Talk:World versus World/Archive 1

Untitled

This will make the PvP almost like WoW, which will be quite fun. Having a lot of people in a battle is fun and having large groups and small groups of people would be fun to see and capturing points is always fun. GW2 is very intriguing(sp?). --Hellbringer(T/C) 20:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of Alliance Battles? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.142.219.217 (talk).

I can't stand it whenever a new mmo is looking to be released it always gets compared to WOW. I don't think this game looks or feels anything like WOW. If this type of PvP is going to be like anything, it will be like castle seiges in Lineage 2 or like a RTS where your just only one person and not controling armys. This game in my eyes has taken originality to the next level and I look forward to playing it in all aspects. coldjester

This is different. This is not instanced --- -- (s)talkpage 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am (sort of) looking forward to this. Cress Arvein 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. This should be some fun right here and we can all agree upon that. --Hellbringer(T/C) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Myriad people, me thinks aoe, and paragons will pawn. well aoe against noobs anyhow (prays they'll rage quit for good). Anyhow I see a revival of support paragons :) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.41.80 (talk).

i say chronomancers for sure :) maybe they'll fix paras by GW2 76.188.100.220 15:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Imo this is going MAKE GW2, for me at least, from what I've seen this is a 24/7 365 continous battle with lods of objectives...all I'll probably need. Something to always do ^^ Yay. Lol. ^^ -- Nature 02:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly xD I look forward to this...as well as the dragons destroying non-instanced areas and many people fighting it!Shew 04:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I really just have to say this...This sounds F**king AWESOME! Really the scope and potential of this kind of thing is...awe inspiring and that of an epic. Revolutionary for the Guild Wars universe. This is one of the things I am most looking forward to in GW2Weaponmaster 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

World PVP sounds epic. Very epic. As with the above user it's the thing I'm most looking forward to about GW2 PVP.--70.71.240.170 00:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

it sounds like what you get when you cross Guild wars with the Fable 2--Penners 12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? An RPG that's focused around single player with no form of PvP whatsoever mixed with GW becomes World PvP in GW2? --- -- talkpage 18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No silly, its the way that the different actions have consequences, don't kill a drgon bridge falls down, villagers have to rebuild it, y'know that sort of thing Penners 09:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

{reseting indent} I wonder how large the map for this will be. It would sure be a pain if you spawn somewhere, and there are no enemies on that area, you have to trek across the map. — PonyX 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a larger map then that, because then you would be able to disrupt/capture any important points around you without interference, but they probably won't be that big, probably about 4x an AB map.--Łô√ë Çåŕð ├┤ëŕô 03:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

i just hope they make maps which are large enough (or small enough) for the amount of people playing. Or well open barricades when more people join. and besides that with those objective i am pretty sure you will always be near a battle. Fox007 08:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am SO hyped up for this! The more chaotic the battles the better. I look forward to firing cannons and dancing over the enemy corpses. Stormcrowx 04:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Im all ready thinking of plans! Gschmechel25 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't world PvP in the traditional sense. World PvP has historically been free, open, skirmish warfare PvP in the game's regular, populated PvE environs. This is really just large scale arena matchmaking, which doesn't fit the definition of world PvP at all. World vs World? Yes. World PvP? No. I find the link from the front page to be strongly misleading and in need of a rename. --203.167.252.175 03:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

sigh

"World PvP is intended a casual form of PvP, designed to be a more relaxed bridging point between PvE and the tactics and pressure of structured PvP."

