Guild Wars 2

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

I’ve been arguing for a scoring system like this for a long time. All for it!

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

As you suggest, it would still come down to fighting over one circle.

However, you could change that:

Make the capture happen by controlling 2 out of 3 (or even 3 out of 5) of the circles. This would force the zerg to divide. Coordinated zergs would triumph, mindless blobs would lose.

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

And what about taking it different way: old (middle) circle and lord remains, but lord has 3 stacks of buff (varying in power, but at 3 he is invulnerable) and there are 3 towers or w/e in SM. Capping them removes stacks from lord. It’d be possible to kill him with 2 stacks, but hard, so sometimes players would need to capture (and then hold) more points before assaulting main circle.

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

If you want to be harder, jsut move the cap point up to the second floor like the good old days.

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points?
…
Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

It’s almost there.

What I would do is continue to have one critical point – the Lord’s Room. That location solely determines the outcome of the attack. But then I would add two (possibly 3) substantial defenses to the lord’s room. First, a Legendary creature that helps in the defense of the room. The second, a bunch of fixed, player-operable high quality siege equipment.

For each of these defenses you add another control point elsewhere in the castle. Seizing them removes the matching defenses from the room.

The point will always be to cotrol the Lord’s room, and an assaulting realm can choose to go directly for the throat. But doing so means eating a bunch of siege in the face and having to deal with something on the scale of a Giant, or maybe a High Priest of the Mists with an annoying tendency to rez the Lord up to once a minute until the Priest is wiped off the field.

Or the assaulting group can go contest these points and remove the additional obstacles for as long as they hold them. Hold the Chapel and the Priest de-spawns. Hold the Armory and the Seige Weapons become inert.

With the Priest/Giant/What-have-you being an NPC, it will present a challenge even if no defenders are present. While the siege weapons specifically require the defending server be present to use them.

DevonCarver.5370:

Interesting, I hadn’t considered using the 3 of 5 system there. Do you think that would really force groups to fight it out or would people just turtle up to prevent capture?

Some sort of segmented system seems like it would be tempting enough that people would always think, “We can just take one corner; that’ll be easy. And at least it will stop them trebbing our towers non-stop while we go do other things.” Then they get sucked into the meat grinder and can’t disengage without losing their corner; or someone thinks, “Well that was easy, maybe we can take one more . . . ?”

Nike.2631:

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points?
…
Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

It’s almost there.

What I would do is continue to have one critical point – the Lord’s Room. That location solely determines the outcome of the attack. But then I would add two (possibly 3) substantial defenses to the lord’s room. First, a Legendary creature that helps in the defense of the room. The second, a bunch of fixed, player-operable high quality siege equipment.

For each of these defenses you add another control point elsewhere in the castle. Seizing them removes the matching defenses from the room.

The point will always be to cotrol the Lord’s room, and an assaulting realm can choose to go directly for the throat. But doing so means eating a bunch of siege in the face and having to deal with something on the scale of a Giant, or maybe a High Priest of the Mists with an annoying tendency to rez the Lord up to once a minute until the Priest is wiped off the field.

Or the assaulting group can go contest these points and remove the additional obstacles for as long as they hold them. Hold the Chapel and the Priest de-spawns. Hold the Armory and the Seige Weapons become inert.

With the Priest/Giant/What-have-you being an NPC, it will present a challenge even if no defenders are present. While the siege weapons specifically require the defending server be present to use them.

Nike’s got the right idea!

Having different defenses in the Lord Room (or perhaps throughout all of Stonemist) that can be disabled by controlling the Armory, or controlling the Barracks, etc…

These kinds of elements introduce choice and conflict into the battle, so commanders can adapt the battle plan dynamically to accomplish the final goal of capturing Stonemist.

Also…as a sort of balancing factor to these extra objectives…what if they costed supply to build/maintain within SM? Now, the castle is more vulnerable when it’s a 2000+ supply depository that can treb any adjacent tower.

There are a number of ways to approach the issue, but I definitely feel Nike’s design of linking defenses to a key objective (similar to EotM defenses) is a good start for mixing up the battles inside Stonemist (heck, perhaps inside any keep).

DevonCarver.5370:

Interesting, I hadn’t considered using the 3 of 5 system there. Do you think that would really force groups to fight it out or would people just turtle up to prevent capture?

Like i stated in my post the attackers should hold at least 2 of all the capture points in order to capture stonemist.

The general idea is to divide the attacking and defending zerg to smaller groups providing for smart plays using variety of new tactics instead of zerging the lord room.

I think that there should be few capture chambers at outter courtyard and 1 at current lord location.

(i’m providing a map with possible new capture chamber locations)

@devon,

Yes, I believe that a reset on Friday and Monday at one hour past server reset is ideal. It will add a lot more excitement to WvW.

As for the scaling creatures, it’s a nonfactor for me. I don’t play WvW for the NPCs; I play it to fight other people.

DevonCarver.5370:

What if, instead of NPC defenders, you couldn’t put siege down in Stonemist, but there were specific defensive siege pieces in critical areas that the defending team could build? Would that serve the same purpose?

I would simplify: Defenders are barred from placing siege gear inside the inner area (the outer ring remains a free-for-all). Then introduce an (expensive) Armory upgrade that adds the control point and simultaneously deploys all the appropriate siege gear for the innermost area. Taking the Armory control point disables the siege gear, making it an attractive but not mandatory detour. This also eliminates the hassle of having to constantly refresh siege and it closes the door on the ever popular trolling/spy tactic of wasting supply on unneeded siege in some useless corner.

Indeed, building the various secondary control points would give a real sense of urgency both to the defenders and to attackers wanting to strike before they have to deal with a Giant stomping on their heads while they take the Lord’s room .

It’s in line with reinforcing walls and doors, except it adds complexity instead of big numbers.

I think that one way or another, SM should be made harder to take, given that it’s worth the most points and is a lot easier to take than any EBG keep or a borderland’s Garrison. It could be kinda like observatory with putting a champion on each floor. I think it’d be even cooler if there was an underground floor to be a fourth capture point that only opens after the other three are capped which someone suggested previously.

