Guild Wars 2

I like the idea of being forced to take a tower to be able to move further in a map. Imagine Cliffside was build over the z ramp and you had to go through it to get up there. It would make running the zerg past defended targets to hit softer ones harder.

Cactus.2710:

Some players have complained that the combat abilities, graphics, and effects in TESO are more constrained than those in GW2 and I’m not surprised that’s the case, but on the other hand TESO runs all player accounts on the same massive realm with virtually zero lag, fps drops, or other stumbles even in huge battles. The two games just seem to have a different focus. The incongruity for me is that ANet has done almost everything imaginable, whether for PvE (most Living World activities are zerg fests) or WvW and whether intentionally or not, to promote a zerg play style even though their game doesn’t handle it very well.

^ This x 1,000,000

Since this is so critical, it bears repeating:

“The incongruity for me is that ANet has done almost everything imaginable, whether for PvE (most Living World activities are zerg fests) or WvW and whether intentionally or not, to promote a zerg play style even though their game doesn’t handle it very well.”

Until that core, most basic, fundamental problem is resolved, all the CDI discussions in the world aren’t going to fix anything. Don’t get me wrong; there are some excellent suggestions in this thread and the willingness on the part of the developers to engage in the process is admirable. All the good intentions in the world, though, amount to nothing if those efforts aren’t focused on solving the underlying issue.

If the goal is to make a zerg-friendly game, then the architecture and server resources have to support it. If that’s not going to happen, then methods for discouraging zerging will have to be implemented. The third option is to do nothing and let the current state-of-affairs persist; for the longevity of the game, though, it’s probably not the best one.

DevonCarver.5370:

I think there has been good discussion around the concepts of world pride and how the changes in EotM affect that. Let’s pivot to a different concept from EotM and how it could apply to WvW.

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

Personally I’m not a fan of choke points, they give the defender a HUGE advantage if they have Arrow Carts. I believe it would be beneficial to the game by making World vs World more fight-oriented, because even if my server is getting absolutely destroyed (the current Maguuma/Dragonbrand/SBI matchup would be a good example) we can still have fun by going out there and testing our skills against large enemy forces.

An idea I have is to add an objective in the center of the map that has no walls or gates (somewhat like camps) and when captured rewards your server a bonus in WXP. This objective would be on a flat surface where large scale fights could easily happen. The reason why I think this would be a good idea is because I honestly believe that score means nothing if nobody is having fun, fights are fun so create more opportunities for them! World vs World needs to be more appealing to the hard-core gamers, this is our end game after all. The first thing my guild does when we start our raids is we look for a map that has orange swords, and we’re just one of many that does that.

Try searching up Red Guard or Second Law videos on youtube and tell me that doesn’t look fun

I honestly don’t think choke points will matter much as long as there is an aoe cap

DevonCarver.5370:

As an aside, I just wanted to call out the posts from Matipzieu KyA, which are incredibly detailed and well-thought out. We really appreciate the passion and dedication that it takes to go to those lengths. We are reading them and looking closely at the things contained within.

Incredibly detailed, long, well-thought out, Long, passionate, LONG, dedicated, LOOOONGGG… Wait, did I mention long?

Be careful what you wish for .

MrFluffy.9307:

An idea I have is to add an objective in the center of the map that has no walls or gates (somewhat like camps) and when captured rewards your server a bonus in WXP. This objective would be on a flat surface where large scale fights could easily happen. The reason why I think this would be a good idea is because I honestly believe that score means nothing if nobody is having fun, fights are fun so create more opportunities for them! World vs World needs to be more appealing to the hard-core gamers, this is our end game after all. The first thing my guild does when we start our raids is we look for a map that has orange swords, and we’re just one of many that does that.

I disagree with this. It’s yet another mechanic or design element which encourages and supports zerging. What’s more is, the reward suggested (WXP) amounts to power creep. It works great if the underlying assumptions built into the suggestion are met; namely, 3 large armies clashing at the center of the map in epic battle for supremacy.

In practice, it wouldn’t work that way the majority of the time. Instead, the server with the larger numbers and/or better coverage would simply steamroll through that area, cap it, and now be rewarded a server-wide WXP bonus which can be used to directly contribute to power in WvWvW.

I’m not against providing something similar to this suggestion to allow for GvG play; but the WvWvW map isn’t the place for it. Most especially not with a WXP reward attached to it. WvWvW isn’t the hard-core gamers’ end game; it’s everybody’s end game.

Choke point would be awesome if not for AC’s, AC’s ruin lots of strategic points in this game by dumbing everything down.

I’d just like to pop in and say 2 things.

1. I feel that with the presence of how strong 15+ golems can be and/or 3-5 Superior Rams, And with golem mastery on the way, That fortify should not only affect walls but doors as well. I know its not from “EoTM” but its absurd how fast measly gates drop with either of those combos.

2. I’d just like to throw my support out there for the 2 resets a week. Friday 6 PM Server->Monday 6 PM Server->Friday 6 PM Server. It gets rid of a lot of issues regarding morale through a week and its not too short that your gold sink on upgrades is completely useless.

DevonCarver.5370:

I think there has been good discussion around the concepts of world pride and how the changes in EotM affect that. Let’s pivot to a different concept from EotM and how it could apply to WvW.

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

First I’d like to repeat my ideas for the record of a GvG area similar to OS on Eotm that allows for cross server GvG. Also I’d like to repeat my plea for free transfers to the lower tiers as a sort of bandaid to the population siphoning that the news of leagues has brought on.

That being said, chokepoints are amazing for wvw play. Many of the kills against larger groups are up and around chokepoints.

Each borderland map should be different. There should be a different type of terrain for red, blue, and green. Green could be a jungle/ forest terrain with destructible trees that can block different paths to towers etc. Red could be a scorched earth map in which volcanoes and landslides are activated by either team, and blue could be a port in which players waypoint from ships attacking some sort of cove. I think that’s a good foundation to work from. Just please please keep in line with the medieval-style castle/tower/keep themes of wvw.

As far as stomemist goes. It’s pretty hard to cap if the other team has sieged themself in with a similar sized zerg. The chokepoints are pretty intense. Could I maybe recommend some sort of rope climb or elevator to the top floor as well when attacking? That would add another layer of strategy imo

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION
I think this thread has been a bit handicapped from the outset by a mistake in perspective. Seeing that The Edge of the Mists has been well-received and heavily used, the Developers — not unreasonably — asked us to help identify the secret ingredient, the special sauce, the sizzle they can portage over to other modes.

Its not where the fights take place, or how pretty the scenery is, or any singular tactical nuance. Its that, on the whole, we can trust there’s a reasonably level playing field in terms of population and that the map taken as a whole is FAIR. Because only fair fights are interesting.

It is the very first CDI thread question all over again.

I think the real Question you need to be asking yourself when attempting to improve WvW in the future is extremely basic. We’re talking first principles. Fundamental.

Do you want an environment that is IMPARTIAL or one that is FAIR?

You cannot have both.

There’s hints in the game now that you might like for the conflict to be more fair & interesting. The various “break out” events try to offset the ruthlessly impartial system of “You lack coverage? Lump it” with some semblance of counterweights against an environment that’s proven grossly lop-sided.

