World Restructuring Update 3

[Telgum.6071]

7 minutes ago, Heibi.4251 said:

Fine, we'll see in phase 2 if they keep their word. But once they set a player limit it comes down to kicking people if they only look to guild size. A TTS guild, for example, would be stuck with what they have.

ANET is too caught up on player numbers. How will they filter it? If 10 guilds join together and they have 100 players each but not all play WvW, how will they solve that issue? I'm sure they have some idea. But right now I see this as a massive cluster.

Why would WvW guilds join to non WvW guilds?

[Heibi.4251]

10 minutes ago, Telgum.6071 said:

Why would WvW guilds join to non WvW guilds?

That's not what I said. Some guilds have players who don't play lots of WvW.  My guild has players like that. I'm not going to kick them for that. but if phase 2 works and guilds are able to alliance-up, the problem is how does ANET solve the overall numbers issue?

[Ashantara.8731]

37 minutes ago, Heibi.4251 said:

I'm talking about the whole idea of what an Alliance actually is. We might have 15 guilds aligned but the way ANET proposes this is that the current guilds mean nothing. It's only a single guild in their eyes, but they want us to believe it is an alliance.

 

You can have as many guilds as you want in an Alliance as long as the total number of players does not exceed 500.

[Surolam.1490]

One variant / feature I'd like to see is the ability to _rank_ my guilds in terms of how hard Alliances will try to keep me with them.  Not sure how this would work on a low level, but I usually play WvW with one particular guild.  I'm also in a smaller mostly-PvE guild that occasionally does WvW. I'd like to play with both, and maybe alliances will allow that, and my mostly PvE-guildmates will presumably say they want to WvW with that one... but on the rare occasions when the PvE folks head to WvW, I'd like to join them - even though 90% of my WvW time will be spent with the WvW guild.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 minutes ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

 

You can have as many guilds as you want in an Alliance as long as the total number of players does not exceed 500.

I dont think they've stated that (hence my disappointment at not seeing more guild management info and what if any restrictions there are). The cap yes which we already knew, but not the guild count.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Xenesis.6389]

I'm not liking everything I'm hearing.

Quote

First, we’ll be looking at improving individual rewards for participation and performance.

Ok sure, sounds good, but I would like to know what their idea of "performance" would require, because we could either get something as simple as dailies, or we get something as dumb as long term achievements. Because their measurement of time spent for rewards has always been out of whack.

Quote

This will be a mix of adding new rewards and improving older systems. As an example, we’d like to address how support players are under rewarded.

I don't exactly have confidence they will balance this properly. I can only imagine a future where healbots will become a thing, requiring less effort to get rewarded more than everyone else. And with the meta already hard requiring support because they make a huge different in every single fight, I don't really see the need to super reward them as someone else who has to worry about both survival and killing at the same time to earn their rewards. The solution is already there for them, put on some power and run some damaging skills, just like the dps need to put in survival skills if they don't want to die so fast.

Quote

Skirmish tracks also take longer to progress than we’d like, especially for new players.

Well at least they see a problem with it, unlike some "veterans" in these forums.

Quote

Second, we want to give players and guilds reasons to care about winning their current match up and reward them for exceptional performance during a season.

Oh this will be interesting to see how they pull this off. Because right now the ppting is not on guilds, it's mostly the pugs, because guilds certainly are not on 24 hours of the day maintaining their ppt for the server. Whether or not this will be server wide rewards, or separate, we'll see how much will the little guy will be rewarded for their effort over guilds that just bring more numbers to steamroll everything.

Quote

Longer-term, we’d also like to introduce systems that would allow guilds to flex and compare their WvW prowess.

You mean a system that will probably allow fat guilds to plow through everything, meanwhile the small guilds struggle for scraps, aka guildhalls. Oh if you meant scoreboards, then sure, let the blob guilds compare their kill counts.

Quote

Before we wrap up this section, we did want to mention that we understand how important profession balance is for World vs World gameplay. To address this, after the expansion releases, we’ll be dedicating design resources to overseeing profession balance for the Live game in a full-time capacity, supporting PvE, PvP, and WvW. This will allow us to deliver balance updates on a much more consistent cadence.