I’m also curious why there’s been a good number of people suggesting more choke points. I’ve always had tons of fun AC’ing a choke point but the worst thing ever is when there’s a stalemate. This happens to me a lot in Danelon where one group is inside and the other is outside and both groups are kinda stuck in a stalemate where it is not in their best interest to run through the choke. This then gives the advantage to the third server that is not involved in that an advantage to decide what happens next.

Edit: It’d maybe be nice if each Garrison was worth more points too and maybe the Garrison’s have a unique (but all Garrisons the same) design or way to cap it that the other keeps don’t have.

Luna.9640:

DevonCarver.5370:

Interesting, I hadn’t considered using the 3 of 5 system there. Do you think that would really force groups to fight it out or would people just turtle up to prevent capture?

Like i stated in my post the attackers should hold at least 2 of all the capture points in order to capture stonemist.

The general idea is to divide the attacking and defending zerg to smaller groups providing for smart plays using variety of new tactics instead of zerging the lord room.

I think that there should be few capture chambers at outter courtyard and 1 at current lord location.

(i’m providing a map with possible new capture chamber locations)

The redesigned fight should happen at all 3 levels inside SM, not just at lord room. This would make for some much more interesting strategy. Perhaps the control points in the courtyard could give certain advantage (like controlling the 3 areas of a EOTM side).

DevonCarver.5370:

Probably the most contentious issue has been the talk of getting rid of world’s and replacing the system with just the three colors. I think there is some merit to the idea, although I believe the worlds have a lot of value. I’d be curious to know if the folks who argue against and world pride feel that way because of being on underperforming worlds or not.

I think it’s safe to say that the overwhelming sentiment is that nobody wants random Red v. Blue, and everyone wants a “place” to call their own, and a stable community to feel a part of. I believe that it’s absolutely true that a sense of community is key; but I also believe it’s plainly false that “worlds” are the only or best anchor for that.

I’ve also been on underperforming and overperforming worlds, and from either point of view, the current meta is just bad for everyone, at all levels. That’s why everyone should want to see it fixed no matter what tier they’re in now. And I believe that most or all active WvW players at every level do want to see a Big Change in this respect, and one that would change things for everyone.

DevonCarver.5370:

I also wonder if there isn’t some work that could be done to restore that world pride without completely overhauling the WvW system. Someone mentioned alliances, which I think would work fairly well. If the less populous worlds were grouped together, does that seem like something that could reinvigorate them?

If you think this is something that could happen, I would say anything at all that can be done down this road would be a step in the right direction.

Of all the things that plausibly could be done, server alliances appear to be the most doable thing that offers a real chance of rolling back the current stacking + coverage meta, without destroying existing communities.

I still believe the most benefit would come from rolling servers into alliances across all the tiers, with each alliance anchored by a T1 server and including a cross-section of others from all lower tiers.

However, you could start by rolling up everyone in T2-8 or T3-8 into three Alliance super-groups. That in itself could be enough to bring some real energy back to those worlds once they’re in this new super tier, and it might even draw some nontrivial numbers out of T1 if it works well. Also, the lowest tiers are in such bad shape now that almost nothing could make them worse, so the risk of a bad outcome is less.

If that works out well, then you can think about how to incorporate the T1-2 worlds into the alliances, if it seems like it would be a further improvement (the extent of migration from T1/2 into the new T2-8 or T3-8 super tier would be a reliable signal for whether further consolidation would be a good move).

There is, however, one BIG risk in leaving the T1/2 worlds out of the alliances, and that is what happens if another one pulls an SoR in the meantime and implodes. If that happens, they would have no airbag of lower tiers to catch them, and the results of being stuck in a high tier while the server falls to bits would be pretty awful.

If you only roll up the lower tiers, that also would effectively put a “glass ceiling” in place and prevent any of those worlds from ever moving up into T1/2 or whatever are left at the top, which would be unfortunate.

Those last two things seem to further suggest that alliances really ought to be a top to bottom thing and should roll up all of the tiers, to minimize or avoid unintended consequences from any future shifts of population.

In all honesty, sm already has tight corridors and is hard enough to take. Buffing it just seems like an arbitrary change that doesn’t make the gameplay less zergy. I like EOTM because there is no center of attention on the map and thus every zerg doesn’t gravitate towards the center on eotm. Garrison and Stonemist gather too many zergs and make it very laggy for everyone. I would rather have the center clear for travel to make it easier to get across the map and have stonemist on a separate map.

Quickly addressing match up length: 8 hours is too little, the weekend/weekday split is ‘okay’ – but not ideal.

I wouldn’t mind the idea of having three 2-day match ups, and one days ‘rest/warm-up’ which did not count to the score. The ‘day off’ could also be an automatically scripted to completely alter a random mechanic in World versus World – creating a fun and different experience. For example – for that one day, all keeps have no gates, or no siege can be placed on any map.. or, all keeps cannot advance past tier 1 walls. etc.

Moving on, I want to talk tactics and complexity.

One thing I consider to be a major issue with the World versus World format, it doesn’t know what it is. If it is a PvP format that focuses around the capturing and holding of objectives – in all honesty; it does it badly.

These talks of increasing the difficulty and complexity of capturing Stonemist are great- but need to be applied accross the board, hand in hand with various balancing/fixes.

What seriously killed the tactical edge of World versus World was the increased accessibility to Alpha Siege Golems, and subsequently, Omega Siege Golems. Additionally, the buff to arrow carts… and superior siege in general. It would honestly not phase me if Golems were removed from World versus World – or were capped to 2-3 per MAP.

Blobbing didn’t kill tactics – siege did. Siege buffs also gave birth to blobbing. Back in the good ol’ days, whilst blob x assaulted an objective and fought blob y, a 10 man havoc group could assault one of the blobs objectives with great success – now, 2 superior arrow carts will completely thwart that attempt. Good scouting is one thing, but those scouts not needing the enemy force to back them up when they’re out numbered at a ratio of 10:1 etc. is a wrong.

When one of our important objectives were being sieged, we used to be able to go and hit the enemies important objective. This would be a tactical manoeuvre, in order to force them to come defend their keep – turning an offensive strike into a defensive move. Now it’s more – ENEMIES, SOUTH GATE HILLS – ~25!! ….But don’t worry, we have 6 superior acs, 4 trebs behind the gate and cannons. Continue striking their objective.

