I think it would be awesome if all the people championing DaoC would go play that game and not play GW2. Please do us all a favor and stop talking about how awesome it was and play it now.
Come on it's the "BEST PVP GAME EVAH", so go play it and forget about the GW2 launch.
true I was a fan of DAOC RvR but it had tons of issues as well.. my biggest issue was crowd control among others.. but think a lot of this is nostalga for people more than anything sometimes. I remember how amazing EQ1 was first time I played it but if I went back today.. ugh and its not just the dated graphics
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
I think I can agree with one of the OPs points about more variety to the resource system. I would consider it an improvement if there was 1 or two other types that would be obtained in different ways (more than 3 would be overkill). The problem I would want to avoid however is condemning a subset of players in WvW to simply have to grind gathering of resources for their team. While some might want to help their team after time I think it would just become boring and grindy. I imagine thats why they went with the automated caravan route, let the npcs do the boring work and leave players to fight and protect them.
The other points I don't feel the same way at all. Borderlands should be consistent for the same balancing reasons all 'factions' have access to the same classes. Keep distance should be long enough to be annoying for deaths but short enough to not put you to sleep on the way back. Keep sieges...I think they provide a balance of variety and accessibility, while you could add more fluff to it in terms of ways to break in, in the end it is still going to come down to the same basic siege principles without changing much of the experience. Short of implementing full sandbox style build anywhere system, sieging will always be about large armies crashing against the walls while smaller units run around trying to cut off supply and win through attrition. Variety will be found primarily in the class composition, player skill, and a realms ability to coordinate with its members.
Only other thing I will mention is that while I disagreed with several points, I liked the way the OP stated his case and offered constructive ways to improve the things that bothered him without being all flamey and insulting. Don't see that often here, more criticism posts should follow OPs example.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
I basically agree that WvW is not perfect, but I disagree with the reasons you bring up.
One of the problems I have with WvW right now is that once the walls of a keep come down, there is really no substitute for overwhelming numbers.
Before the walls come down, a very well organized smaller group could easily trounce a larger unorganized group by clever supply management and organized siege placements.
But once those walls go down, it just comes down to pure zerg strength because siege weapons aren't really movable (yes, siege golems, but come on). So the smaller group's strategic advantage of siege weapon management is largely lost. If the larger group has many more players, they will probably handily beat the smaller, but better group. Even worse, the defending players could set up siege equipment inside the keep to further harm the attackers.
I would really like to see more types of siege equip that is used for actually assaulting a keep. The golem is way too slow and can more or less be kited easily.
isn't that how any castle seige you have ever seen in the movies or history channel went?
Well in reality, the defenders may have been starved out for months, or poisoned, or have any other amount of nastiness done to them to make them weaker...but yes you are generally right. Typically, you need a significantly larger force to take a castle or keep.
I'm talking game terms here though...I just find it a bit frustrating that I can orchestrate great siege emplacements, cut off the enemies supply, and bust a hole in their wall...but then there is literally nothing I can do because we don't out-zerg them.
I would just like there to be a way to let strategy and tactics have more of an effect on the actual keep assault part of the battle.
This is where organised guilds and alliances will come to dominate. If you're defending a keep against a large force and holding with the use of seige but it looks like a wall or door won't last long, organised defenders will call for re-inforcements to hit the attacking players from the outside. For example. Helm's Deep's wall was breached and then Gandalf comes to the rescue.
It all comes down to tactics and more importantly organisation and communication.
I think it would be awesome if all the people championing DaoC would go play that game and not play GW2. Please do us all a favor and stop talking about how awesome it was and play it now.
Come on it's the "BEST PVP GAME EVAH", so go play it and forget about the GW2 launch.
It was 10 years ago but it had faults. Like WoW's gear imbalance, DAoC suffered from RR imbalance. CC was far too powerful. ToA introduced a gear grind leading to further imbalance. Then there were the dreaded Buffbots. It wasn't perfect but it was the best thing at that time, and nothing has come close to it's 3 realm RvR since.
No though we have a new game offering the same 3 sided keep battles but without the faults that plagued DAoC.
1) If the borderlands weren't carbon copies of each other, you would have people complaining about the maps being unfair or easier for some than for others.
2) I had no problem with that, jogging back takes long enough for you not wanting to die.
3) Supplies must be able to be interrupted, that's why caravans have paths and are also marked on maps. Stopping the supply flow is part of successfully sieging a keep.
4) The siege begins BEFORE a wall or door is down. It's up to the defenders to also build siege engines to destroy the attackers artillery. When the enemy took down a wall or a door, it means you sucked at defending...
I'd be curious to read how you would concieve "deep" RvR. The only other game with similar mechanics, DAoC, was way more simplistic.
1- I don't think that's a big problem. There where some concerned over the fact that the lower left in the EB where swampo areas, but it didn't cause trouble. And since you can go to any BL, it's a complete disadvantage. Also, it would probably a very, very badly designed map to create a huge imbalance.
2- Well, it's not a big complain like i said.
3- But in any normal situation, like an RTS or RL, if the enemy found my route, the only logical action is to change it. That's why there's teams with the purpouse of scouting and tracking the enemy. And there's still my other points about supply.
4- I understand all of that. Honestly, you can create many complex strategies in WVW, like, sending a small force to 2 of the Stonemist gates to distract your enemy, while your trully biggest forces goes for the last gate. But then my points still stands. The objective is still teh same as another strategy. Siege down a gate or wall to zerg inside.
Korrigan, i never played the "older" mmorpgs of the time before WOW liek EQ, UO or DAOC, so i can't comment of them directly. However, i don't see how that's an excuse.
