I think you are talking from your bottom hole, and here's why; it's a two week battle, that is currently set to one day. There are currently no way points, because it takes about a week for an average server to build enough to hop around.

So, quite simply, you go with the zerg, and hopefully if you die you get a res, OR you go small, if you get wiped then it's a run from the very edge of the map back to wherever you were..

I think this is ANets fault, for sure. They should have spawned the WvW with some portals each daily reset. Once the world (of WvW) develops it's full cycle the zerg habbits will die out.

Another point is the old "troll OP" one, dude, you can't say "lets discuss this but I wont listen about that" because then it stops being a discussion and starts being a lecture. You are completely wrong about the whole small group unable to be effective. Yes a zerg needs a zerg to fight it, but a Zerg *CAN NOT* be everywhere at once. Small groups can and will out score the zerg by capturing more points. Seafarers Rest has been doing this a lot. Bum rush centre at reset, the let the other 2 fools scrap over it while domination of the rest of the map occurs.

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

It's beautiful in concept, and lots of fun some of the time. However...

1- As expected, the side with the bigger zerg usually wins.

False. What has been proven is that the side with a lot of people actually corrdinating wins. I mean seriously, my server was fighting Blackgate (?) the other day. Our forces were over ran to the point of our keep being taken from us. But guess what? Instead of actually taking the keep they just sat on the walls and tried to kill us. Newbie is Newbie. Of course, I can only say this from the presepective of my server.

2- As expected, combat is dominated by ranged AoE attackers (elementalists and rangers mainly). Melee are at a severe, crippling disadvantage.

Guardians and warriors are some of the best classes in the game, espcially in WvW due to the amount of utility they have.

3-  As expected, the age old problem of AoE attacks hitting defenders thru solid objects remains (try repairing a keep door).

I was not aware of this, but if it is true then it does need to be fixed if possible. 

4- Most egregiously, and again as expected, free server transfers have weakened already weaker worlds by allowing players to transfer onto the very worlds previosuly dominating them.

To be expected, but thats not ANETs fault.

And please, don't try to impress me with the tales of how your small valiant band broke up a larger group this one time. Yes, it happens. More often than not, though, you end up dead when their 20 meet up with your 8.

I don't see how any of these complaints warrant an overhaul. The only really thing that needs to be fixed is for WvW ques to be lessened in some way. Either by increasing WvW capacity directly or by creating "Overflows" to accomadate. ANET already has a system in place to give outnumbered severs a hand up. 

The zerg only wins against other zergs or bad players. Seriously, if you are in a dedicated WvW guild you will dominate when out numbered, simply because the zerg is full of pugs that are typically bad at PvP.

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

It's beautiful in concept, and lots of fun some of the time. However...

1- As expected, the side with the bigger zerg usually wins.

2- As expected, combat is dominated by ranged AoE attackers (elementalists and rangers mainly). Melee are at a severe, crippling disadvantage.

3-  As expected, the age old problem of AoE attacks hitting defenders thru solid objects remains (try repairing a keep door).

4- Most egregiously, and again as expected, free server transfers have weakened already weaker worlds by allowing players to transfer onto the very worlds previosuly dominating them.

And please, don't try to impress me with the tales of how your small valiant band broke up a larger group this one time. Yes, it happens. More often than not, though, you end up dead when their 20 meet up with your 8.

yes this is as expected and yet it is also wrong.

1. The bigger Zerg wins the battles , but better orgainsation wins the wars. I am on a Zerg server that wins alot of its matchup so far. But when we loose its not because the others have a bigger zerg, because it can't be bigger than ours. when everyone have to que up it is as big as it gets.  When we meet servers with more organised guilds , moving their troops with strategy behind, puting preasure on everything , Zergs is just not doing its job. This experience will come around to alot of players in due time.

2. Combat is dominated by ranged, (wich every class have access to, so whats the problem).  I would say combat is dominated by warmachines. But most of that is part of the Zerg effeckt. It is going to be lessend a little when people improve their skill as well as their understanding of the tactics involved, but ArenaNet gave every class access to ranged weapons for a reason. That is the overhaul this game got.

3. There is ways to repair doors  when being AoE'd,  they require organisation. Organisation is again important. Btw the defenders can use the door AoE too their advantages aswell.