World versus World needs to embrace it’s potential. Tactics make World versus World fun. Open-field battles are great fun, my guild lives (or lived..) for them – however, that was simply because we had lost all interest in the ‘World versus World’ game type. Why? That word tactics. They’re there, don’t get me wrong – just not on the level they used to be.

World vs World should feel like a game of chess to commanders, not a game of “hide and seek” or “total annihilation”.

Battletorn.4102:

In all honesty, sm already has tight corridors and is hard enough to take. Buffing it just seems like an arbitrary change that doesn’t make the gameplay less zergy. I like EOTM because there is no center of attention on the map and thus every zerg doesn’t gravitate towards the center on eotm. Garrison and Stonemist gather too many zergs and make it very laggy for everyone. I would rather have the center clear for travel to make it easier to get across the map and have stonemist on a separate map.

Not so sure about SM on a separate map, but I do agree that the layout of EotM (along with the design of shorter matches) means there is no single point of contention that attracts players for increasing numbers of characters and lag. This is a very good thing.

The thing is (both for WvW and for PvE), players follow commanders or create zergs/trains because…

1. Safety in numbers.
2. Single goal/task of focus
3. Scaling of content (which for PvE=more mobs=more rewards)

I feel it’s going to be VERY hard to remove the “zerg mentality” that players have chosen to adopt and is now engrained in their brains. I like different elements in EotM that simply encouraged more intelligent behavior from the zerg – (NPC design, and destructible bridges)

I would be a strong proponent of exploring additional mechanics and methods that would continue this trend of creating more intelligent zergs/trains.

I like the idea of buffs in SM for each capture point because it’ll increase the incentive to split up.

Even better, I like the idea of having a day off type of thing. I’m not sure about the appropriate adjustment and if three two day matches, two three day matches, or six one day matches would go better with implementing the day off but it’s got huge potential.

I’m envisioning the day off every week to be totally random or at least unexpected as far as what will happen. It would be kind of like how in Guild Wars 1 there was different permanent buffs every month to mix things up but this would still be a very different concept.

For the day off: PPT would still display and you would be in competition with the opposing side. However, different things would be implemented, not only for fun and a different experience but also for testing. One (but not the main) intention of EoTM is to test stuff there and possibly put it in WvW but it’s so different from WvW that it would not server as near as good of a testing area as the day off could serve. One day off could have you competing for your server while another would be for a color (like EoTM) and allow different randomization match population balancing algorithms to be tested.

DevonCarver.5370:

From my perspective, the discussion around changes to the matchup length are interesting. I originally proposed 8 hour matches, but someone else suggested a version that I think would be really interesting which is basically that the weekend is one matchup and the weekdays are another. I’d be curious to hear what people think about that.

Weekday vs. Weekend matches . . . could be very neat. There is great intuitive appeal in this, given that the population dynamics are very different from weekday to weekend. You would need to be pretty thoughtful about the exact start and stop times for the “weekend” though to avoid unintended consequences with the various time zones.

I think “weekend” players would love to have a chance to get a “win” during the days they play without wondering whether they may just fight hard and get ahead, then see it all lost over the five days they don’t play.

DevonCarver.5370:

Interesting, I hadn’t considered using the 3 of 5 system there. Do you think that would really force groups to fight it out or would people just turtle up to prevent capture?

I was just about to suggest this after reading through the last few pages. I really like the idea of capturing 3 of the 5 points. If people did turtle and only hold 3, they would still need to be able to coordinate to be able to hold these three. This would also allow the enemy to group up and try to push the last spot, while leaving a few at the other two to be sure it did not recap.

Something else that might be interesting is to setup small capture points around the main capture points. These small locations could be used to spawn vets that help the team that owns the location. One thing to think about if have lets say 5 mini cap spots would become to OP for the team that holds the keep currently. Maybe have it so these spawn points only appear once 2 of the capture points have been taken. That way they will only become available after 2 have been taken. If one group regains all locations the mini location along with the mobs should disappear. Setting things back up before 2 of the points were taken. I think having these mini location could enable groups send off a few people to try and capture and have increased help either taking the points or holding the points.

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

Stonemist currently hosts the best fights in WvW. This suggestion would likely end that, and ruin the chances of an underdog ever flipping it.

DevonCarver.5370:

A short recap of the first few pages of discussion.

Probably the most contentious issue has been the talk of getting rid of world’s and replacing the system with just the three colors. I think there is some merit to the idea, although I believe the worlds have a lot of value. I’d be curious to know if the folks who argue against and world pride feel that way because of being on underperforming worlds or not. I also wonder if there isn’t some work that could be done to restore that world pride without completely overhauling the WvW system. Someone mentioned alliances, which I think would work fairly well. If the less populous worlds were grouped together, does that seem like something that could reinvigorate them?

The biggest reason so many think the three big blobs idea is a good one is because the difference between the gameplay experience differs greatly depending on server population (both over all population and active WvW population) and after hours coverage. This is exacerbated by the constant transferring of more and more wvw guilds to T1 and T2 servers.

Melding WvW would probably alleviate that – and it should probably happen. The disparity between the fun of the game depending on which server you choose is very bad for the game. We’ll eventually find ourselves with 3-6 active servers and the rest not having the people to do anything (in WvW or in PVE).

To the point of server pride, ArenaNet has to make a decision – are you more interested in making servers happy with the game or are you more interested in making players happy.

If it is the latter (which it should be), then you need to come up with a system that, as much as possible, removes server choice from the equation. Anything else is a bandaid and will just lead to the situation getting more and more lopsided.

I want to talk about the AoE cap…

No not raising or removing it. I want to know why I am standing on wall and I drop AoE on a zerg and I can hit 5 people. Then 30 of the zerg drop AoE on me and I take 30 peoples AoE….Why is that balanced?

Why can’t we have a defensively capped AoE code in place to make it more fair?

DevonCarver.5370:

A short recap of the first few pages of discussion.

There have been a number of interesting proposals of ways to take some of the things from EotM into the other maps. Scaling creatures have some supporters, verticality without it being excessive is a something that has also seen support. There is definite push and pull between people that feel like any changes from EotM would be counterproductive and people who think there are some good parts.

