Guild Wars 2

It’s too small to matter. If you kill a zerg right now, you have 1-3 minutes to do what you want before they’re back again. If you’re looking for a tactical effect from winning a battle, travel time would need to be a lot longer still – whether through larger maps or more obstructions.

But the problem with longer travel times is that people work around it by playing in ever-larger groups (or by using warriors that can run from anything) to minimise the risk of dying. If you die, you’re stuck running through friendly territory where there’s nothing to do because you already own it.

Realistically you’d need a combination of changes to make increased travel time (whether through less waypoints or otherwise) work without making the game worse.

• Disincentivizing zerging – there are a number of suggestions in this thread.
• Making playing close to spawn as useful as playing further away, so those who die have something to do without running all the way back. Participation in defense, reinforcement events etc. might qualify.
• Making attrition count. Respawning defeated players at the nearest uncontested waypoints would help. Reducing the speed of revive assistance on downed allies would too.

The main issue right now is that avoiding death means playing in huge groups. I suspect that if the easiest way not to die required playing WvW in other ways, it might go some way to rectifying the zerging issue.

What if small groups were more survivable and got better rewards?
What if there was more benefit to attacking several structures at once than sending everyone to the same one?
And how could you do that?

In some ways having No Waypoints is better than having forward waypoints that never work when you need them. I’d be perfectly happy to see the Hills and Bay Waypoints removed, especially if we could have the garrison waypoint not shut down every time 1 enemy knocks on a door…

I personally like the ability to resurrect in the field both for recovering after you’ve swept the enemy from the field, and as a mid-combat tactic that provides some value outside of the moar-DEEPS! mentality that rules 95% of this game. If anything, I’d like to see the bonus for res-speed that some classes and runes provide be increase beyond the 10% added now so that specialist combat-rezzers had more impact.

Stand The Wall.6987:

DevonCarver.5370:

Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

Waypoints make no difference when zergs hard res dead players. Fix that, and you practically fix the game mode.
If that was fixed, then the more waypoints the better. Most people dont like running for 5 minutes to find a fight.
The problem is when a zerg ports en masse to defend a structure, while flipping the rest of the map. The smaller force is punished while the larger and less organized force receives no penalty.
So instead of a timer, put a cap on how many players can port per minute or something like that. Something has to be done, because I guarantee that wvw loses more people to hard ressing and no zerg penalties then anything else.

There was datamined evidence that new wvw rank poitns could be spent on a new tier of skill that when you kill enemies it forces them to respawn. That would easily counter this. It would change battles immensely. As someone who runs in a wvw skill group. One problem I find when fighting 3 times our number is once we wipe 1/4 of the group, a group of 5 or 6 will start to rez the rest of them so by the time we wipe another 10, a certain group of 10 will have already been rezzed.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

I’m not sure how to interpret this post because it is wrong and/or grammatically flawed.

In EoTM, you can capture enemy keeps and use their waypoint unless you were referring to WvW (not the last subject before the sentence though…).

EoTM I also feel like has reduced run time compared to the borderlands. When I command, I take optimized routes to maximize captures and it doesn’t feel like there’s much running. I personally don’t like running to stuff because it’s boring. After a certain amount of time, there’s no more just admiring the scenery. I want as much action as possible and to get in it as quick as possible which includes trying to take/defend stuff constantly rather than just running around.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

I start by saying that I am not a fan of EotM as it is too much PvE and too Zergy for my tastes. But I spose it better than sitting in a queue.

However the lack of waypoints IF there was a bit more running involved is a good thing. Currently in T3 waypointed keeps a defending zerg just suicides on seige until you run out of supply. Basically every 3 minutes is a free death for them. As long as they go with kitten on the timer, they know they can take out seige and get back in. Makes tactical play pointless.
Without waypoints, once you breached into a keep you will gain an great advantage because you could then take up blocking positions to prevent reinforcements. You could either cut them off on route or wait at the limited entrances.

If you could fix the waypoint opening timer then it wouldnt be so bad, but simply put I think it a technical issue you cant get around else I expect you would already done the simple thing of making the waypoint be closed a few seconds longer then the “defend event”, if the event wasnt refreshed the waypoint opens… if the keep remains under attack it wouldnt open at any time.

Of course this would work better if you also increased the map size by 50% which would have other benefits beyond slowing down the speed to get back to keeps (increased open areas for fights for instance), but even then, removal of waypoints should help a bit on the zerg mentality as if people know they out the battle for some amount of time then they less likely to do suicidal rushes etc.

My proposal: buff loot
goal: by improving rewards, you can get more people to play WvW

Reason: the loot that you can get from players is horrible. Given how much effort to kill a player, it is downright criminal to be rewarded with junk (especially gray items. Eww)
Why: anyone who starts eotm would want to be rewarded well for a kill. Junk items turn them off instantly
risks: arena net doesn’t have the I.Q. to execute a loot buff. Only loot nerds.

I meant loot nerfs. Not loot nerds.

SkylightMoon.1980:

There was datamined evidence that new wvw rank poitns could be spent on a new tier of skill that when you kill enemies it forces them to respawn. That would easily counter this. It would change battles immensely. As someone who runs in a wvw skill group. One problem I find when fighting 3 times our number is once we wipe 1/4 of the group, a group of 5 or 6 will start to rez the rest of them so by the time we wipe another 10, a certain group of 10 will have already been rezzed.

I heard about it too but I’m not going to celebrate until the beer has been served.

About Waypoint distance and running…
To be honest i realy dislike running.. most of WvW and EotM is running. (but i believe the next wxp update will resolve the running from spawn bit)

I would rather have small group content supporting the bigger groups by creating more waypoints trough small instances that rewards an open waypoint for the duration of the instance, when one side wins…. (small instances for 15 players/duration 20 minutes)

Imagine people on a map being able to enter the waypoint instance and then have to battle it out on a Fort Aspenwood/Jade Quarry map to give their server access to a certain waypoint.

Hall of heroes had a simple 3 factions battle maps.. why not put something like that in the main wvw map.. where people can queue for it while fighting the normal battles.
Stuff like this would make small groups interesting and of some significance..

It’s what i am really missing in WvW, and may be a solution for people who simply can’t run in a zerg or wish not too, but still support trough taking points of real importance.

You would probably need a Queue instance for borderlands , for Eotm it would make no difference.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

Having less waypoints basically is a good idea because it forces more strategical decisions. Unfortunatly in zergs that doesn’t matter. Zergs are one of the worst points generally in WvW and PvE.
Yet it makes the game harder for roamers or smaller groups, as they already have enough problems to stay out of zerg situations and still have a possibility to do little (for example capturing reactors). I’d wish for more “little group” content. A possibility to encourage smaller groups without just placing waypoints everywhere are fraction-bound portals and teleporting events, that allow small groups to travel long distances – for example infiltrating an enemy castle to steal supplies, wurm tunnel, undermining enemy defenses etc. This way smaller groups would have the possibility to avoid zergs and still being able to do something.

DevonCarver.5370:

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

It would definitely make things worse for roamers. Currently if you don’t play a stealth profession EotM is a really nightmare map for solo roamers or those who like to roam with a very small group (1-3 players). They will sooner or later meet with the 70+ man enemy zerg and there is no way to go around. On the other hand a huge zerg can revive their dead members easily. Why to make zerging even more feasible?!