DAOC is game that's more than 10 years old. So, i find it perfectly understandable to expect alot more by 2012. If DAOC created the siege system, and it was similar to this one, than GW2's attempt should be to improve upon it by alot (again 10 years). I already posted example to have deeper gameplay, like gates that can be opened from the inside and sending players over the walls.
Also, because i haven't had the time to find out, what doesn underwater do in WVW. I mean, if there isn't naval warfare (another thing that could be added for more depth), what can one accomplish in the water zones? That's what adding variety and, therefore, depth is all about.
1 thing it as is the npc camps with DE to become your friends. That's cool, but it's alreayd a mechanics present in PVE in the first place. And there's already tons of npc guads to fight.
Well, that's my response. Again, not hating on WVW or GW2, but i think that just because it's the best excution of RVR today, doesn't mean it's perfect IMO.
1. Oh YES IT IS. There is nothing worse in an MMO forum than a pack of PvPers crying over trifling 'balance' and 'fairness' issues.
So in my time in WvW, I came across a few tactics that seemed erm...questionable balance-wise. I'm going to list them below, because I'm curious to see if you guys think there need to be some in-game prevention of them. Personally, I like them and think they should stay...but I want to hear what you all think:
1. Unreachable siege equipment - In BWE3, one of our keeps near our main base was being assaulted by a MUCH larger force. We were pretty much sure to lose it. However, I wound up placing a trebuchet on a tiny ledge that was in range of the keep door, but is basically only reachable by falling down a hill right outside of our main base. Once we got the treb up, it literally CRUSHED the attackers, and there was nothing they could do about it...no way they could have ever got to it. The only thing they could have feasibly done is build their own treb to take it out...but I would have targeted it of course .
2. Keep to keep bombing - One thing I saw a team-mate do was build a treb on the edge of one of our keep towers. Oddly enough, this trebuchet was actually in range to hit another keep's wall! Once again, this is kind of like the unreachable siege equipment thing, but this time used offensively.
3. Defense "stacking" -- I don't think there is really anything to stop you from building as many siege weapons as you want in one area. One thing that my team did while defending was build like 4 arrowcarts on top of the walls. These arrowcarts just decimated the attackers, and they could only be hit by other siege equip. Meanwhile, anything the attackers built was vulnerable to raiding from the defenders.
Thanks for all your responses guys. I'd like to respond to all but it's abit too much.
So, after reading the posts, i want to say that in the end it's a matter of taste.
Otacu, i, for example, disagree with you on using other tricks after the walls come down. Like i said in my OP, i find the sieging system too shallow. While i understand your point about that being the center of WVW, the mechanics behind towers, keeps and castle is the same. Gates and walls are identical except for a few differences, like one being harder to knock down.
It's not just about which is stronger (though that is definitely a factor). There's also diversion tactics, which gives you better access to the keep lord, etc. For example, one group might bang on the door, while a smaller group sets up a flanking trebuchet to knockdown a backwall. The defenders are mostly busy focusing on the 'main assault' not realizing that there's about to be another entrance very soon. Your complaint is much more valid on stronger outposts, but really.. how complex can you really make a small tower before it just gets obsurd / difficult to balance.
Also, as i already said, i don't honestly buy it that different maps could cause that much imbalance. Many also seem to be against the idea of tracking our own supply route. I think that you could be an option for a certain amount of gold. Don't want it, don't use it.
If you've ever tried to make your own map (in a team based game), you'd realize how difficult it really is to provide balance through asymmetry. If you look at most teambased games (even RTS), you'll notice that the main maps tend to be fairly symmetrical. This is due to balance. While I agree, asymmetry is much more interesting, it's also extremely difficult to keep balanced, and people are going to use that as an excuse to complain about 'fairness' regardless of how good of a job you do w/ balance.
Another point out the similarities to RTS. This is indeed true, but i don't think that's a bad thing. Creslin, while the coordination would be complicated, i still feel it would add lonegevity and overall more fun. After all, people have to use weapons, otherwise it's "doors wars 2", so coordination is already necessary.
Also, while Anet can improve it over time, there are things i think can't be fixed. For example, unless i'm mistaken which please correct me, you can't carry supplies being your current map. This is because all maps are disconnected. If it was 1 full landscape, all locations would be linked, adding, again, anothe layer of depth, since you could take the resources from the the EB to th top of the BL.
I believe you can keep your supply over to the other maps, but you lose it as soon as you step outside of WvW. (I could be wrong about this, because I wasn't testing for this specifically)
The important thing here is that i'm not predicting doom. I'm simply putting down my view as to why WVW isn't all that great.
Like many of you said, this is the best and deepest rvr pvp system available, so it's the best, which is perfectly fine. To me that's not necessarily good enough. It's like saying that it's the least junk in the middle of a pile is gold all of a sudden. And, no, while this analogy is extreme, i'm not saying other mmorpgs or GW2 are junk, at all.
My issue with this, is that you haven't really explained what system you're really looking for. To say that something is 'the best, but still not good enough' is fine, unless you fail to back up such a statement with anything practical. It's natural to want more, but there's a pretty large difference between what sounds better, and what actually works.
It's not a matter of whether or not you think the system 'fails', but more that you've stated you think it isn't 'good enough', but have yet to provide an example of what you think is 'good enough'. What other game designs / mechanics do you think WvW would benefit from? How do you think this would change the game, how could these new features be abused? What specific design flaws do they address, and what new design flaws might they introduce? These are all extremely important things to consider when talking about design changes for a game. Without discussing these, you are basically just tossing out things that 'sound neat', without giving any thought as to how they would actually work. Designers do this 100s of times a day at least.
