(edited by Kadin.2356)
Some suggestions to make WvW more fun.
I completely agree, WVW could simply be one big Keep siege right now. Everything is a huge safe battle. there is not much incentive to run in a small group, and take other objectives.
Agreed, especially the non-rez dead people.
“I completely agree, WVW could simply be one big Keep siege right now. Everything is a huge safe battle. there is not much incentive to run in a small group, and take other objectives.”
no no no, there is an incentive, when i run around with out 10 man guild (8 online) we split into 2 parties and capp everything, camps, towers and sometimes even bay. in the end, we checked it once, we as a small group earned more karma and money than following the zerg, and as we had speced our traits to match the others someone very rarely dies, so there is an incentive for small group organisation.
about non-ressing, thats the essense of this game, teamplay, if we are just gonna walk over people then why would you even join a zerg, go solo stuff if you think you should not be helped or help others.
i like the ideas,
another idea, have a deeper upgrade system, upto maybe 10 levels, making guards very hard on the endscale and many of them * this could be scaled with defenders around + defenders advantage. Depth to skill systems is a must, i likes daoc cuz it showd unique depth and this was almoth 15 years ago if not more ^^
cheers for the post
/bump,
I agree that the defeated state should have more finality to it than it currently does. My suggestion is any one of these:
- have revival progress on defeated mode tick down when no one’s reviving the person;
- give a limited time of being in defeated mode, eventually the person becomes impossible to revive;
- skip downed mode and send the person straight to defeated;
- greatly reduce the amount of HP you get in downed mode, or
- greatly reduce the damage output of downed mode skills.
When I down a person in competitive multiplayer in any game, I expect him/her to be out of the equation until a specific mechanic determines otherwise, such as defibrillators in Battlefield 3. Player A defeats player B, player B is out of the fight and player A moves on to player C or secures his or her position. Elimination is key to a lot of sports, and is key to competitive play in video games.
Besides that, the one thing that consistently keeps me from WvW is the knowledge that I spend more time running than fighting. I take less risks because death will have me start far enough away that action might end before I get there, and even if I don’t die, I still have to move to the next objective on the map, which actually might take up to 30 mins. I understand balancing reasons, but I think it’s a very clumsy method in an otherwise elegantly designed game. The mechanic of contested waypoints is in, why not make greater use of it? Why not add another objective for solo players/small groups – setting up (destructible) waypoints in positions predetermined by ArenaNet?
WvW still feels very rough and unfinished.
no no no, there is an incentive, when i run around with out 10 man guild (8 online) we split into 2 parties and capp everything, camps, towers and sometimes even bay. in the end, we checked it once, we as a small group earned more karma and money than following the zerg, and as we had speced our traits to match the others someone very rarely dies, so there is an incentive for small group organisation.
about non-ressing, thats the essense of this game, teamplay, if we are just gonna walk over people then why would you even join a zerg, go solo stuff if you think you should not be helped or help others.
I think you badly missed the point.
Sure you can run around and ninja-cap things but they don’t stay capped and therefor are rather irrelevant to the point scheme. It’s good for “karma and money” but that’s not the objective you should be looking at, it should be putting points on the board.
I’m all for “teamplay” and that’s the point of the “downed” state. It allows you to assist those around you, getting them back on their feet before they are finished off. Removing the ability to res finished players however would make it possible for smaller forces to whittle away at zergs whereas currently that’s not really an option.
In many games the counter to zerg gameplay is “be where the zerg is not” and own everything else that isn’t being sat upon by the mass of players. Problem is keeps/towers (which are the majority of the points) can’t be capped fast enough by smaller groups and the end result is that they just get steamrolled by the time they have the door half down. Even if you do take something down, how long does it last after the zerg shows up? Long enough even to get a blimp on the point bar? Simply stated the current mechanics just don’t point to small group play as being a viable tactic to win and that’s all there is to it.
I want small groups (10, 5, even 2) to have more (additive) impact than just a mindless blob of people bouncing around. This would promote smaller scale fights which are really what make frontier style combat a blast.
(edited by Kadin.2356)
No to the scaling for night capping and bigger maps. Yes to more map variety, more objectives, and respawn rates. Revives system could do with some work, but I’m against removing it entirely.
