Guild Wars 2

DevonCarver.5370:

The Edge of the Mists features numerous changes to the standard WvW mechanics.The most notable changes are: Scoring on capture of objectives, scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs, unique bosses at each objective, increased emphasis on verticality, more chokepoints, a much shorter match time, and destructible terrain. Of the changes included, which would you like to see implemented in the standard WvW maps?

Is it wrong to respond~

D. All of the above

Ok, shorter match times might not be helpful, but it does seem like there’s a lot of philosophical evolution has taken place between the creation of the current Borderlands and the Edge of the Mists.

Honestly, I like the unified teams by server group. This allows even low population servers to benefit from the action and not get completely stomped in most regards whilst still allowing notable competition.

Proposal Overview
I would like to point out few things related to the Scaling creatures and NPC complexity.
One of the best things that really made difference after joining Eotm for 1st time in betas and after was the fact that there is a different approach to creatures/NPC bosses.
They was actively scaling and had different fighting mechanics compared to what we had till now in original WvW maps.

Goal of Proposal
What i’m proposing is test overhaul on the Stonemist Lord and adding him the features like the Lords in Eotm lords have.
Stonemist is the only Castle in WvW yet the lord NPC that defends it is same as any others NPC/Lord out there.
Give this guy some personality allow him to fight back (i know he have grudge agaisnt all WvW players who zerg him all time while he don’t have the necessary tools to fight back).Add him more complex mechanics like those we can see in Eotm or even better than those.
My other proposition is to add more capture points to Stonemist.Currently its really counter-productive to have 1 single capture chamber which gets zerged by the whole map zerg.
Instead add 2 more capture points to Stonemist which will divide the zerg and provide more tactical plays.With the all new PvE boss mechanics we saw like in 3-headed wurm i think that everyone saw that multi task mechanics are way better than 1 zoneblop attacking 1 poor NPC (sometimes even using only auto-attacks) to take it down.To capture Stonemist at least 2 of the capture points should be held by attackers

Proposal Functionality
Both or my propositions will add more complexity to the wvw game and more variety of tactics.When NPC you’re about the attack have complex mechanics you can’t just auto-attacking it to death while keeping an eye for other enemy players.
Guild Wars 2 devs have showed us that there is a lot more that they can do about those so i think after Marionette,3 headed wurm etc… it’s time WvW to get to the next level where you need to actually play the game and play it smart to win.

Associated Risks
The system i propose probably have some flaws i cannot see so please point them out so we can make this a better place for all of us.

Quick note
I proposed this system to be tested 1st on Stonemist lord but i hope to see it applied to all NPCs in wvw in future.

Proposal Overview
Shorten matchup duration for more competive matchups

Goal of Proposal
Create more fun matches, removing the issue of servers losing moral early in the week by faling behind

Proposal Functionality
Matches should be shortened (i think 3 hours like in eotm is too short, either 6 or 8 hour matchups)
A server should have multiple ratings (e.g. 1 rating for the matchup from 0-8am, 1 for 8am-4pm and and one for 4pm-12), thus making sure that you are matched with servers with similiar activity during that matchup

Associated Risks
Various machanics have to be reworked (Power of the Mists & Keep/Tower Upgrades)
It could prove a problem for guilds who play at a time when the matchup switches from one matchup to the next. Something needs to be done to avoid a downtime of multiple minutes between each of the matches

Edit: Should i post my proposals in a extra post per proposal or gather them all in one?

Overview
Make WvW the average of what it is now and EotM.

NPCs
The NPCs in WvW are ridiculously easy. Those in EotM are actually a bit difficult and take some time to kill. It takes me longer to kill an EotM NPC than it takes to solo a WVW camp. NPCs in WvW should be balanced between the two.

Verticality and Choke Points
I love these features in EotM, but I find my self missing the wide open expanses of WvW. Perhaps there should be just a few more choke points in WvW as well as some more areas (camps) with some y-axis freedom. The sewers in keeps in EB come to mind.

Those are the two points I really care about. I like the better matchmaking in EotM, but I don’t think it would work in WvW.

I find all of the new mechanics in the edge of the mist very refreshing. And genuinely feel all of them should be carried over into wvwvw, The standard maps could use some fresh Mechanics. Although Changing the landscape to drastically may be frowned upon, but people(me) like new stuff.
I say port all the new concepts in edge of the mist over.

Proposal Overview

• Players are respawned upon death
• While [Outnumbered], building and repairing costs 50% supply
• Everyone from WvW went to EotM, so I suggest to use some of the EotM mechanics in WvW aswell

Goal of Proposal

• Preventing players to hard rez eachother and overwhelming other players no matter what. Unless you babysit them or hunt them down.

Associated Risks

• Making some players utilizing hard rezzing and outnumbered opponents upset.

[quote=3681715;DevonCarver.5370
Suggested Proposal Format
Balancing WvW using some of the EotM features and addressing part of the first CDI.

Goal of Proposal
The matchup format for EotM is what a few of us players were asking for in the original CDI for Population Balance. I think you guys are on the right track by eliminating Tiers via Servers and instead making matchups based on World Color. this would be great to see in WvW with the same option to switch instances (guest). Matchup get dull when fighting the same 2-3 servers over and over however if you make it to random we get the blowouts we had pre season 1. I can honestly say being stuck in the matchup I’m currently in has made me think on more then one occasion if this is the game for me. Lower tiers are suffering (as I’m sure all servers are to some degree) with EotM release and loss of numbers in WvW, in our current matchup I see no real point in going to WvW because for our server it would be mostly PvD with very few fights. This is where Color matching and instancing could help.

Proposal Functionality
Its my belief that WvW would be more enjoyable for everyone from those on servers that lack WvW participation to those that have a great participation yet find themselves battling the same enemies for weeks and weeks on end.

Associated Risks
Players getting stuck in instances without firends/Guild mates, Color matching if not monitored could throw off balance, color matching would have to be rotated so the “I can’t get my world completion threads go away” and of course griefing players because they are from server X and are taking up a spot that Server Y feels should be intended for their superior players.

Devon Carver[/quote]

Proposal Overview
Eliminate ‘server vs server vs server’ and replace it with Green vs Blue vs Red, the same way EOTM works.

Goal of Proposal
Standardize coverage overall, allowing lower-tier and higher-tier servers to enjoy WvW combat, but on the borderlands as opposed to EOTM. Make WvW less about coverage winning overall, and more about teamwork and skill. At this point, I don’t see a way out of the constant arms race at the top as long as coverage determines a win. Making it not matter at all would help, at least in my opinion.

Proposal Functionality
Well, that’s just the thing. I don’t know how to get around the problem where EOTM is all overflows so can just reproduce itself infinitely to get everyone to play. This would essentially mean that all borderlands maps would have to act the same way — as an overflow with no ‘main’ instance. As a bonus, this would eliminate queue times. You would, as a player, just select green/blue/red/EB as an option, and go play.

Associated Risks
Eliminates the community feeling of fighting for your server. Also, I’m not sure this is a risk, but it sort of really devalues the upgrading of keeps/towers. Perhaps those could act the same as EOTM in that you’d only ever be able to use your home garrison WP — if you had it — and spawn, and could never put your own waypoint on Hills/Bay/EB keeps, unless that was your spawn side.