Until you are prepared to introduce dymanic & sensitive handicapping (both offensive and defense in nature) to the degree that you can drop a Tier 2, tier 4, and Tier 6 server into shared match for a week and no one knows the outcome in advance you’ll just have to take comfort that the system is impartial… because it will remain uninteresting.

to add onto the idea of an OS in EOTM…

to fix the constant interference in the EOTM OS area, you could just get rid of OS and have different instances (similar to Spvp). That way, Guild X and guild Y could join the same instance regardless of being on same or different servers and fight each other. You could even sell private OS maps in the gem store similar to private arenas.

DevonCarver.5370:

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

In regard of this posting, I’d really like to hear from you, what you think about merging in general all 3 Borderland Maps into one single new huge Borderland Map, thats as you say from the scratch, rather than making only tiny changes here n’ there.

If you really want to give WvW more verticality, choke points and all the other good things of EotM I absolutely think its totally mandatory to completely redesign the Maps, to increase them in their size to create more space for something interestign like large canyons with bridges, deep seas and interesting tunnel systems, high mountains and cliffsides with very good strategetically placed keeps and towers, that make a good use of the terrestrial advantages of the areas where they are, to be good defendable at all.

WvW must become alot more strategetical, more like a kind of war simulator where you need to have good tactics to win the battles and to defend your strongholds successfull ,to conquer somethign successfll and not just zerg your way through every place mindlessly.

Thats why I am so much for improving WvW in its core mechanics, like giving all Classes class specific WvW Skills, like merging some of the WvW Skills, like adding more useful WvW Trait Lines like Medic Mastery, Trap Mastery or Stronghold Defender

Also all of the current existing WvW Skill lines with only 5 Perks – can we at any day expect them to be improved to also 10 tiers of Perks, like the first two WvW Skil Lines that are about killing guards???

I’d really like to see more improvements for all of the Siege Weapons. Improvign all of these Skill Lines to 10 perks would make up also for alot of interesting content, that could make WvW alot more entertaining and fun.

I personally would also love to see a WvW Skill Line, like “Shrine Guardian” to give people more of an incentive to go and claim shrines and also defending them, making it a bit also easier to claim them faster and to defend them better with summoned “Celestial Patrons” or something that you could create with that Skill Line to create some additional defenders for praying at the Shrine kneeling at it – you know, doing something, that is actual common to do at a shrine .. praying to balthazar, what would be more common there, than to pray to the god of war???
——

The other half of the medal are the WvW Achievements… – over 1 year over and there has been no single change on these inhumanous ridiculous high WvW Achievements, which would take basically 3 human lives to fulfill them all, if you’be be able to play the game every day for 24h without a single break non stop >.>
Seriously, without wanting to sound rude or disrecpectful – what has the person smoked to come up withsuhc insane high required numbers like slaying 1 million Dolyaks for Yak Slapper ??
Killing 250000 players… escoting 500000 dolyaks, spending 1 Million Supply, capturing 1 MILLION objectives, defend 1 million objectives >.> defend stonemist 500000 times and so on..

This is’t ridiculous anymore, this is just madness!

So, what are your plans to bring back these insane achievements back to a normal scale, that you can do them all in just like 1-3 years or so and not in like your whole life time, until you are old and white heared, being unable to play anything anymore at all.

This is on the other way the most easiest thing to solve and its not something, that got just fixed within the first months after the release of the game.
I can understand, that these achievements should also be some kind of long term goal, but under the current design, they are no long term goal, they are your personal testament of your digital grave.

I think WvW Achievements would be much better designed, if they all just would massively decreased in numbers, but raised in the amounts of ranks, so that also WvW Players can earn more/more oftenly Achievement Points with them together with more Achievement Chest Rewards being linked to WvW Achievements.

So again, also here I’d really love to hear some thoughts from you, what ANets plans are on making the WvW Achievements more accessible and reachable.
I also think the WvW Titles could need some creative renamings..
All of these Ultimate these, ultimate that really look like, as if you did run out there of ideas for nice title names

Chokepoints:

very briefly (because I save my long-winded detailed analysis for discussions with my guildmate Matipzieu who posts for our guild. ):

1) Warhammer Online incorporated chokepoints in their high end T4 maps without giving players a good place to work around or land beyond them (trapping players into constricted areas ended up “ruining” highest level of endgame.) . It was one of the major issues players pointed to before they left. It also forced play into the lower T3 maps which is where the strategic fun and the best fights occurred.

A few chokepoints sprinkled judiciously into a map with a way to maneuver around tactically/strategically (as someone mentioned above) can lead to some interesting and fun fights. As long as they do not bottle up play. What I’ve seen out here through multiple discussions is the desire for more open field fights.

2) DAoC had multiple, huge, gorgeous RvR zones. Where did almost all of the fighting occur? Where was the place almost all the players loved to go? Emain. Big open green grassy golf course of a map. Epic open field fights.

There needs to be a balance.

EotM has the balanced cranked too far towards chokepoints, allowing players to become "camped’ there.

The current WvW maps have enough chokepoints. WvW needs to have open space that is intrinsically linked to the feeling of epic army on army clash.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

I think this is an excellent suggestion and has been spoken to by some previous posters in this very thread (as well as elsewhere throughout the forum). See DaMikenatr’s post regarding the Vale and Lowlands supply camps chokepoints, for example.

On the EotM map, I like the towers which sit squarely blocking a major thoroughfare. It’s not the only path to a destination, but it’s certainly the shortest; making detours around the towers so inconvenient that it’s often preferable to go through the tower than around it.

However, given that there is no point system in EotM which contributes to the primary WvWvW score nor significant rewards for defense, it suffers the same fate as WvWvW; karma trains flipping objectives without opposition. So, yes, chokepoint towers would be a welcome addition. There’s going to have to be an incentive to actually defend the towers and use the strategic advantage represented by the chokepoints, though. Otherwise, it just becomes another speedbump in the path of the karma train.

You also mention “this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae”. Then what is it? I don’t mean that adversarially; it’s an honest question. Perhaps clarification of what WvWvW is and what it is not would be helpful. Yes, I understand it’s a war in the Mists. But is this a war in which the opposing factions have built (or collectively willed into existence through the magic of the Mists) their respective fortifications, are they just randomly placed by the chaotic nature of the Mists, or has an Intelligent Designer (Balthazar?) ordained their arrangement for its own inscrutable purposes?

If it’s the first scenario, then the arrangement of the fortifications is terrible. Towers which provide almost no defensive advantage to their parent keep, opposing fortifications placed within trebbing distance of one another, failure to take full advantage of the terrain, etc.

If we’re simply thrown into a splinter of the Mists over which we have no control to battle it out with the cards we’ve been dealt, then that’s fine; that’s consistent with the internal logic and lore of the game. If, on the other hand, you’re talking about creating a whole new map from scratch, then maybe it’s time to consider that the placement of fortifications should fit into a mutually supportive defensive network rather than stand-alone objectives.