4. While true it doesn't matter a second, because of 2 things. One is the pairing of equal strength servers, the other is that good guilds migate the other way to avoid waiting in ques.

Where you ask for an overhaul , i have a hard time not seeing it as working as intended.

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

It's beautiful in concept, and lots of fun some of the time. However...

1- As expected, the side with the bigger zerg usually wins.

2- As expected, combat is dominated by ranged AoE attackers (elementalists and rangers mainly). Melee are at a severe, crippling disadvantage.

3-  As expected, the age old problem of AoE attacks hitting defenders thru solid objects remains (try repairing a keep door).

4- Most egregiously, and again as expected, free server transfers have weakened already weaker worlds by allowing players to transfer onto the very worlds previosuly dominating them.

And please, don't try to impress me with the tales of how your small valiant band broke up a larger group this one time. Yes, it happens. More often than not, though, you end up dead when their 20 meet up with your 8.

This is what happens in games when they solely dedicate one area for pve and the other for pvp.  It's much better to have pvp and pve servers.  Once you dedicate it as they did, the pvp just becomes a zerg fest as everyone knows its coming and they show where its happening on the map...making it nothimg more than a zerg fest..

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

It's beautiful in concept, and lots of fun some of the time. However...

1- As expected, the side with the bigger zerg usually wins.

2- As expected, combat is dominated by ranged AoE attackers (elementalists and rangers mainly). Melee are at a severe, crippling disadvantage.

3-  As expected, the age old problem of AoE attacks hitting defenders thru solid objects remains (try repairing a keep door).

4- Most egregiously, and again as expected, free server transfers have weakened already weaker worlds by allowing players to transfer onto the very worlds previosuly dominating them.

And please, don't try to impress me with the tales of how your small valiant band broke up a larger group this one time. Yes, it happens. More often than not, though, you end up dead when their 20 meet up with your 8.

 1. Yup this is how it works. See the invasion of Normandy, and Midway Island in WWII.

2. Bombs and explosivies kill way more people per capita  than bullets in a war.

3. Again, if a bomb goes off outside of your door, you will get blasted.

4. You expect people to keep getting steamrolled? The percentage of the population that are machosists, is a rather low number I think. Plus WvW and the GW2 PvP, has been marketed as ESport....so the same as any pro-athlete, players want to be on a winning team.

Edit: Just like yesterday and the day before, I still can't type. Need more coffee.

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

 

2- I play just fine; my level 6 Necro in WvW makes Guardians  and Warriors back away from me cautiously.

Rofl.

Your mighty level 6 necro with one utility slot and no weapon swap? You my friend are facing some baddies, and wouldn't stand a hope in hell of putting down any competent player.

Melee are at a cripping disadvantage? That is hilarious.

Melee are the dominant offensive forces at the moment, my thief or warrior will utterly destroy any "ranged aoe attacker" you put in front of me. Are you running the worst builds possible? or just selecting skills with your eyes closed?

The first time you face a glass cannon thief built around pistol whip and quickness you'll change your mind, quickly, as they pummel you to death in a matter of seconds. Same goes for any decent warrior who actually runs a double eviscerate axe build and not some scrub greatsword build.

Comical thread from ignorant, inexperienced player is comical.

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

It's beautiful in concept, and lots of fun some of the time. However...

1- As expected, the side with the bigger zerg usually wins.

In a pure infantry confrontation...usually.  But when you involve siege weapons or fortifications, the scenario changes.  A few days ago, we set up a bunch of arrowcarts and ballistas on a hill and were preparing to build a treb to take out a big keep.  The enemy had many more players than us on the hill, but they couldn't take us out because the siege weapons would just decimate them.

The bastards eventually wound up building a treb on their keep before we got ours up and took us out :/.  But this shows that an organized force can stop the zerg.

2- As expected, combat is dominated by ranged AoE attackers (elementalists and rangers mainly). Melee are at a severe, crippling disadvantage.

First off...every class has range.  If you are on the top of a keep defending and you are trying to use your sword...that's stupid.  Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.  Second off, if you are in the field, then melee (for many classes) has MUCH more mobility and CC than ranged.  If you go pure range and a guy with melee and ranged rushes you, then you can be in serious trouble without a melee option (some classes).

3-  As expected, the age old problem of AoE attacks hitting defenders thru solid objects remains (try repairing a keep door).