I really haven’t played EotM extensively enough to fairly evaluate everyone of the following features but that won’t stop me from sharing my opinion.

Scoring on capture of objectives
I never really noticed this but it sounds good if the scoring system itself is changed. I don’t think we need to further incentivize keep-swapping. There’s plenty of that going on already.

scaling creatures
Haven’t noticed this either and I don’t think it makes a big difference. Scaling Lords is nice giving everyone in the zerg enough time to tag the mob, but it doesn’t really make WvW anymore interesting.

new and more difficult NPCs
Again, PvE in WvW is never going to be interesting. The mobs here might have different skills but they’re just as useless and tedious as they are in regular WvW.

unique bosses at each objective
What’s with all the PvE stuff? Who cares, it makes no difference. Sure it would be cool if Keep Lords were actually threatening to a Zerg but that requires raid-like boss mechanics, mechanics we currently don’t have.

increased emphasis on verticality
I hate verticality. It’s confusing and counter-intuitive. It also doesn’t make WvW any better. Open fields with certain highlights and strategic elements make good WvW, not some islands in the sky.

more chokepoints
If by that you mean more bridges, no thanks. Choke points in general are cool and having a few key locations on each map imperative. But EotM went overboard with all the bridges.

a much shorter match time
Ok for an overflow map, but not for actual WvW. Going below a week makes everything feel less consequential and thus even hollower than it currently does.

and destructible terrain
This could, in theory, enhance regular WvW quite a bit, depending on the implementation. But it’s hard to make such a general statement as it depends a lot of the specific implementation.

Proposal Overview
The use of choke points, map design that has variety with twists and turns while traveling that disrupts open field fighting.

Goal of Proposal
Make zerging less effective and encouraging groups to break down to capture objectives. Organised smaller groups can have more of a advantage.

Proposal Functionality
EotM design makes roaming with small groups and individual play more user friendly. Its design makes it easier for these groups to run/hide or surprise other groups much easier than what happens in direct open field fights in the borderlands.

Associated Risks
Some people enjoy zerging. Its a challenge to find the sweet spot between encouraging effective/coordinated play and someone who enjoys to log on and follow a large zerg.

One of the issues I had with EotM was it so hard to catch up with your group if you died on the far side of the map. However such a process contributed to the attrition of large uncoordinated groups which I agree with.

Proposal Overview
In keeps (not towers) add the more difficult NPC versions that scale depending on the number of attackers.

Goal of Proposal
I think that adding the more difficult scaling NPCs to the keeps will allow for defense to be more possible with a few people. Currently a keep can be easily flipped by a large zerg and having only a few people defending makes no difference. With this add a keep will be more defensible by a few as it is in EoTM.

Proposal Functionality
Add the more difficult NPCs to keeps. These NPCs can have similar “trick” mechanics like the Overgrowth keep does with the elementals, but it is not necessary. By adding these to the keeps it will mean that a team of 5 defenders can reasonably try to defend a keep against 20 people whereas right now that is very difficult to do. I would not recommend adding them to towers or camps because this discourages small group tactics that some WvW players prefer to zerging. Small groups don’t typically try to take keeps, so this will not impact that player base. It will help to put emphasis on defense which is currently ignored for the most part.

I also think that it might be interesting to have the lord scale based on the number of defenders instead of attackers. The less defenders that are present (without being 0) the stronger the lord gets. You could call it the “Last Stand” buff or something. This would help prevent the lord making it impossible to take a keep if there are 20 defenders since the lord is strong, but if there is only one defender the Lord will be at his strongest. (If there are no defenders around him he shouldn’t receive a buff since this will encourage people not to defend which is not what we want.

Associated Risks
I think that if the scaling is not tuned correctly it could make zerging more prevalent since there is a danger of making these NPCs too strong for a group to defeat even if no players are there to defend. Also if these are added to towers/camps/sentry positions you will kill the “roamer” position in WvW which would hurt the game type a lot (people like to feel that they make a difference such as soloing a camp).

Suggested Proposal Format
Proposal Overview
Underwater areas. Use Underwater areas as a escape tool or shortcut to a level below. Maybe there can be destroyable pillars that drops a zerg into a underground lake. So carve ground inside the floating island. Maybe add floating water orbs and floating water currents.

Goal of Proposal
I like underwater combat because I main a ranger and I get a shark pet.

Proposal Functionality
Underwater combat is already in.

Associated Risks
Most people don’t like underwater combat.

Proposal Overview
Have a means to supply towers/keeps with supply beyond dolyaks such as having a supply depot give supply directly to a tower/keep ala EOTM.

Goal of Proposal
The goal is to give defenders more options to build a fresh defense, allow for towers/keeps to become better supply points, and reduce the amount of “paper” objectives.

Proposal Functionality
It would work nearly identicaly to EOTM. Dolyaks should still be balanced to be useful.

Associated Risks
The main risk is reducing the meta built around dolyaks. There is also the risk of “winning more” but hopefully this will be balanced since a havoc group could conceivably take a tower and turn it into a real pain to retake if they have supply flow.

zhonnika.1784:

Proposal Overview
Eliminate ‘server vs server vs server’ and replace it with Green vs Blue vs Red, the same way EOTM works.

Goal of Proposal
Standardize coverage overall, allowing lower-tier and higher-tier servers to enjoy WvW combat, but on the borderlands as opposed to EOTM. Make WvW less about coverage winning overall, and more about teamwork and skill. At this point, I don’t see a way out of the constant arms race at the top as long as coverage determines a win. Making it not matter at all would help, at least in my opinion.

Proposal Functionality
Well, that’s just the thing. I don’t know how to get around the problem where EOTM is all overflows so can just reproduce itself infinitely to get everyone to play. This would essentially mean that all borderlands maps would have to act the same way — as an overflow with no ‘main’ instance. As a bonus, this would eliminate queue times. You would, as a player, just select green/blue/red/EB as an option, and go play.

Associated Risks
Eliminates the community feeling of fighting for your server. Also, I’m not sure this is a risk, but it sort of really devalues the upgrading of keeps/towers. Perhaps those could act the same as EOTM in that you’d only ever be able to use your home garrison WP — if you had it — and spawn, and could never put your own waypoint on Hills/Bay/EB keeps, unless that was your spawn side.

I like this. I’ve been enjoying the feeling of “fuller” maps in EOTM, being in a Lower Tier server, once the point gap gets two huge, the other teams quit, making wvw boring except on reset weekend.

in EOTM, the match is always fresh

Proposal Overview

I think that some of the EotM changes really improve the WvW experience… but not all of them. I vote for:

• Scaling creatures.
• New and more difficult NPCs.
• Destructible terrain.
• Keeps/Towers with a credible and realistic architectural style and an unique appearance aka keeps/towers revamp. This change was not originally included in Mr. Carter’s list.
• Themed landscapes (forest, desert, jungle, snow…) aka Borderlands revamp. This change was not originally included in Mr. Carter’s list.

Additional Proposals (personal changes):

• Larger borderlands.
• More stategic importance to a single keep/tower/camp.

What I vote against for:

• Shorter match time.
• Excessive use of choke points: it’s important to have some of them to counter zergs, but many flowing isles connected by few bridges is a little too much.
• Supply camp/dolyaks removal.