Your suggestion regarding towers at chokepoints is a prime example of this. It makes perfect sense that where a chokepoint exists, that’s where you build a defensive structure. It’d be nice to see more of that kind of design philosophy in a new map. Perhaps the ability to build our own fortifications, even. Which then opens a whole host of possibilities; use of materials to build walls and gates, guilds using influence to outfit these fortifications, I’m sure some form of gem store monetization could be cooked up (not something I’m in favor of, but it would happen anyway, so I list it here), a more dynamic battlefield as fortifications won’t always be in the same exact location or of the same exact layout from match to match, etc.

I’m not saying this becomes the only way in which to place fortifications on the map. There would still be static, pre-existing fortifications as exists now; but there would be the option to build additional fortifications. Of course, for this to work, there would have to be a major shift in combat design so that a guild that spent hours, gold, influence, and mats to construct a fortification doesn’t lose it in 5 minutes or less to an auto-attacking karma train.

DevonCarver.5370:

As an aside, I just wanted to call out the posts from Matipzieu KyA, which are incredibly detailed and well-thought out. We really appreciate the passion and dedication that it takes to go to those lengths. We are reading them and looking closely at the things contained within.

It’s good to hear this kind of feedback. Matipzieu’s posts hit the nail on the head with respect to community building. I’ll add my voice to it by saying server pride is not dead; at least not on the server I’m on.

It could also use some reason for those to happen more often. Presently it’s pretty easy to run around a map capping stuff for the WXP and avoiding confrontation with other groups. While I don’t mind mobility, the concept of territory has no real meaning in GW2 – you’re not much more likely to run into resistance at one end of the map than the other unless there’s a high population and they’re not zergballing.

I’m not entirely sure if this is a good idea, but providing the Bloodlust stat boosts only to small groups within a certain range of assets held by their server might aid in this. But I think a bigger draw would be providing more rewards for keeping assets than taking them. Where rewards are only given for people participating in events that’s going to require some thinking….

Banzie.5248:

I’d just like to pop in and say 2 things.

1. I feel that with the presence of how strong 15+ golems can be and/or 3-5 Superior Rams, And with golem mastery on the way, That fortify should not only affect walls but doors as well. I know its not from “EoTM” but its absurd how fast measly gates drop with either of those combos.

I’d go one further and suggest that – once a tower or keep has been fortified – the gate can no longer be damaged by player skills. Completely neuters the auto-attacking karma train zerg meta.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Banzie.5248:

I’d just like to pop in and say 2 things.

1. I feel that with the presence of how strong 15+ golems can be and/or 3-5 Superior Rams, And with golem mastery on the way, That fortify should not only affect walls but doors as well. I know its not from “EoTM” but its absurd how fast measly gates drop with either of those combos.

I’d go one further and suggest that – once a tower or keep has been fortified – the gate can no longer be damaged by player skills. Completely neuters the auto-attacking karma train zerg meta.

if you do that, let’s fix the trebs on the other side of the gates that kill all rams

SniffyCube.6107:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Banzie.5248:

I’d just like to pop in and say 2 things.

1. I feel that with the presence of how strong 15+ golems can be and/or 3-5 Superior Rams, And with golem mastery on the way, That fortify should not only affect walls but doors as well. I know its not from “EoTM” but its absurd how fast measly gates drop with either of those combos.

I’d go one further and suggest that – once a tower or keep has been fortified – the gate can no longer be damaged by player skills. Completely neuters the auto-attacking karma train zerg meta.

if you do that, let’s fix the trebs on the other side of the gates that kill all rams

Place an arrow cart to take out the treb through the gap above the gate. Or build a cata when you build rams to put up a shield bubble. That, or pre-scout the intended target first, determine there’s a treb behind the gate, then build siege appropriate to the task rather than expecting to throw down a ram(s) and have that become GG-IWIN. There’s counters to everything. Rock, paper, scissors.

Tenichnal question spawned by the suggestion of constricted chokepoints.

During the Marionette lane-defense phases we saw temporary battlements – rows of sandbags and barbed wire that players could cross over freely, but the enemies had to circle around.

Does the tech exist to create similar obstacles that can be “owned” by one server such that that those players can cross them freely, but the other two servers interact with them as impassible (but possibly destructible) objects?

Because as fixed baked-in positions waiting for us to bring supply to develop them, or as “portable wall” kits we can drag around and deploy like other forms of siege, the tactical possibilities they would add could be amazing.

Proposal
Use the event system to provide rewards for engaging and defeating groups of players based on odds

Summary
At present, the only ‘event’ that spawns on a large fight are the orange swords on the map, and the only rewards are loot bags – unless you’re guaranteed a win you’re usually better off running. If possible, an event could spawn, on a timer like defend events, that provides rewards on conclusion. The idea is to make actually fighting players a good idea, and the more the better – so long as you are effective.

Details
- Standard 3 minute timer on engagement, with at least 5 (approximately) players involved from either server.
- On conclusion of the timer, a reward chest is given to players that participated in the fight, based on a number of variables. I’ll list them from most important to least.

- Odds. If you have 5 players, and you were fighting 20, your rewards are 4x standard. If you have 20, and you were fighting 5, your rewards are 1/4x standard. Zerging people gives you poor rewards, busting zergs gives excellent rewards. Fighting two servers at the same time is a good idea.

- Opposing players killed by proportion of total opposing players. If you killed 20% of their force, you get less rewards than for killing 80%. This should probably be on a logarithmic scale – good rewards in general, but if you didn’t kill any players you get no rewards. Soloing a zerg gets you nothing but a repair bill.

- Total participation. You get slightly better rewards for a 30-player fight than a 10-player fight, to offset the sense that players joining a fight are taking rewards away from their server.

Risk evaluation
My greatest concern would be that a system like this could be farmed, and thus the nature of the rewards would have to be carefully considered. However, there is a counterpoint that PvP combat is exactly what should be rewarded in WvW, or at least brought to the level where it’s more appealing than capping empty towers.

Something to be considered is the possibility of people killing most of the opposite side and then ressing up every 3 minutes. If this system were to be implemented, it would need to find a way to make this non-viable, such as forced resurrection at the nearest waypoint on defeat, setting a reward cap per zone per day, requiring all players of at least one side in the area to be defeated or forced out, etc.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

SniffyCube.6107:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Banzie.5248:

I’d just like to pop in and say 2 things.

1. I feel that with the presence of how strong 15+ golems can be and/or 3-5 Superior Rams, And with golem mastery on the way, That fortify should not only affect walls but doors as well. I know its not from “EoTM” but its absurd how fast measly gates drop with either of those combos.

I’d go one further and suggest that – once a tower or keep has been fortified – the gate can no longer be damaged by player skills. Completely neuters the auto-attacking karma train zerg meta.

if you do that, let’s fix the trebs on the other side of the gates that kill all rams

Place an arrow cart to take out the treb through the gap above the gate. Or build a cata when you build rams to put up a shield bubble. That, or pre-scout the intended target first, determine there’s a treb behind the gate, then build siege appropriate to the task rather than expecting to throw down a ram(s) and have that become GG-IWIN. There’s counters to everything. Rock, paper, scissors.

