New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?

[Random dude.5089]

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

WvW was fixed, not murdered. Try tagging up and organising if your unorganised commanderless cloud cant defend.

your forcing people to play with organized groups  is not how open world pvp should be , this is not fixed , its leaving out solo players or small groups that scout for you and have fun roaming arround calling out defenses and trying to catch people off group to minimize the size of the blob and helping their defenders out , thats whats fun about wvw , is not being forced to play in groups , i have a roaming guild and all of them do this , everyone logs in play as a small group or solo , thats what we enjoy , remember that gw2 is not optimized enough , lot of people i know struggle with group zergs with so much fps drops , even if u got a good end game pc u can still see a bit of lag , there is humans behind the pc my guy , but net doesnt realize that and clearly u don't too  , they are busy implimenting changes nobody asked for.

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, Random dude.5089 said:

your forcing people to play with organized groups  is not how open world pvp should be , this is not fixed , its leaving out solo players or small groups that scout for you and have fun roaming arround calling out defenses and trying to catch people off group to minimize the size of the blob and helping their defenders out , thats whats fun about wvw , is not being forced to play in groups , i have a roaming guild and all of them do this , everyone logs in play as a small group or solo , thats what we enjoy , remember that gw2 is not optimized enough , lot of people i know struggle with group zergs with so much fps drops , even if u got a good end game pc u can still see a bit of lag , there is humans behind the pc my guy , but net doesnt realize that and clearly u don't too  , they are busy implimenting changes nobody asked for

If you cant defend against blobs anymore, then you can get better fights against attacking roaming groups. You can also attack yourself now. It is net positive for you that you dont have to wait for Enemy stacked blob to be online to experience competitive environment. You can for example attack an objective and every roaming group cant faceroll over you anymore. And enemy roaming groups will be more willing to attack.

You just have to wait for yourself and opponents to get adjusted to new balance where disorganised small groups have to at least Express some teamwork to deal with larger organised groups and you can attack way more objectives yourself and get better fights.

 

It isnt that you have nothing to fight or defend against on maps. You are just too stubborn to organise to fight the big group in front or go find reasonable opposition. You arent entitled to stop bigger, stronger and more organised players.

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers less

Edited April 19 by Riba.3271

[Random dude.5089]

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

If you cant defend against blobs anymore, then you can get better fights against attacking roaming groups. You can also attack yourself now. It is net positive for you that you dont have to wait for Enemy stacked blob to be online to experience competitive environment. You can for example attack an objective and every roaming group cant faceroll over you anymore. And enemy roaming groups will be more willing to attack.

You just have to wait for yourself and opponents to get adjusted to new balance where disorganised small groups have to at least Express some teamwork to deal with larger organised groups and you can attack way more objectives yourself and get better fights.

 

It isnt that you have nothing to fight or defend against on maps. You are just too stubborn to organise to fight the big group in front or go find reasonable opposition. You arent entitled to stop bigger, stronger and more organised players.

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers less

i think u misunderstood the information i tried to put , and im gonna highlight one sentence i used "your forcing people to play with organized groups" , remember that being free to do whatever u want have an important place for a lot of players , also wvw is not competitive , i mean what do you gain from wining ? , sure i can defend a keep and spend 2 hours defending and lose the keep at some point , i will still be satisfied of what i had on that run , cause i played the way i wanted. remember that  one of the reason gw2 is fun to play  , its the massive class builds oportunities and open world freedom and instanced content   , and thats how an mmo is supposed to be , specialy in terme of open world pvp since its our main subject rn  ,do you think people enjoy sitting on arrow carts on a zerg run doing 0 dmg almost ? thats now how siege is supposed to work , a lot of stuff need some tuning including this mess they making , believe it or not , zergs are not  the the only people that play wvw and keep it alive , i spend hours in wvw scouting while everyone was on ebg and called every contest and kept home borderland t3 , what do you call this ? not being efficent or competitive ?  , as a roamer im more efficient being solo caping camps getting stuff to t3 or delaying t3s and supply on blob fights for my team and also  defending against small blobs , and now clearly i cant be efficent at stalling time for my team by closing walls and delaying a bit when someone from the enemy blob dies , he just gonna rush right in.

