59 replies to this topic

[Major_Disaster]

ITT: A lot of people who have not got a clue how to play WvW.

Your thread title is needlessly inflammatory, but then this is Guru, that's what you have to do here to get noticed I guess.

1. Commander is an absolute mess

Yeah, being able to buy commander for a cheap price, only having 1 icon colour, the clumsy way in which "Squads" are formed and the extremely limited power that a commander has over his "Squad" is pretty lame. I agree with you on this.

However they've already said they're unhappy with how Commander works. It was their first stab at it, and it gives a reasonable base to build on. They are actively working on improving Commander, and I do believe it will become what we hoped it would.

Right now, it does offer a quick and easy way to form a Zerg out of PuGs, but not much more than that

2. The roles/rewards/recognition of Guilds in a game called 'Guild Wars' is lacking

Somewhat correct, there is a bit of a messy join-up between guilds and WvW. We can currently claim keeps, towers and Stonemist, put our flag on the wall and use some of our influence to give +15 supply and such things, but yeah, outside of that it's fairly weak.

However, to cite this as a reason that WvW will "never become what we hoped" is a bit of a stretch. They've already acknowledged that Guild mechanics are lacking across the whole game, not just WvW. They're (eventually) giving us GvG, Guild missions, and revamping the part that Guilds have to play in WvW as well. This is most certainly being addressed already.

Look at the Guild features in WoW 6 months after launch, they were lacking too. We've got a very long time to get these features how we want them.

3. WvW has devolved into ZvZ (ZergvZerg)

Totally disagree on this one. Maybe in your server it has, I don't know what tier you're on. I do know that the quality of play on the US servers is much, much lower than the EU servers, which is where I play. Check out the posts on the official Red Guard forum (a big WvW guild that has played on both T1 EU and T1 US) to see what they think of the tactics on the US servers.

We're not even as high as T3 yet, but on our server, we have 5 main WvW focussed guilds, and each guild runs a main attacking force (Zerg, if you must), and one or two small scouting / raiding / supply denial parties. During our prime-times, the tactics we employ involve link-up play between the commanders of each guild, and the sub-commanders of each raiding party.

None of our commanders actually wear their commander tag unless we're mounting a big attack on a big keep, and want the pugs to help... It's actually pretty damn far from a simple Zerg vs Zerg, even in the current, gimped state of the game with the culling the way it is.

Ultimately, the game is what players make of it, and I've seen times when our server has devolved into one big zerg vs. another big zerg on the enemy side, and a war of attrition ensues. Normally this is in the middle of the day on a Saturday when the kiddies are on. Those are no fun, but there's plenty of skilled play to be found out there.

30 people do things faster than 5 people. Well duh, no shit. That's hardly noteworthy. However, if you have 30 people in one place capping one objective, they're not working as effectively as if they were 2 groups of 15 capping 2 objectives. Start thinking outside the Zerg yourself and you'll start to see where the real tactics are coming in. If you're on a US server, consider transferring to EU.

4. The lack of Rewards/Progression/Depth/Consequence

Again, you're right that this is lacking, but wrong in that it will "never become what we hoped it would". They've talked at length about all the different things they're bringing in to give rewards, progression and a sense of consequence for winning or losing to WvW.

Yes, it's already been 6 months and the only changes we've seen have been negative reactions to unforseen issues. But on the other hand, it's only been 6 months. These things take time to design and put into place and they are actively seeking input from the big WvW guilds on how to improve it. Ultimately, what you're asking for is already being done. Just be patient.

5. The devs, their implementation of and lack of commitment to Wvw

Well lets be realistic here, you bought Guild Wars 2, not World versus World 2. They do have a 4 million+ selling game, and one which is marketed strongly at PvE carebears, to look after at the same time.

You can sort of understand them looking at the number of people who play WvW (less than 100k), vs the number of people that grind gear in PvE (3.9 million) and making the decision to spend all their time working on a shitty Mini-dungeon in an airship, rather than improving core gameplay of WvW.

If you're a WvW fan like me, that sucks, it sticks in your throat and makes you resent the carebear loot grinders.

However, look at it this way: If the game did not have the open-world PvE stuff, if there was no huge ecosystem of carebears propping up the economy, buying gems for stupid Quaggan backpacks and so on, the game would make no money.

Speaking personally, I got interested in GW2 because it was an MMO with a cool WvW mode attached, not because it was a WvW game with a shitty MMO attached. I doubt I'd be interested in a game focussed mainly on WvW, even though that's what I enjoy playing the most. Planetside 2 for example I find *ing boring. I don't know how to explain it really, it feels more like a "world" with a big PvE mode attached, and it's good that so many people are into it, even though I cannot stand it, or them.

If a company put out a game which had no other game mode except WvW, and focussed all their time on it, it would not be as good. There would be no multi-million budget for such a game, the quality of the art and the design of the skills would be poor, and the game would suck.

Sure, their main focus is PvE, the Trading Post economy, shitty PvE events like Xmas and Halloween, and how much money they can squeeze out of people for gems. WvW does tend to get sidelined against all of that.

However, at the same time as looking after that big beast (the beast that allows us to have a WvW in the first place), they do spend time looking at WvW. I think that the passion for delivering a great WvW experience goes all the way to Mike O'Brien, and they will not let down the people that bought the game on the promise of a great WvW game mode, it just takes time to deliver one in parallel with an addictive PvE game mode that earns money.

Ultimately, the massive success of the loot grinding PvE game allows WvW to exist in the first place, so while we might hate it, we have to respect the devs when they need to spend time improving it, keeping the gem sales moving and earning money to make sure the the servers stay up.

Yes it's true that Culling sucks, the game would be much, much better without it. I do believe that they will fix it though, sooner rather than later.

Edited by Major_Disaster, 13 February 2013 - 01:56 PM.

[Eclipses]

Impmon, on 13 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Most of you people complaining now were foaming at the mouth about how awesome WVW was early on and rabidly attacked any sane people who were critical of WVW back then.  Now you complain...

This is probably why Anet said they won't work on WVW very much because so many people were babbling about its supposed quality.  You reap what you sow.

Your post adds nothing to this conversation.

Cirus, on 13 February 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

I don't really understand this.

A zerg can only be in 1 place at 1 time, smaller groups can be everywhere at once.

A smaller group can hold a zerg at bay for a long period of time inside the walls.

