Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WvW, server vs server, Mists area?
Pest138
Member UncommonPosts: 114
Just started poking around the GW2 site today, I know there has been a steady buzz about this game but I had not checked anything out because I played GW1 for a bit(2 months) and was not impressed. So finally I check out the site, looks impressive/ambitious!
Now I get the feeling this game is still a good year out from release so there is alot of unanswered questions but the one that got my interest was someone mentioned that there would be some kind of server versus server PvP in an area called the "Mists" which would involve server wide bonus's? If true that kind of sets the hook, that would be PvP with a tangible achievement/reward.
Definitely will be on the lookout for details.
Comments
Yes, it's 3 way server vs. server vs. server battles that are a week long, fighting over resources and neutral forts, and even attacking the enemy's castles. Bonuses are supposed to improve the PvE side of your server.
It seems pretty interesting, and from the sounds of it will be able to host multi-way battles with up to well over a hundred person per side. We don't know a WHOLE lot about it yet, other than supposedly you can level from 1-80 just in the mists, and that there are supposed to be various objectives that can do things like reinforce your forts, so you can protect caravans, or run missions or whatever, meaning there's some PvE style objectives for people to mess with (Rather than being pure fighting, group against group.)
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Main_Page contains pretty much all info we have at the moment.
Tey, thanks for the info, going to check out that wiki link now!
This and the general combat gameplay is definitely the most important things for me in this game, I hope they take their sweet time polishing it to perfection, I don't want 12 months of patches moving around keeps and battleobjectives.
So, i have a question. Will there be different servers to make your characters on?
If so, will there be like pvp based servers and pve based servers. And then just a normal server?
ALSO: if they have regular servers, will there be "battlegrounds" like in WoW?
As far as we know there are only normal servers. There have been no hints of roleplaying servers or pvp servers.
I'm not sure what battlegrounds are but you can read everything we know about pvp here: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP
To my knowledge, all servers are "PvE" servers, but all servers are connected to the Mists and in order to engage in PvP, you actually have to venture there. This means that anyone on any server can participate, but there will be no FFA open-world ganking on any server. I've also heard there will be set piece battles like battlegrounds, a la Team v. Team, but I have no idea about the mechanics. ArenaNet has a strong PvP background though, so I expect that the PvP aspects will be well fleshed out.
Sorry that's a bit vague, but I don't pay much attention to the PvP comments beyond what's being said about the Mists.
If it's the WvWvW PvP you're talking about, then no. You want have to make a new character, you just take your current character (gear & stats intact) and have fun in The Mist.
I have a few concerns regarding the "Mists" and WvWvW.
One of the lead designers made a comment regarding the "Mists": If you liked the pvp in Dark Age of Camelot(DAOC), GW2 will be the next evolution of that.
if GW2 is to be the new evolution of Dark Age of Camelot, in regards to pvp content, they really need to take alot into consideration.
The pve mixed with pvp in daoc was only a tiny tiny part of the great pvp experience daoc was. Allow me to explain:
WOW and WAR both suffered from 1 fundamental problem in pvp. You had to kill npc's(pve) to win a game, thus giving you points to get new armor that essentlialy was maded for killing other players(pvp). I heard the same line over and over agian in WOW and in WAR: "Yeah, im ready to gank enemy players, but I first need to take down a 1000 castles and kill a 1000 npc's to get my awesome gear. But after that, im ready to start ganking other players"
It should be the other way around, or at least a balance, as it was in daoc.
You should get points/skills/armor for killing other enemies(pvp) thus making you more strong when it comes to taking out keeps(Pve) etc.
If killing an "NPC Guard of the Westfold Keep of Aldrian" is more important then killing an actual opponent, GW2 wont be making the next evolution in pvp, that's for sure..
That being said, Im still really looking forward to GW2 and i've got my fingers crossed for awesome pvp...
Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one they first got into.
Mixing in too much PvE in the PvP would not be good. But I think they meant that there will be some npcs in the castles and similar imortant places that actually will affect you server, you shouldn't just be able to put together a small group at an odd hour and control the entire area.