Goal of Proposal

To improve WvW complexity in order to make it more appealing to both old and new players.

Proposal Functionality

When I think to WvW I think of a mass-scale war and battlefield, where guilds and random players cooperate to ensure the glory of their server. A game mode based on big fights, exciting keep defenses and epic sieges. WvW is not the ultimate form of competitive play, that’s what sPvP is made for, WvW is not about a single group of players, but the ability of a server to conquer and defend some important objectives for a long time (1 week). I suggest these changes aiming to a more tactic-based gameplay, while playing in a beatiful and appealing scenario and while having the feeling of doing something important for your server.

Associated Risks

Lot of hard work for the WvW team ( <3 you guys!).
These changes could encourage zerg-based gameplay. We should avoid that.

Side Note: StoneMist Castle is the perfect example of what a keep should not be: a plain and empty courtyard. EotM keeps are far more interestings.

Thank you for reading.

in WvW you need to make keeps harder to take/flip and have the guards actually challenging. I always refer back to DAOC days and a keep could be defended because guards/keep lords were challenging even for a zerg. and the more ppl attacked the harder they hit. I hate how Thursday /Fridays are “karma train” and ppl just constantly flip keeps. spread the borderlands out make gates/towers in-between like EOTM. Make it harder for a zerg to just flip an entire map. so smaller groups can do more and attak ppl.

my thoughts.

I also wish there was a way you could connect all the maps so you wouldn’t have to port hop. make a gate with a wall and gates can be upgraded/ destroyed/ claimed for whatever server claims. so you can run to other borderlands instead of map hopping to flip it with a zerg. you like to mix pve with pvp, so you could put epics mobs out there etc etc. but right now if you like the siege mechanics. and big fight mechanics, you need to make it harder more challenging/ rewarding.

Proposal Overview
Revamp of all burning oil locations according to EOTM

Goal of Proposal
This revamp would reduce the vulnerability of burning oil.
The attackers are not longer able to destroy the device from the distance.They have to come close and can be reached by burning oil.

Proposal Functionality
Each door should be redesigned and harbor two burning oil device as realised in EOTM.

Associated Risks
It would increase the danger for smaller attacking groups.

1. new and more difficult NPCs No. This is PvP not PvE. It’s somewhat disturbing that this is even proposed considering WvWers are always asking for fewer NPCs.
2. unique bosses at each objective No. This is PvP, not PvE. Plus, apparently Anet is unable to balance the different bosses at different objectives.
3. increased emphasis on verticality No. This is the worst part of EoTM. Please take a lesson from the Skyhammer disaster.
4. more chokepoints No. More open field fights please. Look at where most big fights take place. Do any ever happen in the bloodlust ruins?
5. shorter matches Won’t make much difference. There’s big turnout at reset not merely because it’s reset — it’s also the weekend, and it’s only once a week. Having 10 resets in one week won’t give you the turnout of 10 resets.

Little off topic but, I guess its some what of a relief that WvW is not the bottom of the barrle as far as GW2 goes, the Ranger thread still isn’t even up.

One small Victory!
Aparently WvW’s hair is not as red as the rangers.

Lord Kuru.3685:

1. new and more difficult NPCs No. This is PvP not PvE. It’s somewhat disturbing that this is even proposed considering WvWers are always asking for fewer NPCs.
2. unique bosses at each objective No. This is PvP, not PvE. Plus, apparently Anet is unable to balance the different bosses at different objectives.
3. increased emphasis on verticality No. This is the worst part of EoTM. Please take a lesson from the Skyhammer disaster.
4. more chokepoints No. More open field fights please. Look at where most big fights take place. Do any ever happen in the bloodlust ruins?
5. shorter matches Won’t make much difference. There’s big turnout at reset not merely because it’s reset — it’s also the weekend, and it’s only once a week. Having 10 resets in one week won’t give you the turnout of 10 resets.

I sadly disagree with every point you made here

• Unique bosses at each objective: This actually is WvW, the environment is already part of it unlike SPvP. Thats what creates the feeling of a living world. And honestly it creates unique encounters with other players aswell. Its like a cookie between two dogs.
• Increased emphasis on verticality: I love this in EotM so much! Yes Skyhammer is quite bad, as its competative pvp. This however creates FUN in so many ways. And be honest, the map looks stunning. Walking over hanging stairs underneath great massive landmasses floating in the air. This is only possible in the mists. And Anet made great use of it!
• More chokepoints: You say no fight ever takes place in this particular chokepoint? Chokepoints are THE tactical positions. Maybe there are enough chokepoints in EotM. But very few in WvW sadly. Groups actually have to flee to chokepoints to keep their smaller group alive.
• Shorter matches: If you look at pvp, you try to start a match in the most favorable way. But as soon as the match comes to an end you try to push and squeeze every bit out of it. And in WvW the matches go on for a week, this means some maps are taken over night with a zerg of gollems. And nobody can stop them, unless the server is guarded 24/7. It feels quite unfair in my opinion.

1. scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs and unique bosses at each objective
- No need. This is NOT pve. You already have too much of this in Living Story. Please don’t make WvWvW more into pve-like experience.

2. Increased emphasis on verticality
Please no. This was one of the big design mistakes of the EotM map and Skyhammer, which is the least favorite spvp map.

3. More chokepoints
While every map needs a good balance of open places, some hills, cliffs, water and chokepoints, EotM has way too many chokepoints. Please use current Eternal Battlegrounds as your standard of map design, not EotM.

4. A much shorter match time
This could be considered, but I feel that EotM completely lacks the community aspect of the game and rapidly changing opponents make guild rivalries from opposing servers more difficult. EotM is nothing but just a big karma train and eventually it will get very boring, just like the ruins of power first had players, because of the achievements attached to it. When the novelty runs out, what then? WvWvW should be designed better to cater guilds and EotM is simple going to the wrong direction with that.

5. Destructible terrain
Doesn’t seem to add much.

Few things to add: I think the added new game mechanisms (player based buffs) and traps, turrets etc were BAD in EotM and I wish to see none of them outside that map. Rule of design: Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), but keep refining the existing rules to perfection. A chess wouldn’t become a better game by adding more pieces and chokepoints to the board.

I know this is off-topic, but thought I would throw this out there.

Proposal Overview
Reduce the mobility of alpha/omega golems

Goal of Proposal
I don’t think ANet intended for servers to be able to build 10 or more golems and just steamroll and take over an entire map. And I don’t think people like seeing their keeps that they worked so hard to defend and upgrade go down in just a couple minutes because a blob of golems insta-ported right to the door. Golems are supposed to be moveable siege weapons, but they are supposed to be slow. Mesmer portals completely eliminate this restraint. If the server is organized, the golems can be at a keep gate in just a few seconds, and the keep can be gone just seconds after the white swords appear.

Proposal Functionality
Remove the ability for golems to use mesmer portals and waypoints. Keep golems true to their nature of being strong but slow-moving pieces of siege.

Associated Risks
I guess there is the possibility that this reduces the usefulness of golems too drastically to the point that they don’t get used much anymore. But ANet can re-balance them if necessary.

Perhaps what I want to do was said above but I’ll shoot it anyway.