Point 2 is definitely part of the whole WvW siege thing. If you capture a small outpost first, and when it's yours, you build siege engines in it to attack the larger keeps, you indeed have an advantage, and it's normal.
I got my balista built in such a keep destroyed by two balistas in the main keep - so it's definitely not OP either, defense against that exists and works
Your 3 points are basically part of the siege tactics, and every single of them can be countered.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Point 2 is definitely part of the whole WvW siege thing. If you capture a small outpost first, and when it's yours, you build siege engines in it to attack the larger keeps, you indeed have an advantage, and it's normal.
I got my balista built in such a keep destroyed by two balistas in the main keep - so it's definitely not OP either, defense against that exists and works
Your 3 points are basically part of the siege tactics, and every single of them can be countered.
Yup I would basically agree. When I put down that treb on the ledge in point 1 though...the other side seemed very frustrated that they couldn't get to it lol. I just foresee complaints about things like this.
1. the boarderlands.... being copies of itself is kinda lame but i dont mind THAT much.
2. keep distance... this one dont bother me much at all.
3. supply... the problem with supply from a dev point of view is this.....if supply is too dynamic it becomes too much of a chore to upkeep and becomes very unfun.... but if it means nothing it gets ignored and its looked at as a flawed idea. so the balence is hard to maintain when making a game like this.... (see planetside 2 resources) so i understand this is how they went about it.
So in my time in WvW, I came across a few tactics that seemed erm...questionable balance-wise. I'm going to list them below, because I'm curious to see if you guys think there need to be some in-game prevention of them. Personally, I like them and think they should stay...but I want to hear what you all think:
1. Unreachable siege equipment - In BWE3, one of our keeps near our main base was being assaulted by a MUCH larger force. We were pretty much sure to lose it. However, I wound up placing a trebuchet on a tiny ledge that was in range of the keep door, but is basically only reachable by falling down a hill right outside of our main base. Once we got the treb up, it literally CRUSHED the attackers, and there was nothing they could do about it...no way they could have ever got to it. The only thing they could have feasibly done is build their own treb to take it out...but I would have targeted it of course .
2. Keep to keep bombing - One thing I saw a team-mate do was build a treb on the edge of one of our keep towers. Oddly enough, this trebuchet was actually in range to hit another keep's wall! Once again, this is kind of like the unreachable siege equipment thing, but this time used offensively.
3. Defense "stacking" -- I don't think there is really anything to stop you from building as many siege weapons as you want in one area. One thing that my team did while defending was build like 4 arrowcarts on top of the walls. These arrowcarts just decimated the attackers, and they could only be hit by other siege equip. Meanwhile, anything the attackers built was vulnerable to raiding from the defenders.
1. May be a bit iffy, but it could have been built way back in the keep also, rather than down on a ledge so a minor issue for me. You just made clever use of what was available to you. Have a cookie
2. Trebuchet's were built specifically to hurl huge lumps of rock at keep walls in order to knock them down, from a range that kept the operators safe from arrows. Working as intended.
3. Again, this is using defensive seige equipment for the purpose it was designed for.
Point 2 is definitely part of the whole WvW siege thing. If you capture a small outpost first, and when it's yours, you build siege engines in it to attack the larger keeps, you indeed have an advantage, and it's normal.
I got my balista built in such a keep destroyed by two balistas in the main keep - so it's definitely not OP either, defense against that exists and works
Your 3 points are basically part of the siege tactics, and every single of them can be countered.
Yup I would basically agree. When I put down that treb on the ledge in point 1 though...the other side seemed very frustrated that they couldn't get to it lol. I just foresee complaints about things like this.
Seems to me that they forgot using their brains, all blinded by the usage of their muscles... ;-)
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
I'm sure it may feel like that at times, Creslin, but I'm not sure a lot of people here have really been part of organized WvW play yet. A smaller, more organized group can most definitely hold back a much larger force. It's not guarunteed (and it shouldn't be), but I've seen at least a dozen cases of this happening during the BWEs.
Good point about the ballistas, and tihs could definitely be the case! I'm really just spitballing here from what I experienced...hopefully more tactics will emerge once we are all in game more .
Perfectly understood! :P
I just know there's a lot of info floating out about WvW that people don't know about / don't realize. I've seen a lot of people who think they've experienced coordinated WvW, when in reality they just had a couple friends goofing off on teamspeak (which is fun as hell).
As per a lot of issues with the game, I think this is one of those areas where there are legitimate flaws with the game, but people aren't really addressing them. For example, while kind of hilarious, I don't think this should be possible: Forest of Siege Equipment
I also think that the commander icon shouldn't be something you buy w/ gold, but should be limited to people who obtain a certain amount of (valor/honor?). I also think they need to have the squad system matter more, and they need to add an 'open group' system, similar to what we had in WAR / LotRO.
I just think its funny that a game preaching about how dynamic there world is has such static PvP environments. But no RVR was dones much better in DAoC 10 years ago then GW2 does today. Yes DAoC had its issues, but if you don't think GW2 will have its own issues your sadly mistaken.
I think GW2 should have pushed the envelope more with there PvP instead of BG's (really....BG's but no GvG....) and having a very static WvWvW environment. Being able to set up your own camps would have seriously improved the WvW experience in this game. Having more then one resource would have been great... and no its too complicated isn't an excuse. Seriously tired of games being dumbed down so the mediocre mind can play it.
The systems are shallow, I agree with the OP. BUT I am glad to see another MMO pick WvW up again. Its a feature that should be placed in more MMO's. I wish you all a good time in GW2, but it just isn't a game for me.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
You say it was only popular because it was alone in the field, but in the past 10 years, no one has managed to do it better, and I'm not convinced GW2 will prove to be better either.