That is one main reasons why I am promoting more open maps with less choke points and hindering terrain for movement, better visibility and some water instead of infinite void where you can drop (or be knocked off). These type of maps would also be much better for open-scale battles. Here in EU a lot of servers and big guilds really want more open-field battles, not to fight against NPCs/doors or spend a lot of time just moving around.

Currently the TOP3 roaming professions are (in order of appearance):
1. Thief (lots of popular builds e.g. D/P, P/D, S/P and S/D)
2. Warrior (using some mobility build, usually equipped with greatsword)
3. Mesmer (usually Prismatic understanding)

On some servers warrior has probably already surpassed thief as most popular profession in roaming (and in everything else).

To increase variety the new map designs should not heavily favor these already popular choices.

I’d sum this up
problem: running for a long time is boring, but eventually necessary to make siege tactics possible (arguable though)

solution: make running more interesting by having something to do on the way
possible methods:

• caravans could randomly be attacked by npcs.
• severe reduction of zerging and increased amount of small team roaming so that randoms can quickly find a new Group after dying.
• Make waypoints be contested only when siege is attacking

Personal opinion is that waypoints do offer a good amount of tactical gameplay by being able to quicken the response to an attack. Otherwise wvw would turn into mindless zerging with 20 golems. Also, the ability to respawn in a keep makes attacks on intruders less risky and increases the action and awards during a siege or an attack. Also its more forgiving if a siegebreak attack goes wrong. More than everything else it’s a motivation for every player to contribute actively (by scouting for attacks on own wp or helping an attack against a waypoint-keep), to the effords of a server.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

The lack of waypoints is pro-zerg currently. Since zergs can just spam swiftness and move faster than any solo player or even a small group they can get a crossed the map swiftly where it’s a long run for others. A large army should not be able to travel faster than a small group. Two fixes I can think of are a crowded debuff that reduces move speed and can also reduce damage output. This would help slow down zergs, spread them out, and make choke points a bad thing. Or you could just make buffs have an unlimited number of targets, but have the duration divided by the number of people hit. So if you hit 20 people with a 20s buff it’s only a 1s buff.

I don’t see taking away the waypoints making a huge difference in EB or Borderlands. When you need them they are usually contested and when you don’t it’s just a time saver. The maps are just too small and the zergs too fast to make a huge difference there. If the maps were twice as big, zergs half as fast, no downed state and no rez while in combat then it might allow for attrition battles. Otherwise it’s always going to be a complete wipe scenario, either you kill all of them or they kill all of you.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

Merge all 3 Borderland Maps into 1 huge new map, that allows you to make the maps new from a scratch and allows you to implement alot of the new EotM features also with it and then..

Add NOT more Waypoints, but instead, the new Map is then large enough for MOUNTS

Make Mounts like Traps something, that you can buy for exampel for Badges of Honor.
Temporary rented Mounts, that you can use so long, until the Rent Time runs either out, or your Mount gets killed or you run with it into a Trap, that will dismount you and scare off your Mount to run away.

Mounts would make up for a much much more interesting WvW Feature, where traveling on the huge maps would feel also alot more naturally and relaxing, than to use always these silly waypoints.

Plus it gives you a perfect new feature for the Gemstore, to sell special looking Mounts and for players a new awesome prestige item to work on, if you want to have someday your very own permanent mount, so that you don’t have to rent them anymore, what would be a large time consuming task like working on a legendary weapon.

Give yourself finally a start and see in, that Mounts as a feature would be really a great thing to improve WvW (and the game in general, if implemented well thought out)

Especially if they could be used also for Mounted Combat, that if you use them in WvW, they will exchange your Skill War, just like if you use a Siege Golem, which you can basically already see as a kind of Mount, just a real SLOOOOOOOOW one …. but therefore really powerful one, that is very good against gates and unlike rams transportable.

Stand The Wall.6987:

DevonCarver.5370:

Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

Waypoints make no difference when zergs hard res dead players. Fix that, and you practically fix the game mode.
If that was fixed, then the more waypoints the better. Most people dont like running for 5 minutes to find a fight.
The problem is when a zerg ports en masse to defend a structure, while flipping the rest of the map. The smaller force is punished while the larger and less organized force receives no penalty.
So instead of a timer, put a cap on how many players can port per minute or something like that. Something has to be done, because I guarantee that wvw loses more people to hard ressing and no zerg penalties then anything else.

i agree and i add that rally needs recheck in www because it hurts a lot random players and www guilds as i described in my post : https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Hard-Rezzing-in-WvW/page/2#post3739634

EOTM is not good for fights. It is mostly there for karma trains and for troll specs. The lack of WP makes it even more boring. Way too much running.

Killing enemies should give much much much better loot that taking empty objectives. Kitten these PvE commanders don’t go and wipe enemy blob because they wanna take keep back so they get dragonite and more wexp. It’s kind of entertaining when guild blob come EotM and PvE heros start to rage because they won’t get free loot.

Waypoints destroy a lot of tactical gameplay. With a working open field intelligence you can counter attacks even before they start by using waypoints. They also inhibit the introduction of element like destroyable objects, objects that can close bottlenecks forcing the enemy to use a longer way to its target or something like anti-swiftness traps. Waypoints would make such things obsolete and encourage zergy brawlfests. I would prefer wurm tunnels as a fast method to travel over the map if we really need this.

Belenwyn.8674:

Waypoints destroy a lot of tactical gameplay. With a working open field intelligence you can counter attacks even before they start by using waypoints. They also inhibit the introduction of element like destroyable objects, objects that can close bottlenecks forcing the enemy to use a longer way to its target or something like anti-swiftness traps. Waypoints would make such things obsolete and encourage zergy brawlfests. I would prefer wurm tunnels as a fast method to travel over the map if we really need this.

what?
1) why do waypoints destroy tactical gameplay?
2) whats the problem of open field intelligence and precaution attacks? isn’t this the summit of tactical gameplay?
3)why do waypoints INHIBIT the introduction of destroyable objects? Do you realize WP’s in WvW need to be build first? Wouldn’t WP’s be be just an expensive counter to those destroyable objects, like say, stability is for CC? Isn’t this allowed or even desired?
4) Are supply traps really that obsolete in WvW, although there are plenty of possible waypoints on borderlands?
5) Why exactly do waypoints help zergs more than it does smaller groups, and therefore encourage zerging?

I might believe this waypoint topic requires much more thinking than it looks like.

pza.8024:

I’d sum this up
problem: running for a long time is boring, but eventually necessary to make siege tactics possible (arguable though)

solution: make running more interesting by having something to do on the way
possible methods:

• caravans could randomly be attacked by npcs.
• severe reduction of zerging and increased amount of small team roaming so that randoms can quickly find a new Group after dying.
• Make waypoints be contested only when siege is attacking

Personal opinion is that waypoints do offer a good amount of tactical gameplay by being able to quicken the response to an attack. Otherwise wvw would turn into mindless zerging with 20 golems. Also, the ability to respawn in a keep makes attacks on intruders less risky and increases the action and awards during a siege or an attack. Also its more forgiving if a siegebreak attack goes wrong. More than everything else it’s a motivation for every player to contribute actively (by scouting for attacks on own wp or helping an attack against a waypoint-keep), to the effords of a server.