AC’s can be used on the insiode as well, Trebs and Catas being used from inside can be placed in spots out of View so unless your using a zoom hack you will not hit them. Lets be honest you should not be able to hit the rams through the gate with trebs or catas without doing damage to the gate yourself. Most siege needs a LoS rework.

Nike.2631:

Tenichnal question spawned by the suggestion of constricted chokepoints.

During the Marionette lane-defense phases we saw temporary battlements – rows of sandbags and barbed wire that players could cross over freely, but the enemies had to circle around.

Does the tech exist to create similar obstacles that can be “owned” by one server such that that those players can cross them freely, but the other two servers interact with them as impassible (but possibly destructible) objects?

Because as fixed baked-in positions waiting for us to bring supply to develop them, or as “portable wall” kits we can drag around and deploy like other forms of siege, the tactical possibilities they would add could be amazing.

About a year prior to release, I had made a suggestion near-identical to this on the GW Wiki feedback forum (GW2 did not yet have it’s own wiki in which to make suggestions). At that time, I called them portable palisades (no fixed point; can be built almost anywhere). As you pointed out, the Marionette event demonstrated this is possible to implement. I agree this would add tactical depth to the game.

Ten or twenty supply per palisade should be about right. Not too large and would have to work in concert with allies if you want to build a defensive barricade of any appreciable length.

There would have to be limiters, though, to prevent trolling such as hard-coded restrictions against building in such a way as to prevent access to the entry portals of fortifications or too-near to spawn points.

Love how keeps are upgraded already. It slows the attacking process down and allows defending to happen without huge cost to one player.
NPCs using siege, brilliant.
Lords are harder and scale. Give defenders damage reduction or reduced condition duration if outmanned

DevonCarver.5370:

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

Beyond their ability to treb other nearby structures, the structures in the current maps are of very little strategic value for controlling actual map geography and movement through it. So something along these lines would be a great addition and would give a lot more perceived value to holding these designated strategic control points.

I see three things that would be needed to make some more strategically located choke point control structures a “good” addition:

• (1) Be Somewhere Important. Unless the structure is capped, it must be able to directly and easily exert significant control over any movement through an unavoidable choke point. And the choke has to lead to somewhere that the enemy will need to go (i.e., not just to the structure itself). There might be a long way around, but it should be long enough that capping the control point structure will still seem like the better option, if you think there is any way you can do it.

• (2) Have Control Siege That Can Actually Control a Choke Point. This means that the structure needs to allow placement of all siege types (siege and counter-siege) with clear and easy, overlapping fields of fire directly onto the choke. In other words, the siege needs to be able to fire and not be fired upon. That means high bluffs that can’t be reached by AOE spam, etc. The new structure and built-in siege features on the EOTM maps make it clear that you understand there is a problem with siege placement on many of the old structures. Those lessons should be applied to the new structures so that siege is usable directly for the intended defensive and control purpose, without stupid siege tricks like throwing onto some off-the-wall geometry feature that leaves you with no clear line of sight to use it.

• (3) Have a Designated Weak Point. Because the structure can’t be impenetrable, it needs to have one entry point of obvious use for capping it that is NOT within the field of fire of the control siege. So if attackers can push through to this point, then they should be afforded complete defilade from siege placed in the designated immune control siege areas, and will only have to contend with defenders at the door, using appropriately placed siege on or around the door to fight at that point as usual.

Even at the designated weak point, however, the local siege placement should, again, apply the lessons of EOTM so that it can be put in sensible places and used as intended, without being subject to instant death from magical wall-climing AOE spam and other cheese tactics. If you put it in plain view and Golems can shoot directly on it, then it deserves to die. Otherwise, if you put it where it “should” work and be shielded from direct ground fire, then it should work and be shielded from direct ground fire.

DevonCarver.5370:

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

On the subject of building new maps from scratch, and following on from your suggestions about more strategic control points:

You may want to explicitly think about, and ask for input on, the idea of any brand new map using a lattice type structure instead of open objectives like the old maps have. I’m not saying which approach is “better,” but there are consequences to both open and more structured map dynamics.

Lattice structures also force an attacker to think more strategically about making coordinated attacks on several points to put a main objective in contention and make it cap-able; plan the “shortest route” to the “most valuable” medium and long-term objectives, and so on.

And once you have lattice attributes in place, they give you a hook for putting in really neat features like letting commanders actually assign “missions” to cap specific objectives, that people can accept and complete . . . leading to further missions that unlock based on what the cap gives access to, etc.

And because of the more strategic planning involved to move the map, lattices tend to discourage random training and just flipping stuff all day for teh lulz. Given that EOTM now lets folks who like that game mode go hog wild with it, anything that dials back the tendency for aimless karma training in WvW would be appropriate and I think welcomed by many.

DevonCarver.5370:

As an aside, I just wanted to call out the posts from Matipzieu KyA, which are incredibly detailed and well-thought out. We really appreciate the passion and dedication that it takes to go to those lengths. We are reading them and looking closely at the things contained within.

Well in turn we thank you for this opportunity to collaborate with the developers and on my part I hope that some of the easiest improvements can be implemented before the next WvW season.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned:

How about having capture points where the npcs can provide you with special traps?
There is certainly potential in the trap idea, as some new traps could play a major role in the defence of keeps, towers and SM.

Heezdedjim.8902:

DevonCarver.5370:

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

On the subject of building new maps from scratch, and following on from your suggestions about more strategic control points:

You may want to explicitly think about, and ask for input on, the idea of any brand new map using a lattice type structure instead of open objectives like the old maps have. I’m not saying which approach is “better,” but there are consequences to both open and more structured map dynamics.

Lattice structures also force an attacker to think more strategically about making coordinated attacks on several points to put a main objective in contention and make it cap-able; plan the “shortest route” to the “most valuable” medium and long-term objectives, and so on.

And once you have lattice attributes in place, they give you a hook for putting in really neat features like letting commanders actually assign “missions” to cap specific objectives, that people can accept and complete . . . leading to further missions that unlock based on what the cap gives access to, etc.

And because of the more strategic planning involved to move the map, lattices tend to discourage random training and just flipping stuff all day for teh lulz. Given that EOTM now lets folks who like that game mode go hog wild with it, anything that dials back the tendency for aimless karma training in WvW would be appropriate and I think welcomed by many.

God id to freakign love to see THIS happening ..

I go into the Borderlands and just upon arrival I receive from just out of nowhere not expectign it a Mail Bird from a Commander that is on the Map, givign me personalyl the “Mission” to go infiltrate an enemy stronghold and to sabotage in that stealth mission the Siege Weapons of the enemy line.

By successfully doing this, I’d fullfill that given Special Mission that would be some kind of Personal Dynamic Event that a Commander on the Map would have given to me and by fulfilling it, I’d get rewarded by something, that I#d get automatically as a reward by the game plus whatever the Commander might have chosen out as a special reward for me for fulfilling my personal mission…

That would feel awesome.