No to the scaling for night capping and bigger maps. Yes to more map variety, more objectives, and respawn rates. Revives system could do with some work, but I’m against removing it entirely.
Instead of just “yes/no” I’d love to see some reasoning behind it. They’ve stated that they “don’t want any players time to be worth more than any other” so they aren’t doing anything about night-capping as those players should be able to play just like any other right?
Problem is the players playing at off peak hours are worth MORE as they are able to take one unoccupied tower/keep after another and put major points on the board with far less effort than those that are playing prime-time. Scaling the points back would just make it so that everyone’s time is worth the “same” as far as effort -> point reward is concerned.
As for ressing, I know running back to the battle is a pain but I don’t see anyway around that. Leaving it in it’s current state means that smaller forces will never have any sizable impact upon larger ones.
(edited by Kadin.2356)
Yes to all this. The ability for anyone to res anyone is great, but after the downed state expires then it’s time to run back. Two things to make that more palatable would be to make the downed state last longer, or increase the number or waypoints in the WvW areas.
No to the scaling for night capping and bigger maps. Yes to more map variety, more objectives, and respawn rates. Revives system could do with some work, but I’m against removing it entirely.
Instead of just “yes/no” I’d love to see some reasoning behind it. They’ve stated that they “don’t want any players time to be worth more than any other” so they aren’t doing anything about night-capping as those players should be able to play just like any other right?
Problem is the players playing at off peak hours are worth MORE as they are able to take one unoccupied tower/keep after another and put major points on the board with far less effort than those that are playing prime-time. Scaling the points back would just make it so that everyone’s time is worth the “same” as far as effort -> point reward is concerned.
As for ressing, I know running back to the battle is a pain but I don’t see anyway around that. Leaving it in it’s current state means that smaller forces will never have any sizable impact upon larger ones.
I can’t think of anything about the res. Removing the downed/dead system entirely just for wvw makes little sense. An ideal solution is one that will benefit small skilled groups.
Personally, I find the maps big enough already. Having a bigger map will help with small groups in skirmishes and stuff. It might be cool though. What I’d prefer is a map pool with a rotation every few months to bring up new strategies for specific maps.
ANet designed wvw to be a 24h-nonstop-war. I like the idea. Also, not everyone lives in the United States or have a regular day job.
EDIT: From the above post, I think a timer to revive the dead players is an excellent idea. So they have a time limit to win the fight or continue fighting with less players.
Scaling is bad, and here is why:
Points gained scales to ratio. So, I cap at night and get a big point lead, then leave. Then nobody ever enters WvW again, and with a 0 on my server, the enemies can never get points, because the ratio scales to 0. Now, even though they own everything, they get nothing, and we win with no effort at all.
Scaling npcs to match large invading forces is also a bad idea. Because if we simply left, then npcs could hold most of our points pretty well, and it would be impossible for us to lose. All we’d have to do is be the first to cap, and then stay out for a week to auto-win.
You have spawn points, at waypoints, in any place you own that someone builds a waypoint at. If you don’t have people willing to spend the time, money, and karma, on upgrades, then you don’t deserve them.
How far that little candle throws its beams!
So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
- William Shakespear
So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
- William Shakespear
I can’t think of anything about the res. Removing the downed/dead system entirely just for wvw makes little sense. An ideal solution is one that will benefit small skilled groups.
Personally, I find the maps big enough already. Having a bigger map will help with small groups in skirmishes and stuff. It might be cool though. What I’d prefer is a map pool with a rotation every few months to bring up new strategies for specific maps.
ANet designed wvw to be a 24h-nonstop-war. I like the idea. Also, not everyone lives in the United States or have a regular day job.
EDIT: From the above post, I think a timer to revive the dead players is an excellent idea. So they have a time limit to win the fight or continue fighting with less players.
How about larger maps with multiple spawn points? Makes the battle area larger so more room to maneuver, but takes some of the sting out of having to run back from death as you don’t have to run from the other side of the planet.
A timer may work but think about how it currently works. Small group bravely rushes in. Kills/finishes 3 players. Zerg starts to react and they are forced to retreat. 3 dead players are promptly ressed and all that effort is for not. That whole cycle is probably less than 60 seconds. The timer, if it’s going to have any impact, would have to be really small… like 20 seconds or less. I don’t know, I’d rather just force the people to res and use other mechanics like multiple spawn points to take the sting out of having to run back so far.
