To me, the definition of Open World PvP is simple: Large scale warfare. You definitely don't get that in those dinky little "structured" scenario matches.
BTW, anybody know if Anet specified a specific cap that can enter WvW per realm?
For WvW you can be any level.
I meant cap is in the total number of people that can enter from each realm.
Think, atm at least, it's 166 players of each server per each zone of the Mists, so 500(498) per zone.
well, i voted WvW because it is the minor dissappointment. i prefer free open persistent territorial PvP. unfortunately GW2 does not have it. so lets see what PvE is all about.
To me, the definition of Open World PvP is simple: Large scale warfare. You definitely don't get that in those dinky little "structured" scenario matches.
BTW, anybody know if Anet specified a specific cap that can enter WvW per realm?
For WvW you can be any level.
I meant cap is in the total number of people that can enter from each realm.
There is a server cap, I believe it's still being tweaked though. The cap is a few hundred per server, though, last i checked. And this is per zone (there are 4 zones), so there's quite a lot of room for players.
its not open world pvp, it is essentially a large scale ccross server battleground. it may be great fun all told, but lets not pretend its something it isnt. true open world pvp, as in WoW since you mentioned it, means attacking anywhere. attack the starter zone. attack the capitol city, etc., one zone thats roped off from the rest of the world is not 'open world' pvp.
First of all, fortunately the game doesn't allow you to attack starter zones or any other cities for that matter. It would be against the lore and the whole "we fight together" theme of the game. And it would attract all the griefers/gankers etc people hate. Remember that "If you hate MMOs, you should try Guild Wars 2"? Well it's because it doesn't have that kind of PVP (Among many others)
Secondly no matter how you twist the word it IS OPEN PVP. There are no restrictions in WvWvW on who to kill and when. So it seems pretty OPEN... I don't know what strange meaning to the word OPEN you have but it is clear that WvWvW is OPEN PVP.
i never said i want 'ganking', killing lower level players, or any other griefing activities.
in fact i usually dont even roll on pvp servers for those reasons. no matter what they want to call it, and no matter how many players it may involve, its not open world pvp if it is limited to one zone - which you have to queue to enter, at that.
btw i am looking forward to this game, but again lets not pretend its something its not. their will be no massive raids on opponent capitols, no spontaneous battles because the someone of the other faction attacked 'your' rare mob. its all instanced. the pve experience and pvp experience are seperated, and the two do not cross paths. all the pvp is carefully roped off into its own areas. as i said previous, it may be the most fun ever, but it is what it is.
no matter what they want to call it, and no matter how many players it may involve, its not open world pvp if it is limited to one zone - which you have to queue to enter, at that.
i am afraid, that the term "Open World" is not defined universally valid.
what does one zone mean?
what if this one zone is not queued, because it is huge? as huge as EVEs 0.0 space? i know that EVE got no zones logically (even if they do exist technically). lets call it a region. my point is, that not the entire world has to be open for PvP to call it "Open World". FFA Everwhere or not is a fully different discussion. it just has to be huge enough. but how huge is huge enough? is 1 continent out of 3 like (perhaps) planned in ArchAge huge enough? i guess yes, but this is a subject of dispute. alternatively you could say, "Open" just means open for everbody everytime. now then the zone should be at least huge enough to not need queues. but these are 2 fully different understandings of the term "Open".
the 2nd question is persistence. the zones in GW2 WvW are non-persistent. they reset after 2 weeks. from my understanding, the "Open World" in an MMO is persistent, isnt it? the opposite are instances and they are called battlegrounds or arenas in MMOs. so "Open World" for me means, that i conquer territory, utilize territory, embattle territory and defend it. and i do that, until somebody stronger kicks me out of my territory.
the 3rd important question for me is how you conquer & defend territory. i prefer games where "Fighters win battles, Crafters win Wars and Politicians and Traders beat them all. but this has nothing to do with "Open" or not.
and last but not least, the 4th question. what is all this battle about? for ressources, for titles and glory, for some more or less useful buffs or just for fun? i am convinced that human greed and e-penis are still the most succesful motor of longterm controversy. it is sad, but the truth.
