Guild Wars 2

I apologize if this has been discussed/posted before. I searched for “contested waypoints” but didn’t find this exact question.

What is the philosophy behind contested waypoints and what measures can be taken by players to reliably reclaim them? The reason I ask is because from my point of view, the only purpose they really serve is to severely limit player mobility in high level zones.

In Orr, specifically, nearly every waypoint outside the first 2-3 is contested all the time. This essentially means these waypoints don’t exist. Not only does this mean players can’t quickly get to a group event or meet up with their friends and guildies, but it also means if you die, you have to start the zone over again.

In a game so critically dependent on a player’s ability to get in on the action of a world effort, contested waypoints seem like a complete 180 from the rest of the game’s core philosophy. Couple that with the fact that the entire pace of the game is balanced around nearly indiscriminate use of waypoints to get around (there are no mounts, no hearthstone, etc.) contested waypoints just seem clunky and lame.

TL;DR: Why do contested waypoints exist, and in such great quantities?

My guess would be that they assumed players would…play the game. They probably assumed that as more and more players reached max level, they would be out in the world taking part in events in the final zones and pushing back the Risen. Clearing the way points to help themselves and their fellow players. Server and zone community, and all that.

I think what we’ve found in the first month or so is that there aren’t enough people doing that. The zone is overrun. Maybe it’s because players are choosing to stay in other zones, only do dungeons or certain events (and avoid everything else) or have taken up small spots where they sit and farm.

Maybe it’s partly because many players haven’t reached those zones yet (there are a lot of people still in the low to mid levels, either playing more slowly or constantly playing alts).

Whatever the reason, I think ArenaNet is still learning how the community is playing their game, and still trying to adjust. Both by changing the game, and in some cases nudging players in a better direction. I wouldn’t doubt the situation will improve one way or the other after a while.

They don’t want people teleporting right back to an event going on if they die. However since events are currently so trivial anyway, contested waypoints might as well be removed.

I don’t mind the concept of contested waypoints, it just seems like sometimes you are just sitting there on your kitten waiting for the counter-event to start even though you can clearly kill any mob in the town.

I would have to guess that a lot of the reason people aren’t there is because getting 12 karma for “farming” aka doing an event in Orr, is not really acceptable.

Also what Fozz said.

Good answers. I considered the idea that maybe there weren’t enough players, but I discarded them when I noticed that there were plenty in the zone but, surprise surprise, they were all clumped around the waypoints that were not contested :P

I think you’re right in that ANet is still feeling it out in terms of world balance vs. how many players are present, but I think, even considering this, contested waypoints are a self-defeating feature that only exacerbates existing population problems.

I like the idea in concept, it was one of my favorite aspects of Tabula Rasa and I was glad to see it make a comeback in GW2.

My problems with its implementation, however, are twofold.
FIrstly, there are no “front lines” of any sort. Every waypoint, with a few exceptions, is vulnerable all the time, which forces players to try to cover literally the entire map to keep all these waypoints clear, which never happens because some waypoints are more highly “valued” by the majority than others… which sucks if you want to go do something that’s near a waypoint most people don’t care about because of remoteness, etc. What I’d do is have a clear progression of friendly forces across the zone, I.E. first you take camp X, then move on to capture camp Y, then Z. While you hold Z, X and Y are “friendly territory” and therefore not in danger unless Z falls. To keep it dynamic, you could scale up the difficulty of defending Z based on the number of times it’s been defended. I think this would also do a lot to help with the bot issue, but that’s a whole other discussion.

The second problem I have with the system is the utter uselessness of NPC guards. Vigil soldiers in Orr may look strong and intimidating, but more often than not you’ll see four of them charge a Risen Plague Carrier and die instantly when it explodes, or just die immediately to normal enemies because they’re utterly worthless and underpowered. This makes it pretty hard for one player to hold one of these objectives, because the minimum enemy attack size is too much for them to hold off solo even though the attacks usually aren’t “group” events, and the minimum seems to be set with the idea in mind that the guard NPCs are actually useful as more than a 5-second distraction. Not saying to make camps defend themselves, but at least make each of the 4 guards as individually powerful as one of the 12 mobs attacking, because I see them get solo’d by normal mobs constantly without even taking down half their health.

The idea is great but the implementation is poor. They either need to get rid of it completely or just tone down the intervals in which the events are activating. If they get rid of them more people will be able to participate more quickly and since they are called GROUP events it makes sense. Second, they could put at minimum a 5 minute delay on events, or play around with that idea, so that events do not trigger as often and allow players an opportunity to traverse the map more effectively.

On the idea of making NPCs more useful is a complicated issue. They can not make the NPCs strong enough to fend off the event itself or else it defeats the purpose of having players participate. If they ratio is 1 to 1 per enemy then the event itself becomes useless. They have to make them stronger. I agree with that. But 1 to 1 is just too high of a ratio.

I dont mind it.
But events needs to scale down to the number of players in the area so a small group actually have a chance to complete it.

