New article about World vs. World - MUST READ

[Reward]

I'm throwing my money at the screen without any success... Anet! Stop torture me! I beg you!

[Deleted]

Well when you have played WoW for so long thats what you'd expect right? Gw2 is new and exciting, people will need to adapt to change.

I've never played WoW and I'm expecting this aswell. If you played Fort Aspenwood in GW you saw that the majority of people don't really care about objectives.

[Morogoth]

Will we be able to chat with the other servers?

[Sargerus]

I am trying to not get too excited, but that is hard to do.

I know the feeling. After the hype i had for SWTOR, i do not want to be disappointed again.

[Bloodlight]

Many different ways that this could turn out, but I'll give my two cents.
Personally, I for see the weakest realm being taken out right away, to reduce the chances for obvious set backs like the weaker realm joining sides with the other strong realm. From the looks of the weapons and objectives in use, as long as the weakest realm is kept back, the two strong realms both have a very good chance of defeating the other.

But keeping back the weakest realm would require dedicating members of your realm to just that and by doing so you'd have less players to combat the other realm.
And odds are if who've pushed back the realm and now need to focus your attention on the other realm, the weaker realm would easily overwhelm whatever members dedicate themselves to holding them back.

Exciting to think about how many tactics and strategies there will be in WvW... will be interesting to see how well realms work together though.

Do you realize you're talking about what each server will do as if they were played by three hive minds? 90% of the players will just be running in circles looking for people to gank.

People running around would also mean that they would come across enemy supply camps/keeps and find stuff to kill there, which would be beneficial to your team.

I've never played WoW and I'm expecting this aswell. If you played Fort Aspenwood in GW you saw that the majority of people don't really care about objectives.

Not sure if serious. 1. Why would people not want to win and gain more faction? 2. I don't think there was ever a FOrt Aspenwood game I played where there wasn't at least 3 - 4 people running amber.

[Zeek Daniels]

Will we be able to chat with the other servers?

They have said that cross server communication wont be available. So your just going to have to figure out during the course of play if one team is dominating to only attack that servers controlled areas and leave the other servers areas alone and hope the other server does the same.

[Roose]

Of course you will have bad players doing what bad players do. There is no IQ test to play.

At least here you can single those players out FROM YOUR SERVER and let them know how you and all your friends feel about their lack of helpfulness. Seems like players will either get with the plan or get run off the server. That could result in some major grieving. Maybe people will finally have to learn how to play. Much more accountability in server based warfare.

Any game that makes raodwarriors less of a liability and more of an asset will command the respect of the gaming community for ages.

[Ashgar]

In previous explanations they talked about quests you get for the objectives so it will probably have a reward for accomplishing it. That's incentive enough if you get xp, loot, faction and money.

[Dosvidaniya]

Many different ways that this could turn out, but I'll give my two cents.
Personally, I for see the weakest realm being taken out right away, to reduce the chances for obvious set backs like the weaker realm joining sides with the other strong realm. From the looks of the weapons and objectives in use, as long as the weakest realm is kept back, the two strong realms both have a very good chance of defeating the other.

Doubtful. While you can take out their objectives, you can't get rid of the players.

If you've played RISK, you'll probably instinctively understand why it doesn't work this way. Ultimately, the team that is "cornered" becomes extremely concentrated and you become spread thin. It's like trying to take Australia from the guy that has 100 units camped at his tiny bottleneck. If you piss him off, he'll backlash and suicide just so the other guy will win. Especially since you have to turn on each other. At the same time, you get very little for the insane amount of fighting required to take his stuff. In addition, every loss to him weakens you to the other primary opponent.

This is actually even more true in GW2. You can't just keep amassing players. Eventually, you'll run out of upgrades too. You get spread thin. In addition, you can't ever get rid of the third realm players. When that happens, you then have to choose between continuing to push one side into the corner or go for your "ally" who is also spread thin. Instinctively, the new players will go for the easy route. The strategists will too.

Lets say that you somehow had the perfect "alliance." The cornered team will then fall upon the only option. They'll abandon and lose their stuff. When that happens, your alliance is dead and worse still, you've got 100+ third faction players whose sole goal is to farm you for loot and to take you down with them. I've seen it in RISK and I've seen it in many strategy games. Piss off the third guy and he'll yield everything and then proceed to sacrifice every remaining resource to see you fall. Just because they don't have objectives doesn't mean they've lost the fun of pvp and the added incentive of revenge makes them a lethal band.

To quote Firefly, "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal." Betrayal always happens when you suddenly gain nothing by the alliance and lose all potential for gains.

[Rowen]

People running around would also mean that they would come across enemy supply camps/keeps and find stuff to kill there, which would be beneficial to your team.

I'm not denying that. If people from your server show up and fight anyone, they're hampering the enemy almost by definition. My point is that several posts in this thread especulate on what each server would do as if the players from each server would be all obeying orders from a single intelligence taking rational decisions, when actually they'll behave like an uncoordinated mob and most of the players will be just looking for fun things to do.

If the battlefield structure or scoring system is able to funnel people into fighting for objectives, that'd be great, but I think there are two points that don't admit discussion: that the whole server won't follow a single, rational strategy (like, as I said, these posts think they'll do) and that if you want some tactics or coordination you'll have to do so as a premade group or guild and not hope for it to arise spontaneously.