[ZTeamG.4603]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:22 PM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

If you aren't HD2 on the side, you should be. Its great for team building in any case even though its not the same niche. But its does feel the same when are trying to use 4 to defend against 50. May need to start a WvW suggestion post for a Hellbomb. Zerg runs in, you set off your 4 Hellbombs killing yourselves and the 50 of enemy zerg. This sounds like a win for liberty the more I think about.

Can't second HD2 enough. It's the only game in a while that's been able to keep me pulled away from GW2 (and I'm already up to 100 hrs in it). Very different type of game and not what I'd consider an MMO, of course, but it really scratches the "work together and use your bag of tricks to survive against the horde when the odds are stacked against you" itch.

One of their newest updates added in a proper base defense mission, and it's more satisfying than the current, neutered WvW defense gameplay after the last several rounds of defense nerfs.

[Ronin.4501]

23 hours ago, Izzy.2951 said:

GW3

You mean a GW3 brought to you by the same developers who are currently ruining WvW in GW2??  Would you go buy another car from the same guy who previously sold you a car that broke down as you drove it off the lot?

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Random dude.5089 said:

as a roamer im more efficient being solo caping camps getting stuff to t3 or delaying t3s and supply on blob fights for my team and also  defending against small blobs ,

I like this talk about efficiency.  Solo capping a camp is a quite efficient if you're only needing to flip it for points or deny enemy the supply and don't care about the supplies yourself (i.e. most efficient would be 6 players with zero supply capping a camp - previously 4 players).

Which is the most efficient number and type of players to defend in specific scenarios?  If your defending boonball is trying to get on home bl and they are asking people to leave so they can get their entire squad through the queue so they can go counter the opponent's map queue attacking the T3 garrison, do you?  How many roamers should stay on the map so they can cap back nearby camps and harass run-backs while the main defense is going on?

Two tags of roughly 20 players each on home bl.  Map is queued - other slots filled with roamers and players getting dailies.  Which is more efficient?  Joining together to defend against Indo attacking garrison or one tag decides they don't want to fight and instead backcap while the other ints into his boonball?

My questions arise from taking a view of the game more like an RTS where you must make decisions about how many of the different types of units you want to build given your resources.  Like, most efficient number of peons in AoEII on a gold or iron mine is something like 5 iirc.

Edited April 19 by Chaba.5410

[apoko.5246]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

WvW was fixed, not murdered. Try tagging up and organising if your unorganised commanderless cloud cant defend.

What a thoughtless thing to say, I agree that it has made rolling over towers really easay now, and 80% of the time you will find its 5-10 trying to defend against a map blob.

[apoko.5246]

6 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

If you cant defend against blobs anymore, then you can get better fights against attacking roaming groups. You can also attack yourself now. It is net positive for you that you dont have to wait for Enemy stacked blob to be online to experience competitive environment. You can for example attack an objective and every roaming group cant faceroll over you anymore. And enemy roaming groups will be more willing to attack.

You just have to wait for yourself and opponents to get adjusted to new balance where disorganised small groups have to at least Express some teamwork to deal with larger organised groups and you can attack way more objectives yourself and get better fights.

 

It isnt that you have nothing to fight or defend against on maps. You are just too stubborn to organise to fight the big group in front or go find reasonable opposition. You arent entitled to stop bigger, stronger and more organised players.

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers less

WOW, I will remember to tell the small number that are on the map to get organised and defend again opposition that are 3 to 4 time the size of you then when they fail I will tell them they are bad. Another stupid comment. Not all maps have large grps and with ANET inability to make sure that WVW is fair with decent numbers and size of population this is not going to happen. Now they have made is so much harder for the underdog to hold or rebuild.

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I like this talk about efficiency.  Solo capping a camp is a quite efficient if you're only needing to flip it for points or deny enemy the supply and don't care about the supplies yourself (i.e. most efficient would be 6 players with zero supply capping a camp - previously 4 players).

Where tourneys worked was efficiency. Where sides failed was not realizing this. To me, we need all three scales. 

If you take a map without defenders, camps take 1. Most towers take 1, keeps need 1-2.

Efficiency is about how many and where and when. Split and takes. Its a tourney idea that may have been forgotten or not seen by some since when I brought it up I had players ask what was that.