Sure, not like we've heard that 2 or 3 times before, I'm sure it'll happen this time. Balance so important that it left a spec broken down for a year and half, it's other twin spec broken for a year before that, at the same time turning another class into a god spec.

Problem going forward isn't going to be whether or not you do a balance pass every four weeks or four months, it'll be whether or not you're willing to balance classes on more even terms to their counterparts in terms of damage support and utility. They are now going to have 36 specs to balance, and I'm sure they'll keep the boon ball meta, so it'll just be cater balancing to the meta specs.

Everything sounds really guild centric, which I expect for alliances, but my concern is how hog wild they will go in terms of rewards, how they will balance it between the small roamer to the big guild. It will be a mistake to massively cater to just guilds with numbers advantage. If they keep it in terms of like the reward and skirmish type of rewarding, which is a pretty fair system for individuals, then no problem.

Anyways nice to see a plan, but it'll probably end up taking 2 years before major stuff is done for wvw systems.

Edit: why did the formatting change for the forums today....

Edited September 10, 2021 by Xenesis.6389

[honu.9183]

One of the things I've been mulling over is just how do you create a dynamic and responsive W v W setting when the populations might or might not fluctuate a great deal over different match ups?  Say one week hardly anyone from a guild shows up for W v W play but the next week a lot of the guild shows?  Could there be such a thing as a hard cap (500, I think was mentioned) but them if that cap is busted that week, then overflow servers take the overflow and you still have a quality experience? Perhaps those numbers go down during the week or matchup time? Then more folks can play the primary server. At some point, I wonder about blob lag or if the numbers aren't an issue so much if the technology is catching up to accommodate blobs?

[Xenesis.6389]

41 minutes ago, Heibi.4251 said:

Not the way it is being presented. If we have to create a completely new baby guild to invite "people" to, we aren't having a Guild Alliance at all. We are just having a new guild. And we have players with max guild slots.  Or, we have to kick players to make room for the new players. And I know many guild leaders won't like the idea of having to kick people just because they don't play WvW or get on as often.

This is going to be one big cluster.

 

I already brought up this concern before, I would hope maybe they would give some incentive to make players pick their actual main guild as their wvw guilds, like you're only able to do claims from the guild you marked as your wvw one, rather than everyone just pile into one new guild for the creation and then go back to repping their usual guilds. But doesn't seem like it. Just another form of easy stacking really, but at least there's a 500 person limit, and worlds are much bigger than that.

[schloumou.3982]

37 minutes ago, Sviel.7493 said:

As far as new information I think it was just the details on how the Alliance phases will be done.  Still, that's more or less all that could really be said on the topic so I think it's fine.

 

My only concern is that they may be giving too much weight to player's willingness to adapt their strategies to accomplish goals. They said:

However, previous WvW updates suggest that the organized crust of WvW is very static.  Players have one strategy (zerging) and they get upset when that strategy becomes less effective.  They don't look for other ways to be effective--they just whine a lot until things get nerfed/reverted.  Within zerging, there are some meta shifts here and there, but there's never any movement away from stacking tons of bodies on one tag as the solution to any and all problems.

 

It's possible that this will change once population balance and rewards are addressed, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Eventually, Anet is going to have to commit to WvW being a zerg-only mode OR they're going to have to add things that diminish zerging and not cave to pressure to neuter them later on.  I don't think they need to eliminate zerging, but if they don't move away from any competent zerg being able to one-push a keep in 5-10 minutes, there won't be any room for any non-zerg strategies.

 

Also, I think they should give a siege rework higher priority.  It is unlikely that "new strateg[ies] and meta[s]" will emerge given how one-dimensional sieges are.  You place your siege somewhere where enemies can't interact with it, then put a paperweight on your attack skill and do your best to stay awake.  Even if population balance and rewards are fixed, there are no trade-offs in siege play to give rise to alternate metas.  Disablers were intended to give some interaction, but projectile hate put the kibosh on that real quick.  If siege doesn't change, the one-push zerg strat will be unlikely to change even with balanced populations.  Defense will continue to be nothing but zerg fights in the lord's room.

 

That said, it's definitely a good strategy on their part to tune most things one at a time.  Tackling population imbalance first is absolutely the right call.  Rewards, on the other hand, should probably be worked on in tandem with other core systems.  Since the point of rewards is to incentivize you to play effectively, they need to ensure players have a wide degree of options to be effective.  Better rewards are meaningless if there is still only one effective strategy.  Rather than encouraging players to try new things, it will just make them feel worse about not having the beefiest zerg at any given moment.

