Guild Wars 2

This is a suggestion to increase the point value of resource camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle as more upgrades are built for these objectives.

It also suggests a method for reducing the effectiveness of large numbers of players (aka. zergs, blobs) using weapon and utility skills to break through gates in the absence of siege weapons.

The intent of both is to move from the current meta which heavily favors zerging to a more balanced situation in which defense is made more effective as compared to its current state.
.
.
.
While reading this suggestion, keep in mind the point values suggested are just hypothetical place holders. It’s not so much the specific values (which could be easily changed based on what balancing and testing reveal to be ideal) but about the concept of scaling the value of an objective on the basis of its upgrades.

1) Resource camps would be worth 1 point-per-fifteen-minutes if not upgraded.

2) Towers would be worth 5 points-per-fifteen-minutes if not upgraded.

3) Keeps would be worth 10 points-per-fifteen-minutes if not upgraded.

4) Stonemist Castle would be worth 20 points-per-fifteen-minutes if not upgraded.
.
.
.
I then propose one of two possible scaling methods.

1) Purchasing all the upgrades in a tier will add a set amount of points to the value of the objective.

For example, purchasing all tier 1 upgrades would add 5 points, all tier 2 upgrades would add 7 points, and all tier 3 upgrades would add 10 points.

A resource camp in which all upgrades have been purchased would be worth 13 points-per-fifteen minutes.

A tower in which all tier 1 upgrades have been purchased would be worth 10 points-per-fifteen-minutes.

A keep in which all tier 1 and tier 2 upgrades have been purchased would be worth 22 points-per-fifteen minutes.

2) Each upgrade purchased contributes to an objective’s value.

For example, each tier 1 upgrade is worth 1 point, each tier 2 upgrade is worth 2 points, and each tier 3 upgrade is worth 3 points.

A resource camp with two tier 1 upgrades and one tier 2 upgrade would be worth 5 points-per-fifteen minutes.

A tower with three tier 1 upgrades, two tier 2 upgrades, and one tier 3 upgrade would be worth 15 points-per-fifteen-minutes.

A keep in which all tier 1 and tier 2 upgrades have been purchased as well as two tier 3 upgrades would be worth 28 points-per-fifteen minutes.
.
.
.
By setting the default points of objectives low but then making them scale significantly with upgrades, this places greater value on those improvements as well as defending those objectives if a server wishes to remain competitive in the points they earn during the match.

The server that zergs to the exclusion of all else will still earn points from rapid objective flipping. However, with this proposed scaling system, their opponents could potentially earn more points through effective defense of a smaller number of objectives which have been more highly upgraded. It won’t favor one method over the other; both approaches remain viable. This contrasts with the current meta in which zergs are the single most effective method of earning karma, experience, WXP, and capturing objectives.

One critique of this suggestion is that the cost of upgrades is prohibitive for some players. They won’t bother upgrading – even if it would earn their server more points – because of this barrier; they’ll just keep zerging. Simply reduce the cost of upgrades to encourage more players to make these purchases. Furthermore, add a reward (karma and/or WXP) for purchasing the upgrades. Because the number of upgrades are finite and require that a server be in possession of an objective in the first place, there’s really no risk of this being abused as a source of karma and/or WXP farming.

Would we see players upgrade an objective only to let it fall into enemy hands so they can capture it back and re-upgrade it again to earn even more karma and/or WXP? Perhaps. However, that’s a painfully slow and inefficient method of farming such rewards with no guarantee of success (i.e. you have to be able to recapture the objective after it’s lost to resume the upgrade farming).

Furthermore, there’s no way of preventing other players on your server from purchasing upgrades themselves or defending the objective should it come under attack. In practice, I doubt we’d suddenly witness a huge spike in upgrade farmers flooding WvWvW. To further shield against such potential abuse, break up the reward. On making the initial purchase of an upgrade, a small amount of karma and/or WXP is awarded. The larger reward only comes when the upgrade actually completes construction; encouraging players to stick around escorting yaks into the objective and defending it until the upgrade is finished.