What you guys seems to have mixed is that this is not the main PvP thing for GW2, it is more like a secondary thing. The main focus of GW2s PvP is Guild Vs Guild, both Mike and Eric have stated that and there wont be any npcs there.'
There will be sieging in the mists and possibly in G Vs G. Then there will be arenas as well. Even if you wont like the mists you still will have 2 other PvP activities you can do.
Well those words are more along the lines of highlighting the difference in PvP that exists separate from PvE:
1. Open world PvP = free for all (aka Darkfall
2. Open world and Partition PvP = free for all and safe zones (eg EvE)
3. World or Realm PvP = Zones that you can enter and special pvp rules ensue (eg daoc, war) Johanson worked at Mythic pre-daoc ; )
4. Arena PvP; Scenarios etc = team=based, set rules and conditions (eg Guild Wars etc)
GW2 = themepark pve + PvP #3 & #4
That's what they are really selling to those players who enjoyed Mythic's RvR and now the next evolution => WvWMany benefits of refining this system eg SERVERS x3 ; Separate Area Mists; Timed Finite Duration of 1 Week reshuffle etcand if you read the wiki you'll see more details of how they want various BOs for different numbers of players to attack and how these are strategic to bigger targets etc.
Short Answer: Don't think it will hinge on PvE Lord of the Keep win result - more like territory percentage wins and bo win-ratios and pks over the whole week.... ^ ^
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Thanks for the link!
Ok. Thanks for the info.
But how are the worlds seperate? Like how to you get WvWvW?
There is most likely a portal in the major cities. We have no idea so we can only speculate.
Ok thanks!
I guess we will have to wait until they finally f***** talk about PVP ALREADY!! lol
This is a common misconception that "mixing PvE with PvP" killed WAR PvP. In fact PvP in RvR lakes was hideously boring exactly because there was nothing to do (largely) except bashing at other players or killing a solitary mob or two in order to ensure a victory. Now they fixed this somewhat and with the introducion of some modest quality PvE elements that actually mesh with PvP such as resource runners the experience is much much richer than it used to be.
However by far the biggest problem with their initial RvR model was that they provided awards for conquering rather than holding keeps therefore creating a merry-go-round with zergs actively avoiding each other or even consensually trading keeps. The same happened with WoW world PvP in TBC if you care to remember. Anyway, since WAR RvR sucked so incredibly at the beginning the observers struggled to find an explanation of what is wrong and naturally fixated on "PvE" as the culprit since it was the most obvious point of divergence from the "standard" world PvP model.
So, here's the catch - PvE has absolutely nothing to do with it. You'd have exactly the same situation even if there were no keep bosses and such in WAR. It was just horrifically bad wargame design on Mythic's part and anyone who spent some time with war boardgames would tell them so - and actually did but they didn't listen so there you go.
PvE elements in PvP imo is THE way to go. PvE in PvP has the function of adding environmental elements to it. There is no fundamental difference between say, a fiery lake in the center of the arena which drains hp and a bunch of neutral mobs running around making a nuisance of themselves. However, I find mobs generally more fun than a patch of ground with 10 dps written on it just like I find PvP in rugged terrain more fun than playing on a flat infinite plain.
And "fairness" has nothing to do with it - if there's a badass neutral dragon kicking everyone's ass in an arena then controlling that dragon and factoring it in your strategy is an exercise of skill exactly as would be hiding behind a hill or simply firing the right ability at the right time.
Well since this piece of opinion on RvR is written in the voice of facts I would like to enlighten any readers that this is infact just the opinion of the author. I can asure you that not everybody thinks PvE elements in PvP is the way to go.
PvP like this needs quite a number of things to make it work imo.
1) A reason to be in the mist other than just PvP. Stick some of the better XP mobs or better drops or rare crafting drops here to get people to just be around in the mists even if they don't want to actively PvP at the moment.