Probably the most contentious issue has been the talk of getting rid of world’s and replacing the system with just the three colors. I think there is some merit to the idea, although I believe the worlds have a lot of value. I’d be curious to know if the folks who argue against and world pride feel that way because of being on underperforming worlds or not. I also wonder if there isn’t some work that could be done to restore that world pride without completely overhauling the WvW system. Someone mentioned alliances, which I think would work fairly well. If the less populous worlds were grouped together, does that seem like something that could reinvigorate them?

From my perspective, the discussion around changes to the matchup length are interesting. I originally proposed 8 hour matches, but someone else suggested a version that I think would be really interesting which is basically that the weekend is one matchup and the weekdays are another. I’d be curious to hear what people think about that.

I also wanted to continue discussion about changes to Stonemist that might make it a more engaging place to fight over. I think a move to multiple capture points could make it a more difficult place to capture and add some variety to the way the fight plays out.

im a player who stuck with a server through exodus. back near launch, we had a few guilds who lost confidence in our ability to succeed and left, tanking us down to t8 and trapping us for the better part of 6 months until you eventually stepped in to rectify matchmaking. we have since built a small, close knit community and have started to attract more population. the server is healthy, if relatively underpopulated (and underpopulated = an aspect of underperforming). that said, i dont argue against world pride. the process of rebuilding a community after an exodus is long and hard, and world pride is just another reason to fight. the people who argue against it are the people who lose confidence and leave for greener pastures, using desire to escape as justification for the short term solution of transferring.

on the subject of stonemist, id like to point out that what yall are thinking about would likely make it impossible to ninja. one of the interesting things about map level tactics is the ability for 1-5 people to cap anything undefended. is it really a good idea to increase the minimum group size required to cap objectives? im all for making sm a more interesting place to fight and i think a lot of the ideas being thrown around have merit, just please consider what you take away too. if we have to hold 3/5 rings and kill a harder lord, a 5 man probably cant ninja that while a main group stalls defenders. as it is now, they can. and that ability is what unlocks play in low tiers: you dont actually need a whole lot of people to do stuff in wvw. 3 people could cap a map, or get stalled out of anything but camps by 1 person. just food for thought.

Suggested Proposal Format
Proposal Overview

Tear down the gates.

Goal of Proposal

Equality against uneven numbers. Allows good player against player combat, what we all came for.

Proposal Functionality

Very Well. Currently the idea behind gates and walls is to allow defense against a superior force, but there is no scaling of unequal numbers. Battles become protracted affairs that either the superior force always wins anyway, face rolling anyone inside as soon as the gates are down, or leaving to go somewhere else while the defenders sit and wonder what to do next.

The best way to achieve equality is allow player vs. player, scale a tower or keep event with NPCs, and open the gates. We get the player vs. player we all came to enjoy and underpowered defenders get strong NPCs to even out the sides. The Lord should be a real Lord, something that is just under par with World champs that take time and effort to defeat. This would allow players to regroup, run back to the fight and/or be rezzed. NPCs would not attack downed players. NPCs could even heal downed players. Whatever, maybe neither of those two. See how it balances out. Siege still plays a huge part. Doorways become choke points. The best battles ever have always been inside a keep player vs. player with even numbers or with walls down player vs. player and even numbers.

Open field warfare will still remain and reward stronger servers with fulltime coverage in the PPT scoring, but off hours coverage will not be as strong an advantage as undermanned defenders will actually have a fighting chance. Open field warfare will give an advantage to supply as always. Effective use of siege will still give an advantage and undersupplied defenders with little siege will still be at a disadvantage, but not as much which, again, results in more player vs. player. I don’t mind dying against a superior force, eh, just never having any fun doing it.

And, if the sides are equal, everyone wins. We get player vs player and npcs are not a factor.

If the defenders are larger in number, they still win as they would anyway. At least the attackers can get in the front door and get some shots off at players instead of gates.

Ambushes against attackers unsuspectingly strolling into a tower could be a real fun thing, but I digress.

Associated Risks

I offered this early after launch and met a less than positive response. Players were in love with hitting gates and tearing down walls. Zerg balls were swapping objectives so quickly for the rewards they couldn’t, maybe can’t, think of doing otherwise. There will be an outcry that WvW has turned into a Pve affair, but that will only be true in lopsided conflicts. The rewards will scale up due to the nature of the prolonged battles to compensate and give players a reason to engage. Towers in some cases could be redesigned.

The scaling GW2 has achieved is key and possibly complex. Simply strong NPCs would allow smaller forces to hold back superior forces forever or make capture an impossible affair for small groups.

I can see this getting as complex for the programmers as one could wish it was not.

I honestly don’t know if it was mentioned in here or not, but for WvW, one of the things that is sorely lacking and really needs to be addressed is finding a way to make defending more lucrative/engaging/rewarding for both players and servers. Until something like that is fixed nothing else will really change how WvW is really played. Zergs are rewarded greatly and defense is not. Plain and simple.

Devon,

Concern regarding proposed changes to Stonemist:

This will impact the difficulty / potential possibility of a low population server to capture Stonemist.

This will in turn affect the ability of players on those servers to get world complete, which will in turn affect their ability to get the Gift of Exploration, reducing the chances to create legendaries.

Related topic: would changes to SM need discussion of WvW requirements for legendaries? (No hidden agenda here, just thinking through some of the consequences of WvW changes.)

PS: Yes, those players (including PvE only players) who need the WvW explore complete can transfer to high pop servers. And the transfer may only be temporary. Would this promote even more transfers?

Servers don’t need to be mushed together into three colors but they need to be decoupled from PvE servers. They should be restructured (preferably while largely keeping the current existing communities and merging or splitting outliers at the bottoms/tops) and have different structures than PvE servers, particularly concerning population density/distribution/balance.

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

Discussion of Proposed Additional Capture Points for SM from the “Little” Guy

A change to the “rush the middle of the room scenario” would be welcome. How, exactly, to implement this in a way that allows for all play styles is an issue.