A zerg without organization is asking to be slaughtered by an organized group of 1/3 their number.

An organized zerg is unstoppable in open field, but then they're not really a zerg anymore, they're an army. An army is unstoppable unless they are faced with attacking walls or facing another army.

Having an army of players in a World vs World is how it should be, we want epic scale battles! What's denying this though is that WvW has been dying since it's been launched,  I agree that changes need to be made to entice players back, zerging as you put it definitely isn't one of them. The game is what you make it, and how you approach a challenge is up to you.

Smaller groups can be at more locations but their effectiveness is muted and pales in comparison to a zerg. You have to consider time into your equations which you're obviously not doing. So a small group takes a supply camp or even a tower. A supply camp that has has the supervisor invul on it will make it impossible for a small group to take it before they're overrun by a zerg, or even if they do take it, they just wasted 8 minutes burning down that NPC when it would have taken a zerg 2.The time you spent taking this one supply camp is more than sufficient time for a zerg to take a tower and still flip that supply camp back before the point calc. Eventually you get further and further behind.

So the small group takes a tower, so what? A responsive zerg will over run any meager defenses they've been able to put up in the short span of time they've controlled it - and reclaim it.

Yes a smaller group can hold a zerg at bay - if they've had the requisite time to build the necessary defenses.

You guys are totally mistaking me - I'm not saying zergs are bad, bad zerg, bad. No. Zergs are a tool, the same as any tool. However, it shouldn't be the only tool - and in GW2 zergs are totally more effective at everything else that a small party is capable of. They move just as fast as a small party, due to culling they are just as stealthy, they take locations far more efficiently than small parties and have the advantage in open fights.

Jackiepro, on 13 February 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Zerging isnt that much of a problem. The rest I agree with.

Also this game will totally break if they remove the aoe cap, I am going to be honest here and say I feel if you think there should be no aoe cap on damage then you simply dont know much about game balance. Unless you want damage to be split amongst all the players it targets in which case I am not sure if that would solve anything in particular.

If the AoE cap were to be removed, my engineer could solo an entire portal bomb with absolutely no problem what so ever.

Well I disagree with the zerging. It's all WvW is right now. As far as the AoE balance, there's plenty of things they can do to modify the way it it effects and area without totally breaking it.

Those in the center take full damage, lessing the farther from the center you are.

Damage increases to maximum amount the longer you say in the AoE

Hits 5 targets for xxx amount then other outlying targets for xxx

etc

[Eclipses]

Major_Disaster, on 13 February 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

ITT: A lot of people who have not got a clue how to play WvW.Your thread title is needlessly inflammatory, but then this is Guru, that's what you have to do here to get noticed I guess.1. Commander is an absolute messYeah, being able to buy commander for a cheap price, only having 1 icon colour, the clumsy way in which "Squads" are formed and the extremely limited power that a commander has over his "Squad" is pretty lame. I agree with you on this.However they've already said they're unhappy with how Commander works. It was their first stab at it, and it gives a reasonable base to build on. They are actively working on improving Commander, and I do believe it will become what we hoped it would.Right now, it does offer a quick and easy way to form a Zerg out of PuGs, but not much more than that

Thanks for telling me I don't know how to play WvW bro. Yeah you really know what you're talking about.Anyway, to correct you, no they aren't actively working on improving Commander. Mike Ferguson is saying that it's not on anyone's schedule right now: https://forum-en.gui...e/2#post1192287Idk man. Unlike you, I'm not content to wait forever. At the very least, a decent grouping system should have launched with the god damn game. I don't view my headline as inflammatory because I look at what they've done these past 6 months and what they say they're going to do in the future and it just does not impress me.

Edited by Eclipses, 13 February 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[KodiakX]

Eclipses, on 12 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

WvW is a mini-game. A sideshow, a thing you do when you want to knock some heads together for a couple hours then go back to playing the 'real game' (pve) or log off. WvW is completely cut off from the rest of the game and while I can understand +WHY+ they did that, you other diehard Open World PvP'ers must understand that because it is cut off, all these other problems exist. Because WvW is a mini-game, they were ok with creating a shitty Commander system, with guilds being unnecessary, with zerging and casual non-competitive play taking over to the exclusion of all others and also ultimately why it's ok our rewards suck, there's no lack of depth or any consequences.

You're almost right here.  WvW is definately a mini-game but the fundamental key to understand why it's largley ignored is that it's a fundamentally imbalanced mini-game.  WvW wins, for all the braggado about "superior tactics" really just comes down to coverage.  Who can queue up maps 24/7.  The first 3 days tell the tale as most match ups are fairly equal in the first 72 hours and then pull apart from there.  Another exaple of imbalance is the one you brought up where you had organized groups en-masse in the zone and a bunch of randoms against them while the rest of the organized groups are stuck out waiting.  Yet another is how a level 2 can come out in all their useless glory and try to compete against level 80s geared out in exotics.

Because of this inherent, almost unfixable, imbalance to the system as a whole it's incredibly difficult to reward.  I used to get more badges than I knew what to do with at the start and that got nerfed pretty fast.  It got nerfed after we started camping the enemy worlds at their spawn point in EB with seige.  One can easily see the fear being discussed of just throwing down 30-40g for gems (easy to get if you grind dungeons), transfer to Jade Quarry (or whatever big WvW server there is) and then queue in for easy Ascended items.

WvW is a mini-game, and quite frankly it'll never be given the attention anyone around here probably wants.

ChuckS117, on 12 February 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

Let's see if TESO does massive PvP right ...

I don't have my hopes high but we'll see what they do.

[Ruufio]

I don't know man. Bethesda has no clue how to make a proper combat system. Skyrim is lol.Not that Anet has any idea either. Fighting mesmers and thieves is fighting the targeting system more than anything.

Edited by Ruufio, 13 February 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[fatrodmc]

Agree with most of the OP.

For me the lack of depth and lack of rewards are the two most critical issues. I feel like I get nothing for winning, and after a while the maps and objectives feel very stale.

I think think the BL maps need to be different from each other too. So boring doing the same thing on each one. Who cares if I am taking points off someone else? I get nothing for it anyway! At least give me a different looking keep to attack...

[CalmLittleBuddy]

As long as I can find a fight that is exciting at least once every time I log in, I'm okay with it.

Take away everything away from the game and start from the beginning and what I want is to take a group of my players and fight a group of your players in a persisten setting where what we just did has a longer term affect than just a tournament match.