Yeah sure, but this seriously isn't a big deal.  It also makes a bit of sense to me...if I make a font of lava on the ground, a door is not going to stop it.

4- Most egregiously, and again as expected, free server transfers have weakened already weaker worlds by allowing players to transfer onto the very worlds previosuly dominating them.

They're still in the process of figuring out good server matches...it will hopefully even out in the near future.

And please, don't try to impress me with the tales of how your small valiant band broke up a larger group this one time. Yes, it happens. More often than not, though, you end up dead when their 20 meet up with your 8.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

It's beautiful in concept, and lots of fun some of the time. However...

1- As expected, the side with the bigger zerg usually wins.

In a pure infantry confrontation...usually.  But when you involve siege weapons or fortifications, the scenario changes.  A few days ago, we set up a bunch of arrowcarts and ballistas on a hill and were preparing to build a treb to take out a big keep.  The enemy had many more players than us on the hill, but they couldn't take us out because the siege weapons would just decimate them.

The bastards eventually wound up building a treb on their keep before we got ours up and took us out :/.  But this shows that an organized force can stop the zerg.

2- As expected, combat is dominated by ranged AoE attackers (elementalists and rangers mainly). Melee are at a severe, crippling disadvantage.

First off...every class has range.  If you are on the top of a keep defending and you are trying to use your sword...that's stupid.  Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.  Second off, if you are in the field, then melee (for many classes) has MUCH more mobility and CC than ranged.  If you go pure range and a guy with melee and ranged rushes you, then you can be in serious trouble without a melee option (some classes).

3-  As expected, the age old problem of AoE attacks hitting defenders thru solid objects remains (try repairing a keep door).

Yeah sure, but this seriously isn't a big deal.  It also makes a bit of sense to me...if I make a font of lava on the ground, a door is not going to stop it.

4- Most egregiously, and again as expected, free server transfers have weakened already weaker worlds by allowing players to transfer onto the very worlds previosuly dominating them.

They're still in the process of figuring out good server matches...it will hopefully even out in the near future.

And please, don't try to impress me with the tales of how your small valiant band broke up a larger group this one time. Yes, it happens. More often than not, though, you end up dead when their 20 meet up with your 8.

 

I gotta agree with Cres on many of his points, and I want to add some of my own experiences.

I have WvW'd as a ranger and as a warrior, and I have to say that both are quite effective. I play as a Longbow/Shortbow ranger, so I am pure range, but if I get a good enough melee on me who knows what they are doing, I am typically screwed. My warrior I have run as a longbow/dual sword and have had success with it, especially with the bleeds and burning conditions from the combo.

In a keep siege, ranged will be king for defense and offense, until the doors go down, then a flood of melee will win the field. In field combat, melee is very effective, especially with as much mobility that's built into various melee weapons.

In all honesty, I have found that tactics can win the day, especially knowing when to pick the battle and when to just move on. An extremely small sided group can have effectiveness on the battlefield too. There's always going to be stragglers at rez locations or on roads between keeps, running a gank group will keep them from battle. Killing Dolyaks will lower supply to keeps. Quickly taking over supply camps will hurt keeps. Smaller groups have the benefit of better mobility, you can move more efficiently across maps. Hell, I crossed an enemy dominated map solo today to go and tame a pet, just gotta be cautious and move in weird ways (I spent a lot of time underwater).

As others have said, WvW is still in massive influx, once the matchups are more even we'll be better off, and more evenly sided with like servers.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
To some up the last 3 mmos pvp
Gw2 pvp needs some tweaks, and with expansion I would like to see arenanets take on darkness falls and an aquatic map with ships instead of keeps.

Tsw pvp needs an overhaul

Swtor pvp needs taking out into a field to be shot.

I agree with this post 10,001%

Originally posted by Stx11

Originally posted by ShakyMo
To some up the last 3 mmos pvp
Gw2 pvp needs some tweaks, and with expansion I would like to see arenanets take on darkness falls and an aquatic map with ships instead of keeps.

Tsw pvp needs an overhaul

Swtor pvp needs taking out into a field to be shot.

I agree with this post 10,001%

I liked Huttball, until the 4 millionth time playing it. I wouldn't go all old yeller on swtor's pvp, but I'd say it doesn't compare to other offerings out there, not even close. 