 

Aye. Also we had WvW seasons with unique rewards for podium places at one point, that made people care and play to win. The meta was hardcore 24/7 organised ppt coverage on all maps, to the point where players left wvw completely burned out and they had to abandon that idea. I don't understand what is supposed to change that now.

[Solitude.2097]

We could use the WoW-create-Guild option , where 8 people must Sign up i order the Guild to be created .But in our case all guilds will remain intact , and the only thing that will be created will be the WvW- Shard .Each Guild leader with sign the contract and assign a "number"in a nearby  box  . Those numbers are the open slots that can join WvWvW  at any time

Each player account will be saved in that slot/number for 24 hours  (in order to avoid having 50 people rotate in the  10 slots for 24 hours gameplay) .

The 2x major  problems  are:

a) how to avoid overstacking ?

For every  30x random-no-guild-people , gives you  1x Supplies from the thin air , or your Swiftness is 5% better or behaves like Superspeed at 100 people?

Or you should deticate 100 (from 500)  people to Edge of the Mist for "8" hours/match reset   , so 100 random can join your  Server and  reduce the cost of Golems  by 60% , for a fast  zergpush ?

Or daticating 50 people to Edge and winning the majority , unlocks the Desert BL cannon that shoots in "random maps-locations"?

 

b) Ask a new player to join WvW . He will say it's " too barren" outside of zergs .

Introduce the "Bushes-stealth" from the old minigame-activity and hide some mobs in there .  If you find the correct ones , you spawn a team a rolling choggas that you lead them (as chogga)  to a pre-determent far away Keep and you can jump on walls forma jumping location to damage the boss for 3%  hp ?

Other people  can right click in the npcs and take their place for increased damage and speed?

(Idk ... got something to do in these 12 days, called throwing dart to choose my  future ...)

Edited September 10, 2021 by Solitude.2097

[Xenesis.6389]

11 minutes ago, schloumou.3982 said:

Aye. Also we had WvW seasons with unique rewards for podium places at one point, that made people care and play to win. The meta was hardcore 24/7 organised ppt coverage on all maps, to the point where players left wvw completely burned out and they had to abandon that idea. I don't understand what is supposed to change that now.

Eh, for a couple servers maybe, because everyone knew who were likely to win even before the seasons started (stacked servers like BG or JQ, or servers that were opened for free transfers just before the tournaments), if you were playing on a server that was expected to finish in the bottom there was no reason to burn yourself out.

What they expect to happen with alliances is coverage and populations will be sorted to be more balanced worlds, and therefore think stuff like tournaments would be on a more fair setting. Although that doesn't exactly stop people from burning themselves over scoring. I have suggested more time limited tournaments but meh.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Xenesis.6389

[suialthor.7164]

15 minutes ago, honu.9183 said:

One of the things I've been mulling over is just how do you create a dynamic and responsive W v W setting when the populations might or might not fluctuate a great deal over different match ups? 

I assume the maps/mode will have to compensate for the numbers available per round.  More like long PvP matches but the zone is based on the numbers that can be supported.

[Sviel.7493]

19 minutes ago, schloumou.3982 said:

 

Aye. Also we had WvW seasons with unique rewards for podium places at one point, that made people care and play to win. The meta was hardcore 24/7 organised ppt coverage on all maps, to the point where players left wvw completely burned out and they had to abandon that idea. I don't understand what is supposed to change that now.

This is an excellent point to bring up.

The question is whether WvW has a fatal flaw in that it quickly burns players out when they try, or was there some other reason for players leaving?  Since WvW has continued to exist even without comparable rewards to PvE/PvP, I think there must be a path to where the game mode is played without constantly shedding players.  For some, that path is a focus on fights to the exclusion of PPT.  For others, they enjoy the game in the moment regardless of the final outcome.  There's some mythical group that supposedly focuses on PPT to the exclusion of fights, but I don't think they exist outside of EotM as you can't PPT without fights in actual WvW.