GW2 WvW does that. It fulfills the basic requirement. So, I'm left with deciding how much of a bother is the rest of it? Classes are never balanced in PvP in any game, but GW at least has a dodge mechanic and combos, so you always have a chance if the numbers are even. That's a push. Niether really great, not terible.

Are the maps set up well? Are they close enough to fair in placement and number of objectives? Yes. Red has a slight advantage. Blue has a slight advantage over green. So, 3rd place gets red and a leg up, second place blue, etc etc. Pretty fair.

Now, the objectives. Do they look and feel worthwhile? Do their point values reflect their actual strategic value on the maps? This is sorta subjective. I'd say no, but it's open for debate.

Are the objectives placed in areas that prevent mass zerg tactics? No.

Can you defend an objective from a zerg if you have equal numbers? No.

Is there a way to ensure that an objective can be held if enough resources and players work together to hold it? No. (we all know if one side really wants to throw all its players and seige at a place it will fall).

The rest gets pretty depressing. Everything in the game environment encourages servers to use more players to overcome all obstacles. BUT, that's what players do in WvW. Throw more players at it. It's hard to design out human nature.

So, in my opinion, WvW is worth playing because at least I get a chance to find a decent fight I have a chance to win without having to run with 30 people. But to do anything really important as far as score goes, my side has to zerg. There's no other game right now that at least lets me find a fair fight, so...

Folks mention Planetside. No thanks. Not my genre. If I'm going to do space, I'll go back to EVE.

I never expected WvW to be anything more than it is. From the previews, I actually thought it would be even WORSE. So, for now, Play on.

[Z3r0Fear]

The problem is they made three different maps instead it should been one large map with everyone on it. The smaller one can stay for those that are smaller in guild size and want to participate in some WvW on it but there should have been a massive map the size of at least those three combined with fortresses in the corners for those realms. Everything comes down to the size of the maps and seriously they are tiny and not fun at all and diverse enough either. If they don't fix this soon then when they notice a big drop in guilds quitting the game they will make a rush to try and patch there mistake of not fixing it in the first place but by then it will be to late.

[Lordkrall]

Z3r0Fear, on 28 February 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

The problem is they made three different maps instead it should been one large map with everyone on it. The smaller one can stay for those that are smaller in guild size and want to participate in some WvW on it but there should have been a massive map the size of at least those three combined with fortresses in the corners for those realms. Everything comes down to the size of the maps and seriously they are tiny and not fun at all and diverse enough either. If they don't fix this soon then when they notice a big drop in guilds quitting the game they will make a rush to try and patch there mistake of not fixing it in the first place but by then it will be to late.

And yet all these guilds have not yet quit the game. So why would they do it now, after six months?
If it really were that bad they would have left several months ago.

Having only one map would limit the amount of players able to do WvW quite much. There are still queues daily on my server for at least one of the maps (some times several of them). Pushing everyone to the same map would make it more or less impossible to even join the fight if you had limited time.

[kilger]

This post and replies resembles virtually nothing of the game I am playing, I can only conclude that you are lepracauns in a pit playing a game that vaguely resemebles mine with the same name..

1. If you dont like a commanders style dont follow them.  Simple, works for me.  You can check the name on map pin.
2. I have to agree the name is a bit off, they should have renamed it instead of calling it a sequel to GW1.  I knew this going in however, was no surprise.  Its marketting, end of discussion on that one imo.

Rest might just be your server, mine has none of these problems.  Good commanders make the difference, always encourage the good ones, or the ones that are trying hard at least (they will get better).

When you say pve is the real game, you totally lost me.  I play this game for wvwvw.  Leave "we" out of your thread titles is my recommendation.

As for wvwvw they have annouced a big patch in March, fixing culling completely, and adding progression in wvw.

Edited by kilger, 01 March 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[wondowondo]

wvw is stale and has been for some time, sure fighting is still fun but the reason to wvw get less and less each week. Yes we have heard these points before but with the hints of the wvw update being released and it becoming clear we're not getting new wvw content or revamps of maps/new mechanics like orbs etc.... the march wvw update seems to be just cosmetic which i hope that's not all they've been working on for like 4 months....

i don't see why anet didn't implement more gvg in a game called guildwars 2.

[Zakgrin]

Honestly WvW is way beyond fixable. The mechanics of this game and WvW just don't mesh. I come from a background of playing heavy pvp oriented games, my favorite being DaoC and Warhammer. I don't want to sound *y or arrogant but I was pretty sure from the start it wasn't going to be as fun as they made it out to be, and then when I actually got to play it, it was worse than I ever thought it would be.

Zerg vs Zerg will always be an issue, unless your server doesn't have the population to accommodate that. It is an issue in every game that has massive pvp, that is normal, but this game takes it to a whole new level. I believe it is due to the fact that there isn't a holy trinity. Melee oriented specs and classes are pretty much not viable against the zerg, you either have to spec into range or reroll. This is due to the fact that there aren't dedicated healers in this game. Melee classes in gw2 do not get the support they need to survive and are easily focused. It basically takes the 2 main dimensions of the game, melee and ranged, and squishes it into one. It takes a very large majority of the tacticalness and skill needed for a Zerg to fight a Zerg or even a small group of very skilled players to fight the Zerg. WvW lacks an extreme amount of depth for that very reason.

Then there is the issue of the engine which the game and its graphics were built on. I don't think Anet really thought far enough ahead when they decided on an engine. The graphics in the game are absolutely beautiful, some of the best graphics I have ever seen and experienced. However there is a major drawback. The engine isn't capable of handling the amount of players that are sometimes present on people's computer screens. Not only does that make for epic lag, but often times it makes enemy players go invisible. For some reason they actually designed that aspect into the game thinking it would be a good idea, but obviously it's not. The complaints speak for themselves. Warhammer Online did have lag issues, but never had anything close to what gw2 has in the fact that players don't show up on the screen. There have been a few times when I have been sitting around minding my own business and just like that I'm dead and then find out that a massive zerg just ran right into me.

And then there is the downed state. There is a reason why no other game ever implemented this, this isn't a new idea to the gaming world whatsoever. I think it works very well for pve and even isn't so bad for sPvP, but it is an awful mechanic for WvW. When players die they should just be dead, because then not only do you have to focus on actually killing them, but you also have to focus on other attackers. This makes it even harder for smaller groups to contend with groups larger than themselves. I feel like this takes a lot of the skill out of pvp in this game.