For example, I play at a time when my server’s WvWvW population is low. We’re quite frequently outnumbered during this time (not unusual for enemy blobs of 30+ to be karma training the map while my server’s total Eternal Battlegrounds population is 10 or less). Despite this, we’ve often managed to flip Stonemist while the owning server’s blob is off capping elsewhere, leaving SM undefended. That’s on them for riding the karma train rather than a “you shouldn’t be able to capture SM with 7 people” design flaw.

We manage to cap it because we pay attention to the map, scout the enemy location, kitten (a-s-s-e-s-s; really need to fix that word filter) the defenses of SM, and then make our move at the most opportune time. Implementing the suggestions of multiple capture points or other mechanics to increase the difficulty of capture would all but kill such a scenario.

Another example is hiding a mesmer inside of SM. Being so frequently outnumbered as we are, we’re acutely aware there are times we’re never going to succeed in getting to the lord’s room in one go before the enemy blob descends upon our heads. Instead, we’ll get through the outer gate or wall, take our main force to one of the inner gates, and make a great show of attempting to break into the lord’s room (knowing full well we’ll be wiped before we do).

While we keep the enemy distracted at the gate, a mesmer/thief team goes into hiding. The main force wipes, respawns, waits for our opponents to move off from SM, we port in, break through the inner gate, and reach the lord’s room before the enemy can respond in time. Again, increasing the difficulty of capturing SM would make such small group tactics considerably more difficult or even impossible. An area of the game is then shut off from all but larger groups, once again disproportionately rewarding blobs/zergs.

As it currently exists, us “little” guys have a chance at capturing SM largely through good strategic and tactical play, forethought, coordination, speed, the willingness to make sacrifices, doing our best to remain inconspicuous, and the complacency of our opponents. Implement a system of multiple capture points and that already narrow window of opportunity in which we have to put our plans into action before the contested symbol pops up on SM is all but closed as the enemy is given plenty of advance warning as capture points begin to flip around the perimeter of SM (or wherever these proposed points would be located).

I’m not against the suggested changes 100%; I think there are definitely improvements which could be made to Stonemist. I’m just voicing what may be a minority opinion that not every fight for SM is three 50+ blobs of players battling it out in the lord’s room. There are smaller servers for whom small commando squad captures are the stuff of legend (dovetailing into the discussion regarding server pride; which does still exist for some of us, by the way).

DevonCarver.5370:

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

I think adding more capture points to Stonemist or any other part of WvWvW is just going to make more boring and tedius and would make things even more difficult for the outnumbered side. I have been on EB with just few guys and we have capped almost all of the map, so it is possible. My fondest WvWvW moments are big epic fights or alone defending or attacking something big. Yes, I have been assaulting SM many times alone, in prime time. Few PuGs join in and we got the castle back… that always feels good.

Actually the optimal way to defend SM is not just one blob. One should have men on the inner staircase to the 1st floor manning multiple superior arrow carts (around 15 superior ACs in a approximate circle formation), couple of ballistas on the lord’s room and at least 1-2 players harassing the enemy zerg at all time. If they split their zerg to kill the harasser, all the better. Points tick for the win. And split zerg is easier to kill than a monozerg. A patient commander waits with his team in the lords room and when enemy finally runs in, veil and annihilate: ALL superior AC fire on one spot. Job well done, collect your loot bags!

Currently GW2 has three major game modes, which appeal to different audience and should be kept different, instead of trying to transform the mutant child, aka WvWvW, into one of the other brothers:

pve: emphasis on fighting against NPCs, bosses, events, jumping puzzles and traps (e.g. on fractals), generally short term
spvp/tpvp: emphasis on small scale player-vs-player, capturing and defending nodes, short term
WvWvW: emphasis on large scale player-vs-player, long-term strategy

The more WvWvW is turned into pve and spvp/tpvp, the more is just going to alienate the WvWvW core players, besides if pve is the main appeal, there is already plenty of content for them.

Radical suggestion: Imagine a WvWvW map without any siege at all or NPCs, natural looking scenery with hills, rivers, open fields. Player armies vs player armies.

Moving the Stonemist Lord

I think moving the lord to the 2nd or even the 3rd floor is fine. Provided, of course, you can fix the issue of why he was moved to the 1st floor to begin with; namely, the ability of arrow carts on the 1st floor to shoot at the ceiling of the 1st floor and spill over to the 2nd floor, killing the lord without direct engagement.

Removing the Ability to Place Siege Inside of SM

Disagree. Properly placed siege of the right type is the force equalizer for smaller groups defending SM (or anything, for that matter) against blobs/zergs. Restricting player choice is the wrong direction to take.

Static siege emplacements become easy to counter as the opponent eventually learns exactly where they are located and of what type. Note the current burning oil, cannons, and mortars which exist in the game. They’re a joke. Everyone knows where they are and they’re the first thing to fall in a siege; against an opponent who knows what they’re doing, they provide almost no benefit. The server I’m on jokingly refers to them as our alarm system because all they’re good for is slowing down an enemy just enough to trigger the contested symbol on a fortification before the main siege of a gate or wall begins.

Siege inside of SM is not the issue. It’s a lack of figuring out how to creatively work around it beyond the “Me zerg, me smash!” mentality. Get a mesmer to give you a portal bomb; veil, stealth, or mass invis your way in; build counter-siege. If you can’t go through, then figure out a way around, over, or under.

I think concerning Alliances that Anet should take a step back and consider the theme of their game. It’s called Guild Wars, not Server Wars for a reason.

PROPOSITION:
How about having Guilds join a particular Alliance, and make it a prerequisite to be in a guild for WvW, as well as making it so that you may only represent 1 guild in WvW.

These 3 Alliances for WvW would have nothing to do with the PvE population which could be adjusted independently. They could have leader-boards for the participating guilds, which would earn points for their participation.

This way you could have competing guilds on the same server, which could be a first step toward a Guild vs Guild game mode and open world battles between these alliances (on a dedicated WvW PvE open world overflow for the 3 alliances).

Now please realize that this would be amazing and get people to work on it!

Map improvements in EB and the Borderlands is also an important. Giving each of the Alliance in EB a specific boon for their territory like EOTM would be a good first step, along with removing the Doyak escorts, redesigning the PvE mobs for each areas and finally upgrading SM to something more epic.