Proposal Overview
I would like to see Edge of the Mists become an additional map in the WvW rotation which affects the server score in addition to the other maps.

Goal of Proposal
The goal is allow Edge of the Mists to become what it should have been: A 5th WvW map. I describe it as taking the tires off a Ferrari. The map looks great. It has all the polish and strategy I would expect out of a WvW map. It suffers from what definitely feels like a last minute design change to make it solve problems that it can’t. More description after the next points.

Proposal Functionality
Edge of the Mists operates like Eternal Battleground does currently. The fight formats and map functionality would remain the same as it is now. The change is that it is no longer an overflow map but a normal WvW map.

Associated Risks
EOTM would cease it’s current functionality of letting players play WvW when all other maps are full queued.

Why I want this change:
Going back to the goal of the proposal this change is to breathe life into the current WvW map lineup. Making EOTM part of the standard split server rotation would make matchups on it more interesting. Organized server groups would be able to use the strategic opportunities on the map. The fights would be more than just server color blobs. I want to get my guild into EOTM and fight other guilds. The terrain in EOTM is some of the best in GW2 PVP.

Edge of the Mists does not currently have an impact for being able to play WvW on my server (Dragonbrand, t4 ish). The regular maps are almost never queued. Additionally I am actually hesitant on spending siege on Edge of the Mists since the match doesn’t matter to me if I’m just using it as something to do while I’m queued.

Goal:
Make the Maps more complex and interactive like Edge of the Mists and Labyrinthine Cliffs.

Objective:

• The Great things about EotM is that is has multiple levels, choke points, and more thought into its design.
• The defensive postures of it are relatively more realistic than the older maps. I suggest making the Keeps in WvW resemble real Castles such that there are defensive ditches and destructible bridges that are used as defenses.
• EotM generally provides for more diverse, complex, and relatively balanced gameplay.

Greater Complexity of Design is vital because it can actually provide more niches for people to exploit while playing. Essentially it’ll give people more things to do and experience.

Risks:

More complexity can make the game harder to learn and play, but the less complexity makes the game mode less stable and more stale and un-immersive similar to what it is now. Over time I think it should become gradually more complex up to a threshold.

Goal:
More perceived randomness in the maps and game-play.

Objective:

More randomness in general will slow down the perception that the game is stale.

• This can be accomplished through NPC control algorithms, and aspects of the maps that change regularly but in a random fashion.

• Accomplished by adding more intractable things into the maps that fundamentally change gameplay

• Scoring system changes

Risks:

Too much randomness will make the game mode too unpredictable. As of right now, the PvP factor is the only real random factor in the game mode, and this makes it feel stale and un-immersive.

The Match Making System is great IF the servers are relatively equal to each other in coverage, but bad when they’re not. This is great to maintain the stability of EotM as the servers are randomly placed into the teams and they intermingle with each other and change. However it is currently bad at placing some servers into relatively balanced matches. This however, is a population problem.

Goal:
More perceived relatively balanced match-ups

Problem:
How to solve the conundrum and problem that politics and coverage dominate who wins each match-up?

Possible Solution:

1. Scoring and Match-Making System Changes
2. New Maps that are based around smaller populations, and larger ones too.
   -There’s populations that generally favor larger battles and those that favor smaller battles.
3. Remove or Revamp old maps to reflect new primary goals of design
4. Guild System Updates that allow for Alliances and Guild to Guild communication
5. Commander and Party System Updates

Risks:

The benefits for trying to solve this problem greatly outweigh the possible negative consequences. However, small, consistent, and gradual changes allow the population adapt overtime.

I like the fact that the mpas are not server based but colour based, I would like this to be so for all WvW.

This would eliminate, the feeling that there are a lack of players to do anything on lower population servers within WvW.

This could work 2 ways either the current ways where every server is assigned a random colour each week and then paired up, or servers could be paired up permanently.

The only problem would be with organisation and map size. Having 1 voip server for a colour as opposed to a server would be hard, and larger servers still get queues to enter wvw maps, so map sizes might have to be increased or more maps added for the extra size.

What I like about EOTM
1. Loot drops: Is it just me or are the drops way better in eotm? I’ve gotten more exotic/ascended drops there then I have in a year and a half of regular WvW. Improve the drop rates.
2. The newness of the map: It is nice to see something new even if it is not a good set up for competitive fights. The reasons are in #1 below.

What I dislike about EOTM
1. This map is a PvE karma train. Partly due to the rewards and partly due to the map design, people come here to farm. First, people naturally like to zerg. It happens a lot in eotm. The issue is that there are not a lot of places for larger groups to fight. That means most times people just run around taking objectives. No need for defense here.
2. Consolidating servers: I happen to like the culture on my server. It is nice seeing the same people every day and getting to know them. In eotm, it is a bunch of randoms. That makes the play quality much poorer than regular WvW.
3. Way too much running. It takes forever to get from the spawn location to any action. I tend to avoid the map just for that.

@ANET: I understand that you want to use some of these new items in WvW. Instead of forcing these types of changes on the community, why not spend time focusing on what people have requested? How about?
1. New commander functionality
2. New guild functionality
3. Make OS “guestable”
4. Give us new non-gimmicky WvW maps. Most of us want to fight players and defend against players on a large scale. Leave the PvE to that part of the game.

DevonCarver.5370:

Topic Goal:

The Edge of the Mists features numerous changes to the standard WvW mechanics. The most notable changes are: Scoring on capture of objectives, scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs, unique bosses at each objective, increased emphasis on verticality, more chokepoints, a much shorter match time, and destructible terrain. Of the changes included, which would you like to see implemented in the standard WvW maps?

Devon Carver

Scoring on Capture of Objectives

Yes, but only if there is an associated increase in the points earned from defending an objective. Otherwise, with points awarded on capture, this only reinforces the already zergy meta that currently exists in WvWvW.

All play styles need to be supported and rewarded. I fully appreciate zerging is fun for some portion of the player base and is here to stay. Defense, however, is not being equally rewarded.

If a successful capture event will reward points to put towards the overall score, then a successful defense event should do the same. Furthermore, the points awarded should scale in some fashion. Some suggestions for scaling (either singly or in combination) could be:

1) Scale points awarded the longer an objective is held in overall time.

2) Scale points awarded the more defense events are successfully completed in succession within a limited time frame. For example, if a tower comes under attack, completes a defense event, then comes under attack again within X minutes of the first attack, this second defense event will reward more points than the first. When there is a sufficient lull between siege attempts, the multiplier or bonus reverts to baseline.

3) As a corollary to number two, perhaps scale points based on the number of defenders present during a defense event.

4) Scale points awarded based on the number of upgrades successfully built at the objective. Nothing is more disheartening to the defense-minded than to spend hours and gold patiently upgrading a fortification to see it all undone in less than 5 minutes by a zerg.

5) In-game rewards. Players are rewarded for a successful capture of a fortification with in-game loot. What about rewarding defenders in a similar manner? For the offense, it’s all or nothing; capture the objective to get the loot or get nothing. Therefore, it makes sense their rewards are scaled higher (champion chest for towers and keeps). For defenders the rewards would have to be scaled lower since multiple defense events can be successfully completed during a single siege. But at least they would be rewarded something for their efforts rather than nothing.