I could elaborate more on some of the other things the OP said, but these are my main gripes for WvW. I predominantly came to this game for WvW, considering I love pvp. It is pretty disappointed but luckily there are other aspects to the game that I enjoy. However I don't see myself playing this game anymore when a few of the anticipated games of 2013 are released. I will likely be playing Archeage or Elder Scrolls online (really excited about this one).

[CalmLittleBuddy]

Anyone else remember the same rants about DaoC?

That wasn't the golden age everyone makes it out to be...

[DoogerRLH]

Newer games should learn from older games.  DaoC broke some new ground but was full of really bad issues... in computer years that was like a million years ago.. so what.

This game has no focus on rvr though, unlike DaoC and warhammer, and it shows.  But I do agree Mythic seemed to delight in do stuff the players hated, like adding dungeons instead of fixing pvp stuff (or Toa.. yeah, i went there)

As long as game developers think they can actually roll out 3-4 games as one big mmo (a pve leveling game, instanced pvp/arena, world pvp, and end game pve)  they will continue to fail at all 4.  They all think they are gonna be a wow slayer, instead of saying, "well we are not going to do a,b and c, and will instead on doing x & y well at launch.

Its really a level up from the devs, its all about setting achievable goals for your Engineering teams.  How many 5 years in development mmos need to come out and fail at all 4 (ok, well not totally fail they sell and have content for 2-3 months falling way short of promises)

Companies need to get real and release an rvr game that skips pve quest hubs, pve end game raids, crafting and has more pvp content than a moba.  They can add a pvp dungeon and crafting later a year or 2 in once they get basic balance under control and all that.

Instead we have mmos hiring voice actors, and then devs disappearing almost completely after launch

Edited by DoogerRLH, 03 March 2013 - 02:58 AM.

[wtfpeople]

The answer is simple:

WvW maps are just too big and the number of players needed to play them without zerging is too great for hardware/software to support.

Instead of having 4 maps they need to have 4 instances of a revised smaller map.

Right now there are just zerg groups taking undefended objectives 24h a day by three different time zones. If there is a "defense" its either just a handfull of people vs. a 50 man zerg, or 50 people defending a 5 man zerg. You just arnt seeing a good 30v30 anymore especially outside of 7pm on weekends.

We pretty much need to force everyone into EB. If its full, make a separate instance.

[beadnbutter32]

Not only have they failed to make any advancement towards fixing culling, they have made it 10X worse and spread the problem to PVE.

I did a dynamic event in Straights last night, From beginning to end, All I saw was combo fields and maybe one mob at at time.  If some one asks if this game is a "buy", show them a video of any current dynamic event with more than 5 players participating.

At least the game was playable before they started to munge the code in their clumsy attempt to fix the culling issues.  They made the problem much worse and spread it to PVE where there had been no problem before.

Edited by beadnbutter32, 03 March 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[MrZero]

WvW will never be what some people hoped because, people want to be playing an entirely different game. It's just that simple.

[Keaghan]

Eclipses, on 12 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

WARNING: LONG POST, skip to TL;DR for major points

TL;DR:

1. Commander is an absolute mess
2. The roles/rewards/recognition of Guilds in a game called 'Guild Wars' is lacking
3. WvW has devolved into ZvZ (ZergvZerg)
4. The lack of Rewards/Progression/Depth/Consequence
5. The devs, their implementation of and lack of commitment to Wvw

Hey all,

I'd like to share with you some of the viewpoints I have with WvW, what it's become and why it will never reach (not in its current state and with the level of developer attention) what we (many of those who bought gw2 primarily for WvW) had hoped it would become during pre-release and the BWEs.

First of all, to establish my credentials (not bragging just establishing experience): I was the founder and GM of 'The Royal Guard', in its heyday a midsize (~60 members) T1 WvW guild and Titan Alliance member (for those of you who remember what THAT was). I've fought and led many, many battles; seen tips and tricks galore; been a part of and observer to scandals and drama; took part in server community building and all that good stuff.

Why WvW will never amount to what the Open World PvP Die-Hard fans wanted


1. Commander is an absolute mess

The implementation of the Commander mechanic is an absolute mess. So let's get this straight - players who grinded PvE or paid cash for gems > gold (as being an all out WvW participant wouldn't net you that type of wealth at all) pay 100g and get to lord over other players in WvW? This is ridiculous. I have seen commanders make the absolute shittiest calls only to get rebuffed when calling them out, because "they're Commanders."

Back in beta they were called on over and over again to change this mechanic: require badges instead, or kills, or tower captures - ANYTHING that was actually related to WvW and showed you had experience. We were rebuffed and instead we have a system that discourages the devs to create a guild raid system, encourages inexperienced individuals to lead WvW, encourages zerging and hobbles tactical play and engenders an attitude of petulance that simply because you have a blue icon - you know what's best.

The WvW devs should honestly be ashamed that Commander is in the game the way that it is right now.


2. The roles/rewards/recognition of Guilds in a game called 'Guild Wars' is lacking

Spare me the lore argument. The game is called guild wars and the guild component as it relates to WvW is undercooked. The buffs and the siege weapons you can get from the guild upgrades are great, truly they are, but that's where it stops.

If we take bay, garri, sm or what have you - does that do anything for our guild? So our banner is hanging from some paownts, what of it? Do you know whose banner that is? Are the NPCs named after us? Do we get influence or gold or karma over time for holding onto an objective? Does it announce in map chat that xxx guild has captured and claimed xxx objective? Do we have a system that allows us to form groups larger than 5 or at the very least see all guildies on the map? Is there any mechanic at all, other than an indistinguishable banner, that recognizes guild achievements in WvW? is there anything - at all - that truly benefits WvW guilds and significantly encourages guilds in this gameplay?

The answer to all of these questions are No. The guild buffs do not significantly encourage guild gameplay in WvW as they apply to pugs as well. They're a 'set-it-and-forget-it' mechanic. No one knows which guild just gave them 5 different types of buffs neither do you need to be in that guild to get them. I'm not advocating that you should - but it just goes to show that guilds really lack scope and purpose in WvW.