i say, just the first two question do touch the term "Open World". but people mix up all 4, if they discuss a games PvP and dispute "Open World". for me GW2s WvW is a well done huge Battleground. it is simply too small and is missing persistence to qualify as "Open World" from my point of view.
persistence defines "Open" for me in a MMO. and in order to make this pvp work for everybody, the region has to be huge, very huge.
but if you think, that a collection of 4 bigger non-persistent maps where everybody has access theroretically is "Open", than you will strongly disagree.
and if you think, that "Open" means everywhere in the game, than you will disagree, too.
I look more towards sPvP, although I doubt I'll be able to get very serious with it. Loved the PvP in GW1, but I hardly have the time nowadays, also having 200+ ping probably wont help matters much either. -_-
Thus, I'll probably end up playing more WvW in the end.
I'm missing the option to vote for both equally. Although I'll probably spend overall more time in WvW I also like sPvP a lot. That doesn't mean however that I look forward more to one or the other.
Structured, isntance, BGs type PvP has been the death of Open World PvP and persistent worlds in MMOs. Also it is to easy when everyone is equal because there is no one high a her rating for me to challenge myself with, no challenge is everyone I fight is my equal.
Definitely looking forward to WvWvW. I'm not so hot at the twitch stuff, but like the thought that I can contribute and make a difference in WvW by using my head a little.
I'm 30% Rock, 10% Roll, 50% Nerd and 10% Troll. Axis of Awesome - Moderately Rock and Roll
i prefer free open persistent territorial PvP. unfortunately GW2 does not have it.
it's called WvW
WvW is a themepark thing. Open world full pvp is not WvW. See Darkfall or Mortal online to grasp what Sonoggi is talking about.
So yeah I didnt vote because they dont have the "Free pvp, free loot, open-world, kill your buddy standing next to you because he was talking smack and taking all his gear" answer.
I'm not much of a PvP guy but WvW has me hooked. I will probably play that almost as much as PvE. I don't know what it is because WvW is, at its core, still PvP, but it just seemed so much more fun to me during the first BWE.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Old school DAoC fan here. Spent years their and never found a better time PvPing. Like many like me my hopes were on Warhammer being the new DAoC and then hearing Mythic was doing SWToRs open world PvP it was my next big hope. Well now the hope lies in GW2 open world PvP system. It's 90% of the reason why I am here. I like BGs and I mean like. If WvW lives up to what it looks like it could be. I may only Q for a BG when WvW is dead =-)
For me good pvp is generated when pve is the driving force. Most AAA games since older mmo's that have turned pvp into instanced esports have diminished it's purpose. Armies go to war typically to battle over territory (for whatever reasons). In an mmo territory is a pve mechanics. The best pvp I have ever been involved in as been over pve territory ... not points awarded over time to go visit vendor.
My old school pvp experience came from Asheron's Call where Monarchies spent a great deal of time securing towns, defending mansion raids and most importantly ensuring dominance over pve dungeons. Later I had a blast in DAoC and even though WvW in GW2 made pvp more interesting with it's WvW territory map I must say the icing on the cake was word of a Darkness Falls type dungeon. Structured pvp has never been more than a side attraction for me. I'm glad enough that it is in GW2 but I sure hope it never is the only place to obtain the best gear/items for pvp.
Esport isn't mmo pvp. It has only ever been a mini-game. Real MMO pvp will only ever be pvp driven by it's pve (accepting that this is still seperate in GW2 but open world free for all would obliterate their larger playerbase so I understand why they did it). It's world has to play a factor or else you are forever playing checkers in a small windowless room with an entire country ignored outside it's walls.
To me, the definition of Open World PvP is simple: Large scale warfare. You definitely don't get that in those dinky little "structured" scenario matches.
BTW, anybody know if Anet specified a specific cap that can enter WvW per realm?
For WvW you can be any level.
I meant cap is in the total number of people that can enter from each realm.