Lack of WPs is one of the reasons I don’t like EOTM.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

Worse. In the same way it makes it worse in EotM.

My bias is towards smaller groups battling it out with one another. To the haters, no, I’m not talking about “small” in the 8-player limit sPvP way; I’m talking “small” in the 10 to 20 player WvW range. So don’t bother with the, “Why don’t you just go play sPvP” comments and save us all the bandwidth.

With fewer or only one waypoint, what happens? Players come to realize, consciously or unconsciously, that dying results in separation from your group and a long walk back to rejoin them. Path-of-least-resistance solution? Roll up into the biggest blob you can to find safety in numbers, reducing the risk of dying and that long walk of shame.

Fewer waypoints promotes blobbing/zerging. The very thing, IMHO, we need to move away from in WvW.

It could be argued more waypoints give blobs the advantage, too; thus promoting them. It allows map-hopping locust swarms of zerg zombies to quickly move around WvW. Fair enough. So the challenge becomes how to allow players the freedom to move around the map to rejoin friends without promoting blobs/zergs at the same time.

No easy answer without some very contrived mechanics. Things such as limiting the number of players who can use a waypoint within a certain time limit (e.g. only 10 players every 30 seconds), limiting the number that can portal based on the number of players within proximity of the waypoint, or giving the waypoints some kind of currency cost (e.g. each enemy player kill allows one jump through a portal) come to mind.

Regardless, I don’t think fewer waypoints are the answer. It appears to be a solution in the short-term. Long-term, however, it will simply lead to more/larger zergs, not fewer/smaller ones.

I don’t see how waypoint availability affects zerg mentality at all… If you prefer to move with a pack (and accrue all the advantages for doing so…) you’re going to do so regardless of outside considerations.

I really don’t see any way of breaking zergs beyond making it highly advantageous to strike multiple targets simultaneously, and right now ALL the objective are independent. If we had the equivalent of the Temple/Statues technology in WvW (with much shorter windows after ‘flipping) then we might see splitting up to disable a distant ’temple’ to deactivate a statue for the team that’s poised to strike the moment it goes down. Something that reward timing and cross-map communication.

ManaCraft.5630:

@Kraag: I think the case here is that the solution appears simple, but the devil is in the details. To begin with, how exactly do we tell the two scenarios apart? Do you still get credit if opposition is in fact present on the map but preoccupied elsewhere? How many defending players does it take, exactly, for a captured structure to no longer count as a case of “PvDoor”? Can defenders simply port out to deny the attackers credit? Or speculate in not defending at all if they suspect they will not succeed to begin with? Speaking more generally, what precisely are the criteria that must be met to receive credit for capturing a structure, and how do we track if player behavior conforms to those criteria? I definitely agree that there’s room for improving incentive structures, if for no other reason than that they currently aren’t very good, but I’d love for you to flesh out some of the details for me (or direct me to an earlier post of yours if I missed it, in which case I apologize).

Q: Do you still get credit if opposition is in fact present on the map but preoccupied elsewhere?

A: No. The spirit of the original suggestion is that points are awarded for fighting other players. Either through direct combat or as a result of a siege which is actively opposed at the objective under contention. A group attacking an objective in which there are no players present scores no points; even if there are enemy on the map elsewhere.

Q: How many defending players does it take, exactly, for a captured structure to no longer count as a case of “PvDoor”?

A: One. If there’s so much as a single player at an objective that comes under attack, then under my proposed system that counts as “defended”. Yes, it sucks if there’s only one player trying to defend an objective against a zerg; said zerg likely getting credit for any easy cap due to the presence of only one defender. However, we have to draw a line somewhere; defended is defended.

It’s not exactly all that one-sided either. A couple matches ago, I literally single-handedly sieged up and defended briar tower on an enemy border, holding it against a group of ~10 for about 2 hours. Enemy lost four trebs, a catapult, and a couple rams in their attempts to capture the tower (yes, I know where to place defensive siege, supply traps, and use golems in creative ways); so such lone stands are doable.

I put up a hell of a defense and that siege in no way counted as PvDoor for the attackers. If my system were implemented, they would have most certainly deserved to have been awarded points for the cap; a single defender notwithstanding. Likewise, I would have deserved to have earned points for the defense.

Q: Can defenders simply port out to deny the attackers credit?

A: No. If players are present within the perimeter of a “Defend the XYZ” event when it starts, the objective counts as having been defended by real players and the attackers will earn their just reward should they cap it; even if the defenders turn tail and port out.

(continued)

(continued)

Q: Or speculate in not defending at all if they suspect they will not succeed to begin with?

A: They would have the freedom to do so, but ultimately it would be counter-productive. Choosing not to defend an objective could certainly become a tactic employed to deny an enemy server points. However, there’s two dynamics at work here.

On the one hand, this may be an appropriate response on the part of the outnumbered server to essentially punish the larger server for blobbing/zerging. The spirit of my original suggestion is to break up the zergs and reward skill rather than numbers. If an outnumbered server uses the tactic of point denial, that should send a clear message to the zergers that they’re not going to be rewarded while they continue to rely on overwhelming odds.

On the other hand, the outnumbered defender who constantly runs from a fight – any fight – will in essence be punishing themselves, as well. Yes, the zerg won’t be earning any World Score; but neither will the defenders since World Score is no longer rewarded for simply holding an objective over time in my proposed system.

What’s more is, if the addendum of actually subtracting points from the World Score for each objective lost to the enemy is implemented, then defenders who choose not to defend will lose points rather than maintain their current score. It will actually be in their best interest to defend every objective they can; doing so carries the potential of earning points for each successfully completed defense event.

We can amend this suggestion even further to bring it more in line with the vision of tying the score to conflicts between players. Abandon an objective, and, yes, you deny the enemy World Score point. However, your server loses points for having lost the objective. Actively defend an objective and, not only do you earn potential World Score for each successfully completed defense event, but your server won’t be penalized by the point loss even if the enemy captures the objective. This makes actively defending objectives – win or lose – more lucrative from a World Score perspective versus abandoning them to deny the enemy some points.

Q: Speaking more generally, what precisely are the criteria that must be met to receive credit for capturing a structure, and how do we track if player behavior conforms to those criteria?

We’d use the same criteria as currently exists; the defeat of a supervisor or lord, holding the objective’s ring, and flipping it to your server’s color. The World Score points awarded aren’t based on the number of players participating in the capture (at least, not in the initial proposal; see below); it’s based simply on whether or not an objective has changed hands. If it does and it was actively defended by the owning server, then the server that captures it is awarded a set amount of World Score points.

Alternately, we could try a system where each objective awards a set amount of points by default. The points then scale up or down based on difference in numbers between attackers and defenders. For example, let’s say capturing an actively defended keep awards 30 World Score points when the number of attackers and defenders are equal. As the number of attackers begins to exceed the number of defenders, the potential World Score reward is reduced on a one-for-one basis.