The 250.000 players the game had at PEAK may agree with you, many others who have experienced PvP different than DAoC and broke their "MMO cherry" on other games disagree. DAoC's endgame was, by today's standards, "abysmally" bad.
Yeah it was kinda good... as I said, 10 years ago, when you had no competition.
I honestly think this is quite absurd, by today's standards? What MMO that released in the last few years set any standard for endgame play? Especially in regard to PVP? What happend to credit where credit is due? It's Mythic who forged this path for RvR game-play in an MMO. The one in which A-net is following
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's not just about which is stronger (though that is definitely a factor). There's also diversion tactics, which gives you better access to the keep lord, etc. For example, one group might bang on the door, while a smaller group sets up a flanking trebuchet to knockdown a backwall. The defenders are mostly busy focusing on the 'main assault' not realizing that there's about to be another entrance very soon. Your complaint is much more valid on stronger outposts, but really.. how complex can you really make a small tower before it just gets obsurd / difficult to balance.
I know those tactics. I already meantioned flanking in a previous post. However, the end result is still the same. Sieges in GW2 against towers, keeps, castles consist of taking out either a wall or gate, in which the difference between them is that gates are easier but you can put oil to defend. But, to take either down is just hammering it with any siege wepons (as long as it's made for it, unlike an arrow cart). Trebucth, cataput, golem, ram, whatever. After that, you get, inside the keeps and castle, another wall line, which is exaclty like the previous one. So a keep is just 2 towers in 1. After that, there's nothing besides a mash of players, npcs and, possibly, anti-player wepons liek cannons, mortars, etc. How to make it more complex? I already gave idea for that, like different weapons requirements, maybe make the actuall locations not being identical.
If you've ever tried to make your own map (in a team based game), you'd realize how difficult it really is to provide balance through asymmetry. If you look at most teambased games (even RTS), you'll notice that the main maps tend to be fairly symmetrical. This is due to balance. While I agree, asymmetry is much more interesting, it's also extremely difficult to keep balanced, and people are going to use that as an excuse to complain about 'fairness' regardless of how good of a job you do w/ balance.
Understandable. But, like i already, again, in the EB, the lower left area is the only swamp zone, and, the boarderlands are accessable to any server. Your home BL isn't just going to have your team on it. Even Anet said that WVW would be unbalanced in some points.
I believe you can keep your supply over to the other maps, but you lose it as soon as you step outside of WvW. (I could be wrong about this, because I wasn't testing for this specifically)
Would be nice if we could have confirmation. You'd be a cool touch.
My issue with this, is that you haven't really explained what system you're really looking for. To say that something is 'the best, but still not good enough' is fine, unless you fail to back up such a statement with anything practical. It's natural to want more, but there's a pretty large difference between what sounds better, and what actually works.
I think i already provided a good portion of examples. Some might work, some might not. Also, like i meantioned, overall map design would have to be changed. I'm not saying WVW would be perfect with my changes.
What i'm saying is that WVW lacks some degree of depth, IMHO, and massive alterations could be needed. Many made comparisions to sandboxes and RTS systems, which is true. To do some, changes to even the overall design could be necessary, some more simple on the other hand.
It's not a matter of whether or not you think the system 'fails', but more that you've stated you think it isn't 'good enough', but have yet to provide an example of what you think is 'good enough'. What other game designs / mechanics do you think WvW would benefit from? How do you think this would change the game, how could these new features be abused? What specific design flaws do they address, and what new design flaws might they introduce? These are all extremely important things to consider when talking about design changes for a game. Without discussing these, you are basically just tossing out things that 'sound neat', without giving any thought as to how they would actually work. Designers do this 100s of times a day at least.
And we also don't know what other possible flaws, abuses, and otherwise may be found after launch. I already know of a possible one in fact, but that's a thread for later. Of course it would need testing, and long time for it, but that goes for anything.
One idea i gave that would be cool is naval warfare. of course, adding it to the BL lake is a dumb move. The idea i presented are not prefect and factual or absolute. But, that doesn't eliminate the fact that i feel WVW doesn't have enough depth.
it's like Illum and Fusang (no, i think WVW is alot better, btw). Something can be improved with addition. Some require from scratch planning. Do i have all the answers? Nope. But that's what i'm trying to say. To many here, WVW is fine as it is. To me, it could use a make over and more stuff in different areas.
if you don't agree with my view, that's prefectly fine, because, in the end, my view cannot be tested. it's just an idea ater all.Just because something is ok and fine enough in it's current form, doesn't mean one shouldn't step back and return to the drawing board.
And we also don't know what other possible flaws, abuses, and otherwise may be found after launch. I already know of a possible one in fact, but that's a thread for later. Of course it would need testing, and long time for it, but that goes for anything.
One idea i gave that would be cool is naval warfare. of course, adding it to the BL lake is a dumb move. The idea i presented are not prefect and factual or absolute. But, that doesn't eliminate the fatc that i feel WVW doesn't have enough depth.
it's like Illum and Fusang (no, i think WVW is alot better, btw). Something can be improved with addition. Some require from scratch planning. Do i have all the asnwers? Nope. But that's what i'm trying to say. To many here, WVW is fine as it is. To me, it could use a make over and more stuff in different areas.
if you don't agree with my view, that's prefectly fine, because, in the end, my view cannot be tested. it's just an idea ater all.Just because something is ok and fine enough in it's current form, doesn't mean one shouldn't step back and return to the drawing board.
I think you're partially missing my point.
If you think WvW is too shallow, that's fine, but to simply say 'it doesn't have enough depth', and to follow that up by saying 'i don't know how they could make it have more depth' (i know, i'm paraphrasing), is meaningless. You've already stated in an earlier post that WvW is probably the best pvp system on the market at this time. So, in order to say that it still isn't good enough warrants a bit more of a response, don't you think?