Frankly, I never played DAoC so I don't know what I missed (might be a good thing), but I did play Warhammer's pvp and it was the best pvp I personally had experienced until GW2 came out. So I'm quite happy.

Originally posted by SethiusX

Originally posted by Stx11

Originally posted by ShakyMo
To some up the last 3 mmos pvp
Gw2 pvp needs some tweaks, and with expansion I would like to see arenanets take on darkness falls and an aquatic map with ships instead of keeps.

Tsw pvp needs an overhaul

Swtor pvp needs taking out into a field to be shot.

I agree with this post 10,001%

I liked Huttball, until the 4 millionth time playing it. I wouldn't go all old yeller on swtor's pvp, but I'd say it doesn't compare to other offerings out there, not even close. 

Frankly, I never played DAoC so I don't know what I missed (might be a good thing), but I did play Warhammer's pvp and it was the best pvp I personally had experienced until GW2 came out. So I'm quite happy.

For SWTOR I was thinking of Ilum (which they kinda did "take out and shoot" didn't they? ;D) and the atrocious adjustments they made. It seemed for everything they would "fix" (removing the ability of any DoT to prevent you from planting a bomb) there was something they would "break" (the way they broke Combat Medics and Healers in general in PvP). They broke more in their Balancing attempts than they fixed.

Back to OP - WvW is definitely going to go through an "adolescent stage" while people level up, learn mechanics and strategies, Server pops stabilize, and Server Matchmaking algorithms actually have enough valid data to function - but I truly believe that WvW is one of the facets of the game that is going to keep getting better and better as time goes on.

I love the PvE but content will at some point feel stale. sPvP can be really good but I'm not sure I see it improving in major ways. But WvW I can really see becoming awesome as people learn how it works and campaigns last more than 24 hours. I mean most people don't even know you can upgrade Keeps with Waypoints. Just wait till that starts coming into play!

Originally posted by krakra70

Originally posted by TheIronLegion

Originally posted by krakra70

The biggest problem with WvW is they copied too much stuff from DAoC but forgot the most important things: realm points, realm ranks, darkness falls, 8man groups(funny how they existed in GW1), long duration CC (so skill > number of people). DAoC RvR worked because the most rewarding thing was killing other players, taking keeps was secondary.

Playing in an underpopulated realm was a privilege, not a handicap. Most people who changed realms/servers went to the underpopulated one so they have more enemies (=rps) and less allies to compete with. Keep takes were also more fun because they had bigger consequences (relics, DF), and you didn't have to keep attack all day so you wouldn't get bored of them.

 

WvW can be saved. All it needs is a rank system(with a small power progression - yes your char should be getting stronger) for enemy kills and not for keep takes/objectives and better optimization in WvW areas and especially big fights. They need to take the focus from objectives to PvP. Then we might see something other than zergs running around.

I think it's all a matter of how you want to experience it. Some people don't want to just sit and mindlessly kill others. Some want objectives and want to own something and have stake in something. Not just go out and "Pwn Noobs", as the saying goes. WvW in GW2 isn't about you. It's not about your gearscore, or your ability to take on 5 players at once, or you being top ranked player on the server or whatever some people get a yiffy off of. It's about cooperation. Guild Wars 2 as a whole is about cooperating with others and teamwork.

Personal Opinion: Taking a keep and then holding it against wave after wave of crusaders is more enjoyable to me than killing some guy on the side of the road while he was getting a mining node or while he was typing a funny story to his guild mates.

I think certain people will enjoy it. Just because you don't like things about it doesn't necessarily mean that all its strengths are its weaknesses(Not that you said that explicitly).

You obviously haven't played DAoC. "mindlessly killing others" exists in games like WoW and GW2, but not in DAoC. Even zerging was tactical and most of all FUN since the game was designed for massive PvP unlike GW2. Flanking, overextending etc are foreign words in gw2 but I saw it in almost every fight in daoc.

 

BTW if taking a keep is more fun than killing a player for you then you obviously aren't a PvPer.

