just fluff. Weaver wasnt even a particularly good roamer before the mounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Anput.4620 said:Current state of WvW in 1 picture.

YJERfNr.jpg

What is this skill called "screenshot" in the chat? Sounds exiting, how much damage does it make?

i thought that screen was about the low ranks. so basically saying that there is plenty rather new players while the long time players seems to reduce in numbers.

I have about 700+ hours in WvW and my rank is that low, guess why i hate the mount unbalance and what i have been doing all those 700 hours. I got 35 of those ranks in the last 2 weeks too btw, while farming tomes of knowledge by capping things.

if thats your rank after 700 hours, that indeed explains alot about your threads. at first i thought you just exaggerating or dumb, but it seems you really dont know how to get encounters aside from camping a roadside. the mount has issues but getting encounters is not one of them, use the map and find your prey. and hey you might find fun ways to fight much larger groups without directly attacking them ;)

as for this thread here, anet tries to sell WvW as a competitive mode with all the scorings, tiers, winning skirmishes and matchups etc. while it gets ruined by population inbalance. so either one needs complex scoring systems that can make the modes competition based on the knowledge that population will be inbalanced or one needs to completly shift the competitive focus of the game, maybe from matches to single encounters wich would make it more akin to an open pvp mode.

I ran around before though, not camp a camp or something. I just ran in a big circle around the whole map and repeat. It is quite impossible when i roam on my weaver and get less than 5 fights in 2 hours.

but you are not to just run big circles, attack camps that are being protected because they deliver supplies to something that someone wants to upgrade (when stuff is t3 people dont care as much about it anymore) or use the map to locate your opponents, predict their next movements and hunt them down.

I like to roam around in the open while right now i am actually forced to camp a camp or something to even get a fight on my nonranger. The game is just very frustrating as is right now, just countless toxic situations that make zero sense for a PvP mode like the one in the screenshot where i introduce my friend to the game and got them their gear, they get excited they did 50% of a mounts HP then realise it is BS balance and get really turned off by the mode. It just makes zero sense, especially to any PvP player that hasn't played this game like my friend, but then i get told "ThIs Is Gw2 nOt OtHeR gAmEs", but i am talking common sense in game-design here. Like how does any PvP dev justify this mechanic.

the problem is that you see WvW as open world pvp wich it is not. its is pvp on a large map but not open world and killing players was not the primary objective in the mode. right now if the maps were full 24/7, then killing players would contribute most to the warscore but it only does so for maybe 2 skirmishes a day and 10 are decided by controlling the map, with 8h skirmishes it might even be that no skirmish will be decided by kills again. once you see killing an opponent as only one of multiple ways to fight them in the match, you will get into much more encounters as you dont just blindly chase every opponent, you basically will naturally run into them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"MUDse.7623" said:but you are not to just run big circles, attack camps that are being protected because they deliver supplies to something that someone wants to upgrade (when stuff is t3 people dont care as much about it anymore) or use the map to locate your opponents, predict their next movements and hunt them down.

Poeple don't protect camps at all, even if i predict their movements it is impossible to dismount on most builds.

the problem is that you see WvW as open world pvp wich it is not. its is pvp on a large map but not open world and killing players was not the primary objective in the mode. right now if the maps were full 24/7, then killing players would contribute most to the warscore but it only does so for maybe 2 skirmishes a day and 10 are decided by controlling the map, with 8h skirmishes it might even be that no skirmish will be decided by kills again. once you see killing an opponent as only one of multiple ways to fight them in the match, you will get into much more encounters as you dont just blindly chase every opponent, you basically will naturally run into them.

Howeso is it not open world? It is a persistant non-instanced map which you can freely join and leave. That is the definition of an open world map, just like how survival game maps are open world.

What is wrong with just wanting to play for the PvP? Your objective argument doesn't matter because WvW is a mode where the objective is worth as much as the player thinks it is, in SPvP you can't just run from the objective and go somewhere else, neither can you in a MOBA, you have to defend your lane. But in this game poeple will just go to another camp if they don't want to fight, this whole objectives matter so go find PvP there doesn't work when to those poeple objectives literally don't matter. Why destroy a playstyle many enjoyed for 6 years? What's the problem here when it is valid PvP? The mount only promotes passive play, non-interaction and cheese, it's overall implementation is objectively bad game-design and balance.

Killing players is never the main objective in every objective-based PvP game but do you really think poeple play MOBA's for the PvE? They want to make some kills and have cool teamfights. We all know that the only poeple that focus on the "objectives" do it for the PPT and not because they care so much.

Even if i do the taking camps thing, that nets me the less than 5 fights in 3 hours on for example my ele, like i told you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"MUDse.7623" said:yeah thats why WvW achievements are under 'competitive' sectionNot sure about that part. The section 'competitve' also includes things like "Belcher's Bluff" and "Crab Toss".

Maybe Anet wants to look WvW like this then ;) (I like the part at 0:35 were theyre drinking while some siege golems pass along xD)

PS: yes there are leaderboards and victory points, but they also punish good servers with bad links or unlinking. And bad servers are pushed with good links. Balance is bad, lags are huge, no skill-based server-making just open world, no fixed team sizes, lots of non-competitive elements there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current state of wvw:

Ranger- Another one bites the dustNecromancer- ThrillerThief- You can't touch thisEngineer- Heat of the MomentGuardian- Dies IraeMesmer- Dead or AliveRevenant- Hungry like the wolfWarrior- Eye of the TigerElementalist- Sound of Silence

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...