I absolutely support everything, that improves the “Role Feeling” in WvW, making WvW feel alot more, like playing together some kind of strategetic War Simulation.
hats imo the way how WvW should functionate like with Commanders, that should have more options and be more meaningful for the maps, other than just runninjg around with their blue smurf hats…

Commanders in WvW should be responsibkle for alot more dynamic events that they should create basically, by giving out personal missions for specific groups or for specific tasks that need to be done by solo roamers instead and so on …

Heezdedjim.8902:

And once you have lattice attributes in place, they give you a hook for putting in really neat features like letting commanders actually assign “missions” to cap specific objectives, that people can accept and complete . . . leading to further missions that unlock based on what the cap gives access to, etc.

This is a fantastic idea!

I see this as a whole new interface added to WvWvW. A commander could bring up a “Create Mission” panel. Clicking on PoIs and waypoints on the map adds them to the mission profile. The commander can then draw using a few simple tools; things like directional arrows and numbering points along a path. Lastly, there’s a small text area where the commander can type out text instructions. The commander then saves the mission profile with a short, one-line description (e.g. “Weaken siege south outer Hills”). More than one mission profile can be created and they can be edited at any time.

Players can then access these mission profiles by clicking on the commander’s icon on the main map and/or have it floating on the right hand side of the screen in place of the current living story et al. reminders (with the ability to toggle it on and off per a player’s preference). A list of available missions is displayed here. A player can then click on which they are willing to undertake.

For the mission a player has accepted, they are able to review the detailed mission profile the commander created previously. If more than one player undertakes the mission, all the players involved are able to see each other on the map similar to the party system. Instead of blue dots or green dots, perhaps mission members are displayed with magenta name tags and dots or some other color (not red, since that’s associated with “enemy”). They will then have access to their own mission chat tab (text color to correspond with mission-specific colors). It may even be the case that players undertaking a mission are automatically placed into the squad of the commander who created the mission.

Players undertaking a mission are not removed from their existing party nor placed into a party with their mission members. They can voluntarily choose to do so, of course, but the game won’t do it for them. Alternately, there’s an option that can be toggled on and off to allow automatically partying up with mission members on accepting a mission (in which case, mission parties should be allowed to be larger than regular parties). In other words, you could be a member of a party, see your party members in the upper left hand side of the screen and as blue dots on the map, have access to the party chat and also be a member of a mission who sees your mission members in a different color with access to a separate mission chat.

On completion of the mission parameters, mission members would click a button indicating whether the mission was a success or a failure. It will require at least two members of the mission or even a 50% +1 majority to indicate success or failure: similar to how kicking a party member requires two votes. This prevents a troll single-handedly claiming a mission is success or a failure when in fact in may not be. Of course, for solo missions, this won’t work; but at least it covers most bases.

When a mission has been confirmed a success or failure, an alert will pop-up in the mission panel on the right-hand side of the screen. It’s open to debate if this is global for all players who have the mission panel displayed or just for the commander who created the mission profile. Either way, the commander is alerted as to the success or failure of the mission.

It’s then up to the commander to confirm the mission status and whether or not to remove the mission. For example, a commander may not want to immediately remove a failed mission from the panel; choosing instead to re-run it without having to recreate it from scratch. Also, a commander may not want to remove a mission from the panel so he or she can see a running list of which missions are pending, which have succeeded, and which failed; all of which – taken as a whole – informs his or her overall strategic plan.

Overview
— Remove PvE Stat Grind from PvP

Goal
— Casual PvP as: PvP that does not require Hardcore PvE

Functionality
— Seamlessly balance all stats of WvW participants to reside at only one of the following:

— top tier – ascendant
— second to top – exotic
— default SPvP stats

Risks
None

Benifits
— Moderate degree of PvP ‘balance’ added for non-zerg encounters
— Easier development balance of PvPvE content in WvW

Bonus Suggestion
— Farm BitCoin using Clients GPU in exchange for Gems while logged into GW2. An optional 10% GPU allocation app for farming

Xillllix.3485:

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned:

How about having capture points where the npcs can provide you with special traps?
There is certainly potential in the trap idea, as some new traps could play a major role in the defence of keeps, towers and SM.

Yes please. Traps can already play a major role and I would love to see a greater variety. Case in point:

Last night we were being karma trained on EB.; our 10 versus their 30. We managed to take SM. When the inevitable zerg cama a knockin’ at the outer gate, we placed a supply trap just inside as they broke through. Ate up the supply they were going to use to break through the inner gate.

Half their number runs off to resupply at Rogues. We engage the remaining half at the gate. As the zerglings mindlessly stood facing the outer gate spamming auto-attack at us through the breach, some of us went up the stairs, jumped in behind them, dropped another supply trap in their midst, eating up even more supply.

As we decimate their numbers, the half that went to resupply return only to…run right into supply trap #3! We begin to push them back from the gate while a handful of us repair the SM gate behind us. A desperate dash into their midst to lay trap #4 and it’s bye-bye supply. They, with no supply left to maintain their push, run back to their keep and don’t bother coming back to SM for some time after.

This against a karma train that had been flipping SM all night long before we started using the supply traps against them. So, yes, traps most definitely add depth to the game and allow for these kind of tide-turning battles. Those are the kinds of fights I want to see more of in WvWvW rather than karma trains having the overwhelming advantage due to game mechanics which support and reward numbers over strategy.

Heezdedjim.8902:

And because of the more strategic planning involved to move the map, lattices tend to discourage random training and just flipping stuff all day for teh lulz. Given that EOTM now lets folks who like that game mode go hog wild with it, anything that dials back the tendency for aimless karma training in WvW would be appropriate and I think welcomed by many.

Yes, a thousand times yes! The karma train zerg locusts now have their playground; EotM. Can we finally have some real strategic depth added to WvWvW, please?

DevonCarver.5370:

I think there has been good discussion around the concepts of world pride and how the changes in EotM affect that. Let’s pivot to a different concept from EotM and how it could apply to WvW.

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

I do like a good choke point, but I wouldn’t want it to be the only way to get somewhere. Ideally there would be a variety of options.

I’ve made a quick drawing to give an example of what I would like to see:

• The red castle is for a large part surrounded by mountains.

• The tower at the upper right corner of the image is a choke point tower. It guards the shortest way to the castle.

• The smallest red structures are merely watchposts. They can only be reached from either the tower or the castle and they offer strategic places to place siege.

• The blue lines are routes to the castle. The red lines describe routes that can only be reached from within the red structures.

• The paths through the mountains are very narrow and full of choke points. They are dangerous because falling off a cliff is deadly, and a siege engine from the watchposts can easily knock enemies off. The paths are too small to place siege though. So the options are limited. (Making this kind of chokepoint differ from the one guarded by the tower)

• The longest path goes around the mountain. It has no chokepoints, but it it is very long. Which might prove problematic if you suffer many losses and you need reinforcements. Or if you need to run for supply.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

WvW/EoTM has no strategic game play because the ultimate solution, and the one rewarded the most by ANET is to just get a bigger blob. There is countless valid and detailed ideas of how to make it better, yet you insist on making it Casual Carebear land and then talk as if a pinch point is going to make for more strategy? Most of the commanders that use strategy left the game months ago and the rest will leave in a month.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

If the goal is to make a zerg-friendly game, then the architecture and server resources have to support it. If that’s not going to happen, then methods for discouraging zerging will have to be implemented.