2) A global goal that is hard to achieve. Something that gives you a sense of pride when you take it. There should be a lot of smaller goals for day to day play but the major goal should not be a nightly conquest. Small keeps that you have to take to open up the big keep etc. Dynamic event chains that have to be completed to open the big final event etc.
3) A reason to defend. So many games go wrong when not doing this. This is where the NPCs help some too as keeps need to be able to defend themselves against small numbers and a smaller defensive force should be able to hold off a larger attacking force while reinforcements arrive.
4) small group targets. You don't want PvP to just be zerg on zerg all the time, that gets boring for some people fast. You need to have remote targets that can help win the bigger goals where mobility, stealth and small group tactics are useful.
Yup, agree. Especially the last point is very important. And very hard to implement. I remember WAR where going for the flags in a zone was intended for small groups, yet everyone rolled over them with the zerg, because you never knew with how many your opponents would react (if at all) and everyone wanted to get the extra points for capturing it.
Of course that ended up in a large group of players steamrolling a couple of npc's and waiting for the control to flip every nine out of ten times (because your oponents were attacking undefended objectives in another zone anyway), making it a very unchallenging pve objective + wait.
I really hope the Mists will turn out better than WAR's RVR: like you suggested: having a lot of very personal and solo objectives, unrelated or only partly related to PVP in the Mists would be a good start.
My brand new bloggity blog.
Well obviously it's my opinion. Like anything written on any forum anywhere.
However let me elaborate a bit on this..
What is this "pure" PvP that seems to be such an incredible holy grail for PvP crowd? An empty flat plane where the winner is decided by the number of kills. All other elements added to this PvP evironment are, in fact PvE... even if you just have to stand for 15 seconds at one spot to claim it you are, in essence, playing against the environment. If you're using a rock to hide behind it you are, again, using the environment and your opponent is playing "against" it. So, all enhancements to the boring deathmatch-on-a-flat-plane are PvE.
That's some more food for thought there.
Imo you HAVE to use PvE elements in order to enhance PvP experience. There is no escaping it in my mind. Using these PvE elements well and in conjunction to PvP is what requires some game design skill. Imo the problem with PvE in PvP is not that it is inherently "bad for PvP" but that it was in general used badly. The legendary Darkness Falls in DAoC is a good example of using PvE to enhance PvP by giving it variety and a motivation beyond "kill more than be killed". The original Alterac Valley in WoW where you could summon npcs, friendly cavalry attacks and deal with nasty neutral npc bosses who didn't care who they'll stomp on is another. WAR's endgame improved incredibly since the introduction of npc bosses who run around attempting to do their tasks while players are trying to either kill or support them...
And besides, if you're so keen on "pure PvP" (yawn) then I'm sure GW2 will be happy to provide you with a nice bare room where you'll be able to prove your PvP skills "fairly"... whatever that might mean. There is still this whole competetive PvP aspect of the game which will feature absolute parity of all contestants and a variety of arenas to slug it out in. There's bound to be one bare flat box among them for teh reel hardcorez. WvW is meant to give you this chaotic, largely unpredictable emergent experience of a "real" war.
That is just stretching the term or nitpicking - or both.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Maybe.. but imo most of the arguments on this site are all about semantics - two opponents meaning basically the same but fighting over the meaning of words. Like in this case, obviously "PvE" means something to some people and something to others. PvE = Player vs Environment, in this case it is "Environment" that is the relevant part of the expression.
We should rather argue about WHAT is the right way to utilize PvE elements when designing a PvP-motivated game rather than whether "PvE in PvP is BAD" which is imo silly considering what the expression PvE really means devoid of all the preconceptions.
Imo the real argument when people say "PvE in PvP is BAD" is usually "The bad way of using PvE in a PvP-motivated game is when it is divorced form the actual experience of PvP, such as when I have to grind mobs in a safe zone just so I can be competetive in PvP. This is not the experience I bought the game for." Imo the problem with such a generalization is that while it may be more handy to write down and quite catchy, it confuses the whole issue and automatically discredits all the numerous valid uses of PvE elements in a PvP game. It's just easier to shout "PvE in PvP is BAD" and feel all smug about it.