6) Reward points for each yak which successfully delivers supply to the objective. One point if the yak makes it to its destination, two points if it makes it to its destination and its home supply camp is still under the control of the owning faction to which the yak makes its delivery. Yak leaves green camp, delivers to green tower, supply camp is still green when the delivery is made = 2 points. Yak leaves green camp, camp flips red during the journey, but yak successfully delivers supply to the tower still controlled by green = 1 point.

Scaling Creatures and new and more difficult NPCs

Yes, implement this.

Unique bosses at each objective

Yes, implement this. Go so far as to add mechanics which require multiple actions be undertaken to effect a successful capture. For example, a boss that can only be defeated if all the braziers surrounding the keep are doused. This forces a group to break up and coordinate effort to keep the braziers extinguished to make the boss vulnerable to attack.

Otherwise, even with the unique mechanics present in EotM, it still amounts to the same shallow ball-up-and-DPS tactic. Grawl champ in EotM is a good example. Sure, he can’t be defeated while the Earth Elementals remain alive. Solution? Ball up, DPS down the Earth Elementals, then ball up and DPS down the Grawl champ. Changing the superficial trappings without changing the underlying fundamentals does not equate to a substantive change.

(continued)

(continued)

Increased emphasis on verticality

Yes, implement a version of this; but not to the same extent as was done on EotM. A few locations where players can be knocked off the map would be fine, but tone it down compared to EotM. Use the verticality to introduce a greater variety of combat tactics, creative and perhaps less obvious paths to objectives, and alternate escape routes.

Don’t use verticality simply as a means to allow players to knock others off the map. Instead, use it creatively to enhance current strategies and tactics as well as introduce new strategies and tactics.

For example, maybe introduce limited flight capabilities. Control a certain objective and players gain access to a buff or can purchase a consumable which permits them to make short controlled glides when jumping from a height (only once per buff or consumable). This would not be the same as flying mounts (let’s not even go there).

More chokepoints

Yes please. Towers shouldn’t be simply a side detour. They should represent the outer perimeter defenses of a keep which an enemy force must get through to get to the main fortress. Sure, there could still be towers which are on the far edge of a territory which resemble the current towers; lone sentries in the hinterlands. But as you get closer and closer to the main keep, towers should be part of a coordinated network of defenses designed to slow enemies at chokepoints rather than let them just bypass if they wish.

A much shorter match time

No. EotM has been introduced and should satisfy this need already. The week-long matches of main WvWvW are fine as is (provided you can come up with a better match-making algorithm and server balancing system so the match isn’t already decided by Sunday night/Monday morning).

Maybe introduce an intermediate tier where the match lasts 24 hours; but there should still be an option for a week long match.

Destructible terrain

Yes please. But do more than make it destructible for destruction’s sake. It’s cool the first time you watch something go “BOOM!” in the environment; not so much on the thousandth time if it doesn’t actually add anything to the game.

Destructible terrain should grant distinct strategic and tactical advantages (and disadvantages).

• set off an avalanche to block a path (and maybe push some enemy off a ledge to boot),

• fell some trees to safely float down an otherwise impassable rushing river,

• knock stalactites from a cave’s ceiling to make a safe stepping stone path across a pool of lava,

• collapse a building on top of opponents (in which they now have the ability to hide within) to do a little damage,

• cut the rope bridge, forcing your opponent (and you) to find an alternate path

• melt a frozen lake, forcing those who cross it to swim rather than easily run across. Maybe this reveals an alternate path through a submerged cave accessible only when the lake ice is melted.

• destroy some boulders blocking a volcanic vent, resulting in lava spewing across a path.

Where appropriate, the above then become repairable or naturally regenerate (e.g. a constantly blowing cold wind eventually refreezes the lake).

At NO time will destroying any of the above count towards any kind of reward or achievement. Otherwise we wind up with the fiasco that was destructible bridges when EotM was first introduced. Their only “reward” is allowing for new and deeper strategies and tactics within WvWvW.

Unique buffs based on which keep is controlled

IF this can be kept balanced so as not to give one faction a decided advantage outside their own territory, then this would be worth implementing in regular WvWvW. I think it’s fine if the buff gives a “home team” advantage within a certain perimeter of their own keep(s), for example. But it should not extend globally across all maps.

NPCs repairing damage to fortifications

No or optional. It’s nice to have some NPC minions do the job of effecting repairs on behalf of the players. However, since they pull supply from the same depot used for upgrades, this may not always be desirable.

They mindlessly go about the task of repair, using up supply that may be better spent finishing an upgrade or building siege weapons. Therefore, if this is to be added to regular WvWvW, then it should be optional. Perhaps speaking with the tower or keep lord allows players to toggle this ability on or off.

Proposal Overview

Remove WvW dolyaks and put in instant supply transfer just like EoTM.

Goal of Proposal

Extinguishing of escorting dolyaks boredom and more balanced supply distribution on the maps (example: Pangloss Rise in EBG gives more than double the supply per minute that Speldan Clearcut gives due to shorter routes, Ogrewatch Tower gets supply twice as fast as Mendon’s, northern towers in borderlands currently only give 3 and 4 supply per minute if the dolyak makes it every time). I am a believer that extremely boring tasks like escorting a dolyak should not be advantageous to winning. Countless times I’ve been flamed for commanding because of not being willing to escort dolyaks. I don’t see how anyone escorting a dolyak could even think that it is fun. It’s really just not necessary to have in the game.

Proposal Functionality

The new supply camps put in WvW would look almost exactly the same as they already do except there would be no dolyaks and the supply transfer would be instant, like in EoTM (except these supply camps still send supply to the same places so it wouldn’t be one supply camp per structure like EoTM). The upgrades for the supply camps should remain the same except since there can’t be an upgrade for protecting the dolyak, there should be a 1.5 times supply boost as the first upgrade and then a 2 times supply boost for the second tier. Supply camps in the borderlands would give 10 supply every 2 minutes to keeps and 5 supply every 2 minutes to towers. Meanwhile, supply camps in EBG will give double that. The reason for EBG giving double the supply that the borderlands gets is because they already give around double the supply per minute than the borderlands (on average) because the dolyak routes in EBG are considerably shorter and the outer dolyaks actually run back at 3.5 times the speed that they run towards the tower so they have fast routes.

Alternative: game developers can calculate the average supply per minute each structure gets based on how often the dolyaks survive and length of route (I’ve already got the length of all routes and speed of dolyak which I used to calculate supply per minute and guess at a balance above but the devs would have it too) and then try to get a more accurate prediction at the appropriate supply per minute each supply camp should give to keep it like it was.

Associated Risks

Structures are now guaranteed (at least some) supply upon capturing a supply camp so trying to deny supply to a structure won’t work quite as well if you are wanting to keep it exactly at 0. Yakslapper achievement will have to be done away with but hey it’s not attainable at the moment anyway. This will cause less targets for small scale roamers though they can still take supply camps and sentries.