I think you're misunderstanding as the 'tactics' you're referring to also exist in GW2; flanking, massive pvp, overextending, etc. Most of these 'tactics' however are, as I've stated before a "people thing" not a mechanics issue. People create these tactics not the game. People flank the enemy team not some flanking button in the UI. Yes, tactics do exist in the WvW. In fact I saw a good example of it a week ago when we were trying to take Ascension Bay. We got the doors down on both sides and stormed in. The enemy had a fairly small force of defenders inside trying to hold us off; we were sure that victory was on the horizon. Suddenly from behind us comes a completely different server who had the same intentions as we did(to take this keep). So in essence, they let us do the foot work, break down teh door, whipe out the enemy, and then they swarmed in behind us to reap the rewards. A bit of a cheap tactic, but a tactic indeed. And has worked both in MMO's and in history.

Just because you don't see any master tacticians leading mass armies to victory doesn't mean the game is devoid of tactics. It just means no one, or no guild, has stepped up to the plate as of yet. Which I'm sure will happen in due time.

And as far as me 'not being a PvPer', I PvP how I choose. If i wanted to simply kill other players I would go and do the sPvP which I do from time to time. You say "mindlesly killing others" doesn't exist in Daoc yet you mentioned in the originally quoted post that "DAoC RvR worked because the most rewarding thing was killing other players, taking keeps was secondary." With this in mind it seems like mindlessly killing players would've reaped the most benefits; moreso than taking a keep. In GW2 killing players is more of a means to an end. If you want to take this keep you need to kill these guys in your way.

Originally posted by Lorkii
All it is, is a dps fest. No tactics needed at all, unlike DAOC, where classes had very defined role. It is all up to, the bigger force wins. I agree it needs a fix somehow, but anyone that thinks it s like DAOC, or actually even close to it, needs to really re think that. Tactics alone, proves it. I could go on for hours on that subject:)

Could that not also be said for DaoC? Could you, in effect, go into DaoC with a massive force geared to the teeth and dps them to death? Or maybe even have a tactful zerg? You see...I'm sure that I'm sounding like a broken record by now, but this is a people thing, not a mechanics thing. People create tactics and use them not the game. Despite the fact  that GW2 has 'evicted the trinity', roles can still be played in the same fashion that they have been for the past decade.

So at the risk of repeating myself furthur; see older post.

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

Originally posted by Loke666

The server transfer thing cant really be solved any other way. Or would you only let people choose a single server once and make it so they never could change?

I'd make it so said transfers weren't free and available during the launch phase of the game...only later, when populations had settled down some.

As it is right now, people are just hopping form one server to the next everytime they see that one's stronger than the others. Result; strong servers get more PvPers, weaker servers get weaker.

EDIT: For context; my server, Dragonbrand, has seen a great many people migrate to other servers just because of how often we got crushed by servers with dedicated, large scale PvP guilds. As a result, we now routinely get camped into our spawn point and "farmed" a great deal. Just 5 days ago, we were able to field enough players to match a "hardcore" PvP server blow-for-blow; now we're lucky to see 20 people at once. Repeated boot stompings led most of our good PvPers (but not all) to leave for other servers.

I have a problem with this suggestion. I started on JQ and have since moved twice. Because one of my IRL friends bought GW2 and we were all set to play together but guess what? we couldn't because JQ was locked. So, How would no server transfers have helped us?

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by WoW_Refugee

Originally posted by Loke666

The server transfer thing cant really be solved any other way. Or would you only let people choose a single server once and make it so they never could change?

I'd make it so said transfers weren't free and available during the launch phase of the game...only later, when populations had settled down some.

As it is right now, people are just hopping form one server to the next everytime they see that one's stronger than the others. Result; strong servers get more PvPers, weaker servers get weaker.

EDIT: For context; my server, Dragonbrand, has seen a great many people migrate to other servers just because of how often we got crushed by servers with dedicated, large scale PvP guilds. As a result, we now routinely get camped into our spawn point and "farmed" a great deal. Just 5 days ago, we were able to field enough players to match a "hardcore" PvP server blow-for-blow; now we're lucky to see 20 people at once. Repeated boot stompings led most of our good PvPers (but not all) to leave for other servers.

I have a problem with this suggestion. I started on JQ and have since moved twice. Because one of my IRL friends bought GW2 and we were all set to play together but guess what? we couldn't because JQ was locked. So, How would no server transfers have helped us?

Well your case is not what most people are concerned about.  Most don't want to have unlimited server transfers into high pop servers, I don't think anyone cares if they let people on full servers transfer out.