This means it will be full of shitters; no better than ABs or JQs are now. World PvP is barely PvP, and it definitely isn't anything of quality. I hope Anet puts effort into the actual PvP game types and doesn't screw those up while implementing bullshit like this. ABs barely take any balancing, and even if the balance is screwed up, nobody notices, because the only people that play it are bads. -Auron 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We must be quite lucky to have someone as clever and insightful as you in the community. No, seriously, not everyone playing alliance battles is a 'shitter' and a 'bad' just because he's not a 'hardcore enough player' and he's not spending five hours a day at guild trainings. I, for instance, am really looking forward to these world-vs-world battles, as you will not have to worry so much if someone else does like the build you're using or not, or if you remember all the skill icons and their respective effects, and so on... · LOQUAY · 15:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was recently told as a PvE player, to "GTFO HA" by someone with a tiger which they flashed at me, then I killed them, and my team won. I will relate the same message to you, but in better terms. If you don't want non-hardcore players in your higher level PvP, then rejoice for this, because all the non-hardcore players will be having fun playing this, while you have fun competing in your higher level PvP. And you don't ever have to stoop to our level of badness by coming here.--Łô√ë Çåŕð ├┤ëŕô 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

100vs100 what's more epic then that i mean this is for fun not for stupid nolifers farming there life away on a rank just to show how "awsome" they are. Fox007 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see it now, 100 person mobs running at each others castles. - Giant Nuker 10:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see it now, epic lag everywhere !!! Defeat it before it Disconnects you !! 80.60.80.108 23:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd love Fort battles in Aion; epic lag everywhere if you forget to turn down your settings (or have a really bad computer). I really hope that ArenaNet is going to make sure the same thing isn't going to happen in GW2. --Curse You(talk|contribs) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And you thought you saw bad mobbing in AB.... ~ Bow 04:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of rank, I have a friend, R0 hero, R5 glad, who beat a R9 hero Ranger in 1v1 as a healing rit. Yep, wanded him to death. I've done similar things(Though not THAT awesome)to high-rankers, and I have only like uh, 50 fame or something. So, fuck your elitism tbh.

I'm looking forward to WvW a lot, it's pretty much a sandbox of pvp, or as close as we can get for now.--Gerroh 04:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Auron, I think the point you're missing is the whole "different size teams" all being allowed to participate. Sure there will be the odd size 1 or 2 teams that are generally stupid and get themselves killed but there could potentially be much larger more organized teams that will end up making the difference. Now that massive support and party heals are gone, this will pave the way for much larger teams to be more balanced. Now, if the maximum party size is 5 and it's 100v100, I agree, this will crash and burn and eventually be no better than testing builds on moving armor dummies. But if pre-made teams of size 20 can join? that's a whole different story. Greep 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you didn't join WvW in groups, you just stayed with the people you wanted to play with. Therefore, your group would be however many people happen to be walking with you. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 22:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well there are still parties in gw2, it's not just who you're walking with, otherwise skills like battle standard would be worthless. Although from what I've read, they are always max size of 5. Which really puts a dampener on my expectations of WvW. Although I suppose a guild could manage several parties through guild chat resulting in some organization, so perhaps it's not so bad. Greep 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do remember that your skills affect ALL allied characters regardless of being partied or not, human or NPC. The planned parties does allow for tighter communication, but don't disregard the effectivity of a bunch of people working together on the fly, without pre-planning. -Yossitaru 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that known for certain? That could actually be pretty imbalancing if so. I can't imagine how like 60 people all affected with every group buff in the game would be fair. The wiki does use the term ally, but seeing as this is gw2, we don't know if "ally" in a skill has the same meaning as in gw1. There are parties, and no skills that mention parties, so ally might just mean party member. Greep 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I may have been too zealous with reading into all the use of terms like "impromptu group play" with words such as "guild" and "party" used explicitly to signify those constructs as optional in the earlier blogs and articles. I am having a very difficult time finding a source that directly says buffs and the like are included, but I have a hard time believing impromptu tactics would forgo the open sharing of buffs and healing. Of course, that is my own opinion, so it's hardly conclusive of their direction. Perhaps we could get some one who has played the demo to chime in on this topic. Or get someone going to one of the upcoming conventions to do a test for this. Having this questioned is now actually getting me rather saddened that I'm unable to attend any conventions to test it myself. -Yossitaru 06:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Information

I read more about WvW somewhere, and by the time I noticed none of it was on the page, I forgot where. I'll keep looking, but this is what I remember.

