50 replies to this topic

[El Duderino]

beadnbutter32, on 16 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Says you.

There are many of us who obtain a great deal of fun out of competition that includes skill at creative weapon and gear combinations.

This is a MMORPG, not a MOBA.

How you differentiate your character is a key fun element of the MMORPG scene.

I don't see Arenanet letting the PVP tail wag the PVE RPG dog, ever.

What are you talking about?

Do you not have creative weapon and gear combinations now?

Also, what the ARENA in ArenaNet stand for?

When did I say differentiating your character is NOT a key fun element?

ArenaNet let PvP skill balance affect PvE for years in GW1.

I just don't get your post. I don't think you understood mine.

Are you saying that you don't have a lot of choices with builds now? Because, I was asserting that just because we don't have a lot of choices (which we don't compares to GW1), it doesn't matter. What matters is having balance enough to make skill more important than build.

Do you disagree that the more skilled team, when executing at their best level, should win in a battle? Because, if you think skill shouldn't be the overriding factor in who wins in PvP, then you are basically saying it is OK to zerg and that broken, imbalanced builds should be allowed in PvP. I don't see how anyone could agree with that.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote and what I was responding to, because you basically sound like another person from GW1 who got upset that ANet nerfed their solo farm build when they balanced the PvP scene.

Edited by El Duderino, 17 February 2013 - 01:30 AM.

[Korra]

MrZero, on 16 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

At risk of being a complete smart ass. Yes. He actually posted a screen shot.

Seriously though, what the hell is this thread supposed to be about?

This is about how Gw2 completly lacks decent open world pvp that doesn't encourage zerging , something in the lines of FA/JQ/AB.

[MrZero]

Korra, on 17 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

This is about how Gw2 completly lacks decent open world pvp that doesn't encourage zerging , something in the lines of FA/JQ/AB.

Gotcha. I understand where you are coming from. I think it has less to do with the game itself and more to do with the players. Personally I never saw a server gather nearly the entire server in one spot until we face HoD the first time SBI went into tier one. Even then you could still take 5-8 people and take a supply camp. Now, it's just nearly impossible. "If you can' beat them, just bring more people" seems to be EVERYONE's new go to strat.

I have no idea what people think is going to stop this. People should be glad it isn't an open world pvp game. Can you imagine if you were on HoD just after release and TA just decided your guild was not going to be allowed access to Cursed Shore? No amount of "tactics" or "skills" would get you access to those numbers.

[Lordkrall]

Korra, on 17 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

This is about how Gw2 completly lacks decent open world pvp that doesn't encourage zerging , something in the lines of FA/JQ/AB.

I would love to see your server win against an equally active server by only zerging

[Korra]

Lordkrall, on 17 February 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

I would love to see your server win against an equally active server by only zerging

Your lack of reading comprehension is scary. I never ever said only zerging will win a battle but WvW itself encourages zerging.

[Lordkrall]

Korra, on 17 February 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Your lack of reading comprehension is scary. I never ever said only zerging will win a battle but WvW itself encourages zerging.

And yet it doesn't. If it did you would be able to win by simply zerging. That is not the case, a server that only zergs will not win, so I don't really see how the game "encourages" zerging.

[Korra]

MrZero, on 17 February 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

Gotcha. I understand where you are coming from. I think it has less to do with the game itself and more to do with the players. Personally I never saw a server gather nearly the entire server in one spot until we face HoD the first time SBI went into tier one. Even then you could still take 5-8 people and take a supply camp. Now, it's just nearly impossible. "If you can' beat them, just bring more people" seems to be EVERYONE's new go to strat.

I have no idea what people think is going to stop this. People should be glad it isn't an open world pvp game. Can you imagine if you were on HoD just after release and TA just decided your guild was not going to be allowed access to Cursed Shore? No amount of "tactics" or "skills" would get you access to those numbers.

It's pretty clear normal open world pvp would never work, gamplay wise and lore wise but there can be special stances or maps where open world pvp can be viable.

I dunno if you ever played aion but it's open world pvp system is one of the best i've seen. Let me explain it fast:

Everytime you kill a player(faction vs faction) you get points (some mobs give mobs too)
The more points you have the higher your rank is, and the higher is the rank of the enemy you kill the mroe points are awarded.

This encorauges roaming alone as zerging will not by any meas give as much points as solo roaming.

You can exchange points for skins and gear, in gw2 it could be applied with related skins.

Imo that would be pretty rad and fun to do.