Proposal Overview
Redistribute the team colours:

• Green Team – Overgrowth (Jungle)
• Blue Team – Frostreach (Snow)
• Red Team – Badlands (Desert)

Goal of Proposal

To create a more intuitive colouring scheme and make it easier for new players to recognize enemy teams and their home territory.

here is a list of things i see as actionable issues in wvw, things that take away from my enjoyment of the experience more than adding something good would compensate for:

- account bound wxp
- commander/squad overhaul
- nerf coverage
- nerf condis in small scale, buff in large scale
- griefing
- offense >>>>> defense, karma training
- power creep (siege and stats)
- gate penetration exploits
- zergling class discrimination
- population imbalance
- general lack of material return for time invested
- stealth

and from your list of guideline topics:

- scoring on capture of objectives
- scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs, unique bosses at each objective
- increased emphasis on verticality
- more chokepoints
- much shorter match time
- destructible terrain

i think these 2 lists cross over on the subjects of:
- much shorter match time
- score for objective capture

shorter matches
i think that a change like this is so far reaching that multiple major systems would need redesign. we also have a precedent: 1 day matches were tried near launch and didnt work well.

score for objective capture
one of the complaints i listed is karma training, where 2 opposing groups walk around a map in circles trading objectives without fighting. providing score for trading objectives would amount to match fixing. i think there is a simple root cause: we need to encourage defense as much as offense (or perhaps more), and encourage fighting more than capping objectives.

at its core, eotm doesnt do anything different from wvw. players enter the experience wanting to test their own abilities against other players with the expectation that as many friends as is desirable are allowed to join in. the modifications in how the map plays provide slight differences. the map: increases the importance of ccs that move players around, grants players different ways to have an advantage, and puts value on fights not involving players. granting players 10 badges for an interesting npc kill in eotm versus 0-2 for a lame npc kill in vanilla wvw doesnt incentivize players to fight other players.

what if you tripled player kill loot/xp and nerfed event rewards for capping objectives? suddenly killing people becomes the most important thing you can do, and zergs fight zergs instead of empty keeps. there could, of course, be problems with absolutely deleting small scale play with the current kill credit mechanics or spawn camping, for example, but players would at least have more incentive to fight each other, and thats the main reason we come to wvw.

so in the end, tl;dr: dont bring anything from eotm to regular wvw. nothing in eotm makes players want to fight players more than the corresponding vanilla wvw mechanics.

Proposal Overview
Out of the list implement destructible terrain and choke points

Goal of Proposal
Add more variety to landscape

Proposal Functionality
Make bridges and other structures destructible to add more variety to the strategy.
Implement more choke points in the WvW maps without taking away the open expanse (which is whats missing in EOTM).

Associated Risks
Risk of overdoing choke points is that you take away the open field element

Nice writeup Morrolan. Pretty much spot on what I wanted to say but didn’t have the patience to do

Proposal Overview
Using what we’ve learned in EotM to create 3 unique Bordlerlands Maps

Goal of Proposal
Bring the long-sought dream of three different Bordlerlands to life by imbuing each with a different environment, such as found in EotM. Perhaps Red BL becomes a desert BL, Blue BL becomes the snowy winter BL, and Green BL is the jungle map.
Having three exact copies of maps for the three Borderlands has always seemed like a neccessity for the devs in releasing the game on time due to lack of resources to allow WvW to have 4 different maps (EB+3 different BLs) because, due to the diversity in the rest of the gorgeous and varied and detailed world of GW2, one would expect this same diversity in all the areas that the Mist War sends you.

Proposal Functionality
-Perhaps new Borderlands maps could be rolled out one at a time.
-As a quick solution, one of the Borlderlands could be replaced with the EotM map in its entirety right now, so at least ONE of the BLs is different. Then other gradual map changes could be rolled out to the other BLs as they are completed.
-As an even smaller request, introducing some of the features of EotM into the existing BL on a per-map basis. Perhaps you add some destructible terrain to Green BL, some verticality and choke points to Blue BL, and drop some of the unique NPCs and boss mechanics into Red BL, just to start.

Associated Risks
-Anything new done to just one BL map at a time will attract players and may cause population imbalance on the other maps
-Considerable dev time and resources would be required

What I want included in WvW from EotM:

scaling creatures – Yes, absolutely. Although they’re underpowered still to the zerg so keep tweaking that ratio.

new and more difficult NPCs – Yes, absolutely. NPCs are a big part of what people are going after so they should have variety and crazy powers.

unique bosses at each objective – Yes. It makes things more interesting.

increased emphasis on verticality – YES. Seriously, I laugh every time I die getting knocked off something. It’s the first genuine “well that was unexpected” addition to pvp. It’s great.

destructible terrain – I haven’t seen it used much but it’s a bit forgiving in EoTM. I would love to see some more of it.

the NPC reward power ups – original post forgot to mention the special forms/powers in EotM. I love stuff like this. I would be 100% glad seeing it in WvW too.

And one proposal:

Proposal Overview

I propose there be transport vehicles in large scale PVP modes like EotM and WvW.

Goal of Proposal

Typically people are on the zerg train. If you die and aren’t on it? Walking across the map is boring, prone to being very outnumbered in ambush, and did I mention boring? I probably quit the game 95% more often when I’m in this situation than others in WvW. And even if you’re not just looking for the zerg, even finding a party of friends across the map is just as relevant for needing some transport, if not more so.

Proposal Functionality

You get in the vehicle or mount. You move 50% faster. You have none of your combat skills while onboard. You could do random damage to an enemy or gate running them over, but this damages your vehicle. If your vehicle is destroyed with you in it you’re killed, no down state, just dead on the field. Your vehicle returns to a stable or garage at the home keep.

Exiting a vehicle takes say a second or so, so you would have to use some planning as to when you’re going to exit, where to park, and so on.

Once you’re dismounted, your skill bar returns and if you want you can dismiss your vehicle back to your keep, if you worry it will be attacked. Of course then you have to go back to the keep to use it again.

Vehicles would be permanent for your account once you’ve bought them from a vendor, but they may need repairing like armor.

Associated Risks

The biggest problem I see might be with established people that see themselves as the pros at WvW. They might find such a speed boost too dramatic and lobby against it to not have to rebuild their strategies. I’m not sure what would soothe them about this.

WVW MAPS AND SCORING + EOTM MATCHUPS AND OVERFLOWS = WIN

Proposal Overview

Remove “tiers” and per-server matching from traditional WvW matches, and add some sort of waves hands EOTM-like magical overflow + server grouping functionality that will give us EOTM-like population balancing, but with the existing WvW maps, match length, and PPT scoring.

Goal of Proposal

Stacking servers is bad. Coverage >>> all else is bad. It’s good that EOTM adds some new game mechanics, short matches, and spontaneity. But there is still room for the more traditional, strategic, slow paced game on the old maps. And people want to play it. They just hate having the entire meta determined by server stacking and nothing else.

Another way to view this is, think about sPvP/tPvP matching and auto-balance, but on a server level, and for WvW. The PvP queues have some issues of their own right now (4v5 being the most obvious and hated one), but the idea is to make population balancing and rank-based matching more dynamic, and remove the ability of players to game the system by transfers or other means.

Proposal Functionality

I honestly have no idea. I imagine something that leverages the color grouping and overflow system of EOTM in a clever way, but also taking into account existing server ratings, to create a dynamic week-to-week matchup and map instancing scheme that defeats “server stacking” and equalizes the population as much as possible regardless of the time of day. I have no idea if this can work, or if it can how it would. But it seems like EOTM shows that if it could work, it would work very well indeed.