There is a server cap, I believe it's still being tweaked though. The cap is a few hundred per server, though, last i checked. And this is per zone (there are 4 zones), so there's quite a lot of room for players.
Oh gotcha.
Good information there too. Thanks guys.
I'm hoping for more 250 v 250 sized world combat, but I think good map design will do more favors than just massive amounts of people.
I never played GW1 outside of their open beta weekend a long time back. So I'm not sure about their track record on that. I do like what I've seen with IGN and other places streaming beta tests. Plus I think after Call of Duty's multiplayer most game devs have learned to build maps with more thought than facing worlds, corridors, or pancake style design.
Comments
Think, atm at least, it's 166 players of each server per each zone of the Mists, so 500(498) per zone.
Edited for stupid math.
well, i voted WvW because it is the minor dissappointment. i prefer free open persistent territorial PvP. unfortunately GW2 does not have it. so lets see what PvE is all about.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
i want a capture the flag,
until then i will go WvW
~The only opinion that matters is your own.Everything else is just advice,~
There is a server cap, I believe it's still being tweaked though. The cap is a few hundred per server, though, last i checked. And this is per zone (there are 4 zones), so there's quite a lot of room for players.
i never said i want 'ganking', killing lower level players, or any other griefing activities.
in fact i usually dont even roll on pvp servers for those reasons. no matter what they want to call it, and no matter how many players it may involve, its not open world pvp if it is limited to one zone - which you have to queue to enter, at that.
btw i am looking forward to this game, but again lets not pretend its something its not. their will be no massive raids on opponent capitols, no spontaneous battles because the someone of the other faction attacked 'your' rare mob. its all instanced. the pve experience and pvp experience are seperated, and the two do not cross paths. all the pvp is carefully roped off into its own areas. as i said previous, it may be the most fun ever, but it is what it is.
i am afraid, that the term "Open World" is not defined universally valid.
what does one zone mean?
what if this one zone is not queued, because it is huge? as huge as EVEs 0.0 space? i know that EVE got no zones logically (even if they do exist technically). lets call it a region. my point is, that not the entire world has to be open for PvP to call it "Open World". FFA Everwhere or not is a fully different discussion. it just has to be huge enough. but how huge is huge enough? is 1 continent out of 3 like (perhaps) planned in ArchAge huge enough? i guess yes, but this is a subject of dispute. alternatively you could say, "Open" just means open for everbody everytime. now then the zone should be at least huge enough to not need queues. but these are 2 fully different understandings of the term "Open".
the 2nd question is persistence. the zones in GW2 WvW are non-persistent. they reset after 2 weeks. from my understanding, the "Open World" in an MMO is persistent, isnt it? the opposite are instances and they are called battlegrounds or arenas in MMOs. so "Open World" for me means, that i conquer territory, utilize territory, embattle territory and defend it. and i do that, until somebody stronger kicks me out of my territory.
the 3rd important question for me is how you conquer & defend territory. i prefer games where "Fighters win battles, Crafters win Wars and Politicians and Traders beat them all. but this has nothing to do with "Open" or not.
and last but not least, the 4th question. what is all this battle about? for ressources, for titles and glory, for some more or less useful buffs or just for fun? i am convinced that human greed and e-penis are still the most succesful motor of longterm controversy. it is sad, but the truth.
i say, just the first two question do touch the term "Open World". but people mix up all 4, if they discuss a games PvP and dispute "Open World". for me GW2s WvW is a well done huge Battleground. it is simply too small and is missing persistence to qualify as "Open World" from my point of view.
persistence defines "Open" for me in a MMO. and in order to make this pvp work for everybody, the region has to be huge, very huge.
but if you think, that a collection of 4 bigger non-persistent maps where everybody has access theroretically is "Open", than you will strongly disagree.
and if you think, that "Open" means everywhere in the game, than you will disagree, too.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
Definately WvW. I ll dabble in structured, but, I haven t seen anything this close to DAOC ever, so I can t wait for it.