Like @Xenesis.6389 said, if population imbalance is better managed this time, I think the players who have enjoyed WvW since the end of Seasons will manage to avoid being burned out despite having an incentive to win--at least for the players who currently enjoy the game.  The only thing that really changes are the players who focus on fights to the exclusion of PPT--they'll now have more reason to care about PPT than before and, according to Anet, this may get them to change their approach to the game.  I kind of doubt it.  Instead, they'll argue for more PPK in the scoring system and yell for changes that diminish any strategies other than open field fights.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Sviel.7493

[Dawdler.8521]

20 minutes ago, Sviel.7493 said:

There's some mythical group that supposedly focuses on PPT to the exclusion of fights, but I don't think they exist outside of EotM.

20 enemies run around capping and killing.

"kittening PPT kittens outnumbering us 2 to 1, doesnt want to fight with equal numbers".

A fight commander tags up and gets 50 on tag.

"Lol look at those kittening PPT kittens run from a fair fight".

Edited September 10, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[ArchonWing.9480]

"The reasoning behind this approach is straightforward: WvW is a complicated game mode that’s played in numerous ways. Some players enjoy fights, some enjoy taking objectives, and some enjoy running away from fights (he-he). Experiences can even vary wildly between shards (we’re looking at you, Maguuma)."

10/10 would read again.

Edited September 10, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[joneirikb.7506]

Quote

  Once matchmaking occurs, any changes to a player’s selected guild will not take effect until the next season.

I pray they stick to this, we don't want another system to enforce bandwagon/locus swarm.

Quote

  The beta event match up will begin at WvW reset on September 24. A WvW bonus experience event will be active between September 21 and October 1 (100% bonus to World Experience, a 25% bonus to reward-track progress, and a 50% bonus to magic find).

It keeps striking me as a bad idea to keep putting bonus reward weeks on introduction weeks. They should probably run it normally couple of weeks first to test it, then enable bonus rewards as a stress test once they worked out the most obvious kinks.

Quote

  Our current plan is to limit Alliances to a total of 500 players, the same maximum size of a single guild. We’re trying to strike a balance between allowing existing player communities to be able to stick together while preventing the creation of juggernaut alliances.

  
Good. Stick to your guns on this one.

Quote

  We’re approaching the development of World Restructuring differently than what you’ve seen from us in the past. Our intention is to release the smallest, functional versions of the feature onto the live servers, beta test it for a limited time, and then use your feedback to improve future iterations of the feature. We’ll rinse and repeat until we’ve landed on a satisfactory implementation and then polish the feature, remove the beta tag, and fully release it.

  
A big shift from traditional ANet/GW2 development. I think it is a very good idea for WvW. Reminds me more of WarFrame's general development cycle, with positive and negatives. I think this (and WvW in general) needs to have visible iterations that players can see/experience in order to see the ramifications of what and how things get implemented. And for Developers to see how players freak out about stuff. 😛

Quote

  Second, we want to give players and guilds reasons to care about winning their current match up and reward them for exceptional performance during a season. Longer-term, we’d also like to introduce systems that would allow guilds to flex and compare their WvW prowess.

If you pull this off, congrats. But this is hard to make work properly without causing issues. I'm looking forward to see how this will be solved. This is basically the Holy Grail for competitive minded players.

Quote

  Before we wrap up this section, we did want to mention that we understand how important profession balance is for World vs World gameplay. To address this, after the expansion releases, we’ll be dedicating design resources to overseeing profession balance for the Live game in a full-time capacity, supporting PvE, PvP, and WvW. This will allow us to deliver balance updates on a much more consistent cadence.

I am so so SO sorry for the lack of vacation time and free time you guys will get. I'm sure your families and dogs will miss you. But seriously, this sounds honestly too ambitious, and I'm worried about how much resources this will eat up in general. Well, honestly I don't really expect to see this go anywhere, so I guess your free days are secure!

All in all, happy for the information and feedback. Will have to see about what actually happens, I'm just too cynical at this point to take things at face value.

[subversiontwo.7501]

6 hours ago, Sviel.7493 said:

However, previous WvW updates suggest that the organized crust of WvW is very static.  Players have one strategy (zerging) and they get upset when that strategy becomes less effective.  They don't look for other ways to be effective--they just whine a lot until things get nerfed/reverted.  Within zerging, there are some meta shifts here and there, but there's never any movement away from stacking tons of bodies on one tag as the solution to any and all problems.