Thirty attackers sieging a keep inhabited by thirty defenders will reward 30 World Score on successful capture. Those same thirty attackers sieging a keep in which there are ten defenders will only be rewarded 20 World Score points for the capture. Thirty attackers sieging a keep held by fourty defenders will earn 40 World Score points on capture. These numbers are for illustration purposes only; I fully understand that defenders have an advantage and the scaling would have to take that into account.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

*Snip*

Well, I’m actually feeling rather guilty now, since a lot of my questions were intended merely as rhetorical devices. Really what I was hoping to demonstrate is that you’re eventually going to end up with problems that simply have no sufficiently satisfactory answers – and I think this will become apparent as the discussion moves forward – but for now let’s try and refine your ideas and let the rest follow naturally from the process. Since you adopted the format of a Q&A session (and to your credit you were very thorough), I’ll follow in your footsteps. We’ll begin with a few easy ones about the basic mechanics.

Q1: Presumably, the act of keeping track of which players count as attackers and defenders will have to be an ongoing process, as opposed to simply relying on two moments in time (i.e. when the “defend objective X” event begins and when it ends)?

Q2: If yes to Q1, how does this work? If no, how does the system account for players who arrive at or leave the contested objective while the defend event is ongoing?

Q3: Does the system inform the player that (s)he has been flagged as an attacker/defender of objective X? Does it inform players who aren’t present whether a target under attack counts as being defended or not?

Q4: When and/or under what circumstances (if any) does the status as attacker/defender of objective X expire?

Q5: What is the default duration of a “defend objective X” event? If the event doesn’t end until the attacker leaves or has been defeated, how long after the last attack upon objective X does it end?

Q6: How many attackers have to attack objective X in order to trigger the “defend objective X” event?

Q7: Does the system distinguish between an actual attack on objective X (i.e. dealing damage to some part of the structure or a defending NPC) and players fighting only other players within the area of objective X? That is, does keeping the “defend objective X” event from ending depend on regularly remembering to attack some part of the objective itself?

Q8: Do the rewards offered by the system scale to account for the number of attackers in relation to the number of defenders (yes, I’m asking you to commit)? If it uses both methods to some extent, when does it use one and when the other?

That should be enough for now. I promise I’ll make the next round more interesting, but I have to get the basic stuff out of the way in order to understand what you have in mind.

DevonCarver.5370:

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

In all honesty, this would be good and bad. With the way zerging works in this game, the players who have the most “hard rezzers” would just whittle down any defending forces. However, if something were done to control zerging, then less waypoints = more caution and tactics.

These are just my opinions.

I know I’m late to this party but wanted to drop a couple of ideas which are not completely thought through; especially since the thread seems to be winding down.

First, and probably the most controversial, is the scoring system. EOTM scoring actually rewards teams for holding objectives by having the PPT “tick” every 5 minutes instead of every 15. This is HUGE and means people who scout, build siege, and defend actually have a major impact on the score. Not sure how this could or should be implemented in WVW but it would definitely have a major effect on strategies.

Towers in EOTM are much better placed than WVW, period. They actually provide some control over the chokepoints in their areas and represent the concept of towers much better than those in WVW. It’s also much tougher for a small team to ninja an EOTM tower and even larger groups can be held off by a well-sieged and manned tower…at least long enough for a relief force to arrive. It’s absolutely insane that a tower in WVW, sieged and manned by 5-10 people, will just melt within a minute or two to a larger force of 30-40. Scouting becomes useless if you can’t respond fast enough no matter what, thus encouraging zerging. Multiple entrances to towers also encourage defenders to help, again making it fun to participate and at least have a chance to defend something, rather than being forced to run through a 40-man zerg to get to a door.

EOTM line-of-sight constraints work better. You can’t just slap down arrow carts and rake an entire area. Platforms (weirdly placed), columns, etc all get in the way. So, it’s not just a case of throwing down siege…defenders have to put some thought into things as well.

NPC’s controlling some siege in EOTM was a great idea. When you’re the only one in a tower and suddenly hear a “boom” from the other side, you at least know something’s going on. Now, if we could just get them to avoid repairing walls that are being trebbed, heh.

Some folks have suggested the supply node change and no yaks was a good idea. I tend to disagree in that if getting a yak into a tower or keep actually counted for points, we’d be encouraging commanders to assign yak escorts, thus reducing the zergs a touch.

I realize most of my comments have focused on defensive aspects while most commanders and zergs seem to want to roam through maps unimpeded. I could write more about EOTM open field combat, using open spaces and chokepoints and open-field siege, but I need to leave for now and hope this gets the conversation going on some other aspects.

DevonCarver.5370:

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

ok here goes. waypoints in the current system don’t really matter because the zones are just way too small. the difference between waypointing to a keep and just running there is usually < 1 minute. A zerg with swiftness can do laps around EB in minutes.

In EotM, it only feels like a lot more running because the paths are so convoluted. I’m guessing they did this to make the zone feel bigger without actually making it bigger, maybe because of some tech limitation.

so my proposal is this: merge the 3 borderlands and EB into one huge zone, where the 3 borderlands are connected to EB at each spawn area (still not big enough imo but w/e). In order to get to an opposing servers BL, you’d have to run through your BL, through EB, and into their borderland. With this system, waypoints would really matter, and getting a waypoint in an enemy borderland would be a huge tactical advantage, not just a minor convenience saving 30s of running. By the same token, breaking an invading forces waypoint and sending them back their own borderland would be a decisive win for the defenders.

Obviously their server tech would need a massive overhaul to allow 4 maps worth of players into one zone, so i don’t really expect this to ever happen, but hey, it’s a thought.

Devon,

I’d be really interested to get your feedback on the following:
1) any proposals that stick out to you, and what you do or do not like about them
2) our answers to your questions

I realize that you are getting useful feedback from us, but it would be nice for us to get some more feedback from you also.

DevonCarver.5370

Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?.

TL;DR: No. It just makes the map feel more annoying. No. The winning force faces zero consequences and the losing force goes back to spawn. There is no such thing as “whittling down” when the winners just rez everyone and keep going. You win the fight right here or you go back to start, that is all.

It’s been said before in other places, but, honestly, if you want to know what people really want and would respond to in terms of “feel” for WvW . . . just get yourselves a couple beta keys and try out AvA in TESO. That is what WvW could and should have been. That is what people want from it today. They want a fight that looks and feels and scales like an actual medieval WAR, only embedded in a larger game that doesn’t suck kitten in every possible way (i.e., this one).

The weird thing about the EOTM and WvW modes is that you now have: (1) one game mode that is a huge single map with no waypoints, that is actually confusing as hell to run around on foot (not to mention has pathways that could be destroyed when you get to them); and (2) another game mode with three tiny maps where every structure is a stone’s throw from every other . . . that also has waypoints everywhere and in every corner that everyone can use all the time.

It’s a bizzare mash up of design choices in both cases, and both sides come off like a ketchup popsicle.

We know that EOTM is the goof off karma training playground; so really it’s just annoying that you make people foot zerg for ten minutes to get into the action every time they enter or die. If you were doing these two game modes today, from zero, the obvious choice would be to put EOTM on the “old” maps and WvW on the “new” one (minus the rope bridges and other gimmicks).

The first thing you need to decide is what fighting in WvW is “supposed” to feel like. It probably shouldn’t feel like either EOTM or what WvW is now, for a start.

If you want it to feel epic and like a “war” and where there is a “front line” and “supply lines” and all that, then you need to think about a re-work and merge of the three maps (filling in the spaces between them to make one huge landmass), with a real lattice structure, redistributed and spaced out objectives, some real sub-objectives, more variation in terrain, and a whole re-think of the scale of the structures themselves, and the way siege works with and against them.