I think we should only have 1 borderland map, in which alliances take turns defending.
There is still much wasted space on that map and it also need some improvements, including something more than a simple boon in the ruins.

Whoever mentioned alliances is a smart man and we should discuss how that would work more.

Should the alliances be the merger of lower tier servers together say SF+FC+ET into one super server of sexyness?

or should it be a lower tier + middle tier+ plus upper tier server ?

Anet could set the transfer price based on how the alliance does and not on pve population.

The alliance members could shift over time, whether with a vote or with the devs help. Opens up the door to play with friends on other servers and GvG if your in to that.

clint.5681:

Whoever mentioned alliances is a smart man and we should discuss how that would work more.

Should the alliances be the merger of lower tier servers together say SF+FC+ET into one super server of sexyness?

or should it be a lower tier + middle tier+ plus upper tier server?

I see what you did there.

The best solution from the standpoint of stability and population balancing would be giving each Alliance an equal cross section of servers from all tiers, from top to bottom. So in NA it should be three Alliances, with eight servers in each, ranging from (EDIT: Seriously, Mr. Kitten Filter?) Tee-One to Tee-Eight.

Once set up though, any server alliance groups should be fixed and stable, because people are going to build up their webs of trust and deploy shared resources at an Alliance level, and changing those associations would be really disruptive.

I’d like to try the 2 resets per week (Fri/Mon). When we had 24 hr matches at launch to set the server rankings it seemed too short, but a weekend and weekday match might be a good balance.

i said earlier im against bringing most fundamental mechanics from eotm to wvw… but i just thought…

what if pve maps worked like eotm overflow instances?

i should write a proposal. should. >.>

negatives: the meta events and unlockable content would need a bit of restructuring. like its a good thing that every world boss timer is de-synced across each of the 51 servers.

Heezdedjim.8902:

clint.5681:

Whoever mentioned alliances is a smart man and we should discuss how that would work more.

Should the alliances be the merger of lower tier servers together say SF+FC+ET into one super server of sexyness?

or should it be a lower tier + middle tier+ plus upper tier server?

I see what you did there.

The best solution from the standpoint of stability and population balancing would be giving each Alliance an equal cross section of servers from all tiers, from top to bottom. So in NA it should be three Alliances, with eight servers in each, ranging from (EDIT: Seriously, Mr. Kitten Filter?) Tee-One to Tee-Eight.

Once set up though, any server alliance groups should be fixed and stable, because people are going to build up their webs of trust and deploy shared resources at an Alliance level, and changing those associations would be really disruptive.

I didnt think of that. That is interesting, im sure it would be hell trying to figure out how to make that work with the maps we have.

DevonCarver.5370:

Probably the most contentious issue has been the talk of getting rid of world’s and replacing the system with just the three colors. I think there is some merit to the idea, although I believe the worlds have a lot of value. I’d be curious to know if the folks who argue against and world pride feel that way because of being on underperforming worlds or not. I also wonder if there isn’t some work that could be done to restore that world pride without completely overhauling the WvW system. Someone mentioned alliances, which I think would work fairly well. If the less populous worlds were grouped together, does that seem like something that could reinvigorate them?

I am one of those people who do not like getting rid of worlds but it has nothing to do with “world pride”. It has to do with identify. In EotM it just feels very disconnected. Maybe that is the same as world pride. Also forget about “getting to know your commanders” in EotM. In EotM it’s more like a revolving door of commanders. I believe that was one of the original reasons you guys made the tag character bound.

Then there is the language issues for the EU. Although that can be solved by implementing … I am going to leave out the rest because that would have been mroe appropriate for the Commander CDI.

Heezdedjim.8902:

“Server pride” is only a thing because servers are what we have. Other games with single-server universes have just as strong — if anything far stronger — communities. But they’re formed around other anchors like factions or player-made alliances, not an arbitrary set of load-balancing bins (which, after all, only serve to divide, not unite players).

“Servers” are not an integral or even a helpful feature for developing communities. Some sort of stable anchor for identity that will let players form lasting groups is. There could be other mechanics like global factions that would allow that, and that also would decouple the community anchoring elements from the underlying WvW population balancing elements.

As others have pointed out — and SoR’s recent failscade proves — given a choice between “server pride” and just bolting to a server with higher population and better coverage, to avoid the pointy end of the stacking + coverage meta, it is abundantly clear which thing is actually most important to most active WvW players.

It is certainly true that randomly tossing players on the fly into Red v. Blue bins does and would obstruct attempts to maintain stable communities in WvW. It is certainly false that “servers” and “server pride” are the only, the best, or even a very good alternative.

I didn’t mean that server price and guild pride are the only community building aspects. I think what everybody here agrees that a thriving community is essential and this is a crucial thing in the long-term success of this game and probably the most important thing discussed here. Like many others also wrote, EotM is missing the community aspect of the game and it would be very difficult to build in EU due so many languages in any 3-way division. We have much more than 3 major languages here, so 3-way split won’t work that well. Even currently we have: French, German, Spanish and International servers. Russians are so large group, so I think they should need their own language group.

The cultivate communities GW2 should have:
1. As much support from Anet as possible to enable communication between and inside the communities and tools to build your own communities
Shutting down the WvWvW matchup related forums was unfortunate. I wish Arenanet would hire moderator resources to bring them back.

Guild Wars 1 had a guild hall. This was a common meeting ground for all guild members and different guilds have different looks and stats in their guild halls. In GW2 guild is more like just a roster and you can be member of up to 5 guilds at same time. Ability to maintain and hold their own permanent structures in a game world would be a HUGE thing and a superb money sink (wink to Anet: great way to make cash ).

2. Guild vs Guild
Simple map with 1 tower on each side, only few NPCs, mainly the NPC tower lord, room in between for open field battle and couple of alternative routes to enemy tower. Similar to popular GW1 guild-vs-guild mode.

3. Alliances
Ability to form alliances between guilds. Yet another feature borrowed from GW1. Now this could work in EotM as well if the players wouldn’t be just randomly tossed between 3 sides, but based on alliances. I think alliances should be able to exist between guilds on different servers. Alliances could have their own subforums and TeamSpeak/Mumble servers.