When talking defense this varies. You want 4 roamers, 1 for each camp north and south of objective to try and get or retake, 2 for ruins if they need to be flipped and the four if not on those actions to be interdicting returning attackers slowing them. I would say you would also want a Havoc of 5 taking anything else the attacking side might have taken to delay/distract and create "shinny" targets that the attacking players might stop and retake versus just return to the bigger fight.

6 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Which is the most efficient number and type of players to defend in specific scenarios?  If your defending boonball is trying to get on home bl and they are asking people to leave so they can get their entire squad through the queue so they can go counter the opponent's map queue attacking the T3 garrison, do you? 

Subjective, how do you know the incoming players can do better? Been there, seen that, when players left map and then the incoming players were crushed while the out going players were holding. So this is a gamble at best. If the incoming group can only hold with their full group and not subsets of them, they might be winning via just numbers and it may not be a good call to vacate for a group that says leave we need more of our own. Saw that a lot in the past.

6 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

How many roamers should stay on the map so they can cap back nearby camps and harass run-backs while the main defense is going on?

Roamers should be ready to solo camps, towers and weaken keeps if not take them. Havocs should hit enemy keeps if the roamer fails. If all a roamer can do is take a camp, they need to rethink their role or build.

6 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Two tags of roughly 20 players each on home bl.  Map is queued - other slots filled with roamers and players getting dailies.  Which is more efficient?  Joining together to defend against Indo attacking garrison or one tag decides they don't want to fight and instead backcap while the other ints into his boonball?

Most efficient, squad is built of groups that can form up to fight and split up as needed. But I am old school when main groups and havocs and roamers practiced together to do so. Trying to get peeps back in that mindset in case we get tourneys back....we all need lots and lots of practice. 

6 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

My questions arise from taking a view of the game more like an RTS where you must make decisions about how many of the different types of units you want to build given your resources.  Like, most efficient number of peons in AoEII on a gold or iron mine is something like 5 iirc.

lol. Its a matter of getting players to practice. For a comm voice is easiest, but how many do they leave out? So its a balance. How many do you lead and leave out versus do both. Or get used to assuming type and do vocal. Comms need to be ADHD and micro task at the same time if they want to hit both up unless they can map queue with a full group, which is a different take. Full map queue tags often single focus and lose elsewhere which is why I say we need all three.

In the end efficiency is using the least to do the most, and doing as many things at the same time as you can at the same moment.   

Mileage varies to others view on it.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You can for example attack an objective and every roaming group cant faceroll over you anymore.

You were being face rolled by roamers and Havocs? What numbers were defeating your Squads?

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

And enemy roaming groups will be more willing to attack.

This was already happening. I don't understand what you were facing. You didn't have Havocs attacking you?

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You just have to wait for yourself and opponents to get adjusted

Smaller organized groups were already attacking larger groups, was this not happening on your server?

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

to new balance where disorganised small groups have to at least Express some teamwork

Ah so you were losing to clouds versus adapting to them. If you were NA I would say to Mag, +1 on that score. Mag I think you killed too many Anet Devs here, so I blame you peeps though I look forward to the next fights. 

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

to deal with larger organised groups and you can attack way more objectives yourself and get better fights.

Um, if your groups weren't balancing their attacks, that's on them. Use the right level of group for the right objective. Zerg less, spread more, hit multiple targets and its not an issue.

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

It isnt that you have nothing to fight or defend against on maps. You are just too stubborn to organise to fight the big group in front or go find reasonable opposition. You arent entitled to stop bigger, stronger and more organised players.

Lol, zerg more, check. So again to counter this play. If they bring their map zerg and you don't have the boons to counter, let them ktrain, take everything else and allow your roamers to snipe their tailfeathers. Anet, when do we get reasons to win?

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers less

 

So you are all for 50 v 5. Check. Zerg less maybe? Stop attacking empty structures and use more to do less. Take the time to engage and use tactics to take. Stop looking for a 5 minute fight. Use tactics and wear things done, play smarter and pre-siege, pre-take camps, wear down a defense. Take the time it takes to defeat an objective versus complain it took time to take it. 

If I need to take 2 hours to wear down a structure to allow my side better odds to take it. As a Roamer or in a Havoc, it was time well spent. Use more resources and zerg less. 