Lordkrall, on 17 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

And yet it doesn't. If it did you would be able to win by simply zerging. That is not the case, a server that only zergs will not win, so I don't really see how the game "encourages" zerging.

Because a 5 man team doesn't have enough supplies to build 3-4 rams required to destroy a fortified gate, not to talk about trebs. Please stop you lame excuses, it's widely known that most of the times in WvW numbers is all that matter.

[Lordkrall]

Korra, on 17 February 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Because a 5 man team doesn't have enough supplies to build 3-4 rams required to destroy a fortified gate, not to talk about trebs. Please stop you lame excuses, it's widely known that most of the times in WvW numbers is all that matter.

It is also widely known that it is very possible to run back and forth between a supply camp and a tower and getting new supplies in order to fix said siege.

[Korra]

Lordkrall, on 17 February 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

It is also widely known that it is very possible to run back and forth between a supply camp and a tower and getting new supplies in order to fix said siege.

Stop it, you are embarasing yourself. Even if you don't wanna admit it in WvW numbers matter over tactics.

[Lordkrall]

Korra, on 17 February 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Stop it, you are embarasing yourself. Even if you don't wanna admit it in WvW numbers matter over tactics.

And yet I have seen several matches where a rather heavily outnumbered server have won. How would you explain that?

There is a reason why a small group can easily destroy a zerg if they are good enough.

[kidawk]

Perm Shadow Form, on 09 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Heroes' Ascent was real competitive PvP, this is just a cluster*.
I'm afraid they cant really fix this anymore.

Even if they would to remake HA in GW2 it would get boring after first few months because of the lack of skill variety and all builds being the same.
It'd be like playing SWAY mirror matches 24/7,

Pretty much.

I just read more recent blog posts for Camelot Unchained and a look at what TESO is doing with PvP...

It's a bit ironic how Mark Jacobs in his posts talks about not carebearing a MMO for a mass audience but then goes on a doobie adventure and basically derails what most people would expect out of a 'DAoC 2' followup. I know it isn't meant to be one but come on, lets be honest.

Whereas ANet limits (carebear) AoE to 5, looking to nerf 'certain' AoEs (do we know which yet?) but is now willing to explore WvWvW progression system with abilities and ranks (a big part of the expectation for Camelot Unchained)...

At this point, GW 2 is roughly the only hope (based on what I have seen) for any sort of decent (DAoC style) PvP.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 17 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

And yet I have seen several matches where a rather heavily outnumbered server have won. How would you explain that?

There is a reason why a small group can easily destroy a zerg if they are good enough.

Special circumstances don't make something the norm.

I can't think of a good analogy at the moment except the 1980 winter olympics for some reason.

Just because America beat the Russians in hockey doesn't mean the Russians weren't the best team.

And, just because there are some really good players that can beat a zerg in WvW, doesn't mean that for the majority of players, zerging is the easiest and best option. Which is why WvW encourages zerging, because most players aren't good enough to win without it.

The Persians still won the Battle of Thermopylae.

Edited by El Duderino, 18 February 2013 - 06:37 PM.

[lioka qiao]

The Persians won at Thermopylae because they figured out the back path and the guys on the back path were incompetent  (much like that exploit hill at the Vale camp in borderlands, the one where you can jump around the wall that clearly wasn't intended to be that way).  Otherwise they would continue to wipe zergs at the chokepoint until either side ran out of supplies (chances are the Spartans would have lost anyway simply due to the Persians having more supply to burn through).

While zerging is annoying it is also very similar to what real world armies of the time frame this game has would do and most battles would indeed go to the guys with the bigger army.  There are ways that you can use tactical movement to fight zergs up to double your army's size, like using terrain, ambushing (aka portal bomb), simply moving to attack their flank, etc.  The reality is that there will be times when the enemy numbers are simply overwhelming.

Luckily the bulk of zergs are actually rather disorganized and if your zerg is more organized (even just by your commander tag and saying "attack their flank") you will wipe them out or route them.

[DoogerRLH]

The issue is garbage game mechanics and defects: culling, downed state, stacking, water + any of the previous, allowing free xfers for months and thinking showing names/kill counts should be hidden and a pve keep flipping "score" should be.

Sadly despite having high hopes for rvr here, you could tell right away due to super small details like tab targeting selecting pets first and trying to build guild groups and right clicking from guild menu allows reporting members but not inviting them...