3. WvW has devolved into ZvZ (ZergvZerg)

When I first started playing WvW in the BWE's and the weeks and months after launch, zergs were a valid tactic, a tool to be used, but could be tactically outplayed using coordination. More often than not, at launch the guilds in TA were outnumbered vs the guilds from other alliances, notably Ascension Alliance, due to HoD bandwagoners and queues. What this usually meant was, while our maps were packed, Alliance members made up only a handful of that total and due to Ascension's  server moves, they were able to usually field a greater ratio of their alliance than we were (at least on my assigned map).

I remember going against devastating, brutal zergs; even when you beat them they'd come back again and again knocking on your door over and over and over like a battering ram. Like a heavyweight boxing match they'd just keep bashing you again and again until you felt like you couldn't take anymore. As soon as you finished the last of a zerg, regrouped and got your bearings - they were on your doorstep again. It was awesome.

Once when our homeworld garrison was occupied by Ascension, my guild and 2 other TA guilds were assigned to take it back. Due to queues, our combined numbers were like 1/3rd of Ascension's on the map. Using about 5 guys to attack Bay and draw swords, the rest of our motley crew hit garrison for all we were worth. We got wiped, over and over. But the thing was, they were responding to the 5 guys at Bay AND the crew hitting garrison with their ENTIRE 40 man zerg. Eventually they were too slow getting back to garri and we ninja'd it from them. It was a great feeling.

I told this long story because the WvW pop has consistently dwindled now to where ZvZ is the *only* way to play. Sure, you can try to play tactical with a small group and ninja an obj. A zerg can take it faster though. Sure, you can try and defend your only remaining objective on the map with the handful of people you have. A zerg will just ram right through you and your defenses though. Due to culling and the way the maps are designed, a zerg will get to a location just as fast and stealthily as a small tactical group (and maybe even more so).

Zergs even have the advantage in fights vs smaller groups, due to the AoE limitation. The AoE limitation is so utterly idiotic I cannot wrap my head around it. Zergs are a valid tatic - they shouldn't just be the ONLY tactic. AoE limit needs to be lifted/increased and some other mechanics need to go into place to dull the power of zergs and ecourage more tactical play.


4. The lack of Rewards/Progression/Depth/Consequence

This is probably the biggest reason why my once thriving, very competitive WvW guild is dead. WvW has no rewards, progression, depth or consequence. During the span of Titan Alliance, we had 31 straight wins. What did we get for it? We got burnt out, member attrition, guilds dropping the game after one month and a whole bunch of other stuff. Now I know you might say, 'Well that's your fault, you should have played more casually'. No, that's wrong. Any great online game caters to both the hardcore and the casual and those in between. You can not blame the participants who competed in a competitive event and say they tried too hard.

The progression is WvW is nonexistent, though they are attempting to fix that with the WvW only abilities. That still doesn't address the lack of depth and consequence in WvW. At the end of our run in WvW, we looked at our wins and thought, 'What now?' What do we get for winning? Surely we must get SOMETHING, since those in sPvP get something for winning and those in PvE get something for their efforts (and for our's). We got nothing, there was no difference between winner or loser; they got the WvW bonuses too, even if only a few % less than us. WvW had nothing to mark that you and your guild were there and that you fought for the glory of your server. In the end, WvW simply doesn't matter.

Furthermore, the game simply does not reward those in WvW *ANYWHERE NEAR* the same that they do those in PvE. and even the rewards in PvE suck. Check it:

- BoH award you a total of 1 variety of gear set, out of how many in the game?
- BOH drop  incredibly sparingly, the drop rate on these need to increase dramatically. When you need to play for hours and kill dozens of players to get the same # of BOH you get from opening a jumping puzzle chest, your rewards are *ed
- For many of those who truly bought this game for WvW, WvW is a massive money sink and not at all as gold positive as PvE. Adding a WP in WvW costs 1.5g. Fortifying walls is 2g. Buying a cannon upgrade is 40s. Repairing is 11.5s. You only get about 1.5s from taking/defending an objective and 98 copper for taking a sentry. You do the math.
- Dolyak XP/gold was temporarily removed at launch due to being too lucrative, but never balanced and re-added back to the game.
- Spikes
- Barbs

I could go on and on.


5. The devs, their implementation of and lack of commitment to Wvw

I don't want this post to be removed, so I will be very choice with this part, despite my massive disappointment with Mike Ferguson and his WvW team. Honestly, you guys have to know that WvW is so far from their priority right now that it's kind of sad. And if it is a group's priority, they're not doing a good job. Let's review the course of events :

- They always (even 6 months post launch) use the excuse that they had no idea how popular WvW would be. This is hogwash, Wvw was one of the most popular, talked about content pre-launch. The vast majority of the guilds pre-launch were WvW guilds
- It took them MONTHS to remove free transfers, ruining countless server communities in the interim
- Culling has gotten worse since launch. Yes, I know they're working on it, that doesn't make it better nore does it make it any less suck during the meantime. The fact that it is like it is in the 1st place is absolutely embarassing
- They have removed rewards from Dolyaks
- They removed the orbs rather than switching the outmanned and orb buffs
- In March, it will be approx 4mo since the introduction of Ascended gear and it's ability to be earned in WvW
- They are looking to tone down AoE's, thereby increasing the effectiveness of zergs even more

Mike Ferguson is on record as saying they cannot create larger maps, that the maps we have are the largest they're technically able to create. And this is the crux of the issue and has root causes in all the others.  Not the map size, but the scope of the gametype itself. WvW is a mini-game. A sideshow, a thing you do when you want to knock some heads together for a couple hours then go back to playing the 'real game' (pve) or log off. WvW is completely cut off from the rest of the game and while I can understand +WHY+ they did that, you other diehard Open World PvP'ers must understand that because it is cut off, all these other problems exist. Because WvW is a mini-game, they were ok with creating a shitty Commander system, with guilds being unnecessary, with zerging and casual non-competitive play taking over to the exclusion of all others and also ultimately why it's ok our rewards suck, there's no lack of depth or any consequences.

Near launch, Colin Johanson was quoted as saying that the scope of their content releases were going to be 'impressive'. Let's be honest here guys, from the past several months this game has been  out - are ANY of you impressed with the quality of attention the WvW community has seen? Anyone? There is a reason WvW and sPvP are limping along as it is and the reason for that is that it does not cost $15 to log on. If it did, if you're honest to yourself, you know that this game would be on its way to a plane of fail rivaling TorTanic proportions.

I always thought that WvW should be GvG dedicated to that server, and I agree with everything you say.