Side note (partly offtopic and be removed by moderator):
Server pride can be strong on servers and weak on others. I have been on Blacktide when it was on its glory and had many of the best guilds in EU/world. But Blacktide crushed and burned. After losing its main WvWvW guilds, it could never come back. In fact no server in EU has ever made a major come back without guilds returning to it or getting new guilds from other servers.

As side results of many unfortunate events Desolation has most likely lost more hard core WvWvW players and guilds than other servers in EU. After multiple mass exodus, Desolation is still standing surprisingly strong, despite the fact we are outnumbered on regular basis. Those who stayed are though as nail. Instead of getting outside help, we have tapped to our huge pve base to train new WvWvW players. I remember when my guild had only 4-5 commanders who had been doing commanding in actual WvWvW. Now I think we have around 20 of them and new guilds have spawned. We got several old original guilds which have D in their name e.g. GoD (Gatekeepers of Desolation), GODS (Gods of Desolation). If this is not server pride, what is?

Well, I’ve seen the word World Pride thrown around a lot and I don’t really think that is the proper usage for what it means. I personally have Community Pride. I enjoy fighting because I am proud of the effort that my server mates put into WvW. As such, there is no pure connection to the server as a whole. With that being said, I feel like alliances would be very useful, but as mentioned, planning the implementation is very difficult. As little as I’m concerned with PvE, I don’t want to say scrap the idea of worlds because guesting is possible. I don’t think that’s fair to those players.

Let’s say that alliances are the answer. I would like to see alliances revolve around guilds, but then how do you regulate that? I feel like we would just end up with the same population imbalance that we have now. However, one solution would be to limit the number of alliances. Do NOT make 24 different NA alliances, the WvW population is not large enough at this point, but structure it in a way so that it may some day be extendable to add new alliances. Also, it was mentioned that alliances would require some way to keep people from flipping around to one after another because you need something that is sustainable and you need to be able to trust the people you play with since you’d be sharing tactics.

My suggestion would be to strongly consider alliances and possibly put out another CDI to get feedback on how to implement such a structure.

As was said already, alliances are a means to balancing population when you are going to have ongoing three-sided battles. They should allow as consistent a context as possible so that people within each alliance can form stable communities.

Servers are a bad sorting mechanic for population balancing, as there can be no doubt at this point. Server alliances would be a good bit less bad if done on a large enough scale to dilute any attempts at stacking. Player chosen factions would be a better mechanic, but we’re probably not going to get that.

Regardless of all that, the central focus of all these ideas like “pride” and “loyalty” and “identity” always ought to be — really must be — groups that players form on their own, and that means guilds not “servers” or even “server alliances” or any other form of arbitrary, game-imposed bins that people are sorted into for the purpose of simply making the game work in a reasonable way.

Where your guild chooses to “live” in terms of server or alliance or faction or whatever has some meaning, because it determines what other guilds you ally with and who you see in the game on “your side” every day. Those things are important, and that community of people around you should be stable and familiar.

But the underlying focus of loyalty and pride and identity ought to always be on the guilds themselves, not the larger bins that are created for the main purpose of just making fights reasonably fair.

And that means that the thing we really need, which we do not have in any form, is guild leaderboards within each faction or alliance that make visible and tangible the contribution of each guild to the war effort.

I posted about this at some length above, and I won’t repeat what I said before. But part of what’s happening here is that because what guilds do is completely meaningless and invisible in WvW, we don’t even know what we’re missing. So we grasp at things like “server pride” to fill a hole that would not need to be filled if we had visible recognition of each guild’s team efforts that we could base our “pride” and “loyalty” and “identity” on when it comes to WvW.

Server Alliances would be a great start and would directly address the serious, community-wrecking, toxic dynamics that the current server-based meta creates. They would solve some real problems and would be a step in the right direction. And they could be put in place without destroying the existing communities we do have. Our “neighborhoods” would get a little bigger; but that just means we have more neighbors. They can still be familiar and valuable to us.

The next step would be leaderboards within each alliance to give us a real outlet and focus for building actual pride and identity by showing us how much the groups that really mean something to us, and that we each have a direct impact on, contribute to our community.

Once we get that, then what is done in WvW actually will have some lasting meaning beyond just farming and training, and it will be meaning that endures above and beyond “wins” and “losses” and who came in “1st” or “2nd” last week, in wars on which, in the end, any one player can have, at most, a vanishingly small impact.

Topic Server Pride:

I think that Leagues Season 1 showed us that the people who want to win a game will go to the places where they believe they will win. There will always be a CORE number on a server but my question would be this: Is the CORE the server or is the CORE the guild? Right now I see people who use guilds for commendations on the weekends and then a different guild for WvW. We pick guilds that meet our needs for the moment. I think that regardless of server, rewards should be about Guilds and less about servers.

Advice: Specific ONLY TO LEAGUES Require that during League matchups people set a preferred Guild for WvWvW prior to matchup (Otherwise it will use their current guild rep as their WvWvW guild). Calculate total guild members and then divide the Alliance based on guild numbers to disperse the guilds across the 3 colors. Reward Wins in WvWvW with Guild commendations.

*Pros:" Rewards guilds with influence and players with commendations towards ascended items. Allows this game to focus on guilds and not servers. Means that if the guild is represented on multiple servers, they can fight together. (IE, no transfer costs). Balances numbers due to alliances.

Cons: Guild stacking. It may well replace server stacking. Now guilds will look for night time coverage. I have no other idea however on how to compromise between identity and coverage wars. Perhaps this idea will motivate others.

EDIT: Allow guilds as a follow-up to set a Home Server. Guild events will only be available on the home server (rushes, exploration, etc). This will make it so that being on a “server” has meaning.

it would be cool if the alliances had a mutual ground (map) within each alliance where everyone in the alliance could meet up to plan strategy, train, give advice and hold events and stuff. Like the mists for spvp, a common lobby.

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

All this will achieve is making it even harder for the less populated server to cap and defend it. Right now a smaller group can still cap it with effective diversionary tactics and can also defend it with good siege placement. This all goes away with a change like this. Same goes for buffing keep/tower lords as well. WvW isn’t just big blobs, so we should stop catering only to that play style.

from Niadon.9270; my answers in bold,

I don’t like it. It doesn’t sound as a solution, but like more a temporary solution waiting for something better.