[Roose]

Doubtful. While you can take out their objectives, you can't get rid of the players.

If you've played RISK, you'll probably instinctively understand why it doesn't work this way. Ultimately, the team that is "cornered" becomes extremely concentrated and you become spread thin. It's like trying to take Australia from the guy that has 100 units camped at his tiny bottleneck. If you piss him off, he'll backlash and suicide just so the other guy will win. Especially since you have to turn on each other. At the same time, you get very little for the insane amount of fighting required to take his stuff. In addition, every loss to him weakens you to the other primary opponent.

This is actually even more true in GW2. You can't just keep amassing players. Eventually, you'll run out of upgrades too. You get spread thin. In addition, you can't ever get rid of the third realm players. When that happens, you then have to choose between continuing to push one side into the corner or go for your "ally" who is also spread thin. Instinctively, the new players will go for the easy route. The strategists will too.

Lets say that you somehow had the perfect "alliance." The cornered team will then fall upon the only option. They'll abandon and lose their stuff. When that happens, your alliance is dead and worse still, you've got 100+ third faction players whose sole goal is to farm you for loot and to take you down with them. I've seen it in RISK and I've seen it in many strategy games. Piss off the third guy and he'll yield everything and then proceed to sacrifice every remaining resource to see you fall. Just because they don't have objectives doesn't mean they've lost the fun of pvp and the added incentive of revenge makes them a lethal band.

To quote Firefly, "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal." Betrayal always happens when you suddenly gain nothing by the alliance and lose all potential for gains.

Very well said. You have to choose your targets carefully. I bet they have played their share of Risk.

[KryptoX]

YES! I've been waiting for something like this since DaoC!!

[Zeek Daniels]

Of course you will have bad players doing what bad players do. There is no IQ test to play.

At least here you can single those players out FROM YOUR SERVER and let them know how you and all your friends feel about their lack of helpfulness. Seems like players will either get with the plan or get run off the server. That could result in some major grieving. Maybe people will finally have to learn how to play. Much more accountability in server based warfare.

Any game that makes raodwarriors less of a liability and more of an asset will command the respect of the gaming community for ages.

I really dont know what you could be doing wrong that would cause you to get mad at other players. There are so many objectives that not everyone has to focus on one. Just because a couple players are running around the roads killing anything they see doesnt mean they are bad or not helping. The only way you could not help in this place is to afk/bot. Even players fighting on the roads is good because you prevent supplies from reaching the depots, you prevent players from becoming reinforcements.

Even players dicking around in resource camps are still helping to defend it if it gets attacked. Theres no one way to play in WvWvW and while someone may say "everyone help attack X keep" just because you and your friends would rather defend a tower, or act as a raiding party on the roads doesnt mean your not contributing to success or a bad player.

[Hulari]

Oh momma I can't wait any longer!!

[Deleted]

Doubtful. While you can take out their objectives, you can't get rid of the players.

If you've played RISK, you'll probably instinctively understand why it doesn't work this way. Ultimately, the team that is "cornered" becomes extremely concentrated and you become spread thin. It's like trying to take Australia from the guy that has 100 units camped at his tiny bottleneck. If you piss him off, he'll backlash and suicide just so the other guy will win. Especially since you have to turn on each other. At the same time, you get very little for the insane amount of fighting required to take his stuff. In addition, every loss to him weakens you to the other primary opponent.

This is actually even more true in GW2. You can't just keep amassing players. Eventually, you'll run out of upgrades too. You get spread thin. In addition, you can't ever get rid of the third realm players. When that happens, you then have to choose between continuing to push one side into the corner or go for your "ally" who is also spread thin. Instinctively, the new players will go for the easy route. The strategists will too.

Lets say that you somehow had the perfect "alliance." The cornered team will then fall upon the only option. They'll abandon and lose their stuff. When that happens, your alliance is dead and worse still, you've got 100+ third faction players whose sole goal is to farm you for loot and to take you down with them. I've seen it in RISK and I've seen it in many strategy games. Piss off the third guy and he'll yield everything and then proceed to sacrifice every remaining resource to see you fall. Just because they don't have objectives doesn't mean they've lost the fun of pvp and the added incentive of revenge makes them a lethal band.

To quote Firefly, "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal." Betrayal always happens when you suddenly gain nothing by the alliance and lose all potential for gains.

Also they haven't said that you can identify your enemy players servers easily in WvWvW, so selecting out only that weak server players could be hard, specially when its big battles with 100+ players in it. It would be difficulty for 2 servers to agree how they share objectives as these will only give bonuses for 1 server.

[Malthurius]

If it has anything like the DE system in place then players of the same server will end up creating impromptu groups like they do in the open world.

[Deleted]

Thanks for some extra screenies Mif Guild Wars without dolyaks isn't Guild Wars!

[Deleted]

Unless there is lots of lag, this will be just awesome. I can definately see myself spend majority of my time there once I have hit level cap on 1-3 characters or even before.

Though, can anyone with more knowledge of gw2 lore tell me if there is any in lore reason for us to be figthing over that place?

[Deleted]

This is simply amazing

[Mif]

Though, can anyone with more knowledge of gw2 lore tell me if there is any in lore reason for us to be figthing over that place?

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mists