I would not bring over the maps, objectives, short-duration, score on capture, destructible tactical assets, or other features of EOTM. Some of these only further encourage trolling (e.g., bridges). The rest may be neat, but if you want them, that’s what EOTM is for. The old WvW maps may be due for some sprucing up, but the One Big Thing from EOTM that WvW can actually use and benefit from is the population management.

Associated Risks

I’m sure it will be a huge pain in the kitten to do this. Also, people no longer will identify with their “server” quite so much (although, arguably, you still could even though fighting beside different “allies” each week).

It also will cause some complications for people who maintain server-specific resources (teamspeak being the big obvious one), when their allegiances shift from week to week.

BUT, if you were to take this as a chance to bring in some neat new ways to make WvW more guild centric — especially as to rewards and rankings — that second part actually could be a good thing. Moving meta-resource management, command, and player focus from servers back to guilds, and making guilds the constant, centerpiece element of the war effort would be a very welcome change in the eyes of many dedicated WvW players and commanders.

And come on, we are playing GUILD WARS after all, not Server Wars.

The rest of the game goes a bit out of its way to avoid locking players into one “server” for our identities and activities. And it is, after all, a lot more appealing to identify ourselves with the groups we form ourselves and not a rather arbitrarily scoped load-management bin that our accounts happen to be locked to.

Letting loose of the server-centric identity in WvW might turn out to be, looking back on it, one of those “how did we ever do this the old way” moments.

Turtle, it seems like all your ideas are great for PvE. Take a step back and look what you wrote. It is basically how to make routine karma training more interesting.

The bigger question is should that be the direction of WvW?

the only two things id like implemented in the real WvW game are:

- level design
- landscape variety

variety, verticality, different climates and landscapes. WvW is actually a fun game. it just needs spice. if you guys dared, you could incorporate GvG’s to be more included in WvW, but thats a different topic.

What I never ever want to see from EOTM:

- the harder NPC’s
- the crazy automated siege

let US create the content.

Proposal Overview

New means of transportation!

Goal of Proposal

The old WvW-maps have been played for many many hours. This makes the flow of battle a bit predictable. With new means of transportation (like the wurm tunnels in EotM), come possibilities for new strategies.

Proposal Functionality

Events could be introduced to allow for some new form of movement.

Some examples:

• Instead of slaying the grub in EB, you bring it down to 10% health, then it burrows into the ground and you can chase it through the ground. The tunnel will collapse behind you, so you have to move quickly. You don’t know exactly where you end up, but neither will your enemy.

• Beating the harpy queen could force her to call some allies and carry up to 10 players to a plateau elsewhere on the map. (Perhaps there is a choice of multiple locations)

• Conquering the skritt will grant you power of their technology. They will build a ratapult that can toss players into the cliffside tower one at a time.

• I can come up with many more if anyone is interested!

Associated Risks

- These will eventually become predictable as well perhaps. (Though an increase in options is always good I guess.)

- Increased movement options can make armies move faster. Which could make defending more difficult. (Especially when golem rushes are involved)

Creatures
Absolutely improve them, implement more creatures, add more Champions and also in general Dynamic Events that let special creatures appear.
Improve the Street Guards and make them different, every Street Guard should be. different to fight against.
Every Camp Guard should be different to fight agaisnt. Every Keep Lord should be different to fight against.
Change the Shrines, add special different Buff Effects to the Shrines instead of the Stat Increases and let the Shrines be defended by special Champions, so that they can’t be taken solo. Improve the Skills of various creatures.
Completely remove Mercenaries and the WvW Skill Line about them. You already removed the Quaggans, so you can remove all others too and replace the spots with Shrines and special Shrine Guardian Champs.

Verticality
Yes, when redesigning all of the Borderland Maps into one single new huge Borderland Map, that would allow also for more destroyable environmental parts of the map.
But on a small scale, it would be also just enough to be able to launch foes down the cliffs, when fighting near a very high spot of the map and the foe doesn’t position itself in a good strategetical position to be shot/feared down the cliff.
More interesting redesigned Jumping Puzzles that aren’t all the same, but 3 completely different ones in the one huge merged Borderland Map.
its very uncreative to have exactly 3x the same map in WvW. The Eternal Battlefield shows very well, that this kind of map design just works fully well.
And it would make place for more new different WvW Maps where Verticality could be played out more, like a NAVAL Map with Naval Battles and Underwater Battle WvW in a kind of Atlantis themed Underwater Area with epic creatures roamin in there, like the Kraken, which could be some kind of WvW-World Boss

Other Points to improve WvW

• Please finally rebalance all of the WvW Achievements into a normal scale !! Top Priority

• Don’t remove Dolyaks for Supply Generators! Add Supply Generstors as a kind of Keep Improvement when upgradign the Keep or as a kind of Upgrade Tier for Supply Camps. If you remove them, then change the Kill Dolyak Achievement for Yakslapper and let us earn it for simply killing normal Yaks in the WvW Maps

• Add class specific WvW Skills to improve the Roles for all Classes in WvW
  Thiefs could get a WvW specific Skill line Infiltration, which could make Thiefs alot better as Infiltrators in WvW to use stealth, to sabotage enemy siege weapons, to gather important enemy information from enemy chat and becoming better in single target elimination when roaming around solo as thief.
  Thats the role of Thief in WvW, the class specific skilsl should improve that role for WvW so that you feell some kin of progression there for your class.

• Improve the existing WvW Skills first to 10 Tiers of Perks, before you add any new Skill Lines

• Merge some of the existing WvW Skills and reduce the cost from the Supply one, that requires 300 ranks, just too high, absolutely ridiculous for its minimal effect of +5 Supply

• Improve the chances to obtain Ascendent Equipment as rewards or from exchanging badges of honor.

• Improve the Traps and add more new Traps into WvW, by addign Trapper’s Expertise as WvW Skill, you could add also those Sensor Towers as a trap item for supply, to create these things that let you see enemies in your near on the map as red dots.

• Add Medic Mastery as a WvW Skill Line, that improves Ressurection pseed by max 50%, lets Medic Tents appear when you heal/ressurect somebody whos downed/dead, that cure and heal allies in their area and which gives a stackable buff to Toughness and Healing Power when killing guards (Faithful Defender)

• Add Stronghold Defender, besically just WvW Skill Lines, that help you in defending Towers and Keeps easier. Currently takin towers/keeps is unendlessly easier, than just defending them. This has to change to become more equal.

• Improve Commander UI/Functionality

Proposal Overview
Making defending more fun. Not just the homeland but also territory you win in other borderlands.

I would like to see less emphasis on making boss fights or whatever out of keep lords or giving people mechanics while they’re attacking. Let’s get mechanics on helping people hold things.

How this pertains to Edge of the Mists is that well, Edge of the Mists showed me what WvW doesn’t need. It doesn’t need new maps, it doesn’t need PvE type boss fights, and it doesn’t need more incentives for people to attack. WvW needs the opposite, it needs incentives for people to hold what they take. We can’t be karma farming.

Goal of Proposal
Defending is a sort of stale bit. A lot of servers (many low tier ones and from what I read this is the case on high tier servers) have just 1 big zerg that goes from map to map overwhelming defenders until there’s resistance or the map is flipped and then they leave to another map.