We already experimented the buff on on health and has been dropped.
+25.000 does not mean necessary that the server doesn’t has numbers, potentially means that the wvw guilds on the other server are not so good, so why give them a buff?
If they aren’t that good, then you shouldn’t mind a handicap. One-sided victories are quickly forgotten and don’t really do anything for anyone. With this idea, they have reason to get better and take advantage of the opportunity

Many time we lost the match even for 70.000 points, but we was satisfied ’cause the numbers on the battlefield was good and the fight as well, we would not have been happy to fight with extra buffs.
While hardcore players continue to fight, fairweather fluctuations skew the matches (creating a tough match one week, a joke the next. Being human, we are affected by the score if we are losing by a lot; even if it does not affect our participation)

Moreover on the highest positions, there are still server that worked hard to get a night coverage, this system mess up their effort and the effort of the night guilds.
If a server is +100.000 even we that buff, will not be able to do so much, probably means that they don’t have numbers, they will be unable to defend all the objects and I don’t think that buffs of such kind are enough to stop a blob of 70 players hitting a tower with inside 30 players.
Take the T2 match in NA right now. FA is no slouch in night coverage, but can’t compete with SoS’s nightime coverage. If they had this buff, they would be encouraged to hold more territory or take more back in their timeslot. It would also allow them to push their primetime advantage to make up for the difference.

The point of this is to give people reason to fight back at a point in a match where many people just give up

The Lost Witch.7601:

New means of transportation!
…

• 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.

((Raises hand)) I want to ride on a ratapult!

Malchior.5042:

The thing is (both for WvW and for PvE), players follow commanders or create zergs/trains because…

1. Safety in numbers.
2. Single goal/task of focus
3. Scaling of content (which for PvE=more mobs=more rewards)

I feel it’s going to be VERY hard to remove the “zerg mentality” that players have chosen to adopt and is now engrained in their brains. I like different elements in EotM that simply encouraged more intelligent behavior from the zerg – (NPC design, and destructible bridges)

I would be a strong proponent of exploring additional mechanics and methods that would continue this trend of creating more intelligent zergs/trains.

It is not really the topic of discussion in this CDI, but when it comes around… I’ll be offering a lot of input.

Nike.2631:

The Lost Witch.7601:

New means of transportation!
…

• 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.

((Raises hand)) I want to ride on a ratapult!

You could also conquer the centaurs and construct some chariots, ideal for open field travel and combat.

Hi Devon, T1 GM of a PvX (WvW active) guild here.
Firstoff, thanks for posting and hosting this CDI thread. It’s very good to see more folks from ArenaNet with their sleeves rolled up down chatting amongst the masses, which reminds me very much of the old “Management By Walking Around” – there’s a lot of good information out here, and I’m glad to see ArenaNet out speaking with their community. This kind of dialogue is really valuable for both the health of the game, the community, and for improving and innovating better game design.
This is a great thread, but I’d like to both offer a series of suggestions and a few very strong words of caution with the best explanations I can muster in the midst of a busy work week. Apologies if I’ve got a few typos, I’ve probably had as much sleep as many of the folks on ANet’s staff…
I also wanted to talk this thread over with my guildmates before posting, to make sure that when I posted I was also speaking for them as best I could. When you’ve been the GM of the same folks for over a decade, I guess it’s a hard habit to break.
I’d like to address two main topics that I’ve seen here. First, the issue of whether worlds should be abolished (I have some very serious concerns about this proposal) and secondly, possible changes to Stonemist (which, if executed correctly, could be very interesting).

1: There Must Be Some Form of Enduring, Inclusive Community: Servers/Worlds Are It Right Now

There have been innumerable posts from folks concerned about removing world identity and the communities that are created and fostered on servers, and very serious worries that this would irreparably harm if not destroy the WvW feeling, sense of pride and accomplishment, and possibly even WvW as a brand. I share these concerns and am somewhat alarmed that the notion of abolishing servers in favor of anonymous, randomized masses like EoTM. To me, that’s no longer WvW, that’s sPvP.

My guild and I are old-time DAoC vets. We were there in Classic and were really active during the golden days of SI and were very active both as raid leaders and in our server community during the ToA years. We have seen the best and the worst. What finally drove us out of DAoC—and away from RvR/WvW until GW2’s release a long, terrible decade later—was when DAoC’s developers began systematically damaging the RvR/WvW play experience against the advice of countless members of the community and their internals testers (which included myself every one of my officers). I am deeply concerned that a movement to remove the enduring, inclusive community aspect of WvW, which today is accomplished through Worlds/Servers, could begin a “spiral-down” process like that which finally killed off DAoC. However, rather than wave my arms and caution that the sky is falling, I’d like to spend a few minutes walking through the basis of my concern.

(A) To even matter, much less feel epic the way WvW should, there has to be a point to it that’s greater than personal gain. This should sound like a very familiar, comment sentiment across time and many, many games. The reason my guildmates and I were willing to go all out during Season 1 on our server, and for months before then, was because we felt like we were able to contribute to something bigger than ourselves and our loot bags. That sense of being a part of something bigger is a huge component of what leads us to play WvW/RvR style games, and why we’ve been dedicated to GW2 for as long as we have (since Beta 2). There’s only so much farming or sPvP you can take, as a guild of players who think and feel the way we do. While it’s fun to run dungeons, that feeling of contribution under uncertain circumstances is the best ward against boredom and staleness we’ve been able to discover. Without that feeling of something bigger, the value of WvW for players like us would be greatly diminished.
(B) This something greater is provided by enduring, inclusive community. I’d like to try to delve into just what that elusive ”thing” is that many posters have attempted to touch on when it comes to why worlds matter so much for WvW, whereas others have argued against them. To clear up the confusion, the best explanation I can offer is this:

It’s not about worlds, per se, it’s about an enduring, inclusive community. I’ve picked these three words very carefully to try to hone in and distill the meaning that I’ve been reading on these boards and elsewhere for a long time, and seen reflected on this thread.
(post to be continued)