[POLL] PvP you're most looking forward to: "Structured" or WvW

Satarious

I'm personally looking forward to WvW the most.  I never get why people get all hot and bothered over the instanced style of pvp  in an MMO when you can get that experience with pretty much any single player type game.

Fusion

Im looking more towards the "persistance" of WvW, rather than swift battleground pvp, altho i do fancy me some SPvP one-on-one matches aswell, to hone general PvP survivability and tactics agains't different classes.

seridan

I'm looking forward to both, but I'd say I prefer structured PVP because I like e-sports

TwoThreeFour

World vs World for sure. Structured PvP has already lots of good alternatives in other games, in my opinion.

Halandir

For PvP I like the deciding factor to be player skill even if I suck at it.

In most cases I find "openworld pvp" a complete waste of time. If gearbased = Even more so.

Hopefully the format in GW2 will give me some minutes of entertainment from time to time. My main PvP focus will be structured with a tightknit group of peers.

 

terrant

WvW. Spvp looks like it is very well made; but at the end of the day, its still just anotehr batlteground/arena sitatuion. Too structured and predicatable. 

 

The chaos and sheer scale of WvW sounds a lot more appealing.

Greatsword

WvW. After more than 10 years we finally have a proper DAoC clone in terms of RvR.

The_Korrigan

The result of this poll is predictable

WvW for me.

PS: thankfully, this game is NOT a DAoC clone.

TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Greatsword

WvW. After more than 10 years we finally have a proper DAoC clone in terms of RvR.

One can only hope. It remains to be seen how strong the "realm pride" in this game becomes since several of the minor systems from DAoC's RvR were removed

botrytis

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Greatsword

WvW. After more than 10 years we finally have a proper DAoC clone in terms of RvR.

One can only hope. It remains to be seen how strong the "realm pride" in this game becomes since several of the minor systems from DAoC's RvR were removed

One can say everything thing is a clone now a days - let's get over that and move on.

 

Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

RizelStar

Originally posted by Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

So you must like structure pvp? 

Any way I like structure PVP because it's equal but, I might grow to like WvWvW more, I like how you can face new servers and what not so it's like new compition and what not, very fresh indeed.

 

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

HAHA  Rohn and I agree on something!!!!

 

That said, I enjoyed the WvW for what it is, and had a lot of fun in it during the beta.

 

seridan

Originally posted by Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

Anet is using a system that will keep World PVP fun throughout the game's history. I've played faction based MMOs and usually one faction has better numbers and dominates the battlefield. It happened in Aion, it happened in War, it happens almost all the time. Even in Clan-based world pvp MMOs like for example Lineage2 an alliance will come on top and dominate the server. Gets boring after a while.

True persistence wouldn't work in Guild Wars 2 simply because it's a server versus server versus server. How would anyone make this persistent is beyond me. Each server will end the 2-week period with a set amount of keeps under their control, they can't keep it when the next 2-week period begins because other servers might have conquered the same keep in their pairing. So true persistence is impossible due to obvious technical reasons.

A way to do this would've been to add "factions". I don't want factions because they bring imbalance and ruin the game. Another way would be to keep the same 3 servers fighting all time. That would be boring. The game allows players to play on any server, so it makes sense open PVP removes server restrictions as well.

During the first BWE we had 48 servers, that's 24 per region. I can't imagine US servers fighting against EU servers (that would cause horrible lag on one of the two sides) so we got 8 different battlefields of 3 servers. When a 2-week period ends each server gets a rating. Then similarly rated servers will face each other on the next 2-week period. That way if my server doesn't play much WvWvW but your server is mostly in for WvWvW, we won't face each other in combat (not easily but we might be).

I don't want open pvp to be so lame as one mob of hundreds fighting a few dozen on the other side, that's not fun at all. I've been there and don't want to experience it again. Persistence would require persistent numbers, GW2 is not only about WvWvW there WILL be servers with more and servers with less interested people in WvWvW.

PS: I wonder what kind of rewards the "best server in the game" might get. That is if your server is on top of the charts after some time

TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by seridan

(...)

A way to do this would've been to add "factions". I don't want factions because they bring imbalance and ruin the game. Another way would be to keep the same 3 servers fighting all time. That would be boring. The game allows players to play on any server, so it makes sense open PVP removes server restrictions as well.

(...)

 

Starcraft is based around three completely different "factions", yet they seem to have reached an excellent  balance. 

Marcus-

WvW no doubt...

Theres plenty of options these days for "structured".