1. WvW is a competition between three worlds.
2. WvW will contain forts, resource points (like mines), and caravans (carrying resources to repair forts/siege weaponry and other stuff).
3. Each world starts out with an equal amount of turf and resources/forts.
4. The middle is another (equal) amount of land that begins neutral.
5. There are no limits to the amount of people fighting at one time.
6. WvW matches last for 1 week.
7. At the end of a match, you are matched up with two different worlds (around your world's rank).
8. Forts are (obviously) meant for fighting among larger groups, then resources for medium groups, then caravans for the smaller groups.
9. The "world bonuses" are based on the amount of resource points you control.
10. There are siege environmental weapons meant for attacking forts.

It's a lot of stuff that needs to be added to this article, which I will do if someone can find the source... lol. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 14:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a translation of it on here already, lol. Here it is. I will be adding on to the WvW page now. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional Additional Information

Moar interviews Found this on the pages for Lumber Mill and Mines, thought I'd share the link. Eive Windgrace 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Title

if there's gonna be a title/achievement in GW2 they should make one with an emote for this ;) or something cool :D The Holy Dragons 07:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Most likely. -- Kirbman 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Flawed?

If WvW is a competition around the world, obviously people are going to sleep. Therefore people during different time period have an advantage. --173.66.189.216 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What? The worlds will not be divided by country or time zone, if that is what you are thinking. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that one aspect that's going to make it awesome? Hopefully the day/night cycle will be synchronised with, I guess, the time at ArenaNet's office, so that way there is actually a discernible night time where there is less fighting and you get the feeling that the battle has declined for the night. That would be the perfect time to sneak out with a bunch of thieves and raid some caravans...216.185.250.92 07:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that the day-night cycle is not a 24-hour cycle so all users can experience day and night. -- Frozzen 07:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's another good way to do it, although it will keep the battle running at a consitency that is independent of day/night cycle.216.185.250.92 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

5W

I don't think I'm up on terminology. What is 5W? Venom20 18:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Several things, a public relations company, an information graphics company, ... I don't think I've ever heard the term used in reference of WvW. (I guess that is why someone removed it.) –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured it could have meant 5 worlds, but a) it'd be odd to use an abbreviated term for simple numerology, and b) the number of worlds will apparently be divisible by 3. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first also, but scratched it for the same reason you did. Then, I Googled it and found nothing related to the GW series. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Details on World vs World

Hey, apparently this video reveals some various details on WvW at 45:20:

-It takes place on 4 different maps (all at once, it seems, based on the wording) -Details on the use of stone mines and keeps -Different objectives for groups of different sizes -Includes events (Unless I misunderstood)

So yeah, if anyone wants they can check back on that and hear for themselves. I think that info should definitely be added. :) --Amannelle 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WvW Based Characters

It says that you will be able to enter WvW shortly after character creation, and that you could potentially level up and equip up in WvW. The article on skills mentions that you will be able to unlock skills in WvW. What about traits? Has there been any mention of being able to obtain traits in this way and be able to have a character created fully in a WvW setting? ~Ao Allusir 04:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No nothing really on unlocks and obtainable loot in WvW. I've seen trait unlock messages during the most recent PvE demo footage during straight combat - it is possible they've simplified the trait unlock system since they said there would be 'profession tasks' to perform to unlock traits. -- aspectacle  05:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be nice, I don't want to go through the story with every profession, but I'd like to play all of them. This WvW thing seems like the place to do it.~Ao Allusir 02:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Under the Rewards section in Individual Rewards, it claims that loot is obtainable in WvW. It also says Rangers can tame pets there, so the possibility of a skill trainer or trait gaining mechanic in WvW is plausible but not confirmed. I plan on heading straight there to find out, for the empowerment of my world and the glory of MASSIVE-multi-online warfare. --Lord Braska, Lyssa's Disciple 09:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the change of how you obtain skills there is no trait gaining. Arenanet is working on it. Lhimez 10:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great to hear! Anet found another place to break the mold! If I can make a Mists only character then I will XD, I already have a name too; Ghost Of The Mists.--Lord Braska 15:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, thing is: how it turned out (the way to get skills) was doing these tasks that gave traits before. This means you will have to do the tasks in PvE, get as many skill points as you want and then make yourself a decent build. But other than that, assuming loot and such can be acquired there, its a yes. Lhimez 08:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Can we add this?