+1 for this little piece of text right here^^. Something like scaling the structural defense to the amount of people attacking/in vicinity.

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 think the worlds do have a lot of value, but I also think the low populated worlds do need a three color system to help them.

I think we can do the three color system if the worlds are grouped in two or three, having one world be a top tiered, the second world be a medium tiered, and the last world be one of the bottom tiers.

So Red would get a T1…T2… & T3 world, Blue would get a T1… T2… & T3 world, and Green would get a T1… T2… & T3 world.

Yes sure, the bottom tiered worlds will probably ride the coattails of their higher tiered brothers, but at least they will have an impact this way.

On server pride..

Lets not disregard the importance of server pride, but lets also not overstate it’s importance.

I’ve been in the same WvW orientated guild since the earliest days of Guild Wars 2. We’ve shifted homes from SoS to Blackgate, and spent considerable time on both servers.

There was a time when SoS was the dominate T1 server, winning nearly every week. It was our home since beta and was also the server most “oceanics” went to. We were strong, really strong… until a number of North American guilds decided to leave, leaving us with an incredibly weak North American guild presence. We tanked, SBI and JQ rose to power. We showed up week after week, trying our best and putting in stupid hours to try and compete… but we’d lose it all during our off hours. There was no server in T2 that could beat us, yet we were no competition for the new T1 champions. Guilds started to leave the server.

Our guild, an oceanic guild; we left. Yes, we left not only our home server, but the player designated “Oceanic” server. Why? Because we valued competitive gameplay over “server-pride”. Guess what? Within one day of being on Blackgate – we already had a new sense of server pride.

Yes, server pride is important – but having fun whilst playing the game, and being able to have a sense that you can actually achieve victory is too. This is the reason major WvW guilds are disappearing now.

We need to be careful that once again, that we aren’t hand holding community x whilst disregarding community y.

Assigning servers to a colour isn’t the answer
…nor is sticking random servers together in a sticky taped alliance. What would significantly boost competitive gameplay whilst allowing us to maintain ‘server pride’ would be but one thing: a re-vamp of the scoring mechanics.

Why change scoring?
Population. Dominance. Lag. Static Match-ups. Skewed Match-ups. These can all be alleviated in some sense, by an alternate scoring system.

But what is the answer?
Who knows? I’m sure as a community, we could come up with something. What isn’t the answer is to simply change the length of the match-ups. It goes deeper, to the core of the way points are awarded. Match-up length may alleviated some of the issues caused by skewed population, but at the end of the day, it’ll be the same.

Why so big?
Why do the match-up scores have to be so large? i.e. 180k vs 165k vs 150k. Why can’t the point system be reworked in a way where the winning server has a score of ~100, ~500 or even ~1000? The difference between winning and losing would be far less – and you’d always feel like you were in with a chance.

Rewarding points vs Denying points
What if holding objectives on your home borderland awarded your server no points, but was a measure of DENYING the enemy server points?

My point is, the current scoring system in World versus World is essentially the catalyst for a vast number of issues which constantly feature as complaints. It directly promotes population imbalance>increasing server lag on overly-populated servers>creating disinterest and frustration>etc.

JackDaniels.1697:

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 think the worlds do have a lot of value, but I also think the low populated worlds do need a three color system to help them.

I think we can do the three color system if the worlds are grouped in two or three, having one world be a top tiered, the second world be a medium tiered, and the last world be one of the bottom tiers.

So Red would get a kitten… & T3 world, Blue would get a kitten… & T3 world, and Green would get a kitten… & T3 world.

Yes sure, the bottom tiered worlds will probably ride the coattails of their higher tiered brothers, but at least they will have an impact this way.

Please no. I play on a low tier server and I hope I would never see this. The people that I play with are some of the proudest and most dedicated people that I’ve come across. If we wanted to get carried, we would have transferred up a long time ago. I don’t really mind being “trapped” in the lower tiers. It just makes everyone want to work that much harder so that we can someday pull ourselves out of where we are. The part that does suck, is that you still lose due to coverage, but that problem persists everywhere so you learn to deal with it. As I’m sure many of you can agree, I play for the fights, and I play for the people. There are plenty of times where things get frustrating, but we persist on. As mentioned previously, any kind of incentives to go to lower-ranked servers would be nice, but don’t just try to alleviate things by piggybacking us on a stacked server.

silvermember.8941:

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?

21 matches really? That is too much.
8 hours is too short because you the cost of upgrading forts and all that stuff takes a lot of gold. And holding stuff becomes less viable.

With that said, of course there is strong opposition. The servers that spent money stacking for easy victory don’t particularly like the idea that they waste their money and their easy win.

The point being, having the matches be too short undermines bothering to capture and upgrade forts.

Making it into a red and green and blue insures that coverage is NEVER EVER a major issues. There is always someone somewhere and it comes with the added bonus that the smaller servers at gets to enjoy WvW in its full glory.

Short of doing that, WvW will always be a coverage and smaller non WvW focused servers are always going to be screwed.

ADDED: there is no point system that will fix WvW and make it fair. The only way to is go extreme and make coverage less of an issue. Assuming 18 main NA servers, having 6 servers together issues that there is always coverage.

to fix WvW, you have to go Nuclear and you will have to kitten people off, but they will get over it. It is better to have a functional WvW and make a few people mad than to have the current terrible system. Just remember a lot of people were mad about the existence of EoTM. In an MMORPG they will always be mad and angry players, but you have to do what is best for the game even if it goes against some players interest.

Like this; agreed.
We need matches balanced or as balanced as possible.

. Server pride does not fix the issue of population disparity, bad match ups & server stacking.

DevonCarver.5370:

I think there has been good discussion around the concepts of world pride and how the changes in EotM affect that. Let’s pivot to a different concept from EotM and how it could apply to WvW.

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

Just nerf AOE skills —→ make game more about target\direct damage and WWW become beatiful also this fix condition damage weakness…

I would like to (indirectly) circle back to server pride, given more recent comments.

Devon, has ArenaNet considered adding Vivox voice chat to the client? Looking at their customer list, I see NCSoft (as TBA). So my curiosity is very piqued.

If you (or anyone else on the thread) has not looked at it yet, I’ve had very good experience with it – in two relatively large system environments (Second Life and Eve Online). Note SL is (technically) FTP. You also don’t have to go the full route – they have something called C3 that would probably satisfy everyone’s needs. Our guild played with that for awhile too, it wasn’t too bad.

The primary risk here is that you (or probably the Vivox cluster) will become a larger target for DDoS attacks. But since they already host a much larger target (Eve) it should not be too bad…

What is WvWvW really about?

Is it about using overwhelming numbers to capture objectives? Objectives which then sit empty and idle, all the while earning points for the victor once every 15 minutes. Points and objectives which many of those who were involved in the capture could care less about, wanting only the loot that lies inside. A system which rewards players the more they avoid their human opposition while maximizing the efficiency with which they farm non-human opponents.

Is WvWvW, instead, about the battles and interactions between players on opposing teams? Battles, interactions, and teams which – regardless of how they are designed or defined – represent a dynamic exchange between players thrown into conflict with one another.