They are trying to make rvr a week long battleground, assign a "winner" and then not allow normal instanced pvp with groups of your real toons.

It could be fixed, but I don't think they will as they don't understand what makes rvr fun at all (hint: its not about a pve score total and flipping keeps).

We will be tab targeting to pets, pveing keeps at off hours,  and seeing armies spring back to life because a duck died somewhere in the zone in a year.

[Impmon]

Korra, on 17 February 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

It's pretty clear normal open world pvp would never work, gamplay wise and lore wise but there can be special stances or maps where open world pvp can be viable.

I dunno if you ever played aion but it's open world pvp system is one of the best i've seen. Let me explain it fast:

Plenty games had a similar system, Everquest for example had pvp servers with different rule sets, factional, free for all etc.  I played on Sullon Zek which had no rules free for all factional.

Everytime you kill a player(faction vs faction) you get points (some mobs give mobs too)
The more points you have the higher your rank is, and the higher is the rank of the enemy you kill the mroe points are awarded.

This encorauges roaming alone as zerging will not by any meas give as much points as solo roaming.

You can exchange points for skins and gear, in gw2 it could be applied with related skins.

Imo that would be pretty rad and fun to do.

/agree

Because a 5 man team doesn't have enough supplies to build 3-4 rams required to destroy a fortified gate, not to talk about trebs. Please stop you lame excuses, it's widely known that most of the times in WvW numbers is all that matter.

I've seen less then 5 ninja hills keep with superior rams

[Korra]

Impmon, on 18 February 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

I've seen less then 5 ninja hills keep with superior rams

I've ninjad superior bay with 3 people but that doesn't mean i can do it whenever i want because the situations for a sneak atack require a specific scenario.

[DoogerRLH]

Korra, on 19 February 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I've ninjad superior bay with 3 people but that doesn't mean i can do it whenever i want because the situations for a sneak atack require a specific scenario.

Yes its called pve

Seriously though in this no name game, its just another keep take in an endless sea of generic red blue green flipping.

World pvp is about setting up great battles for 2-3 groups, vs good opponents, or rolling big zergs with you roaming premades.  This critical requirement is totally lost on these devs.

I swing my sword, I swing my sword again, die generic green bad guy!

[Korra]

DoogerRLH, on 19 February 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Yes its called pve

Seriously though in this no name game, its just another keep take in an endless sea of generic red blue green flipping.

World pvp is about setting up great battles for 2-3 groups, vs good opponents, or rolling big zergs with you roaming premades.  This critical requirement is totally lost on these devs.

I swing my sword, I swing my sword again, die generic green bad guy!

So true.

[TW_LetoII]

How is there only one correct build? One correct way to play?
If a tiny group of elites could achieve godlike status, wvw would quickly empty, welcome to capatalism 101. I would counter that Anet has above anything else and better than any previous gaming company achieved balance. If you're in superguild, massive joe average zerg CAN be beaten. Not easily, and the zerg has a better shot than you.. This is good for business if not for the tiny hardcore groups. Bear in mind I speak as a member of the hardcores, and one who is aware that the bulk of a gaming companies moneydoes not come from us. If someone were to attempt to make an mmo designed around us, investors would laugh them out of the boardroom. It is far more realistic to be thankful our interests are tended in these games at all, seeing as the general carebear views us as a nuisance.

Giving props to Aion pvp.. good god man. You were a ranger then, yes?

[Shroomhead Fred]

I generally agree with the tone of the thread.  Zergs can be fun, but mainly I find them lackluster and boring and prefer to do my own thing.

I would love if ANet could somehow make smaller group play more viable and actually have a significant impact.  Some of the best battles I've had were small 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, etc.  Right now, groups of this size are usually only good for flipping camps or hassling/delaying zergs.  On the rare occasion yes they can take a tower or keep if it's undefended.

Zergs definitely have a place in WvW, but I feel small squads could play a more vital role as well, along with roamers/scouts.  I don't know how ANet could achieve this, but it's something that's always bugged me.  I'm really hoping the WvW update next month isn't more fluff, but actually starts to address some core issues.

[CalmLittleBuddy]

Bloodtau, on 16 February 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

It's got to a point as well where people and servers think they are good because they win by sheer numbers.
You're in the higher tiers? Good for you, you aren't good, everyone just flocked to your servers before free transfers closed.

Most folks in higher Tiers are there because they want more people to fight. They don't think anything is 'better' or that they are 'better'. MORE players guarantees I can find a fight any time I want. That's all.