People aren’t staying to defend what they got or what they won. I propose some additional functionality in the borderlands to help defense be more attractive. I also propose a change to scoring to mix up the borderlands (so that it’s not everyone defending their own with EB split three ways.. I always dreamed that the borderlands would all be kinda mixed up).

Proposal Functionality
Things I would suggest to address this goal
-make upgrading more active, so that people don’t get bored just standin around for bars to fill for hours. Maybe let them build the upgrades along with the workers or carry in some supply (but not too much)
-how letting each person bring in 10 supply once and then rewarding after an upgrade finishes?
-get rid of the upgrade costs. They are not at all a factor in whether upgrades happen and they just punish a very specific tiny portion of WvW players (that is those who make upgrades)
-create some events to keep people on the borderland if no one is attacking like win over some quaggans to carry extra supply to the keeps or something

and on the score point…
-give more points for holding territory in a borderland other than your own

Associated Risks

-Will make upgrades finish faster – is that a bad thing?
-The upgrades giving reward I think would be difficult to implement since you want to keep track of everyone who put in supply (I’m basically trying to avoid having people AFK on the map gettin a reward every upgrade that finishes).
-Not paying for upgrades might mean huge inflation driven by incomprehensible rich WvW players who start controlling the Black Lion Trading Post driving John Smith to drink to the point of despair from which he will never recover. Ever. -People hate PvE in their WvW but hey it’s optional and WvW needs new people so let’s all get over ourselves

zhonnika.1784:

Proposal Overview
Eliminate ‘server vs server vs server’ and replace it with Green vs Blue vs Red, the same way EOTM works.

This ^ would be awesome

I could imagine there would be little need to ever transfer servers if that happened. Might kill a lot of revenue that Anet gets from gem sales involving server transfers.

Proposal Overview
Treat WvW as a collection of four separate sub games, each of which have players which have to be retained separately and probably monetized separately as well

Goal of Proposal
I want to prevent ArenaNet from accidentally breaking the game I play as part of trying to please people with different objectives

Proposal Functionality
Put separate people in charge of (and therefore produce separate subgames for):

1. Players who play for realm success / pride / score
This is the segment for current WvW
Work needed: this is working for the winners, but not for the lower tier servers
I am in this group, but perhaps not the most representative because I play in an intact small guild group (SWAT team taking camps, towers, and undefended keeps as a counter tactic for zergs) and only rarely join the zerg.

2. Players who play for epic scale battles
This segment has been playing WvW but is put off by the current scoring system
Note that the client engine, and server, have limited ability to handle this

Perhaps a variant of the EotM map, or even of one of the PvE maps? Would need something to center the fight on, but not make the scoring PvE centric or karma train-able.

3. Players who play for sub-10-on-10 battles
sPvP isn’t everyone’s choice here, I’m not sure why, but this contingent is out in WvW as well and gets frustrated by the zerg.

4. Players who play for their guild, not for their realm
This is missing from the game, and there is clearly demand for it
The mechanics of sending two guilds someplace special to fight it out, without random PvE’ers or queues or such getting in the way, would need some work, but on the other hand the medallion which launched such an encounter could be monetized

Associated Risks
If the population is spread even further, low pop servers and low tier servers might end up spread so thin they give up on traditional WvW, which would be sad.

On the other hand, the big WvW guilds who are really in it for the fights might shift themselves to the #2 (epic fights) and #4 (guild v guild) above and therefore thin the population on the top tier servers

One of the biggest successes I ever saw in R&D was in a declining business about 20 years ago. Management reorganized the business away from the way R&D had always been done, and instead assigned people to specific groups of customers whose retention (revenue) could be measured. Even though the R&D budget was cut in half, what was left was focused on keeping customers happy — and customer satisfaction went up. People’s continued employment was suddenly aligned to customer satisfaction rather than internal politics…

As someone who only dabbles in WvW from time to time, I like the pace and spontaneity of EotM. The ability to have players from your colour as opposed to just your server is a GREAT way to help deal with number shortages if you’re from a less populated server. I don’t know if it’s possible to pull off without affecting “server pride”, but I’d love to see that mechanic added to regular WvW.

I’m not sure I actually like the more difficult NPCs in EotM. With Sentries in regular WvW, experienced players could usually cap them in under a minute by themselves. In contrast, guards take a lot longer to take down in EotM, making it more difficult for roamers to solo cap. (Although the smaller map and increased numbers do kind of make up for it.)

Deniara Devious.3948:

1. scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs and unique bosses at each objective
- No need. This is NOT pve. You already have too much of this in Living Story. Please don’t make WvWvW more into pve-like experience.

2. Increased emphasis on verticality
Please no. This was one of the big design mistakes of the EotM map and Skyhammer, which is the least favorite spvp map.

3. More chokepoints
While every map needs a good balance of open places, some hills, cliffs, water and chokepoints, EotM has way too many chokepoints. Please use current Eternal Battlegrounds as your standard of map design, not EotM.

4. A much shorter match time
This could be considered, but I feel that EotM completely lacks the community aspect of the game and rapidly changing opponents make guild rivalries from opposing servers more difficult. EotM is nothing but just a big karma train and eventually it will get very boring, just like the ruins of power first had players, because of the achievements attached to it. When the novelty runs out, what then? WvWvW should be designed better to cater guilds and EotM is simple going to the wrong direction with that.

5. Destructible terrain
Doesn’t seem to add much.

Few things to add: I think the added new game mechanisms (player based buffs) and traps, turrets etc were BAD in EotM and I wish to see none of them outside that map. Rule of design: Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), but keep refining the existing rules to perfection. A chess wouldn’t become a better game by adding more pieces and chokepoints to the board.

I think Arenanet is concentrating on wrong aspects. The biggest problems of WvWvW are none of the above. Some of them are difficult to solve and some easy:

1. More balanced match ups and more fair scoring
Now coverage and numbers decide the winner. Some matches are very imbalanced, making them boring for both parties and really desperate to those who have just few players on a map vs enemy zergs which spawn camp them outside their spawn point. Rewards are based on who manages to tag the most amount of opponents who die by the karma train. If only one the killers would get a reward (decided randomly) this would make karma train much less feasible. Of course the individual loot bag rewards should be adjusted upwards accordingly.

2. Better class balance and balancing WXP abilities
Hammer melee train has been the meta since Autumn 2012 and it has been buffed multiple times in the “balance” updates, which are entirely based on spvp/tpvp. Look at the profession distribution of WvWvW. Surely you can see it is not balanced at all!
Some WXP traits were uncalled for and further make things more imbalanced (massive buffs to siege damage, area, skills, guard leech and applied fortitude). Add to this power of the mists and bloodlust border buffs, which should both also be removed.

3. Better commander UI
This has been asked since launch! We need an open to have the commander tag visible to your own guild members only. Ability to select different colored commander tags. Easier graphical user interface to check supply info.

I am just going to quote this one because I agree with every word said. I am surprised and frankly more than a bit concerned that so many people seem to think changing WvW into Red vs Green vs Blue is actually a good idea. . . You think the communities are messed up now? That would just put the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Realm Pride folks who are still hanging on and some of the communities we’ve managed to cobble together are actually quite lovely. I like having an identity to fight for.