http://gwmaps.co.cc/include/images/wvwvw.jpeg

It's a very nice looking map. 173.190.25.97 02:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh - that is a very exciting map! We should definitely add it to the article. Are there more like it? -- aspectacle  03:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It was the only one. It's from here: http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/maps-tyria-interactive-image-heavy-t11575p16.html 173.190.25.97 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there was only one but my source said that he may be able to get more. Will update that thread if I do get any more --Aresinferno 15:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a leaked image though, isn't it? Aren't we, like, not supposed to put those up? --zeeZ (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ArenaNet didn't arrive to stomp on it, either here or on guru where it first appeared - else an admin would have removed it already. We aren't the ones who are under NDA. The source of the leak should be their concern not trying to patch up where information has already hit the community. -- aspectacle  00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Duration

My english is not perfectly, so i have a question. The article says "Every two weeks...", but the in the source him says "After the game ends in two weeks". What is the correct? The WvWvW will last two weeks or after the end of the Match in two weeks will be other Match?--Qoff 19:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

WvWvW lasts two weeks, and a new match starts immediately after the previous one ends. To put his words more clearly: "After the game ends, [which is] in two weeks [from when it starts]" - Tanetris 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

All fine and dandy

But what are the actual EFFECTS if you win for your world? I foresee everyone going to the winning world for its bonusses, or i am just beeing pessimistic DemonicFahrir 20:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, i failed to read "Rewards". Lol me. DemonicFahrir 20:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Victory Conditions?

How does a Server "win?" I would assume each capture point awards its owning server with points over time, and most points win? This seems logical, but i cant find any evidence to back that up. Anyone? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Squyres (talk).

I'd hope for something like king of the hill: Whichever side dominates the central map wins, or at least gains a lot of points by the end of game. Still, haven't heard anything about victory conditions for World PvP.

And btw, sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Mediggo 07:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Since matches last for 2 weeks straight, it probably goes by some form of "border-advancement" rule (with capture points and other key targets to determine the border), much like the Kurzicks and the Luxons have their border in Alliance Battles in the original Guild Wars. A point system would basically determine a win very early on in the game, which then simply needs to be maintained over time (something the average PvP player would be perfectly capable of). An upscaled organized PvP format would be lethal to the WvW format, because it is *the* opportunity to try something even more dynamic and different. - Infinite - talk 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

ArenaNet pretty much talks about the whole game as one big opportunity, so yeah. Mediggo 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I could see a point system where everything you do gains points for your world and the points given are based upon what you have done (capture a point, protect a caravan, defeat an enemy, control a map) and at the end of the two weeks the world with the higher score wins. - Giant Nuker 19:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The only issue with point systems of that nature is the tendency of a side to "give up" if it's getting towards the end and they obviously aren't anywhere near the lead. Borders that can be pushed back and forth can be more interesting, since they can change overnight. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but there's also the issue of which servers are the most active at the point when winners are decided. Say a largely European server is playing against a largely American server, and the Americans all go to bed an hour before the winner is decided. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume therefore that different continents are not pitted against one another or the conclusion time is well into one's evening and well into the other's afternoon. Or something similar. - Infinite - talk 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure they never said servers were separated by time zone or anything. But if a certain geographic demographic just happens to show up in one server...Hard to say. I still think a point system would work better. --ஸ Kyoshi 01:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

this page should be merged with the Mist

I believe this page should be merged with the mist page. The mist page currently only display the lore about the PvP zone. It should detail both the lore and the gameplay on a single page in my opinion. Explain the lore in the first part, than the gameplay in the following part. Not two different pages.--Knighthonor 03:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Because technically all PvP occurs in the mists (I believe?), it does not make sense to merge this with the Mists page. -- Frozzen 06:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mists is a location, WvW is a competitive setting. They're entirely different things; so no, it shouldn't be merged with the Mists. 69.65.92.11 03:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone's Gonna Say It