Perhaps there are other answers to the question of “What is WvWvW really about?” However, I’d hazard a guess that the two scenarios presented above capture the majority of potential responses to that question.

That being the case, if WvWvW is about the former scenario, then there’s no need for change. The current system rewards those who bring overwhelming numbers to the field for the express purpose of farming in-game rewards. There is no strategy, the tactic used is one-dimensional (auto-attack the gate), and all the potential depth and complexity of the WvWvW game mode is rendered pointless. The incentive is not dynamic conflict with other real players, but rather how many pixelated digital rewards can be gathered in as short a time as possible. Real players become viewed as an unwanted obstacle to an otherwise efficient farming run.

So everything is working just fine. No need to change anything. Carry on.
…
except…
…
except…

Dark Clouds Ahead

I get the sneaky suspicion the WvWvW the developers had in mind when designing the game fell more in line with the latter scenario presented earlier. One in which players actively seek out opponents to engage in epic combat (sure, this happens currently to an extent; but in spite of the scoring and reward mechanic, not because of it).

Of course, that’s not how it played out. Numbers dipped, people panicked, and something had to be done. I get it. We’re all human; we make mistakes. There are bosses to answer to and shareholders to keep happy with the next quarterly earnings report and concurrent user statistics.

Unfortunately, the knee-jerk response has led to where we are today where the content locusts are being catered to at the expense of all else. Even that is understandable; in the short-term, anyway. However, when the next digital Skinner Box comes along, the zergers are going to drop GW2 like a hot potato.

Now, you can wait for it to happen and then go into panic mode, implementing more short-term, knee-jerk solutions in an effort at damage control. Or, you can realize it’s going to happen and prepare for it in advance. Because once the zergers are gone, you’re going to be left with the truly dedicated players who play WvWvW for the love of the game mode and not for virtual shinies; assuming, of course, you haven’t completely alienated them by that point. They are the ones who will keep your game alive over the long haul; it behooves you to start designing with them in mind.

A New Day (and Reward Paradigm) Dawns

Towards that end, you might as well start phasing in changes sooner rather than later. Here are some suggestions for bringing WvWvW more in alignment with the latter vision stated at the beginning of this post:

1) Absolutely nothing in WvWvW gives any in-game reward that can be directly or indirectly converted to gold other than scoring a kill on an opposing player. Not capturing camps, towers, keeps, or Stonemist nor killing NPCs or ambient creatures. Zero, zilch, nada, none.

The only rewards one can earn from such activites are World Experience and generic experience. Not karma, not coins, not badges, not laurels, not materials, not siege blueprints, nothing. The only possible loot-like reward would be account-bound items. Things like Ascended item chests (exceedingly rare; preferably not at all), Empyreal Fragments, or the like.

This doesn’t stop the karma trains; it just makes it a rather boring exercise in mindless repetition with no or little reward associated with it (which is how it should have been from day 1). Of course, we couldn’t call them karma trains any longer since there’d be no karma to earn. Futility trains? Zombie trains?

(continued)

(continued)

2) Keep the reward system as it currently exists in EotM exactly as it is. Reward the karma trains to their hearts’ content over there. Maybe this was the intent with the new map and signals the first ray of hope that this issue is being taken seriously.

3) Substantially increase the rewards earned from scoring kills on opposing players. Enough to compensate for the loss of loot from other activites as suggested in point #1.

4) Player skills can no longer damage gates of a tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle which have been upgraded to tier 3/fortified state.

5) Eliminate points-per-tick. Throw it, the baby, and the bath water out the window. Gone. Done. Never to return. Nothing in the game will earn a server points over time.

6) Points are now earned only from direct player confrontation. Keep the current system whereby players earn a World Score point from a kill, but untie it from the Borderlands Bloodlust buff. Borderlands Bloodlust is just another mechanic that favors overwhelming numbers and coverage, not skill. If anything, additional World Score points should be awarded to the outnumbered side when they make a kill. Keeping it at one-point-per-kill across the board would be an acceptable compromise, though.

World Score points are also awarded to a server which successfully captures a supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle ONLY if the objective was actively defended by real players at some point during the siege. Capturing an empty objective will never award any points under any circumstances.

Lastly, World Score points are the reward for a server which actively defends an objective under attack. The current “Defend the XYZ” events which trigger when an objective is sieged can be left in place. As each is successfully concluded by the defending server (i.e. you held the tower, keep, etc. for 3 minutes), World Score points are rewarded.

Defense events will reward fewer points per event than capture events; a 10-to1 ratio could serve as a starting point, tweaked over time as testing and balance dictate. However, if a siege is prolonged, it’s conceivable the defenders could actually earn more points from multiple defense events than the attackers earn through a single capture event.

Another balancer to throw into the mix is losing an objective results in a loss of a set amount of points for the defenders; half the capture reward, perhaps. Conversely, defenders may earn a bonus if they successfully defend the objective over multiple defense events and/or the objective does not come under attack again for X minutes after the conclusion of the most recent defense event.

With such a scoring system, the points reflect the actual conflicts between players rather than which one of them is the most effective at playing PvDoor. It’s a measure of the players’ skill in combating other players and effectively sieging or countering the sieging of one’s opponents.

A server which grossly outnumbers their opposition, zergs the map, and captures empty fortification after empty fortification will, at the end of the day, have earned almost nothing. Certainly no World Score points and only some marginal account-bound items that can’t be sold nor traded.

If, on the other hand, they attack a fortification in which there are real player opponents, they have the potential to earn some World Score points if they capture the objective as well as more lucrative personal rewards if they manage to kill any of the real players.

The outnumbered server which runs from the blob everytime they show up and/or turtles behind their walls as the zerg goes around them to PvDoor will also earn nothing; even less than the zerg, if they don’t bother capturing anything back.

If, on the other hand, they stand their ground – even in the face of overwhelming odds – and fight, they stand a chance of earning World Score points for their server and potentially some nice loot if they manage to score some kills in the process.

In Conclusion

By implementing something as simple as redefining which activites will be rewarded, you subtly but powerfully shift this game mode into alignment with what WvWvW was originally envisioned to be; epic combat between servers. Assuming, of course, this was indeed the vision.

On the other hand, I could be mistaken and WvWvW is intended as an experiment to test players’ tolerance for mindless repetition and shallow, non-strategic, single-tactic game play. In which case, I bought the wrong game.

DevonCarver.5370:

I think there has been good discussion around the concepts of world pride and how the changes in EotM affect that. Let’s pivot to a different concept from EotM and how it could apply to WvW.

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

I don’t see choke points ever really working out unless you make some major changes to how things work. Zergs already bottleneck themselves, the problem is that the only thing that can deal with the zergs are siege weapons or a similar sized force. Changes need to be made so that blob zerging has a downside, then chokepoints will actually be a negative thing for zergs.

My band-aid suggestion? Crowded debuff- it can reduce damage dealt, cause misses(blind), shorten buff durations, and/or slow you down.