If you really want to WvW improve, look over the questions I posted at the bottom of my last reply (and maybe even come up w/ some of your own). Think about systems that you think would actually help the WvW system, and then question your own ideas for flaws. I think you'll find you will not only come up w/ better ideas, but Anet will also be more likely to listen to them.
They've already made a number of changes (planning to add in GvG is one of the more recent ones), based on other fans doing just that.
-snip- Will it become a stale zerg fest? Will it be complex enough that players can find new ways to challenge the enemies often enough that it stays fresh?-snip-
Not quite sure, but I think zerging is in our nature as humans...
Pooping is in our nature too, but it makes really lame mmo gameplay (and yes, poop-socking included!). I decided in this instance it would be prudent to not include picture examples!
Zerging can be fun, but if the game is nothing but that it would get boring... luckily I don't think GW2 has this issue.
If you think WvW is too shallow, that's fine, but to simply say 'it doesn't have enough depth', and to follow that up by saying 'i don't know how they could make it have more depth' (i know, i'm paraphrasing), is meaningless. You've already stated in an earlier post that WvW is probably the best pvp system on the market at this time. So, in order to say that it still isn't good enough warrants a bit more of a response, don't you think?
If you really want to WvW improve, look over the questions I posted at the bottom of my last reply (and maybe even come up w/ some of your own). Think about systems that you think would actually help the WvW system, and then question your own ideas for flaws. I think you'll find you will not only come up w/ better ideas, but Anet will also be more likely to listen to them.
They've already made a number of changes (planning to add in GvG is one of the more recent ones), based on other fans doing just that.
Maybe my OP created some confusion. The ideas i gave are not be used simply like that at all. One of the things i think the game could use alot is a single, larger zone, but of course, you can't just fuse all the 4 maps together like that.
It's like the resource nodes and pvp crafting. The map design, even without camps, must allow this to work properly. It was just an overall plan, which is what i was refering to with the "back to the drawing borad" comment. That requires alot of testing, but if the game was designed for it in the first place, it'd be better
When i said it's shallow, as i point in my OP, it's the supply/siege duo mechanic which makes up for the main element of WVW. But, i also said that i think it's a cool rvr system. Contradiction? Seems like it, but i'm not. I think wvw is indeed teh best rvr in this moment and that it's good in many points, like the dungeon, but i find other things no deep enough because they coudl just be better.
My "improvement" are mostly rough ideas of how the game coudl be made more complex.
I'm not saying what WVW needs them to be alot better. I'm simply expressing the reasons why i personally feel it's not that great (remember, i still find it good in many areas at the same time). So, i'm giving examples of mechanics that, if the game add been atleast made for them, it could have been cooler.
Not quite sure, but I think zerging is in our nature as humans...
Pooping is in our nature too, but it makes really lame mmo gameplay (and yes, poop-socking included!). I decided in this instance it would be prudent to not include picture examples!
Zerging can be fun, but if the game is nothing but that it would get boring... luckily I don't think GW2 has this issue.
Horrible, horrible analogy.
I'm not even going to get into why, it should be self evident.
The main reasons that 'zerging' doesn't seem fun to people, is because their importance often gets dilluted (people are used to being 'THE hero'). However, what people don't realize is that (just like in a real battle) it sets the stage to be a 'real' hero.
I disagree that 'zerging' isn't fun. I'd say that 'mindless gameplay' isn't fun, and that many people assume zerging is mindless gameplay (and in many ways that's the stigma the term brings). However, the problem with this, is that (if the game allows for it), a smart player(s) can overcome a mindless zerg with superior tactics, gameplay, and coordination. Hell, even in horribly imbalanced PvP games (like LotRO) this was possible to an extent.
Everyone always talks about how they want a game w/ 'massive battles', and then complains that its 'too zergy'. You can't be the hero in a massive battle w/ out doing anything. Take charge, get vocal, and use your brain. There's always room for good PUG leadership.
Now that's some feedback, MMOWanderer. No doomsaying, no evasive arguments, concrete facts. Even if I don't agree with your opinion as others have pointed, I have to recognize it's mature and open to debate. Take notes, trolls.
edit : you should definitely post that on official forums.
edit 2 : I think what Aesperus is trying to say to you is that disagreeing with an overall design decision is one thing, but before making it an absolute judgement, you'll have to find a 100% viable alternative. Gamedesign is a bitch, to say bluntly.
***** Before hitting that reply button, please READ the WHOLE thread you're about to post in *****
My "improvement" are mostly rough ideas of how the game coudl be made more complex.
I'm not saying what WVW needs them to be alot better. I'm simply expressing the reasons why i personally feel it's not that great (remember, i still find it good in many areas at the same time). So, i'm giving examples of mechanics that, if the game add been atleast made for them, it could have been cooler.
In the end, it's all opinion.
That's a large part of my point. They are rough ideas. So refine them .
I don't disagree that the system could be more complex. However, to take the 'best rvr system' and call it 'flawed / too simple', you should do so with specific / refined ideas, not rough / generalized ideas.
Not to pick on your ideas, but for example your 'naval warfare' idea. It sounds really cool. However, how would it benefit WvW? What problems would it solve, and more importantly what additional problems might it introduce? As I mentioned earlier, these are very important questions every design has to ask themselves. You're right, we don't know how well a system will work, but any decent design has already thought up 100s of ideas like your naval one. That's the easy part. The hard part (and the most important) is figuring out which ideas are actually benefitial, and which ones might actually harm the current game.