I had actually thought of some things that I wanted to shout on the official forums but never got the chance. It was making a new server testing the theory out, where WvW is GvG. Some of your ideas you want to add to WvW I had also thought wanted to be implemented, great post. Still don't know why WvW wasn't GvG in the first place, would have been so much better..

A switch would actually make more sense too >_>

[CalmLittleBuddy]

People want to play the game in their head. It lets them do everything they want to do. It's perfectly balanced. It has no technical flaws. It's the greatest game.

But it's only a pipe dream. Play the game you have now, ask for improvements, and wait for something better.

GW2 is fine. The problem is that Anet managed to convince everyone that this was THE GAME. Excellent for marketing. Bad for long term PR.

If I put GW2 WvW against everything else out there RIGHT NOW, it's the best. Without it, what would we have? Isn't this a game we would have killed for 5 maybe 6 years ago? We keep expecting a game to magically wisk us away to prefect PvP land. It ain't happening folks.

This game is close enough for me until something better comes along (and that could be 4 to 5 years from now, do NOT fool yourselves about TESO PvP folks that isn't going to be any good. The game itself will be hot, but with no experience in multiplayer games, you can't expect them to nail it first shot...

By all means, set yourselves up for further disappointment if you want. I'm a 'take what I can get' guy. WvW is not that bad.

[Zakgrin]

CalmLittleBuddy, on 03 March 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

This game is close enough for me until something better comes along (and that could be 4 to 5 years from now, do NOT fool yourselves about TESO PvP folks that isn't going to be any good. The game itself will be hot, but with no experience in multiplayer games, you can't expect them to nail it first shot...

If it stays the way it is in any of the elder scrolls games, which they already confirmed that it will, it will be far better and more enjoyable than GW2's combat, which is actually action oriented. I can't say anything with regards to how their large-scale pvp will be compared to GW2's but i can definitely say that we won't have to deal with the awful downed system and there will be healers so we will actually be able to melee against a zerg. But who knows. Hopefully they pick up on GW2's and every other games mistakes.

[Lordkrall]

Zakgrin, on 04 March 2013 - 03:21 AM, said:

If it stays the way it is in any of the elder scrolls games, which they already confirmed that it will, it will be far better and more enjoyable than GW2's combat, which is actually action oriented. I can't say anything with regards to how their large-scale pvp will be compared to GW2's but i can definitely say that we won't have to deal with the awful downed system and there will be healers so we will actually be able to melee against a zerg. But who knows. Hopefully they pick up on GW2's and every other games mistakes.

Keep in mind however that it is almost impossible to translate a singleplayer game into an MMO and still make it almost the same.

[CalmLittleBuddy]

Zakgrin, on 04 March 2013 - 03:21 AM, said:

If it stays the way it is in any of the elder scrolls games, which they already confirmed that it will, it will be far better and more enjoyable than GW2's combat, which is actually action oriented. I can't say anything with regards to how their large-scale pvp will be compared to GW2's but i can definitely say that we won't have to deal with the awful downed system and there will be healers so we will actually be able to melee against a zerg. But who knows. Hopefully they pick up on GW2's and every other games mistakes.

No. It won't. It's NOT going to be real time. Confirmed, it will be skill bar based, like most MMO's due to latency issues.

No downed state as far as we know, true. And no one expects one. BUT, hey... I can live with it.

Edited by CalmLittleBuddy, 04 March 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Zhaitan]

Commander is an absolute mess

- I can see why ANET went with commander title the way it is. As this game is new, they thought it'd act as an anchor for the whole chaos in a WvW setup. 100g was a steep price to pay and people would not pay for it unless they were serious about WvW. And a guild would not sponsor someone to have that title if that person was a total nincompoop. However, 6 months fast forward, I think this title and associated requirements need some review.

The modifications should start from having NO commander icon anywhere other than WvW maps. I think Commander titkle should evolve as follows:

1. A "WvW inclined" guild chooses a person to commandeer their army thru WvW maps. 100g is spent and a commander is appointed.

2. After that commander has to retain that title. Yes, commander title can be lost under certain circumstances. So, just because you farmed COF non-stop, you don't get to confuse people on a WvW Map forever anymore.

- Commander title will have 3 states: Active (Blue Icon), Dormant (Brown Icon), Inactive (Red Icon).
- To keep the title in active status a player must do the following. As a commander you should be able to show your participation in successful tower and keep sieges every week. Gold level participation in a minimum of 30 successful sieges per month will be reqd. to maintain the title. Commander participation will be evaluated same as Gold/Silver/bronze participation. On 1st of every month, the title will be reviewed by ANET and set to dormant status if the minimum criteria is not met. The player will have 1 month to bring it back to active status by complying with the minimum requirements. If no action is taken, in the following month, the title will become inactive for the player. The player will then have to meet the minimum requirements for the month and also gather 500 badges of honnor to get the title reinstated to active status.
- In addition, the server will be able to choose it's supreme commander. The supreme commander will have skills like:

a. "Call to arms" - Summon guild members of his guild to an area for quick deployment. Broadcast message to the server community participating on the WvW map(s) to assist in certain tactical manuevers.

b. "Never Surrender" - Had to steal from GW1 paragon. Allies within 1200 gain temporary toughness and regeneration

c. Many other command, motivation and leadership type skills can go here.

A supreme commander is appointed and retained by guilds who are WvW frequenters. Guilds that participate in this type of gameplay should be able to choose who they want to follow. It should be done in a democratic fashion. This is where guild rewards come in to play. As a guild that is "WvW inclined", it should be able to show the level of their dedication and participation to claim and defend the land for its server. Hence, we will need some type of WvW influence points and tier ranking for such guilds. I also understand that many guilds that particiapte in WvW do not exactly want to lead or herd zergs. Small or medium sized guilds like that can rake up WvW specific influence points in the same fashion to get goodies for their guilds, for siege deployment, to access more tools of war etc. I have seen small guilds making huge impact to the overall points by their small scale tactical manuvers. They should also have the chance to choose and to vote. Hence, I propose that WvW influnce points are distributed to the guild factoring in the size, its contribution towards overall points generation and frequency of participation. The ranking should also be done in the same fashion and should also factor in the size of the guild.

I know it will involve politics, PMS, penis-fencing etc. in the player community and it will be a LOT of work on ANET's part. But, it's all some necessary eveil if one has to build a game that is not yet another mediocre game and if someone wants to enjoy WvW where different worlds collide in a massive scale. Believe me, it may take a so-called "biggest no-lifer" to succeed in this role. Hence, he or she should be rewarded for the same as well. I will propose that a supreme commander gets some nice cosmetic differentiation in the looks and apprearance in WvW maps.