(continued)

Of course, all the upgrades in the world are useless in the face of the current mechanics in which players’ weapon and utility skills can break through a gate; even in the absence of siege weapons. No matter how perfectly a group chooses, places, and uses their siege defenses inside an objective nor how many upgrades they’ve purchased, the zerg always wins when the defenders are grossly outnumbered (see this post for a more in-depth discussion of this topic).

In that linked post, I made the suggestion that players’ weapon and utility skills would no longer damage gates; just as they do not damage walls currently. To balance that suggestion with the spirit of the suggestion being made here (encouraging and rewarding active defense of objectives while still allowing zerging to remain viable), I amend it as follows:

Once an objective’s gate has been upgraded to the tier 2 “Reinforced Door” stage, players’ weapon and utility skills will no longer be able to damage that gate.

This accomplishes several goals at once:

1) Player skills can still damage an un-upgraded gate.

In my previous post, those who are pro-zerg countered that they would have nothing to do but just stand around during an assault on an objective, waiting for the siege weapons to break through a gate or wall. Of course, that was kind of my point; find alternatives to zerging (or – at the very least – look for alternatives during the assault such as scouting for incoming enemies or defending the siege weapon batteries).

However, to be fair, I accept that some players enjoy zerging and feeling “useful” during a siege by spamming skills at a gate. So long as they attack an un-upgraded gate, they will still be able to engage in this form of play.

2) Those who enjoy upgrading and defending are rewarded by no longer watching their efforts go to waste in the face of zergs spamming auto-attack at a gate.

As described in that previous post, zergs currently are able to gain entry to an objective by simply spamming auto-attack at a gate, even in the absence of siege weaponry. I don’t argue that this is an efficient way of laying siege to a fortification. I argue that – even after playing a perfect defensive game in which the defenders manage to destroy all the zerg’s siege weaponry – the zerg still wins by simply DPS-ing down a gate spamming skill #1.

If the defenders lack the numbers to counter the zerg directly through combat, zergs are handed a guaranteed win every time they assault an objective. There is currently no counter to this; AoE has a cap and death in a zerg carries no consequence as they have the overwhelming numbers to rez the fallen while still carrying on with their assault.

By preventing players from DPS-ing down a gate after it has been upgraded to the “Reinforced Door” stage, this becomes the counter to the current unbalanced scenario described above.

3) It encourages upgrading and active defense of captured objectives.

Currently there’s no incentive to upgrade a fortification if the defenders know that a zerg can just DPS down a gate doing nothing more than spamming auto-attack. If, instead, there exists a hard counter to this tactic, then players would be more willing to upgrade and defend their objectives.

This, in turn, moves us away from the single-minded zerg meta and into a scenario where defense balances with offense. This has benefits for the long-term health of WvWvW by preventing it from devolving into a shallow and boring game in which one tactic alone (zerging) prevails over all others.

4) It encourages more active play in WvWvW.

Rather than risk WvWvW becoming a stand-off between balanced and static defensive and offensive forces, this suggestion actually accomplishes the opposite.

If players know they can’t DPS down an upgraded gate, this gives them incentive to strike early and fast. There’s a window of opportunity for the pro-zerg element to attack a fortification in which they can still DPS down the gate if they choose before it gets upgraded to the “Reinforced Door” stage. If they delay too long in organizing their assault, their opponents’ fortifications will be upgraded and they will have no choice but to use siege weapons to assault those towers and keeps.

Time is no longer on their side; they will be racing the clock to capture resource camps to deny their opponents the supply they need to complete the upgrade as well as attacking the fortifications early before upgrades are built. The same holds true for the defenders; they must protect their resource camps, stockpile supply inside their fortifications, and hold out long enough for them to complete their upgrades before the zerg breaks through an un-upgraded gate.

(continued)

With these two suggestions, no longer will either side be able to take a leisurely approach to offense or defense if they care about their server’s score. They will have to take pro-active steps to remain competitive in their match and within their respective tier while racing the clock and each other in a virtual arms race.