And if you want stuff like travel times and supply lines to matter, then you’re going to have to, at some point, just bite the bullet and take rezzing out, full stop. If nobody has it then everyone gets “whittled down” as they take losses, and how far you are from resupply and reinforcements means something for everyone.

In place of rezzing, put in mobile, tactically deployed spawn points (“hospital tents” “regimental depots” “forward bases” . . . whatever) that you have to bring with you, put down in a covert but strategically close spot, then defend throughout the battle to keep up your ability to resupply and reinforce.

Conversely, because the hospital tent becomes the number one high priority target in a battle between even numbers, coming OUT of the walls to hunt down and destroy them forces the enemy to meet you in the field rather than just standing on the walls and lobbing rotting cows at you all day.

I could go on, but really the ultimate TL;DR here is that if you keep asking the wrong questions when seeking direction, you’re going to keep winding up in the wrong place.

I know that “big changes” are a hard sell and would take time. But people don’t want timid, pointless gimmicks. They want you to see and admit that WvW is a really great game mode, with a lot of potential, that in its current form just falls quite short of what it could and should be. They want to see you articulate a compelling vision of what it could and should be, that is interesting on an epic scale. And they want to know that you are moving down the road toward that vision, however long that may take (even if it’s going to be a while, they want to still see that the light is there at the end of the tunnel and it’s not just more tunnel).

Well, I was thinking about weighing in on this, but I couldn’t possibly add anything of value to the above post by Heezdedjim. Just count me down for a +1 of everything it says.

Do not be afraid of (resistance to) change. Formulate a vision for WvW and embrace it!

I would like to see more destructible terrain but i have to say, the bridges came off as a gimmick. Maybe change the way it gets destroyed and don’t make it highlight as it does right now. I’d rather have destructible rope bridges, where you’d have to ‘cut the rope’ at either side for the bridge to fall.

In response to ManaCraft’s questions:

Q1: Presumably, the act of keeping track of which players count as attackers and defenders will have to be an ongoing process, as opposed to simply relying on two moments in time (i.e. when the “defend objective X” event begins and when it ends)?

A1: Yes, it would have to be ongoing to avoid a defender from trying to game the system. Otherwise defenders could start with equal numbers, then practically abandon the objective when nearly captured. They could leave only one defender behind to greatly decrease the enemy’s World Score points while avoiding the “No defenders present” point penalty against their own server for losing the objective.

The game already has a mechanism for tracking player numbers as evidenced by the scaling that occurs during boss fights. Somewhere in the code are counters which track how many players are in a given area. The game can also differentiate between attackers and defenders as evidenced by the ability of a defender to stop the capping ring meter from advancing while within its perimeter.

Repurposing these functions to keep count of the number of attackers and defenders present during an event shouldn’t be too difficult. Furthermore, I’d simplify it to keeping track of peak numbers present rather than a dynamic running count.

For example, lets say there’s 10 defenders at a keep. It comes under attack, triggering a defense event. This also starts the counter function tracking how many defenders are present. At this initial event kick off, the number of defenders is assigned to a variable (which will have a value of 10 at this point).

For each call of the function (every second or whatever amount of time is settled on), the function checks the number of defenders and compares it to the counter variable. If the number of defenders present is less than or equal to the variable’s current value, there’s no change; the counter remains at 10.

Mid-way through the fight, 5 more defenders join the battle. The function counts the number of defenders, finds it equals 15, compares this to the counter variable, 15 is greater than 10, so the counter now has its value set to 15.

Near the end of the fight, 3 defenders are killed; their total number present is now 12. The function makes its comparison, finds that 12 is less than the variable’s current value of 15, and makes no change to the counter.

As the attackers swarm into the lord’s room, the defenders run away, leaving only 1 of their number behind in the hope this will deny the attackers their World Score points. The function continues to be called every second all throughout the fight; it finds only 1 defender present before the objective flips ownership. However, the peak number of defenders present during the siege was 15. Therefore, the counter variable retains a value of 15 and does not get set to 1 at the end. It is this value of 15 that is used when making any comparisons for the sake of scaling World Score point rewards.

This system measures the peak number of players attackers or defenders commit to a fight over the course of a defense event. They won’t be able to exploit the system by pulling players out of the event’s zone (defenders) or throw more players into the fray (attackers) at the last second in an effort to manipulate the score.

That said, I could see a slight modification made to the above. Rather than an absolute peak number tracked from when a defense event begins to the final capture of the objective, the counter variables for attackers and defenders are reset with each defense event triggered at an objective. This treats each defense event as its own fight; in the case of very protracted battles where player numbers can wax and wain considerably, this may make more sense.

All of the preceding applies only to defense events at contested objectives. Open field fights would not require such tracking unless we want to discuss adding scaling to World Score points which come from player kills.

Q2:If yes to Q1, how does this work? If no, how does the system account for players who arrive at or leave the contested objective while the defend event is ongoing?

A2: See A1.

(continued)

(continued)

Q3: Does the system inform the player that (s)he has been flagged as an attacker/defender of objective X? Does it inform players who aren’t present whether a target under attack counts as being defended or not?

A3 – 1: No; I believe it should be self-evident to the attackers or defenders based on their presence at an objective under siege. If it’s felt there’s value in informing them, then an icon could be added above the utility skill bar showing their status as either an attacker or defender. Said icon disappears when the objective is capped or the attackers/defenders leave the active zone of the defense event (though their contribution to the peak counter value would remain).

Where I could see this having value is the case of someone trebbing an objective from afar. They aren’t within the immediate area of the objective, but are most certainly considered an antagonist. Displaying an icon informing them of this fact would be appropriate. So perhaps there is value in a visual cue, after all.

The issue becomes of what to do if an attacker is involved in attacking more than one objective within the same time frame (e.g. kills an NPC guard at Briar tower gate, then runs to Vale camp to help cap it in an effort to grab more supply to build rams at Briar). There’s the potential to be involved in multiple attack (and defense) events at once. Do we then display multiple icons above the bar, each one having a roll-over tooltip stating which objective the player is attacking/defending?

A3 – 2: No. This should come from good communication and scouting on the part of the defending server. It will be evident which objectives are under attack using the current contested sword symbol criss-crossing the objective’s icon.

It’s up to the defenders, though, to settle on how they want to approach defense. Post sentries at every objective and wait for the attackers to show up; have scouts tail the enemy and report on their location; form a map-hopping, quick response team which runs to every objective as soon as it goes contested; etc. Players will need to be pro-active in their defense rather than relying on the game mechanics to do it for them (beyond the contested symbol, of course).

Q4: When and/or under what circumstances (if any) does the status as attacker/defender of objective X expire?

A4: If we’re going to keep track of peak numbers of attackers/defenders per A1 above, a player’s contribution to that counter persists until either the objective changes ownership or the current defense event at the objective ends. At which point, the counters are reset along with the players’ contribution to those counters.

If a new defense event is triggered due to a sustained siege at an objective, then those members of the owning server present within the event’s diameter will be counted anew as defenders (along with any additional players who enter the defense event’s zone while it is active).

