Guild Wars 2

Just a general suggestion thread, but I’d like to see some intelligent ways of improving the game. We know that numbers pretty much decide the game at the moment and I’m wondering if there are any ideas primarily to give servers with lower numbers a true fighting chance against other servers that outnumber them. A primary suggestion would be to add a debuff to invaders in an enemy BL. Maybe make the rewards better but at the same time add an “Unfamiliar Territory” debuff. Another suggestion would be to scale stats based on the number of enemy players around you. Not 1 or two but based on like 5-10 intervals. Just a couple ideas, I’d like to see some others.

I think there should be one giant Eternal Battleground map with every server on it.. .. so when an SM zergfest materialise we can all place a heavy weight across our 1 key and go nip to Domino’s grab a 12" pizza, come back make a coffee.. eat/ drink then go take a shower, wash our hair and come back to see if the slideshow has finished.

add in some bonus WvW points for servers that our outmanned.. say “line dance” bonus or “cmon zerg, catch me if ya can”

Maybe add in the Wyatt Earp rule.. when entering your servers borders, all enemies are channelled through a border checkpoint and asked to lay down their arms and collect them when leaving the city limits…. for every unarmed enemy you kill you get a bonus.. get 100 kills and you earn the title.. “Its good to talk”

I want Skyhammer to be a WvW map to replace orbs with DA SKYHAMMER! that can blow up something or other on the other maps. It will be siege-less and the player cap has to be low such that any server (within reason) can fill it easily (not sure how to avoid cross server griefing).

Garrison has 10000 million arrow carts? Call in the tactical nuke.

:p

Bad ideas 101, brought to you by me!

I would like to say removal hacking in WvW would be a great improvement, or at least perma ban the cheats within 24hrs.. and when if its noted that they are coming from the same guilds, throw the kill tone to the guild and all its achievements….but of course we all know that kinda falls on deaf ears back at HQ.

Remove siege… oh wait, they tried that and it was too much fun so they added it back in.

My suggestions for WvW:

Add 2 maps about 1.5x to 2x the size of SM.

The first map is nothing more than a big empty battlefield where the armies of the 3 servers clash. No siege no points to capture just grass. The battles would be closed matches that end when only one team has survivors. I would suggest putting a flexible player cap of 1.5x the number of the smallest team up to 100 players for each team. Players would enter the map at spawn points but would only be able to enter the fight when the next battle begins. When a player is killed a 1 minute timer kicks in. if you can revive that player in that time they are still in the game. If not then they are sent back to the spawn area and have to wait for the next match. The scoring for this could go like this; your team gets 5 points for each player kill. When only one team has players alive the match is over and the winning team gets an additional 5 points per player that survived the battle. After another minute or two the next fight begins. These fights are not timed they last until there is a clear victor. The total point score from the battle is added to your WvW PPT

The 2nd map is for the people that like to duel. This is again a big empty field of grass. The only difference is you cannot just attack invaders you just challenge them to duels. The winner of a duel between enemy teams earns their server 50 points to add to the PPT total. There should also be same server duels that earn no points but can be used as practice.

It is my opinion that the current WvW is not so much pvp as it is a war game with pvp elements. The object in WvW is not to see how many players you can kill, but rather to capture and defend your territory. I am not sure what can be done with the existing system. But for the people that just want to pvp in large battles I think my first option is for them. And while I don’t like to duel there should be a system for the ones that do.

It would be nice if the auto target or “tab target” was fixed. I’m standing in front of a couple of enemies hitting tab to target them and it’s cycling through a pack of wolves behind me completely out of range.

I know other people have had these problems as well, so that being fixed would be a great step in improving WvW

Autoloot so we can get those bags of loot we are forced to leave behind when the battle flow forces a retreat.

Increased normal XP gain would also be nice for people who might want to gain actual levels doing WvW.

1. Remove commander tags they only attract players insta forming blobs, instead of that make ‘Guild Commander Tag’ So you still can steamroll with your guild but don’t have the honey on your kitten that attracts pugs.