I would be likely to argue that you are wrong about this. There are servers that have always left their home border to be 'defended' by clouds (eg., Gandara). There are recent trends of servers treating EBG the same way (essentially using it as an overflow and cloud map; where SM is upgraded and defended as a force projector; eg., the last Whiteside incarnation). There are further servers that have limited zerging capacity or timezone mismatch that spend most of prime running around in smaller groups and hitting multiple objectives at once (eg., Baruch). Zerging is much less homogenous than you make it seem and it is far less effective than people tend to give it credit.

 

On the contrary I have always argued that what drives the profileration of "just zergs" (more exclusive perspectives on PPK, just flipping karma trains etc.) is night-capping as it makes many other activities in daytime feel pointless. There are always going to be players who prefer open-field fights over in/around-objective fights. I am one of them. However, the complete disregard for a more strategic outlook on objectives is almost entirely due to night-capping making it feel pointless to care about in prime.

Edited September 11, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[subversiontwo.7501]

5 hours ago, Sviel.7493 said:

This is an excellent point to bring up.

The question is whether WvW has a fatal flaw in that it quickly burns players out when they try, or was there some other reason for players leaving?  Since WvW has continued to exist even without comparable rewards to PvE/PvP, I think there must be a path to where the game mode is played without constantly shedding players.  For some, that path is a focus on fights to the exclusion of PPT.  For others, they enjoy the game in the moment regardless of the final outcome.  There's some mythical group that supposedly focuses on PPT to the exclusion of fights, but I don't think they exist outside of EotM as you can't PPT without fights in actual WvW.

It isn't really a question. You are already saying it, if not in so many words. Since we have not had fairly distributed rewards, the lack of rewards has without a doubt preserved (and preservered) the mode. At the same time, fairly distributed rewards into something positive is obviously even better than being happy with doing less harm.

I think a similar perspective can be taken on Alliances. Grouch is rightfully cautious in the face of sink or swim (even if he'd ideally be more confident in their roadmap towards this by now). However, Alliances is better than the less-harm stasis of now.

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[Sviel.7493]

29 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

I would be likely to argue that you are wrong about this. There are servers that have always left their home border to be 'defended' by clouds (eg., Gandara). There are recent trends of servers treating EBG the same way (essentially using it as an overflow and cloud map; where SM is upgraded and defended as a force projector; eg., the last Whiteside incarnation). There are further servers that have limited zerging capacity or timezone mismatch that spend most of prime running around in smaller groups and hitting multiple objectives at once (eg., Baruch). Zerging is much less homogenous than you make it seem and it is far less effective than people tend to give it credit.

EU sounds like a completely different world than NA.  Do you know of any place I can watch either Gandara or Baruch in action?

The more serious issue is whether or not zerging is the most effective.  In theory, breaking the same number of people into smaller cells that can hit objectives and delay zergs until they're forced to coalesce for a defense is a more efficient way to play...but that's not something that people seem interested in on this side of the pond.  It sounds like Baruch/Gandara may do something like that?  At any rate, that only works if it's possible for a small group to meaningfully delay a large group.  In the current iteration of WvW, meaningful delays are hard to pull off against competent groups.  Mindless zergs can be delayed for a while, but anyone willing to learn isn't going to sweat a few defenders.  Of course, I say that knowing that perhaps these EU servers know something I don't.  That's something I'll have to look into.

16 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

It isn't really a question. You are already saying it, if not in so many words. Since we have not had fairly distributed rewards, the lack of rewards has without a doubt preserved (and preservered) the mode. At the same time, fairly distributed rewards into something positive is obviously even better than being happy with doing less harm.

I think a similar perspective can be taken on Alliances. Grouch is rightfully cautious in the face of sink or swim (even if he'd ideally be more confident in their roadmap towards this by now). However, Alliances is better than the less-harm stasis of now.

Perhaps my wording was strange, but I meant that in pulling lessons from the burnout rate in seasons we shouldn't just assume that good rewards lead to burn out.  The question I proposed was meant to be answered by the following sentence--I stated it as a way of framing how I looked at seasons.  I don't think that WvW contains a fatal flaw.