The biggest problem IMO, there is no reason to be strategic in this game at all. There are no positives to holding a certain keep or territory and no reason to really defend it. The only positive to actually taking a keep for most players is the champion loot bag. You can’t just point to some number that’s ticking up and say you’re fighting for that because it’s meaningless. You need to give players a reason to fight, if you can give them a good enough reason then strategy will become a big factor.

Just to give some examples: RFOnline had chip wars(3 way faction battles) and the reward for winning was the ability to mine ore for gear upgrades. Even if you lost you had like 15 minutes to kill the winners mining protector(dropped awesome loot) that would then leave the mining area as contested and unsafe to miners. If the protector was left alive he would then defend the miners allow them to afk mine and get a lot more upgrades. Warhammer online was trying to get to the enemies capital city where the best loot resided. DAOC had darkness falls where holding the objectives in RvR unlocked the darkness falls dungeon where most of the best loot came from.

The only people bottlenecks really hurt right now are the roamers since they are forced into the same paths as the zergs. I don’t know if you’ve gone 1 vs 75, but suffice to say that it isn’t fun 99% of the time.

King Amadaeus.8619:

Choke point would be awesome if not for AC’s, AC’s ruin lots of strategic points in this game by dumbing everything down.

I agree with you.

Choke points are important for strategic gameplay, but arrowcarts are too much powerful.

Honestly, I think ac’s radius should be reduced.

DevonCarver.5370:

I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons.

I agree.

DevonCarver.5370:

Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

Definitively. I love the idea of a tower guarding the only passage leading to an important objective. BUT I also think that there should be another way to reach that objectve (a reaaally longer way).

Distaste.4801:

You need to give players a reason to fight, if you can give them a good enough reason then strategy will become a big factor.
Just to give some examples: DAOC had Darkness Falls where holding the objectives RvR unlocked the Darkness Falls dungeon where most of the best loot came from.

I approve!

On a side note: Canyons good. Bridges bad.

Again, if you like cheese tactics and playing bumper cars with zergs, EOTM offers plenty of that. Bridges (fixed and destructible) are features that should stay in EOTM where they belong.

simple solutions works better (…but maybe I have hit my head)

Proposal Overview
Open up the possibility of guesting in wv3, but only on related color matchups.

Goal of Proposal
Solve with one (easy?) blow both overflows queues on crowded world and underpopulated world, without loosing world identity (and maybe strengthen it).
One possible positivie side effect wuold be to give an option for GvG in a natural way: guild match on (almost) empty matchups.

Proposal Functionality
We got this paradox in wv3: crowded world got players out on queues, underpopulated world are ghosts towns.
Use people from queue (look at them as unused resource) and make them populate underpopulated matchups (look at them as resource starving).
Give players the chance to join, for example, their red comrades on the matchup that involve worldX (red) vs worldY (green) vs worldZ (blue). Red players from Overflow a Thon world will not be guesting directly on worldX, but they will be guesting on the red side of that matchup (i suppose there is a server dedicated for the matchup with 4 instances in which, atm, only players from world X Y and Z can access, the key should be here).

Now to make this function really well we need incentives that make appealing and meaningfull for people that end up in overflow to move on other matchup and for people in underdog side to stick there and try to save the day (ie: make movements from top to bottom more than the other way round).
Something on this trak about rewards:
your color win the matchup < your world win the matchup << color + world win the matchup <<< jackpot: your color win all the matchups (implies your server also won its one)
So 2 scores: the one we already have for the world matchup, a new one for global color matchups that will be simply the average of the matchups.

This setting will synergize well with 21 8h rounds matchup subdivision, in particular the perspective of GvG fights.
This will also open up more room for guild’s inter-world relations.
This will strengthen world identities… for good and for kitten

ociated Risks
As far as i can see none, but my head hurts

veo.9243:

Guesting in WvW

snip

Risks
As far as i can see none, but my head hurts

Well, I can imagine that if a server is performing really well, they at one point dominate their own WvW bracket. They can then decide to guest on an underpopulated server in their color, capture all there is to capture there, and move on, etc. etc.

The difference between a high tiered server and a low tiered server is big not only in numbers, but also in strength.

I’m afraid that it would just turn into an endless karma train. Where players avoid the fight, often not even on purpose.

Lol, yeah I can hear the commander in TS: “now lets get some karma at Vabbi’s WSR border”, resulting in a 50+ T1 zerg rushing fast over a T9 map.
10min later: “All red here, now to Underwords RoF border”
…
A few min later: “Oh sh**, T1 zerg ahead, lets go to …”

Not only by the winer, btw. the determined loser may have even more interest to “get some fun somewhere else”

Problem of course there is no incentive to win a match (neither the stats-bonus for score is noticed nor are the few bonus-chest taken serious by anyone (if noticed at all)

The Lost Witch.7601:

veo.9243:

Guesting in WvW

snip

Risks
As far as i can see none, but my head hurts

Well, I can imagine that if a server is performing really well, they at one point dominate their own WvW bracket. They can then decide to guest on an underpopulated server in their color, capture all there is to capture there, and move on, etc. etc.

The difference between a high tiered server and a low tiered server is big not only in numbers, but also in strength.

I’m afraid that it would just turn into an endless karma train. Where players avoid the fight, often not even on purpose.

But you’ll have opposing forces coming from other worlds.
High tired servers, as is atm, will be probably matched against each other. One server would try to stop his oppositor as much as they can, or can even use guesting to try to lure them out some other matchup, alliances can quickly rise to stop “the enemy”…
Dunno, sure the guesting mechanic have to be carefully thought to avoid an endless “catch that rabbit” situation…

How Not to Herd Cats

Why do cats not herd (zerg) well? Because they move faster in smaller groups. Survivability is wholly dependent on agile movement, on speed.

Agility Buff (never debuff)

Balance small group movement/speed/agility/endurance relative to large zerg force. Make solo and small team viable as incursion, infiltration, reconnaissance, boom-n-zoom… add dynamic speed buff (and speed debuff mitigation) to players that are further apart from allies. Give options: run to zerg for slow unyielding force, or run small/solo for speed and agility. Currently there is no option by design.

Choke-Point and Game Craft

How many of you played GW1 AB? or WoW’s very early Alterac Valley, DAoC? These venues had dramatic increase in difficulty and increased score reward the further into enemy territory, this difficulty was AI NPC managed, not player managed. If you leave a fort poorly guarded the AI reclaims it within the hour. All choke-points need to be dynamically manage by very aggressive NPC, particularly the further into enemy territory. Many of these choke-points are simply territory ‘footholds’ and not geographic funnels, thus guarded by npcs, when pcs are not available. Turnover by AI needs to be far more aggressive. No easy wins. Far more draws — inconclusive results.

Improve dynamic AI choke points to automatically bolster low performing servers.

Rewards Gone Wrong

How ‘casual’ has WvW ended up being? Seems to be the second biggest hardcore grind in-game currently. As mentioned in a large post above, you — ArenaNet, have designed the WvW venue for ‘content locust’ per stat grind. PvE grind has no place in PvP. Fix this and you repair many of the residual effects of ‘mechanic’ resource gathering, with actual ‘game-play venue’ competition. — defend value or achieve value. K.I.S.S.