Eletheryl

Originally posted by seridan

Originally posted by Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

Anet is using a system that will keep World PVP fun throughout the game's history. I've played faction based MMOs and usually one faction has better numbers and dominates the battlefield. It happened in Aion, it happened in War, it happens almost all the time. Even in Clan-based world pvp MMOs like for example Lineage2 an alliance will come on top and dominate the server. Gets boring after a while.

True persistence wouldn't work in Guild Wars 2 simply because it's a server versus server versus server. How would anyone make this persistent is beyond me. Each server will end the 2-week period with a set amount of keeps under their control, they can't keep it when the next 2-week period begins because other servers might have conquered the same keep in their pairing. So true persistence is impossible due to obvious technical reasons.

A way to do this would've been to add "factions". I don't want factions because they bring imbalance and ruin the game. Another way would be to keep the same 3 servers fighting all time. That would be boring. The game allows players to play on any server, so it makes sense open PVP removes server restrictions as well.

During the first BWE we had 48 servers, that's 24 per region. I can't imagine US servers fighting against EU servers (that would cause horrible lag on one of the two sides) so we got 8 different battlefields of 3 servers. When a 2-week period ends each server gets a rating. Then similarly rated servers will face each other on the next 2-week period. That way if my server doesn't play much WvWvW but your server is mostly in for WvWvW, we won't face each other in combat (not easily but we might be).

I don't want open pvp to be so lame as one mob of hundreds fighting a few dozen on the other side, that's not fun at all. I've been there and don't want to experience it again. Persistence would require persistent numbers, GW2 is not only about WvWvW there WILL be servers with more and servers with less interested people in WvWvW.

PS: I wonder what kind of rewards the "best server in the game" might get. That is if your server is on top of the charts after some time

As a War vateran i can say you that the WvWvW in gw2 is doomed to fail if they dont fix the ¨doorwars¨system, is a 3 faction system, but the map is just huge and is really hard to reach the fight spots on the map fast enough, so is pretty much a WvW 90% of the time and even worse is when you dont have a campaing and you just can take what you want, this mean another warhammer mistake once again, empty keeps and objetives. 

And what about the structured pvp?, so far is just too casual where most of the time you are avoiding combat than actually fighting, and even if you just want to pvp and ignore all the ¨conquest system¨ is hard to find a fight. After a few matchs, it get bored pretty fast. 

GW2 still need a lot of work and feedback from the players. 

Irus

WvWvW. I like the server loyalty aspect of it, and it sounds like there are little things people can do that help even if they're not big into super-competitive PvP. I generally play other games for sPvP (StarCraft, Tribes).

seridan

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by seridan

(...)

A way to do this would've been to add "factions". I don't want factions because they bring imbalance and ruin the game. Another way would be to keep the same 3 servers fighting all time. That would be boring. The game allows players to play on any server, so it makes sense open PVP removes server restrictions as well.

(...)

 

Starcraft is based around three completely different "factions", yet they seem to have reached an excellent  balance. 

What does Starcraft have to do with this? That's totally irrelevant. Factions in Starcraft don't split the players into 3 different "teams" that fight for dominance on an open map.

seridan

Originally posted by Eletheryl

As a War vateran i can say you that the WvWvW in gw2 is doomed to fail if they dont fix the ¨doorwars¨system, is a 3 faction system, but the map is just huge and is really hard to reach the fight spots on the map fast enough, so is pretty much a WvW 90% of the time and even worse is when you dont have a campaing and you just can take what you want, this mean another warhammer mistake once again, empty keeps and objetives.

Agreed. The "doorwars" is the worst possible outcome for any open PVP game, even worse than one side dominating the other. I didn't play enough WvWvW to have a proper opinion if "doorwars" will happen or not in GW2 but I plan on playing more in BWE2

As an old GW1 player I prefer sPVP in a "role-playing" game than in a FPS or RTS. I find the mix of personal character building and team tactics to be very appealing. Most sPVP games in BWE were just random but it's a new game, people will get used to the mechanics sooner or later (I prefer sooner).

The way the tournament system is supposed to work ("supposed", because I didn't "test" it) will help in organized, competitive play. Winners of PickUp games earn points and use them to join monthly tournament,s then winners of monthly tournaments enter the yearly tournaments. It all sounds very competitive to me and the yearly champion must be the best PVP team in GW2

It remains to be seen in action of course, right now sPVP looks mostly "random".

RizelStar

Originally posted by Eletheryl

Originally posted by seridan

Originally posted by Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

Anet is using a system that will keep World PVP fun throughout the game's history. I've played faction based MMOs and usually one faction has better numbers and dominates the battlefield. It happened in Aion, it happened in War, it happens almost all the time. Even in Clan-based world pvp MMOs like for example Lineage2 an alliance will come on top and dominate the server. Gets boring after a while.