These things are almost always a balancing act between what seems cool, and whether or not it fixes more problems than it creates. I don't think you'd really want a 'deeper rvr experience', if in order to achieve it it made the game horribly broken, imbalanced, and unfun; would you?
Not quite sure, but I think zerging is in our nature as humans...
Pooping is in our nature too, but it makes really lame mmo gameplay (and yes, poop-socking included!). I decided in this instance it would be prudent to not include picture examples!
Zerging can be fun, but if the game is nothing but that it would get boring... luckily I don't think GW2 has this issue.
Horrible, horrible analogy.
I'm not even going to get into why, it should be self evident.
The main reasons that 'zerging' doesn't seem fun to people, is because their importance often gets dilluted (people are used to being 'THE hero'). However, what people don't realize is that (just like in a real battle) it sets the stage to be a 'real' hero.
I disagree that 'zerging' isn't fun. I'd say that 'mindless gameplay' isn't fun, and that many people assume zerging is mindless gameplay (and in many ways that's the stigma the term brings). However, the problem with this, is that (if the game allows for it), a smart player(s) can overcome a mindless zerg with superior tactics, gameplay, and coordination. Hell, even in horribly imbalanced PvP games (like LotRO) this was possible to an extent.
Everyone always talks about how they want a game w/ 'massive battles', and then complains that its 'too zergy'. You can't be the hero in a massive battle w/ out doing anything. Take charge, get vocal, and use your brain. There's always room for good PUG leadership.
You take yourself and the internet way to seriously. It was a joke
You say it was only popular because it was alone in the field, but in the past 10 years, no one has managed to do it better, and I'm not convinced GW2 will prove to be better either.
The 250.000 players the game had at PEAK may agree with you, many others who have experienced PvP different than DAoC and broke their "MMO cherry" on other games disagree. DAoC's endgame was, by today's standards, "abysmally" bad.
Yeah it was kinda good... as I said, 10 years ago, when you had no competition.
I honestly think this is quite absurd, by today's standards? What MMO that released in the last few years set any standard for endgame play? Especially in regard to PVP? What happend to credit where credit is due? It's Mythic who forged this path for RvR game-play in an MMO. The one in which A-net is following
Well maybe not to his standerd of 'abysmally' bad, but truthfully lets admit that those games so well drawn in her minds and memories are no where near the flawless creations we made them out to be. My grandfather would of argued with me that the type writer is the best invention for doing papers, though we all know that it lacks a lot fo the good features of the comptuers we have today.
Take any old mmo back in the day when the genre was starting up, and you will find that it has TONS of problem areas. Yes, we are spoiled today and yes we have so much competition available, but it doesn't mean we can glorify it completely. The spirit of it is what we like, and in truth if we had all the options we had today, games like DaoC would of flopped today and WoW in its original state would of likely recieved harsh scrutiny like SWTOR did (granted maybe its extreme to go mention it with tor, but still the whole 'mediocre game' concept).
As much as I love Ragnarok Online, in the end I know that all it involves is repetative grinding of the same mobs with the same skills for long periods of time to work slowly to the end level. If it wasn't for nostalgia, chances are the game wouldn't be nearly as good in my mind as it is now.
Comments
true I was a fan of DAOC RvR but it had tons of issues as well.. my biggest issue was crowd control among others.. but think a lot of this is nostalga for people more than anything sometimes. I remember how amazing EQ1 was first time I played it but if I went back today.. ugh and its not just the dated graphics
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
I think I can agree with one of the OPs points about more variety to the resource system. I would consider it an improvement if there was 1 or two other types that would be obtained in different ways (more than 3 would be overkill). The problem I would want to avoid however is condemning a subset of players in WvW to simply have to grind gathering of resources for their team. While some might want to help their team after time I think it would just become boring and grindy. I imagine thats why they went with the automated caravan route, let the npcs do the boring work and leave players to fight and protect them.
The other points I don't feel the same way at all. Borderlands should be consistent for the same balancing reasons all 'factions' have access to the same classes. Keep distance should be long enough to be annoying for deaths but short enough to not put you to sleep on the way back. Keep sieges...I think they provide a balance of variety and accessibility, while you could add more fluff to it in terms of ways to break in, in the end it is still going to come down to the same basic siege principles without changing much of the experience. Short of implementing full sandbox style build anywhere system, sieging will always be about large armies crashing against the walls while smaller units run around trying to cut off supply and win through attrition. Variety will be found primarily in the class composition, player skill, and a realms ability to coordinate with its members.
Only other thing I will mention is that while I disagreed with several points, I liked the way the OP stated his case and offered constructive ways to improve the things that bothered him without being all flamey and insulting. Don't see that often here, more criticism posts should follow OPs example.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
This is where organised guilds and alliances will come to dominate. If you're defending a keep against a large force and holding with the use of seige but it looks like a wall or door won't last long, organised defenders will call for re-inforcements to hit the attacking players from the outside. For example. Helm's Deep's wall was breached and then Gandalf comes to the rescue.
It all comes down to tactics and more importantly organisation and communication.
It was 10 years ago but it had faults. Like WoW's gear imbalance, DAoC suffered from RR imbalance. CC was far too powerful. ToA introduced a gear grind leading to further imbalance. Then there were the dreaded Buffbots. It wasn't perfect but it was the best thing at that time, and nothing has come close to it's 3 realm RvR since.
No though we have a new game offering the same 3 sided keep battles but without the faults that plagued DAoC.
1. Oh YES IT IS. There is nothing worse in an MMO forum than a pack of PvPers crying over trifling 'balance' and 'fairness' issues.