I look more towards sPvP, although I doubt I'll be able to get very serious with it. Loved the PvP in GW1, but I hardly have the time nowadays, also having 200+ ping probably wont help matters much either. -_-
Thus, I'll probably end up playing more WvW in the end.
I'm missing the option to vote for both equally. Although I'll probably spend overall more time in WvW I also like sPvP a lot. That doesn't mean however that I look forward more to one or the other.
Structured, isntance, BGs type PvP has been the death of Open World PvP and persistent worlds in MMOs. Also it is to easy when everyone is equal because there is no one high a her rating for me to challenge myself with, no challenge is everyone I fight is my equal.
WvWvW all the way. Ive had my fill of battlegounds /warfronts. I want to take something and put my foot on it and say I own it.
This is also my main appeal for End of Nations. Not is it just battles, you but fight to own a map.
Definitely looking forward to WvWvW. I'm not so hot at the twitch stuff, but like the thought that I can contribute and make a difference in WvW by using my head a little.
I'm 30% Rock, 10% Roll, 50% Nerd and 10% Troll.
Axis of Awesome - Moderately Rock and Roll
it's called WvW
WvW is a themepark thing. Open world full pvp is not WvW. See Darkfall or Mortal online to grasp what Sonoggi is talking about.
So yeah I didnt vote because they dont have the "Free pvp, free loot, open-world, kill your buddy standing next to you because he was talking smack and taking all his gear" answer.
i picked WvW and i am sure it will be fun for a while but since people are comparing it to Daoc RvR, will it also have a mechanic like "realm points"?
if not i fear it will get old after a while, at least for me.
I'm not much of a PvP guy but WvW has me hooked. I will probably play that almost as much as PvE. I don't know what it is because WvW is, at its core, still PvP, but it just seemed so much more fun to me during the first BWE.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Structured is so dull. We've been doing it for years.
Old school DAoC fan here. Spent years their and never found a better time PvPing. Like many like me my hopes were on Warhammer being the new DAoC and then hearing Mythic was doing SWToRs open world PvP it was my next big hope. Well now the hope lies in GW2 open world PvP system. It's 90% of the reason why I am here. I like BGs and I mean like. If WvW lives up to what it looks like it could be. I may only Q for a BG when WvW is dead =-)
For me good pvp is generated when pve is the driving force. Most AAA games since older mmo's that have turned pvp into instanced esports have diminished it's purpose. Armies go to war typically to battle over territory (for whatever reasons). In an mmo territory is a pve mechanics. The best pvp I have ever been involved in as been over pve territory ... not points awarded over time to go visit vendor.
My old school pvp experience came from Asheron's Call where Monarchies spent a great deal of time securing towns, defending mansion raids and most importantly ensuring dominance over pve dungeons. Later I had a blast in DAoC and even though WvW in GW2 made pvp more interesting with it's WvW territory map I must say the icing on the cake was word of a Darkness Falls type dungeon. Structured pvp has never been more than a side attraction for me. I'm glad enough that it is in GW2 but I sure hope it never is the only place to obtain the best gear/items for pvp.
Esport isn't mmo pvp. It has only ever been a mini-game. Real MMO pvp will only ever be pvp driven by it's pve (accepting that this is still seperate in GW2 but open world free for all would obliterate their larger playerbase so I understand why they did it). It's world has to play a factor or else you are forever playing checkers in a small windowless room with an entire country ignored outside it's walls.
You stay sassy!
Structured PvP for me, some wvwvw to relax...
Not a big surprise there. Most of the folks here are fans of the DAOC style pvp or open world gank pvp. Lots of sandbox folks in these forums
Oh gotcha.
Good information there too. Thanks guys.
I'm hoping for more 250 v 250 sized world combat, but I think good map design will do more favors than just massive amounts of people.
I never played GW1 outside of their open beta weekend a long time back. So I'm not sure about their track record on that. I do like what I've seen with IGN and other places streaming beta tests. Plus I think after Call of Duty's multiplayer most game devs have learned to build maps with more thought than facing worlds, corridors, or pancake style design.
Can't wait to give it a run.
a yo ho ho