These are some ideas. They are not perfect. Just wanted to share, that's all.

[DoogerRLH]

CalmLittleBuddy, on 03 March 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

People want to play the game in their head. It lets them do everything they want to do. It's perfectly balanced. It has no technical flaws. It's the greatest game.

But it's only a pipe dream. Play the game you have now, ask for improvements, and wait for something better.

GW2 is fine. The problem is that Anet managed to convince everyone that this was THE GAME. Excellent for marketing. Bad for long term PR.

If I put GW2 WvW against everything else out there RIGHT NOW, it's the best. Without it, what would we have? Isn't this a game we would have killed for 5 maybe 6 years ago? We keep expecting a game to magically wisk us away to prefect PvP land. It ain't happening folks.

This game is close enough for me until something better comes along (and that could be 4 to 5 years from now, do NOT fool yourselves about TESO PvP folks that isn't going to be any good. The game itself will be hot, but with no experience in multiplayer games, you can't expect them to nail it first shot...

By all means, set yourselves up for further disappointment if you want. I'm a 'take what I can get' guy. WvW is not that bad.

No.

Its not fine,  bugs and balancing aside, the Downed system, water combat, anon pvp, and trying to make wvw a week long battleground make it a step back from warhammer and DaoC.  And man warhammer had issues, but you could atleast form a warband with your guild hit rvr, then if stuff was slow Queue up for a pvp instance.  

WvW is not beyond fixing, but Anet is going to focus on spvp, which is pure garbage.

[CalmLittleBuddy]

DoogerRLH, on 07 March 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

No.

Its not fine,  bugs and balancing aside, the Downed system, water combat, anon pvp, and trying to make wvw a week long battleground make it a step back from warhammer and DaoC.  And man warhammer had issues, but you could atleast form a warband with your guild hit rvr, then if stuff was slow Queue up for a pvp instance.  

WvW is not beyond fixing, but Anet is going to focus on spvp, which is pure garbage.

You can't  'No' my personal opinion, bro. It doesn't work that way. You have your thoughts, I have mine. I'm not saying "NO" to your opinion, please do the same for me. kthnxbai.

[Andemius]

I'd agree with all your points except the first. After doing a bit of wvw you soon realise who the decent commaders are, and who's paid for their tag in pve.

[Lunacy Polish]

Rather than try to pick apart particular points, I wanted to present the problem as I see it.

While there's a lot of observations in the OP and subsequent responses that are pretty accurate (or at least I can see where people are coming from even when I don't agree 100%), I think the real issue is we need paradigm shift.

I therefore submit the following:

The main problem with WvW as it stands right now is a misalignment between the game's technical setup and common player expectations vs. what the players know is reality.

1. Arenanet has stated that the map size is pretty much the biggest it can be.  We're stuck with this.

Why is this a problem:  the map is too big for quick action, it is too small to satisfy people who want to focus on large scale long term tactics.

The map size and design I feel encourages a lot of the zerging.  It's just much more efficient to all pile up in one or two big columns and go steamroll the map.

What can be done:  The size we're stuck with, so let's be smarter with the space we have.  We have plenty of data now, reassess the point values of objectives.

I personally think they need to congest the maps a little more and not just have this big open lake that's mostly wasted space in the center.  It's very basic, creating some "soft" chokepoints will subtly discourage large zergs while still allowing for them.  Also it allows for more Thermopylae style situations.

I think there's a need for a new objective type somewhere between a tower and a camp, something that takes multiple people for sure, but isn't massive enough to require more than one piece of siege.  Observation posts for example.

The map and scoring system need a retuning with the goal of encouraging a more sophisticated play style of taking multiple objectives simultaneously.

The map should have places which subtly encourage large groups to split up, and a couple go as far as they can to force it.

Also I think the potential for some of the existing mechanics is way underused.  Maybe if your sentries and towers are captured, you get a Fog of War in a certain area and can't see the crossed swords any more.  WvW should have a strong element of unpredictable crazy things happening every so often.  More mob raids on objectives, more wandering patrols, hell if one side pulls 100,000 points ahead let a giant monster spawn in their keep and go rampaging.  Maybe these are bad examples but surely someone can think of something.

Difficulty to address:  All over the place to use existing features in a smarter way because some changes could be quite easy and others very hard.  High for a new map, map design is a sticky wicket.  This probably can't be fixed any time soon.  Maybe in a year or two.

2. You will never have DAoC style true open world PvP because the architecture of the game is centered around what is essentially a week long arena match with rotating participants.  Simultaneously, the game assumes the battle is true open world PvP and charges resources accordingly.

Why this is a problem:  WvW consumes durable resources for temporary benefits.  While a lot of the things in the game do that, it is absolute and to a much higher degree in this mode.  See more on this in my other point, but we're kind of stuck with it just due to the way the game's built.

Players who like WvW expect to find all the resources needed for WvW in the mode itself.  Theoretically this is true.  Practically, you have got to be kidding.  I'm sure lots of people have done it, but it's so much easier to get the resources by engaging in a separate game mode.  Every other facet of the game is its own microeconomy, WvW is not (even in theory).

It's too joined at the hip with the PvE economy, and the PvE economy is too stingy for someone who isn't doing a lot of PvE content.  So it’s either do a lot of PvE stuff to cover the difference or go without.

This problem is somewhat alleviated now that the free server transfers have stopped but it would have been way better to just have factions on the same server.  Even now there's still a lot of transferring, etc. and it's silly.  And the larger issue isn’t solved either: the resources consumed generally do not match those harvested.

The basic commander problem is that it takes Gold.  Gold is a PvE currency.  Siege takes gold (granted you can get it from badges too but most people seem to still have to spend gold on top of that).  Upgrades are gold, and a lot of it.  Repairs are gold (why do we have repair fees in a PVP mode again?).

Badges don't do too much.  They are dropping more frequently now so it at least helps with the siege problem though, so kudos there.

You can get one kind of gear and it's not even the best tier of gear in the game but you work harder for it.  To get the best WvW gear you have to get PvE gear.

You get lots of karma but karma has limited uses in WvW.