[La Venus.6598]

My biggest concern is about the number of people of each alliance, i think 500 active people is good enough to form a juggernaut team.  The voices of how the server leaders planning to put whole server or multiple "fight guild" into a single alliance is around us. I am worrying the alliance stacking with more people still have the rights to manage the game mode. 

[Dawdler.8521]

6 minutes ago, La Venus.6598 said:

My biggest concern is about the number of people of each alliance, i think 500 active people is good enough to form a juggernaut team.  The voices of how the server leaders planning to put whole server or multiple "fight guild" into a single alliance is around us. I am worrying the alliance stacking with more people still have the rights to manage the game mode. 

Which is why the alliance cap has always been stated as 500 because its the only workable cap. An alliance cannot stack anymore than a guild. And today you can have 500 active people in a "fight guild" too if you want. 

IE it is no concern, its the same as now.

[ThomasC.1056]

All in all, I think it's mostly a matter of vocabulary and definitions.

 

Case #1, raised by @Xenesis.6389 :

 

9 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Ok sure, sounds good, but I would like to know what their idea of "performance" would require, because we could either get something as simple as dailies, or we get something as dumb as long term achievements. Because their measurement of time spent for rewards has always been out of whack.

 

ANet needs to define what performance is (including the situation of them gathering the players' input). That definition will provide the way they measure it, which may be the basis of rewards, etc. It'll also help understand what the purpose of the gamemode is.

 

Which leads to

 

Case #2 : (kindly quoted from @Sviel.7493 answer, but from the dev)

 

10 hours ago, Sviel.7493 said:

Once both population balance and rewards are addressed, our theory is that WvW gameplay may see a significant shift. Players tend to naturally optimize their gameplay towards “the goal”, and with that comes new strategy and meta.

 

What is the goal ? The use of quotation marks seem to show that they themselves don't have a clear position on that point, but I think it's the most fundamental one. As endless arguings here have shown, even the players don't agree of what the goal is.

 

My guess is there's a tremendous amount of naivety in the dev's statement, because they mistake the game mode goals with the players' goals.

 

I can figure a player's goal could be, at a given instant, "I'll kill that red thing jumping here", or "I'll take that camp." But I have a more difficult time admitting people would turn on their computer, launch guild wars 2, wait in the queue, and access the game mode to do these things.

 

People usually do such things because they want to play, they want to have fun, spend quality time, meet friends, forget a hard day, or whatever. Which is the most simple explanation to the question why some players won't fight : because fight implies losing, and losing is not fun ie : not what I came here for. Same things with mindless zerging : because it's the easiest way to win and get rewards (brain loves rewards) without needing to think too much. Same thing with cheesy meta which is nothing but picking the path of less effort.

 

I'm not saying every player is a braindead zombie just spending time, but I think the hardcore WvW player seeing the game mode as a part time job is rare. And it may have something to do with the exhaustion that was mentionned by @schloumou.3982 and @Sviel.7493.

 

So this is what I think is the fundamental question ANet has to answer : what purposes they define for the game, which mechanics they implement in that goal, how they reward players following the aformentionned paths, and which way they wrap all this in a competitive game mode, which implies some players will lose, which is not fun, while every player legitimately wants to have fun.

 

And when they'll have done that, they'll have to be ready for a significant loss in their playerbase because :

 

10 hours ago, Sviel.7493 said:

Previous WvW updates suggest that the organized crust of WvW is very static.

 

 

 

 

 

[SlateSloan.3654]

I will relax until then and see who the dating app will assign to me as a match 🥰

Edited September 11, 2021 by SlateSloan.3654

[Luthan.5236]

Sounds interesting. I have played only at Fridays (reset) for about 2-3 hours at max - to get wood tier (for the +1 pip the following week) cause of tons of other stuff to do in real life and in GW2. Not enough time/priority for WvW.

But maybe I'll try to contact one of the older guilds on my server (Underworld - well I'm on that server since release just didn't play GW2 at all from 2014-2019 lol) trying to get into a guild for that - at least for the beta stuff while this stuff here is in testing. (Maybe i want to play more WvW because of it then. We'll see.)

Edited September 11, 2021 by Luthan.5236

[Justine.6351]

19 hours ago, Ben K.6238 said:

 

Let us know if you find anything remotely like WvW in there.

You are right, Diablo 2 actually has pvp.