Attackers’ status ends when the defense event ends (including capture of the objective). If a new defense event is triggered because they continue their siege of the objective (cause damage to a gate, wall, NPC, siege upgrade, siege weapons, or defending players within the defense event’s zone of influence), they will be flagged/re-flagged as attackers. Even simply standing there AFK will still result in being flagged as an attacker if they are within a defense event’s zone.

Q5: What is the default duration of a “defend objective X” event? If the event doesn’t end until the attacker leaves or has been defeated, how long after the last attack upon objective X does it end?

A5: The current “Defend the X” events last 3 minutes. I’d say continue to use those events as our unit of measure for:

• Determining when to reward the defending server with World Score points for defending the objective (awarded when the event ends after 3 minutes elapsed time). This assumes defenders were present at some point during those 3 minutes; if not, then no points are awarded to the defenders for that specific event.

• Determining when to send the initial call to the functions which track the peak numbers of attackers/defenders involved in a siege.

• Resetting those counters to zero when the event ends.

• Calling a function tracking how many consecutive defense events occur at the objective and within a short time of one another (perhaps a minute or less) for the purposes of scaling World Score points awarded to the defending server (assuming scaling were implemented).

• Calling a function measuring time elapsed since the last successfully concluded “Defend the X” event (i.e. the objective was not captured by the attackers). If that time reaches a certain limit during which no further defense events are triggered (5 minutes, 10 minutes, or whatever), then World Score bonuses or multipliers for defending that objective are reset to default/zero.

(continued)

(continued)

Q6: How many attackers have to attack objective X in order to trigger the “defend objective X” event?

A6: One, as per the current system.

Q7: Does the system distinguish between an actual attack on objective X (i.e. dealing damage to some part of the structure or a defending NPC) and players fighting only other players within the area of objective X? That is, does keeping the “defend objective X” event from ending depend on regularly remembering to attack some part of the objective itself?

I’d use the same criteria that exist now for triggering “Defend the X” events. If the following are not encompassed within those triggers, they would be added to the list of potential triggers:

• If attackers damage a defending player within the perimeter walls of an objective.

• If attackers damage any destructible wall or gate.

• If attackers damage an NPC tied to the objective.

• If attackers damage any siege built inside the objective.

• If attackers damage any static siege upgrade (burning oil, cannons, or mortars) inside an objective.

If none of the triggering criteria are met, then no “Defend the X” event occurs. This is to prevent abuse by a stealthed thief (or any player, for that matter) keeping the objective perpetually contested by their mere presence inside of it.

Players could fight in proximity to, but outside of, an objective without triggering a defense event.

Q8: Do the rewards offered by the system scale to account for the number of attackers in relation to the number of defenders (yes, I’m asking you to commit)? If it uses both methods to some extent, when does it use one and when the other?

A8: I had spoken of this in passing in my previous proposals, but will elaborate on it here.

I had suggested two scaling methodologies:

1) Objective-specific.

When a defense event triggers at an objective due to coming under attack, a scaling system goes into effect. The scaling is agnostic; it can apply to either attackers or defenders.

If an objective is actively defended by real players, the peak number of defenders is compared to the peak number of attackers at the conclusion of each “Defend the X” event. If the number of defenders is less than the number of attackers, the defenders earn bonus World Score points in addition to the base points earned for a successful defense. Attackers, on the other hand, would earn bonus World Score points if they successfully capture an objective while outnumbered.

For example, attackers number 30, defenders number 10; defenders earn a bonus of 20 points due to being outnumbered by 20 attackers for each successfully concluded “Defend the X” event (this is in reference to peak numbers; not numbers present at the end of each “Defend the X” event). However, I also conceded four shortcomings of such a system:

a) Defenders have the advantage. Therefore, some adjustment would likely need to be made to account for this rather than using a straight one-to-one bonus.

b) The World Score points that defenders earn from a successfully concluded “Defend the X” event must be lower than the potential points an attacker can earn from a successful capture of the same objective. This is because the defenders have the potential to benefit from multiple “Defend the X” events during a single siege while the attackers only score points from a single capture event.

I had suggested a points ratio of 10-to-1 in favor of the attackers as an initial starting point, to be adjusted as testing and balance dictate. For example, at a keep which earns 30 points on successful capture, the “Defend the X” events will only be worth 1/10th of that amount; 3 points apiece.

c) The points awarded to the attackers upon a successful capture will be decreased by the discrepancy between the number of attackers versus the number of defenders (and vice versa). For example, a keep that awards 30 World Score points on successful capture would only be worth 10 points if the attacker numbers 30 while the defenders number 10 (again, this in reference to peak numbers).

The problem with this proposal is a defender could leave a single player at an objective, making it “actively” defended. Then, going back to the example of 30 attackers capping the objective, the antagonists would earn only one point (the discrepancy between the attackers and defenders = 29; 30 – 29 =1). This gives the defenders an undue advantage in controlling and manipulating the scoring mechanic. Therefore, this specific scaling suggestion would likely need revision.

d) Defenders may choose to voluntarily abandon objectives, since under my proposed scoring mechanic empty objectives earn zero World Score for the capturing side. To address this, I added an addendum stating defenders will lose a certain amount of points for each undefended objective of their’s that is captured by an enemy.

(continued)

(continued)

I had recommended the points lost equal half of the base points awarded on capture. For example, an attacker captures a keep worth 30 points. It is empty and was never actively defended during the siege. Consequently, the attacker earns zero World Score points for capturing an empty objective. However, the server which owned the objective loses 15 points due to failing to actively defend their possession.

The attacker’s score does not increase but the defender’s score decreases; which maintains a points advantage in favor of the attacker who is at least trying to make an effort by actively going on the offense. The defender, by contrast, is penalized for failing to defend their territory.

This curtails the defender’s ability to manipulate the score through selectively choosing which objectives to defend and which to abandon. Instead, this system puts value on actively defending everything a server owns and engaging in combat with their opponent versus turtling behind one or two upgraded towers or keeps in an effort to starve the attacking server of points.

2) Open field combat.

I had suggested the possibility of scaling World Score points for player kills based on the discrepancy in numbers between two servers clashing in the open.

On a successful “Finish Them” move, a server is awarded 1 World Score point for the kill; it will never be the case that less than one point will be awarded for such kills. However, there exists the potential to earn bonus World Score points for “Finish Them” kills when fighting outnumbered.

I didn’t recommend a specific number or scaling system; just that some kind of bonus should be awarded in recognition of a player’s skill in making a kill while fighting against a numerically superior force. Obviously, a one-to-one bonus is out of the question. Imagine a force of 10 players scoring a finishing move against a player belonging to a force of 20; the outnumbered side would gain 11 points for that kill in a one-to-one scaling system (1 for the kill, 10 for being outnumbered by 10 players)!

Instead, it may be better to award the bonus based on a ratio of combatants. Going back to the previous scenario of 10 players versus 20 players, the 10 player side would score 2 bonus points for each “Finishing Move” (20 / 10 = 2).

How the numbers are determined should be relatively simple. When a successful finishing move is made, a function tallies the number of allied and enemy players within a certain radius of the player scoring the kill (1200, 2400, whatever). It then performs the math calculating the bonus ratio and awards the appropriate points.