Moved per Amana's request:
So in my time in WvW, I came across a few tactics that seemed erm...questionable balance-wise. I'm going to list them below, because I'm curious to see if you guys think there need to be some in-game prevention of them. Personally, I like them and think they should stay...but I want to hear what you all think:
1. Unreachable siege equipment - In BWE3, one of our keeps near our main base was being assaulted by a MUCH larger force. We were pretty much sure to lose it. However, I wound up placing a trebuchet on a tiny ledge that was in range of the keep door, but is basically only reachable by falling down a hill right outside of our main base. Once we got the treb up, it literally CRUSHED the attackers, and there was nothing they could do about it...no way they could have ever got to it. The only thing they could have feasibly done is build their own treb to take it out...but I would have targeted it of course
.
2. Keep to keep bombing - One thing I saw a team-mate do was build a treb on the edge of one of our keep towers. Oddly enough, this trebuchet was actually in range to hit another keep's wall! Once again, this is kind of like the unreachable siege equipment thing, but this time used offensively.
3. Defense "stacking" -- I don't think there is really anything to stop you from building as many siege weapons as you want in one area. One thing that my team did while defending was build like 4 arrowcarts on top of the walls. These arrowcarts just decimated the attackers, and they could only be hit by other siege equip. Meanwhile, anything the attackers built was vulnerable to raiding from the defenders.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Dont forget about cooperation
That is something that is pretty much impossible to achieve in an MMO with a large scale battle.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
My answer to Creslin:
Point 2 is definitely part of the whole WvW siege thing. If you capture a small outpost first, and when it's yours, you build siege engines in it to attack the larger keeps, you indeed have an advantage, and it's normal.
I got my balista built in such a keep destroyed by two balistas in the main keep - so it's definitely not OP either, defense against that exists and works
Your 3 points are basically part of the siege tactics, and every single of them can be countered.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Yup I would basically agree. When I put down that treb on the ledge in point 1 though...the other side seemed very frustrated that they couldn't get to it lol. I just foresee complaints about things like this.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
1. the boarderlands.... being copies of itself is kinda lame but i dont mind THAT much.
2. keep distance... this one dont bother me much at all.
3. supply... the problem with supply from a dev point of view is this.....if supply is too dynamic it becomes too much of a chore to upkeep and becomes very unfun.... but if it means nothing it gets ignored and its looked at as a flawed idea. so the balence is hard to maintain when making a game like this.... (see planetside 2 resources) so i understand this is how they went about it.
http://medias.luna-atra.fr/gw2/char_tool/CT_imageGenerator.php?pseudo=Centurion Mikal&lang=EN&code=&code=TSwtLDUsLSw2LC0sMjksOSwyMiwyMywyNCwtLDEwMiwzNiw4MSw4NCw4OQ==
1. May be a bit iffy, but it could have been built way back in the keep also, rather than down on a ledge so a minor issue for me. You just made clever use of what was available to you. Have a cookie
2. Trebuchet's were built specifically to hurl huge lumps of rock at keep walls in order to knock them down, from a range that kept the operators safe from arrows. Working as intended.
3. Again, this is using defensive seige equipment for the purpose it was designed for.
I see no problems here.
Seems to me that they forgot using their brains, all blinded by the usage of their muscles... ;-)
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Perfectly understood! :P
I just know there's a lot of info floating out about WvW that people don't know about / don't realize. I've seen a lot of people who think they've experienced coordinated WvW, when in reality they just had a couple friends goofing off on teamspeak (which is fun as hell).
As per a lot of issues with the game, I think this is one of those areas where there are legitimate flaws with the game, but people aren't really addressing them. For example, while kind of hilarious, I don't think this should be possible: Forest of Siege Equipment
I also think that the commander icon shouldn't be something you buy w/ gold, but should be limited to people who obtain a certain amount of (valor/honor?). I also think they need to have the squad system matter more, and they need to add an 'open group' system, similar to what we had in WAR / LotRO.
I just think its funny that a game preaching about how dynamic there world is has such static PvP environments. But no RVR was dones much better in DAoC 10 years ago then GW2 does today. Yes DAoC had its issues, but if you don't think GW2 will have its own issues your sadly mistaken.
I think GW2 should have pushed the envelope more with there PvP instead of BG's (really....BG's but no GvG....) and having a very static WvWvW environment. Being able to set up your own camps would have seriously improved the WvW experience in this game. Having more then one resource would have been great... and no its too complicated isn't an excuse. Seriously tired of games being dumbed down so the mediocre mind can play it.
The systems are shallow, I agree with the OP. BUT I am glad to see another MMO pick WvW up again. Its a feature that should be placed in more MMO's. I wish you all a good time in GW2, but it just isn't a game for me.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
I honestly think this is quite absurd, by today's standards? What MMO that released in the last few years set any standard for endgame play? Especially in regard to PVP? What happend to credit where credit is due? It's Mythic who forged this path for RvR game-play in an MMO. The one in which A-net is following
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And we also don't know what other possible flaws, abuses, and otherwise may be found after launch. I already know of a possible one in fact, but that's a thread for later. Of course it would need testing, and long time for it, but that goes for anything.
One idea i gave that would be cool is naval warfare. of course, adding it to the BL lake is a dumb move. The idea i presented are not prefect and factual or absolute. But, that doesn't eliminate the fact that i feel WVW doesn't have enough depth.
it's like Illum and Fusang (no, i think WVW is alot better, btw). Something can be improved with addition. Some require from scratch planning. Do i have all the answers? Nope. But that's what i'm trying to say. To many here, WVW is fine as it is. To me, it could use a make over and more stuff in different areas.
if you don't agree with my view, that's prefectly fine, because, in the end, my view cannot be tested. it's just an idea ater all.Just because something is ok and fine enough in it's current form, doesn't mean one shouldn't step back and return to the drawing board.