[Zok.4956]

A distant friend (as a participant you shouldn't write about the closed beta) tried out the beta of Throne and Liberty (formerly called Lineage Eternal) a few days ago. While the mass battles surrounding sieges and world bosses are some of the most fun content in the game, the chaotic zergy nature of these brawls can get boring after a while and is at an even lower level than in GW2.

[Chaba.5410]

Pretty much every PvP game has it's own version of zerging.

[Zok.4956]

9 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

You mean a GW3 brought to you by the same developers who are currently ruining WvW in GW2??  Would you go buy another car from the same guy who previously sold you a car that broke down as you drove it off the lot?

It depends, I guess. If the car has a color that you really like and that no one else can do, you might want the next car with that color, even if it isn't great in many other ways.

I still remember how many GW1 players hated GW2 because it was completely different. One can assume that GW3 is very different from GW2. Maybe it won't be an MMO at all.

[Mabi black.1824]

11 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I like this talk about efficiency.  Solo capping a camp is a quite efficient if you're only needing to flip it for points or deny enemy the supply and don't care about the supplies yourself (i.e. most efficient would be 6 players with zero supply capping a camp - previously 4 players).

Which is the most efficient number and type of players to defend in specific scenarios?  If your defending boonball is trying to get on home bl and they are asking people to leave so they can get their entire squad through the queue so they can go counter the opponent's map queue attacking the T3 garrison, do you?  How many roamers should stay on the map so they can cap back nearby camps and harass run-backs while the main defense is going on?

Two tags of roughly 20 players each on home bl.  Map is queued - other slots filled with roamers and players getting dailies.  Which is more efficient?  Joining together to defend against Indo attacking garrison or one tag decides they don't want to fight and instead backcap while the other ints into his boonball?

My questions arise from taking a view of the game more like an RTS where you must make decisions about how many of the different types of units you want to build given your resources.  Like, most efficient number of peons in AoEII on a gold or iron mine is something like 5 iirc.

It's called mindfulness. You just need to have the awareness of how WVW is made. When I put the tag and we are 10 in the team that tries an almost impossible defense vs 35+ I have no pretensions from the other players, I don't have the presumption that they stop doing what they enjoy to play the way I want. So in that case losing your structure is never a problem, you've tried, you've killed a certain number of enemies or not I don't know. You are aware that WVW is also a numbers game. Matches are weekly and two matched servers are something like 2000 players. If that time isn't one of the best, in 2 hours you might get a completely reversed scenario. So as I often write to my teammates. Relax and take in the fun where and how you can.

[Riba.3271]

7 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You can for example attack an objective and every roaming group cant faceroll over you anymore.

You were being face rolled by roamers and Havocs? What numbers were defeating your Squads?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

And enemy roaming groups will be more willing to attack.

This was already happening. I don't understand what you were facing. You didn't have Havocs attacking you?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You just have to wait for yourself and opponents to get adjusted

Smaller organized groups were already attacking larger groups, was this not happening on your server?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

to new balance where disorganised small groups have to at least Express some teamwork

Ah so you were losing to clouds versus adapting to them. If you were NA I would say to Mag, +1 on that score. Mag I think you killed too many Anet Devs here, so I blame you peeps though I look forward to the next fights. 

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

to deal with larger organised groups and you can attack way more objectives yourself and get better fights.

Um, if your groups weren't balancing their attacks, that's on them. Use the right level of group for the right objective. Zerg less, spread more, hit multiple targets and its not an issue.

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

It isnt that you have nothing to fight or defend against on maps. You are just too stubborn to organise to fight the big group in front or go find reasonable opposition. You arent entitled to stop bigger, stronger and more organised players.

Lol, zerg more, check. So again to counter this play. If they bring their map zerg and you don't have the boons to counter, let them ktrain, take everything else and allow your roamers to snipe their tailfeathers. Anet, when do we get reasons to win?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers less

 

So you are all for 50 v 5. Check. Zerg less maybe? Stop attacking empty structures and use more to do less. Take the time to engage and use tactics to take. Stop looking for a 5 minute fight. Use tactics and wear things done, play smarter and pre-siege, pre-take camps, wear down a defense. Take the time it takes to defeat an objective versus complain it took time to take it. 