True persistence wouldn't work in Guild Wars 2 simply because it's a server versus server versus server. How would anyone make this persistent is beyond me. Each server will end the 2-week period with a set amount of keeps under their control, they can't keep it when the next 2-week period begins because other servers might have conquered the same keep in their pairing. So true persistence is impossible due to obvious technical reasons.

A way to do this would've been to add "factions". I don't want factions because they bring imbalance and ruin the game. Another way would be to keep the same 3 servers fighting all time. That would be boring. The game allows players to play on any server, so it makes sense open PVP removes server restrictions as well.

During the first BWE we had 48 servers, that's 24 per region. I can't imagine US servers fighting against EU servers (that would cause horrible lag on one of the two sides) so we got 8 different battlefields of 3 servers. When a 2-week period ends each server gets a rating. Then similarly rated servers will face each other on the next 2-week period. That way if my server doesn't play much WvWvW but your server is mostly in for WvWvW, we won't face each other in combat (not easily but we might be).

I don't want open pvp to be so lame as one mob of hundreds fighting a few dozen on the other side, that's not fun at all. I've been there and don't want to experience it again. Persistence would require persistent numbers, GW2 is not only about WvWvW there WILL be servers with more and servers with less interested people in WvWvW.

PS: I wonder what kind of rewards the "best server in the game" might get. That is if your server is on top of the charts after some time

As a War vateran i can say you that the WvWvW in gw2 is doomed to fail if they dont fix the ¨doorwars¨system, is a 3 faction system, but the map is just huge and is really hard to reach the fight spots on the map fast enough, so is pretty much a WvW 90% of the time and even worse is when you dont have a campaing and you just can take what you want, this mean another warhammer mistake once again, empty keeps and objetives. 

And what about the structured pvp?, so far is just too casual where most of the time you are avoiding combat than actually fighting, and even if you just want to pvp and ignore all the ¨conquest system¨ is hard to find a fight. After a few matchs, it get bored pretty fast. 

GW2 still need a lot of work and feedback from the players. 

You must be talking about another GW2 and not Guild Wars 2.

 

 

Nethriil

Nahhh he is speaking of guild wars 2. Same concerns here. How will this not just be a huge zerg match where most of the time u are zerging from 1 keep to the other. And what Are the rewards!!

FredomSekerZ

Originally posted by Nethriil
Nahhh he is speaking of guild wars 2. Same concerns here. How will this not just be a huge zerg match where most of the time u are zerging from 1 keep to the other. And what Are the rewards!!

There's a million different ways WVWVW can go wrong, but it's to early to find out. Let's not turn this thread into a discussion about this.

TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by seridan

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by seridan

(...)

A way to do this would've been to add "factions". I don't want factions because they bring imbalance and ruin the game. Another way would be to keep the same 3 servers fighting all time. That would be boring. The game allows players to play on any server, so it makes sense open PVP removes server restrictions as well.

(...)

 

Starcraft is based around three completely different "factions", yet they seem to have reached an excellent  balance. 

What does Starcraft have to do with this? That's totally irrelevant. Factions in Starcraft don't split the players into 3 different "teams" that fight for dominance on an open map.

 

o.O I am getting confused. Unless you meant that factions imbalance due to  teams having access to unique skills/effects special for their team, which is why I brought up the Starcraft example, how is the current setup not using "factions"? 

 

You got 3 sides, also known as factions, fighting in a large battlefield for 2 weeks. 

observer

Originally posted by Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

One can argue that it is open world pvp, but limited to one contested zone.  It's the same thing in WoW and other MMO's.  Only certain zones are contested and some are neutral.  In GW2's case though, it's limited to one zone.  It really depends on how one  wants to define open world pvp.  Should all zones be open to pvp or limited?  

FredomSekerZ

Originally posted by observer

Originally posted by Rohn

The WvW in GW2 is instanced PvP, just with larger instances and multiple objectives.  It's certainly not open world, and it lacks true persistence, being essentially a two week long rotisserie league deathmatch with servers that resets at the end.

Of the two, I prefer the way that The Secret World is doing it - the set factions battling in large areas that don't reset based on some contrived server ladder system.

One can argue that it is open world pvp, but limited to one contested zone.  It's the same thing in WoW and other MMO's.  Only certain zones are contested and some are neutral.  In GW2's case though, it's limited to one zone.  It really depends on how one  wants to define open world pvp.  Should all zones be open to pvp or limited?  

So............... Battlegrounds are open world pvp then?