I think you're partially missing my point.
If you think WvW is too shallow, that's fine, but to simply say 'it doesn't have enough depth', and to follow that up by saying 'i don't know how they could make it have more depth' (i know, i'm paraphrasing), is meaningless. You've already stated in an earlier post that WvW is probably the best pvp system on the market at this time. So, in order to say that it still isn't good enough warrants a bit more of a response, don't you think?
If you really want to WvW improve, look over the questions I posted at the bottom of my last reply (and maybe even come up w/ some of your own). Think about systems that you think would actually help the WvW system, and then question your own ideas for flaws. I think you'll find you will not only come up w/ better ideas, but Anet will also be more likely to listen to them.
They've already made a number of changes (planning to add in GvG is one of the more recent ones), based on other fans doing just that.
Pooping is in our nature too, but it makes really lame mmo gameplay (and yes, poop-socking included!). I decided in this instance it would be prudent to not include picture examples!
Zerging can be fun, but if the game is nothing but that it would get boring... luckily I don't think GW2 has this issue.
Maybe my OP created some confusion. The ideas i gave are not be used simply like that at all. One of the things i think the game could use alot is a single, larger zone, but of course, you can't just fuse all the 4 maps together like that.
It's like the resource nodes and pvp crafting. The map design, even without camps, must allow this to work properly. It was just an overall plan, which is what i was refering to with the "back to the drawing borad" comment. That requires alot of testing, but if the game was designed for it in the first place, it'd be better
When i said it's shallow, as i point in my OP, it's the supply/siege duo mechanic which makes up for the main element of WVW. But, i also said that i think it's a cool rvr system. Contradiction? Seems like it, but i'm not. I think wvw is indeed teh best rvr in this moment and that it's good in many points, like the dungeon, but i find other things no deep enough because they coudl just be better.
My "improvement" are mostly rough ideas of how the game coudl be made more complex.
I'm not saying what WVW needs them to be alot better. I'm simply expressing the reasons why i personally feel it's not that great (remember, i still find it good in many areas at the same time). So, i'm giving examples of mechanics that, if the game add been atleast made for them, it could have been cooler.
In the end, it's all opinion.
Horrible, horrible analogy.
I'm not even going to get into why, it should be self evident.
The main reasons that 'zerging' doesn't seem fun to people, is because their importance often gets dilluted (people are used to being 'THE hero'). However, what people don't realize is that (just like in a real battle) it sets the stage to be a 'real' hero.
I disagree that 'zerging' isn't fun. I'd say that 'mindless gameplay' isn't fun, and that many people assume zerging is mindless gameplay (and in many ways that's the stigma the term brings). However, the problem with this, is that (if the game allows for it), a smart player(s) can overcome a mindless zerg with superior tactics, gameplay, and coordination. Hell, even in horribly imbalanced PvP games (like LotRO) this was possible to an extent.
Everyone always talks about how they want a game w/ 'massive battles', and then complains that its 'too zergy'. You can't be the hero in a massive battle w/ out doing anything. Take charge, get vocal, and use your brain. There's always room for good PUG leadership.
Now that's some feedback, MMOWanderer. No doomsaying, no evasive arguments, concrete facts. Even if I don't agree with your opinion as others have pointed, I have to recognize it's mature and open to debate. Take notes, trolls.
edit : you should definitely post that on official forums.
edit 2 : I think what Aesperus is trying to say to you is that disagreeing with an overall design decision is one thing, but before making it an absolute judgement, you'll have to find a 100% viable alternative. Gamedesign is a bitch, to say bluntly.
***** Before hitting that reply button, please READ the WHOLE thread you're about to post in *****
That's a large part of my point. They are rough ideas. So refine them
.
I don't disagree that the system could be more complex. However, to take the 'best rvr system' and call it 'flawed / too simple', you should do so with specific / refined ideas, not rough / generalized ideas.
Not to pick on your ideas, but for example your 'naval warfare' idea. It sounds really cool. However, how would it benefit WvW? What problems would it solve, and more importantly what additional problems might it introduce? As I mentioned earlier, these are very important questions every design has to ask themselves. You're right, we don't know how well a system will work, but any decent design has already thought up 100s of ideas like your naval one. That's the easy part. The hard part (and the most important) is figuring out which ideas are actually benefitial, and which ones might actually harm the current game.
These things are almost always a balancing act between what seems cool, and whether or not it fixes more problems than it creates. I don't think you'd really want a 'deeper rvr experience', if in order to achieve it it made the game horribly broken, imbalanced, and unfun; would you?
You take yourself and the internet way to seriously. It was a joke
Well maybe not to his standerd of 'abysmally' bad, but truthfully lets admit that those games so well drawn in her minds and memories are no where near the flawless creations we made them out to be. My grandfather would of argued with me that the type writer is the best invention for doing papers, though we all know that it lacks a lot fo the good features of the comptuers we have today.
Take any old mmo back in the day when the genre was starting up, and you will find that it has TONS of problem areas. Yes, we are spoiled today and yes we have so much competition available, but it doesn't mean we can glorify it completely. The spirit of it is what we like, and in truth if we had all the options we had today, games like DaoC would of flopped today and WoW in its original state would of likely recieved harsh scrutiny like SWTOR did (granted maybe its extreme to go mention it with tor, but still the whole 'mediocre game' concept).
As much as I love Ragnarok Online, in the end I know that all it involves is repetative grinding of the same mobs with the same skills for long periods of time to work slowly to the end level. If it wasn't for nostalgia, chances are the game wouldn't be nearly as good in my mind as it is now.