If I need to take 2 hours to wear down a structure to allow my side better odds to take it. As a Roamer or in a Havoc, it was time well spent. Use more resources and zerg less.

I was replying to a roamer. The fact that you assume I only do zerg fights is disrespectful considering I have been in highest rated sPvP lobbies every time I play sPvP. I am also a scout and roam a lot.

You are very rude when painting me to be zerg only player. All I wanted was good 1vs1s and 50vs50s.

I would stay away making baseless assumptions as living within falsehood will prevent you from becoming good player. I have made various suggestions for defense, solo scouting and roaming buffs in the past (evident from my comment history) so you arent exactly on right track. 

 

I cant really respect anyone who lies about others so blatantly, so all you did was lose all credibility

Edited April 20 by Riba.3271

[Cuks.8241]

Planetside 2 has a very similar but much more evolved concept to wvw. But it's a mmofps and it's only about pvp/wvw. There is no economy but there is some character progression.

[Gendalfs.7521]

29 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

Planetside 2 has a very similar but much more evolved concept to wvw. But it's a mmofps and it's only about pvp/wvw. There is no economy but there is some character progression.

Sadly Planetside 2 is in a very questionable state right now. I hope for the best of that game now with a new developers. Interestingly Mr Wrel reminds me of current GW2 dev team that makes weird balance changes no one asks for and later will make pikachu face lol

[Wolfofdivinity.6251]

Warthunder is the only true option. The snail is love. The snail is life. 

 

Probably the only game with devs worse than this wvw crew. I stay for the gov leaks. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

16 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

I was replying to a roamer. The fact that you assume I only do zerg fights is disrespectful considering I have been in highest rated sPvP lobbies every time I play sPvP. I am also a scout and roam a lot.

You are very rude when painting me to be zerg only player. All I wanted was good 1vs1s and 50vs50s.

I would stay away making baseless assumptions as living within falsehood will prevent you from becoming good player. I have made various suggestions for defense, solo scouting and roaming buffs in the past (evident from my comment history) so you arent exactly on right track. 

 

I cant really respect anyone who lies about others so blatantly, so all you did was lose all credibility

I tried common ground, I tried middle group. I tried polite, I tried friendly. No now we can again to agree to disagree and try and find less common ground. Zerg less maybe?

Edit: Side note, I Roam, Havoc, zerg surf, and Pugmand as a point of order.

Edited April 21 by TheGrimm.5624
Edit: PoV

[prototypedragon.1406]

I bet Commander siegerazor is Finally happy they may soon get to cash in on their retirement. Back when they were in their prime they were a force to be reckon with many years ago.

[Vasdamas Anklast.1607]

On 4/20/2024 at 1:03 AM, Riba.3271 said:

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers les

Said by the guy who blamed guild auras for killing dueling scene.

Feels like I am reading posts from old twitter or some very delusional subreddit.

 

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, Vasdamas Anklast.1607 said:

Said by the guy who blamed guild auras for killing dueling scene.

Anyone who doesnt understand importance of 800 stat swings (~30%) damage in 1vs1 is either terrible at gameplay or math.

Dueling scene flourishes when better player wins most duels, server you are in does not matter (SM/SC ownership) and you can duel same person 2 different days regardless of map state

Edited April 21 by Riba.3271

[godofcows.2451]

Just go helldivers bro. The company there actually loves their game. 

[One more for the road.8950]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Anyone who doesnt understand importance of 800 stat swings (~30%) damage in 1vs1 is either terrible at gameplay or math.

Dueling scene flourishes when better player wins most duels, server you are in does not matter (SM/SC ownership) and you can duel same person 2 different days regardless of map state

Sounds like you don't know how to swap builds or cater your builds and gear to your enemies. Anyone dueling has plenty of places to do so, without standing next to a keep. In fact, most people dueling aren't. If you're good, guild auras doesn't mean anything, and they didn't before either.

Edited April 21 by One more for the road.8950

[Riba.3271]

18 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

If you're good, guild auras doesn't mean anything, and they didn't before either.

If you fight against noobs*. It is pretty normal in high level duel for winning player to go below 20% health at some point.  

Edited April 21 by Riba.3271