Difficulty to address:  Easy to Medium.  This will require significant effort, but this problem can be solved by embracing the game they made and realizing this is a week long arena fight and treating it like one.  However currency management, introducing new rewards, and price changing is something ANet can do quite easily as evidenced by many prior changes to the game.  I suspect the March patch with its rewards enhancements will at least partially address this.  It's significantly better already from the February patch and I'm happy about that, but it needs another push or two forward.

3.  The game mechanics don’t always compel players to stay on task.  The system should incentive good team play.

Why this is a problem:  Have you ever noticed most players won't do what needs to be done?  Asking people to leave a battle for a supply run doesn't get good results sometimes.  Nobody likes to lead the push because the instant the people at the fore of the push go down everyone abandons them, leading to strung out groups colliding into concentrated zergs and getting demolished.

Running yaks is important but gives you nothing, plus it's boring, encouraging you to go do something else.

PvE things which don't belong in WvW in their current implementation are all over the place in it.  I am not saying you’re a terrible person for using these features, I certainly do, but they shouldn’t be there in their current form.

Look a few PvE elements are a good addition especially when they are part of another mechanic or just add some chaos.  NPC Guards, the frogs, the quaggans, I'm down with all this but it’s so underused.  Think of it as the “jungle” from a MOBA but it comes out and kicks your butt sometimes.  I love the idea that monsters or mercenaries can join your side and help you, that's kind of awesome.  I'd love to see the Guards do more and roam more randomly and aggressively.

But even if all that were addressed there’s still a question of why are there coyotes and Ascalonian ghosts and giant grubs that serve no purpose but pure PvE?  Make them matter somehow.  Like how some mobs attack the dolyaks, that's a good use of them.  Or maybe if you have too many coyotes in your territory your Supplies start to dwindle.  Just do something interesting with them or get rid of them.

Also why resource nodes?  This one I kind of understand, it's for dailies and to help make the mode more fully self contained and there are crafting stations out there, but I have a big problem with this:

1) The nodes tend toward the lower tiers, so actually harvesting mats for level 80 gear in WvW isn't all that practical.
2) If we're limited to how many players are on the map, we can't afford having crafters standing there when they can craft in LA just as effectively.

Either give us some kind of WvW centric resources (mine for siege parts or badges), or possibly consider making them really cool and valuable, and then arrange it where we will fight over them.  That'd be kind of awesome.

Best example of why this PvE centric stuff is a problem:  the jumping puzzle.  Kind of a cool idea, but the current implementation seems to not excite me or many others.  Way less effort than getting all that stuff by any other means.

Difficulty to address:  Easy to Medium.  Just nixing stuff is easy as pie.  Making it interesting and cool but also balanced is hard.

But I feel this wouldn't be hard to mostly fix with relatively simple adjustments.  Give more rewards than just XP/achievement points for using supply for instance.  What would be nicer is a reward system that rewards taking risks necessary to win.  That would be harder but still doable.  The main difficulty there is Arenanet has to understand their own game, and I don’t think they do sometimes.

Conclusion:

I agree that WvW will never be the persistent, big scary open world PvP mode I had hoped for, nor will it ever be perfect.  I also don’t think it needs to conform to all my personal ideas to be worthwhile or fun however.  One poster, CalmLittleBuddy I believe, basically said this better, that we all want the game in our heads and that doesn’t exist.  I agree.

Additionally it’s been fixed a little bit already, and I’m giving ANet a chance.  If March shows a small improvement in any of these areas, I will be pleased for a time, but ultimately hopeful we’ll get more attention.

However the bottom line is that if the fundamental issues of misalignment of sloppy elements in the mode are addressed, and some serious resources are devoted to some of the more fundamental errors, it could be a much better game in its own right.  I just have no idea if we’ll ever get this.

[fatrodmc]

Some good points there.

Particularly around the map design of the BL maps - the areas around the BL waypoints get all the action where as the water/nw/ne corners are almost never visited. That is a real waste of space, and its boring fighting in the same areas all the time.

[Clockwise]

Hi,

"Why WvW will never become what we hoped it would".

No offence, but already not agree with the title. You shouldn't speak for everybody (so for me) when you give your own opinion.
Thread is interesting thought. I read nice ideas.

Quote

1. Commander is an absolute mess

Yes and No. I'm okay with the 100 golds, should be even more. But we need an alternative system, or exemple Guild Leader can choice commander(s) in the guild, depending of the guild level or so.

Quote

2. The roles/rewards/recognition of Guilds in a game called 'Guild Wars' is lacking

When you do guild run, when you have good commander from your guild leading ppls, you guild is recognized.
For me we only missing a Rank with TOP Guilds (top killers, top defenders, ect...) and a GvG system.

Quote

3. WvW has devolved into ZvZ (ZergvZerg)

Yes and No. Sure if you stay in the zerg you'll only see the zerg. Maybe on your server you have only zerglers. But on mine with high population we have: the zerg, large grp, medium grp, small grps and solo.
If you don't want the zerg, just avoid it. If you getting stomped by a zerg and that making you upset: go sPvP.
And btw WvW wasn't made for small scale exculively. I mean W = World.

[raspberry jam]

Eclipses, on 12 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

1. Commander is an absolute mess
2. The roles/rewards/recognition of Guilds in a game called 'Guild Wars' is lacking
3. WvW has devolved into ZvZ (ZergvZerg)
4. The lack of Rewards/Progression/Depth/Consequence
5. The devs, their implementation of and lack of commitment to Wvw

1. Agreed. The commander title should not be bought or even permanently rewarded; it should be earned during the battle. The game should keep track of good play and the first player to reach X score should become commander. The title should be transferable.

2. Yeah

3. Thanks to the stupid mechanics, yes, zergs are powerful, but that's beside the point; numerical advantage should matter. The reason zergs are such a good tactic though, is that there's no real incentive to do anything else. Having width or depth to your forces is meaningless because there's not much to defend. ANet created a game where huge numbers of people fight in a large clump and hey, you know, that looks really good in a cgi clip and people seem to want "200 vs 200" battles. In reality though the game doesn't support it, you can't even see the enemy most of the time.
To break up the zergs, there should be significant penalties to losing objectives. This would force players to split up and form smaller groups. Also, objectives should be very easy to capture when undefended, and significantly harder to capture when defended, even if the defenders are outnumbered.

4. Totally agreed that the rewards should be on the same scale as they are in PvE.

5. I am not and have never been impressed by WvW.