2. Create portable siege shields ( player need to hold it but cant use skills and has 50% less movement speed ) if the player is killed the shield drops too and players who walk behind the shield ( in a small yellow circle ) wont be affected or have less dmg from Acarts.

3. Rams ( or atleast sup. rams ) should be occupied by 3 people, I never seen 1 person use that large log to ram on a gate.

4. Bring back orbs but change the stats, the mechanics of them were awesome.

5. Different maps for the other borderlands

6. Make a special underwater castle in the borderlands lakes, and create special underwater siege.

Well some ideas, maybe bad or good idc. my ideas ^^

First step is to remove ALL waypoints. No more teleporting zergs. No more taking north camp, and 10 seconds later have 70 people defending briar tower. No more spamming waypoints to get in during the defense reset. Best way to defeat a zerg is to make it a losing proposition to have everyone on the map moving in a herd.

(Reposting my comment from a different thread since it seems more appropriate for this one!)

After reading through the comments in this thread, I’ve come to a few conclusions. Namely, almost everyone outright complaining about “zerging” is someone who has been on the losing end of it more often than not. Obviously everyone is going to encounter a zerg sooner or later, and it’s not particularly fun to be outnumbered, beaten down, and staked in the face with virtually no means of defending yourself. Sure, a single person can put up a decent struggle, but as so many have already said, it’s a game of numbers, and the bigger number wins. It’s not fun. If I wanted the Starcraft Experience™, I’d go play Starcraft.

That being said, the zerg tactic isn’t inherently invalid. The Americans zerg-rushed Normandy Beach to take it from the Axis forces. Early medieval military strategies relied heavily on cavalry zerging infantry lines and forcing breaks within enemy ranks. Vietnamese soldiers applied a blend of zerg rushing and guerilla warfare to (regretfully) great effect.

The two major differences are that a) this is a game, and those are all real life examples, and b) our modern age, the “Age of Information”.

Let’s address point A first. From a strategic standpoint, for example, Americans had to zerg Normandy because of the Axis’ superior position. But they had to sacrifice an obscene number of lives in order to succeed. In reality, a defensible position can help a small number stave off a much larger assault by virtue of strategic placement of troops and weapons, and also because when someone dies in real life they can’t respawn. In GW2, holding a defensible position doesn’t matter jack-all when your opponents have hit points and heals and buffs in huge numbers. I’d propose increasing damage output for defenders significantly in direct proportion to the number of attackers engaging a defensible position (towers and keeps), with a reasonable cap. This would not apply to a castle because the castle is entirely capable of rallying and containing an equally large “zerg” force to defend, and often does by merit of its point value. This would also not apply anywhere outside of a tower and keep because that wouldn’t make any sense.

For point B, I would recommend removing the Commander icon from the minimap, thus forcing players to actively communicate with one another in order to better organize their assaults. In exchange, I’d suggest improving the group buffs granted by Commanders, providing incentive to staying “in formation” and maintaining a functioning “chain of command”, so to speak. In our modern age we have at least four very popular group chat programs at our disposal, as well as the /map and /team chat channels. Make players use that, instead of checking for a blue icon and running over to it like, well, a zergling.

What do you all think?

Remove Stonemist Castle and replace it by…

A huge open world PvP arena with a big boss in the middle and 3 seals like Temple of Lyssa. Keep the towers so the server controlling the area can still place trebuchets.

No walls, no gates. Just awesome 3 ways battle all the time. The idea is that there is 3 seals, a keep lord with his guards, that players must take down. Once the 3 seals are down they can attack the boss, the castle lord. One server will be owning the area, like before. The goal of that server is to protect the 3 seals and the castle lord.

The 2 other servers can’t access the castle lord as long as the seals are up and if they are on the castle lord and the server owning the area recap a seal then they can no longer enter the lord room but those inside can still try to cap the “castle”.

The server owning the area get 35 points to WvW score and exclusive access to a few towers designed to place treb and hit surrounding towers.