Small groups are not what WvW is about. This is siege warfare, the kind of fights that were fought with tens of thousands of soldiers, and battles lasted weeks, months, a few even lasted years.
If you want to feel special as a roamer, go play real PvP.
How far that little candle throws its beams!
So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
- William Shakespear
So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
- William Shakespear
Scaling is bad, and here is why:
Points gained scales to ratio. So, I cap at night and get a big point lead, then leave. Then nobody ever enters WvW again, and with a 0 on my server, the enemies can never get points, because the ratio scales to 0. Now, even though they own everything, they get nothing, and we win with no effort at all.
Scaling npcs to match large invading forces is also a bad idea. Because if we simply left, then npcs could hold most of our points pretty well, and it would be impossible for us to lose. All we’d have to do is be the first to cap, and then stay out for a week to auto-win.
You have spawn points, at waypoints, in any place you own that someone builds a waypoint at. If you don’t have people willing to spend the time, money, and karma, on upgrades, then you don’t deserve them.
Simple fix for the first situation. Make it so it never scales to 0. Maybe a maximum reduction of 50%. Meaning that it is at least possible during the prime time to recoup the losses incurred while everyone was asleep, whereas currently it isn’t.
NPC’s are nothing to large forces, it’s just a distraction, something to slow down the blitz capping that makes zerging profitable.
Adding more way points around the edge of the map wouldn’t invalidate the bonus of having way points inside keeps. All it would do is make it less likely for forces to get completely boxed in. I think a frontier being completely flipped to one faction is a failure of the system and I’m seeing that FAR too often.
Small groups are not what WvW is about. This is siege warfare, the kind of fights that were fought with tens of thousands of soldiers, and battles lasted weeks, months, a few even lasted years.
If you want to feel special as a roamer, go play real PvP.
Show me where that’s stated anywhere. At all. And yes, big battles are a major feature of WvW, they just shouldn’t be the ONLY OPTION. I want to see more tactical play instead of Player vs Door. If you like to zerg that’s fine, I just want some changes to make things more fun rather than monotonous.
agreed with all points. also on the topic:
Some comments on your ideas:
If a team is winning because they have more players, then helping people to “avoid the zerg” by having bigger maps won’t do anything to balance that. That’s just cat-and-mouse gameplay, like racing around trying to take undefended camps or towers before the enemy zerg arrives. That’s not what I think we should strive to achieve. We need the game balanced so that teams can fight on an even level. Also, having larger maps may make it that much harder to hang onto gains when the maps ARE balanced, since the more places you have to try to hold on to, the less able you’ll be to keep preventive defensives up and active at each location.
The same applies for having more objectives for small groups and for having them be worth more points.
As for point scaling, it may be feasible if calculated fairly, but points aren’t a big concern for me. I just want the game to be fun and balanced in terms of gameplay, regardless of points.
Scaling of NPCs is a potentially feasible boost for undermanned teams, but not as you suggested, which is that NPCs should increase if few defenders are in the area. That just rewards teams for not staying on defense, and penalizes them for actually defending. If anything, NPCs should scale based on total map population imbalances. Give the undermanned team a boost.
For the more “safe zone” spawn points idea, I’ve always found that there are more than enough exits from spawn to avoid spawn camping. And if it’s that bad where that still isn’t enough, the problem isn’t with the spawn points, but rather with the overwhelming player imbalance.
Making dead players unable to be resurrected is feasible too. I don’t think it’ll do much to help balance things though.
My own suggestion is that instead of trying to compensate for WvW population imbalances, they should just dynamically adjust the map population limits as needed based on WvW player population limits at any given time. Population limits are what balances the teams and makes the game fun. When you’re behind in population and you can’t even fill 1 map, it makes it so that the enemy team will outnumber you in every map and just move around between maps as needed to outnumber you on every map. So what could be done is they could adjust the players limits on the maps to automatically lower when player counts are lower, which would make it so that outnumbered teams could at least fill a few maps (because the player limit is lower) and have fun balanced battles in them.