Could "Borderlands" be a reference to "Borderlands" the game? Sure sure, it might not be, and the name "Borderlands" does fit the fact that it is, to some extent, a border land, but I think it'd probably be "Border Lands" if it weren't. Didn't they hint earlier that they got the idea for the downed system from Borderlands? Maybe they're a big fan of the game. Idk, up for debate.--Gerroh 00:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia:Borderland; borderlands is the proper way to describe a region on a territorial border.

I dislike the idea of putting trivia in unless the reference is either very specific and very clear or has several degrees of similarity. This particular trivia note wouldn't so I'm inclined to disagree. Aqua (T|C) 01:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

^ what he said Venom20 01:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead had a Downed state too... released 2008. Borderlands released 2009. kind of funny u didn't say Left 4 dead, as it's more popular than borderlands these days... and Borderlands does indeed mean "Borderland or Borderlands are the geographical space or zone around a territorial border" Zora★Diem 16:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And no other game before to L4D ever included such "Last Stand" mechanic, eh. Borderlands on the other hand is a name of a rather well known and/or popular game, but unless the map in GW2 itself contains additional references to the game Borderlands, it's not related. Mediggo 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

and i still love that mechanic, adding it to an MMORPG was neat <3 Zora★Diem 16:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Underwater

Anybody know if there will be underwater forts, towers, and camps? I guess I could understand there being no underwater forts, possibly even towers (though I guess there's no good reason why they wouldn't be underwater landscapes that could serve as towers), but no underwater camps would seem like a wasted opportunity. 82.11.226.30 01:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

All we know is that you can swim underwater in order to do surprise attacks on a keep on an island and you might get attacked by krait in the process. --Moto Saxon 01:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

the true purpose of a tower is the view. how in earth did you think a tower underneath the ground could give any advantage to the owners? and, if you want a fort underwater, You'll have to make an glass bubble-fort,which in theory and practice ; is pretty much doomed to die by a siege attack. maybe even the water it self makes it crash? and a camp... most possible by the three examples, maybe some materials down there who could serve as supplies... an underwater quarry?Zora★Diem 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewards

I'm aware of the stated rewards available; server bonuses and loot/exp... however I'm wondering whether there will be any kind of currency/title/faction etc to "grind" for, or well to work towards. I can't see many people doing WvW purely for random server bonuses and the odd chance that you get loot, and of course at max level experience is redundant. Would be good if there is some sort of pvp point system or title that marks progress/skill in pvp, and allows you access to better gear, even if just more aesthetical. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.27.172.87 (talk).

Worried about the reward mechanics

Am I the only one worried about how this might affect the popularity of different servers? I see it being a lot like Favor of the Gods in the early days of GW1, where some servers almost never had it so people either never got to go to UW/FoW or get the bonuses from statues or they abandoned their "home" server in favour of one that would give them access to the full game. Except with the added complication that WvW would then be even more unbalanced because more popular servers will have more people to play.

I like the idea of WvW as a seperate feature and I'm looking forward to playing it. I just think it's a bad idea to reward or peanalise players based on what server they're assigned to or what other people on the same one chose to do with their play time.

Honestly I see it having much the same outcome as in GW1 - a relatively short time after release either the restriction on switching servers will be removed, the WvW bonuses will only apply in WvW and PVE achivements will earn the PVE rewards (like the current system with titles earning Favor) or both and I don't understand why they haven't learned from their mistake the first time around and implimented it that way from the start. 109.145.208.77 11:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that your server will be matched up with two other servers of roughly the same skill level, so you'll have a very good shot at getting 1/3 of the available points which means plenty of bonuses for your server. So, no. Eerie Moss 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)