I would argue the tally includes both healthy players as well as the downed and defeated players; in other words, the entire enemy force. This is to recognize the efforts of an outnumbered group in playing skillfully enough to have beaten a numerically superior force. If, instead, the tally is only run against healthy players, then the bonus will represent diminishing returns as more and more of the enemy force are downed.

I can appreciate the argument that the bonus should be a measure of skill in combating only active enemies rather than the downed and defeated. However, the bonus is there to recognize the accomplishments of an outnumbered group defeating a numerically superior group; difficult to do that with a diminishing returns system. If the enemy brought 20 to the fight and 10 players succeed in defeating them, they are fully entitled to bonus points for every successful “Finish Them” move in my book.

In the case of a three-way fight, the tally function only counts the players allied with the player being sent to defeat via a “Finish Them” move. For example, Red server has 30 players, green server has 20 players, blue server has 10 players. All three groups clash. A blue player sends a green player to defeat using a “Finish Them” move. The blue player is awarded 3 World Score points for the kill, not 6 points. This is because the function only tallies the green players when the blue player makes the kill. As there are only 20 green players and 10 blue players, 20/10 = 2 bonus World Skill points. Added to the base of 1 World Score point per “Finish Them” move, this equals 3 World Score points.

Fractions of a point round to the nearest whole number when calculating bonus World Score points. For example, a force of 10 meets a force of 14. A member of the 10 finishes a member of the 14. That server earns 2 World Score points; 1 for the base and 1 for the outnumbered bonus (14/10 = 1.4 rounded down to 1). The force of 10 then meets a force of 18. A member of the 10 finishes a member of the 18. That server earns 3 World Score points; 1 for the base and 2 for the outnumbered bonus (18/10 = 1.8 rounded up to 2).

I hope the above helps better explain the details behind the scoring system I’m proposing.

Giving more thought to the score scaling for the “Defend the X” events, I amend it to use scaling similar to that proposed for open-field combat; the ratio of combatants involved.

The peak number I spoke of earlier would still be used. However, at the conclusion of each “Defend the X” event or each successful capture, the peak number of attackers is compared against the peak number of defenders.

The larger of the two values is divided by the smaller, with the result rounded to the nearest whole number.* This number either acts as a bonus to the outnumbered defenders or decrements the defender’s point reward if they have numerical superiority.**

* Recognizing that the defenders inside an objective have the advantage, if the number of defenders is less than the number of attackers, this number is first subtracted from the number of attackers prior to performing the division.

** Conversely, if the defenders outnumber the attackers, the defenders receive fewer World Score points for each successfully completed “Defend the X” event. At no time, however, will their reward drop below 1 point; even if the math would dictate otherwise.

Some examples will illustrate what I mean:

Example 1

• Capturing a keep awards 30 points. Defending the keep for 3 minutes during a “Defend the X” event awards 1/10th of this value; 3 points.

• Green attacks Red’s tower with a peak of 30 players during the first “Defend the X” event.

• Red has a peak of 10 defenders present during the same event.

• 30 Green attackers – 10 Red defenders = 20 (Red is on defense with fewer players, so their number is first subtracted from the attackers’ prior to performing the division. Keep in mind this entire calculation we’re now performing is to determine the bonus for Red side. Their bonus is being scaled back by this subtraction step because of their advantage as defenders inside of a tower or keep.)

• 20 / 10 Red defenders = 2. This is the bonus Red receives for successfully defending the keep during this “Defend the X” event. If we hadn’t performed the subtraction step above, we would be dividing 30 by 10, giving Red a bonus of 3 instead of 2.

• The bonus is added to the base “Defend the X” reward; 3 points. 3 base reward + 2 bonus reward = 5 World Score points awarded to Red for having defended the keep for this one event.

Example 2

• Green continues to press the siege, triggering the start of a second “Defend the X” event. They remain with a peak of 30 players.

• Red had managed to portal in 20 players in between the end of the previous “Defend the X” event and the start of the new one. They now number 30, as well, at their peak.

• Red holds out another 3 minutes during this second “Defend the X” event.

• Now we calculate the bonus for the defenders.

• As the sides are equal in number, there’s no subtraction of the defender’s peak from the attacker’s peak for determining a modification of the bonus points.

• Dividing the attackers by the defenders results in 30 / 30 = 0. The Red side gains no bonus this round.

• Red, having successfully completed another “Defend the X” event, still earns the base defense reward of 3 World Score points.

• Red has earned a total of 8 World Score points so far.

Example 3

• Green continues with the siege, but begins to flag a bit. They only reach a peak of 20 players for the third “Defend the X” event.

• Red side continues to defend with the same 30 players from the previous round.

• Red holds out another 3 minutes during this third “Defend the X” event.

• As the defenders now outnumber the attackers, there’s no subtraction of the defender’s peak from the attacker’s peak for determining a modification of the bonus points.

• With the defenders having the numeric advantage, this time we divide the defenders by the attackers; this results in 30 / 20 = 1.5 which rounds to 2. This value becomes a modifier to Red’s defense reward.

• These 2 points are subtracted from the points awarded to Red for completing another successful “Defend the X” event. The base reward is 3 points; 3 – 2 = 1. If the modifier to the defense reward had been equal to or greater than 3, Red would still have earned 1 point for the successful defense event. The reward will never drop below 1.

• Red only earns 1 World Score point this round, bringing their total to 9 points so far.

(continued)

(continued)

Example 4

• In between “Defend the X” event #3 and #4, 25 Red players suddenly leave the keep (perhaps called off to defend Stonemist Castle, for example). This leaves a peak of 5 Red players inside the keep for “Defend the X” event #4.

• Green’s forces have shrunk, as well. There are now only 15 Green players sieging the keep.

• Green manages to capture the keep before the end of this fourth “Defend the X” event.

• Though Red has lost the keep, they are still awarded points for having continued to defend during “Defend the X” event #4.

• We start by modifying the bonus for the defenders.

• 15 Green attackers – 5 Red defenders = 10 (Red is on defense with fewer players, so their number is first subtracted from the attackers’ prior to performing the division. Keep in mind this entire calculation we’re now performing is to determine the bonus for Red side. Their bonus is being scaled back by this subtraction step because of their advantage as defenders inside of a tower or keep.)

• 10 / 5 Red defenders = 2. This is the bonus Red receives for successfully defending the keep during this “Defend the X” event. If we hadn’t performed the subtraction step above, we would be dividing 15 by 5, giving Red a bonus of 3 instead of 2.

• The bonus is added to the base “Defend the X” reward; 3 points. 3 base reward + 2 bonus reward = 5 World Score points awarded to Red for having defended the keep during this event.

• Red loses the keep but does not suffer a point penalty for this since they actively defended it. They walk away with 14 World Score points for their defensive efforts.

• Green, successfully capturing the keep, earns 30 World Score points.

Proposal Overview

Guild claims on a EOTM and a WvW structure reward guild influence at each PPT of WvW to the guilds that have a claim.

Goal of Proposal

One problem is not enough incentive for players to claim and defend EOTM and WvW structures. Most of the time for most of the structures in EOTM and WvW, they are empty with the occasional spike in numbers during a battle few and far between. Less and less commanders build sieges to defend structures as there is only insignificant reward for doing so. More and More commanders only build sieges to take structures as this is where nearly all the reward come from when structures are taken.

Proposal Functionality

Guild claim on EOTM and WvW structures should worked as normal with the addition that at each PPT for WvW, guild claims still in effect should also award guilds that have a claim guild influences.

Associated Risks

Guild influence balancing due to large influx of influences to large WvW guilds could have a over whelming detrimental impact on small PvE guilds. Unequal treatment to PvE guilds as they gain no benefit could cause division between PvE and WvW.

I don’t know if the lack of waypoints is the problem in Edge of the Mists, but I often find myself walking among the same tracks to the same place (that commander on the other side of the map). I’m often taken down somewhere in the middle and I have to start again.

The walk is long and not much fun.

I think the main problem might be something else though: the lack of interesting objectives. (The mobs protecting it are quite cool, but the objective itself isn’t really worth capturing while your zerg is busy taking down an enemy keep somewhere)

There are often no enemy objectives nearby, nor are they very important in comparison to the fight that the zergs are at. (Also, if I can make it to the zerg, it is less likely that I’ll have to wp back)

The presence of more waypoints would probably only make the walk shorter, which means I’m closer to the action. That’s better than what we have, but not what I would like to see. Which is a situation in which we are inclined to go to other places than that commander tag.

Avariz.8241:

Proposal Overview

Guild claims on a EOTM and a WvW structure reward guild influence at each PPT of WvW to the guilds that have a claim.

Goal of Proposal

One problem is not enough incentive for players to claim and defend EOTM and WvW structures. Most of the time for most of the structures in EOTM and WvW, they are empty with the occasional spike in numbers during a battle few and far between. Less and less commanders build sieges to defend structures as there is only insignificant reward for doing so. More and More commanders only build sieges to take structures as this is where nearly all the reward come from when structures are taken.

Proposal Functionality

Guild claim on EOTM and WvW structures should worked as normal with the addition that at each PPT for WvW, guild claims still in effect should also award guilds that have a claim guild influences.

Associated Risks

Guild influence balancing due to large influx of influences to large WvW guilds could have a over whelming detrimental impact on small PvE guilds. Unequal treatment to PvE guilds as they gain no benefit could cause division between PvE and WvW.

A further development beside award of guild influence at every PPT for structural claims in effect by a guild for both EOTM and WvW would be award of coppers or even a silver or two for structural guild claims to a guild at every PPT into the guild bank.

The same risks as before with inflation and rebalancing there of due to inflation which consequently having a negative impact on small PvE guilds and thereby causing division between PvE and WvW.

P.S. Structural guild claim reward at PPT can be graded according to upgrade and what tier the structure is at. Reward can also scale according to size and importance of structure.

This is not specific to EOTM, but for the life of me I cannot understand why I cannot launch cows with a catapult in WvW. If nothing else, it should be in treb mastery.

Fetchez La Vache!

The other big question to the community is how to reward defense. You don’t want to reward the person who just afk in a tower.

None active guild structure claim should lapsed after an hour. The same guild should be able to reclaim the structure after the claim has lapse or another guild can make a new claim after the previous hour claim has lapsed.

In my previous post I had forgotten to include bonus modifiers for a force which successfully defends an objective over a series of consecutive “Defend the X” events. I also neglected to include a scale for decreasing the attacker’s reward on successful capture of an objective when they outnumber the defenders.

Using the previous post, here are the additional modifications to the score:

Example 1

No change.

Example 2

The defenders gain 1 bonus World Score point for having held out through a second “Defend the X” event. They earn 4 points this round; 3 for the base award plus 1 for this particular bonus.

Example 3

The defenders gain 2 bonus World Score points for having held out through a third “Defend the X” event. They earn 3 points this round; 1 for the base award (which was decreased from the default of 3 due to outnumbering the attackers) plus 2 for this particular bonus.

Example 4

The defenders gain no additional bonus from defending through consecutive “Defend the X” events because on the fourth event Green captures the keep from Red.

Green is rewarded for capturing the keep, but has their base reward decreased due to outnumbering the defenders inside at the time of capture. As Green had a peak of 15 players during this fourth “Defend the X” event while Red only had a peak of 5 players, we’ll divide the larger number by the smaller to come up with a penalty for Green; 15 / 5 = 3. This is the number we subtract from the base reward for capturing the keep; 30 – 3 = 27 World Score points awarded to Green for capturing the keep*.

Had the situation been reversed in which Green captured the keep while outnumbered, they would have earned a bonus to their reward by dividing their peak number of players into Red’s peak number of players for the “Defend the X” event in which the keep was captured.

Final Score

At the conclusion of Green’s siege of Red’s tower, the new score is:

Red = 17 World Score points.

Green = 27 World Score points.

* To prevent abuse of this scoring penalty by the defending side, the penalty will be hard capped at 5. This is to prevent a defender from intentionally having all players but 1 abandon an objective in an effort to game the system. Without such a limiter in place, an objective could intentionally be defended by a lone player in an effort to prevent the attacker from earning any points from the capture.

For example, if no hard cap limiter exists, a keep were worth 30 points on capture, an attacking force of 30 lays siege to the keep, and the defenders leave only 1 player behind inside the keep, then the attackers would earn nothing on capturing it (30 / 1 = 30; 30 base award for the capture – 30 point penalty = 0 points on capture).

The penalty exists to punish servers for relying on numbers rather than skill when sieging an objective. However, this modification to the penalty recognizes that defenders could manipulate the score such that they could effectively deny their opponent from ever scoring points on capturing objectives.

The hard cap on the upper limit of the penalty strikes a reasonable compromise; an attacker would have to outnumber a defender 5-to-1 before the hard cap begins to give diminishing returns. This appears to favor the attackers. However, it is still a penalty to the attackers; especially when the defenders already have the advantage of being behind a defensive fortification as well as receiving bonus points for each successfully concluded “Defend the X” event, which the attackers do not gain. So it balances out.

Of course, these modifiers are predicated on the rewards for capturing and defending being relatively low. If, instead, it’s decided to greatly increase the rewards on capturing an objective (since there’s no PPT under my proposed system; thus more points may need to be awarded to compensate), then the modifiers to the scoring mechanics – for both attackers and defenders – may need further adjustment.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

you can’t within the confines of the current game programming. However, if sufficient resources were dedicated to this endeavor, of course it would be possible. And the game would be better for it.

Also, making the maps larger does not imply that we would want correspondingly more players on the maps. Just increasing the distances between objectives would give more opportunity for open field clashes, and more value to waypointed keeps.

DevonCarver.5370:

It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

This statement is confusing. At launch, an “Escort the Dolyak” event existed which rewarded karma on successful completion. That reward/event was removed from the game because bots were scripted to farm the event by following the yaks. The bots received the reward without having to engage in combat.

It was great fun while it lasted because real players could farm the farmers who either didn’t fight back or fought poorly. Was hilarious to watch 12 bots slowly walking along beside a yak only to be mowed down by real players.

Of course, this had to be removed from the game. However, historically, it appears the game is capable of tracking who is escorting a dolyak.

Thedenofsin.7340:

This is not specific to EOTM, but for the life of me I cannot understand why I cannot launch cows with a catapult in WvW. If nothing else, it should be in treb mastery.

Fetchez La Vache!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV0LGMGuLN0

Dont trebs fire dead cows?