If more show up, make it scale up on the fly. (maybe a stacking buff based on the amount of people near it?).

Reihert.1509:

I dont mind it.
But events needs to scale down to the number of players in the area so a small group actually have a chance to complete it.

If more show up, make it scale up on the fly. (maybe a stacking buff based on the amount of people near it?).

Problem is that bots would exploit this possibility a lot.

Otherwise I’d love it, I used to solo several TP reconquest events on my “kitteny” elementalist, It’d be even more fun to do that in Orr.

THIS IS THE POINT OF GW2!

The world is REAL alive and living. Stop hanging on to the horrible gameplay mode of being free to travel wherever and whenever you want, its unrealistic. The whole point of contested waypoints is that Tyria is a alive, waypoints will get attacked by NPC enemies instead of them just roaming around like complete idiots around the city and not doing anything. God, there are sooo many cry babies. All these things bring amazing excitement to the game because you can be sitting in a small village buying from merchants and the next thing you know its being completely overrun by a raid of enemies trying to take over the territory.

This is an absolutely beautiful concept, and forces players o find different routes. It is amazing, and something every other game was to LAZY to care about.

Learn to be good at this game and all you really need is a teammate to help you reclaim everything

I agree, I like them as-is. If it were to change, I’d like to see one WP per map that could not become contested and would be free to travel to from anywhere. I also would like to see WP become ‘lost’ when defense events don’t succeed. I want more ebb and flow of battle lines across each map, not random WP being unusable for a few minutes.

Why do an event more than once when there’s no reward? Is the event somehow different after the 5th time you’ve done it, the 48th time? Its just a mindless zerg unless you’re doing it alone, which can be a challenge. But then for WHAT? Just to say you did it? After a few times, who cares about doing it again? If the farmers are punishing all of us, then their game is busted at the core. Sorry. They didn’t test it long enough or think of scenarios where this would occur. ANET couldn’t be so naive that they figured no one would farm their game, did they=)

Would it make sense to have contested waypoints available to travel to but they would cost more than an uncontested waypoint?

They should change how waypoints get contested. For example, make events where a group of enemies could move in on a waypoint and build a quick mini base at it that players need to either stop them from setting it up or take it out if it is up to get access to the waypoint. An example of the mini bases in the orr zones would be them making those claw wall things surrounding the waypoint with trebuchets inside to attack players attempting to retake it and have enemies that spawn outside it to defend the wall. This would add more events for people to do and would stop waypoints from being contested, often for no apparent reason.

Josher.9612:

Why do an event more than once when there’s no reward? Is the event somehow different after the 5th time you’ve done it, the 48th time? Its just a mindless zerg unless you’re doing it alone, which can be a challenge. But then for WHAT? Just to say you did it? After a few times, who cares about doing it again? If the farmers are punishing all of us, then their game is busted at the core. Sorry. They didn’t test it long enough or think of scenarios where this would occur. ANET couldn’t be so naive that they figured no one would farm their game, did they=)

^ This, the only PVE worth while to do is Dungeons and that only if you want a set of gear. Once you have that then well unless you doing the insane grind for an epic there is no point. I think A.Net is starting to see that the lack of endgame PvE is killing there game in that area.

Hell I do not even bother with PvE. I have done one Dungeon since 80. There is no point you get very little out doing the dungeons and why run the same dungeon over dozen times for some skin. I can get the best gear I need just by buying it or crafting it. With that done I just WvW or SPVP its the only engaging aspect of the game.

WvW is however starting to become lack luster due to lack of progression. Hell this game has no progression at 80 other then GRIND. Only aspect retains progression is SPVP.

Like many others, I like the idea but not the implementation. More often than not it’s a PITA and simply inconvenient than anything dynamic or exciting. I’d be fine with seeing them discontinued or altered.

I think part of the issue is the lack of a server wide LFG system. If I want to be in Orr while looking for a group for CoE…it’s impossible. I HAVE to be in Lion’s Arch.

A robust LFG system would help players by allowing them to actually be in the world while looking for groups not in their zone. I’m not asking for a server wide chat channel, just a way for us to find each other.

I think the idea for contested points is lightly borrowed from Tabula Rasa (As another above had mentioned). Problem with it here is there is noting really contested other than maybe a merchant and a waypoint.

In Tabula Rasa, the mission hubs, trainers, etc were “contested” which then pretty much meant players HAD to re-take the outposts/bases should they want those missions/turn ins and access to those merchants.

Add to that, the annoyance that are the Risen (on Orr) and it’s simply not even fun to re-take areas for just the waypoints.
Further adding; Waypoints cost too much to use. So the question comes to mind; “Why am I going to battle through annoying mobs to ‘free’ a contested spot for a waypoint I’m not going to use?”

That’s my take on it anyway.

Contested Waypoints? A problem for me?

Hardly. It’s one of the features that make this game so fun for me. A pain? Sometimes… but War is always a pain and we play a game of War. Kind of fits as far as I see it.

Some Players say some contested waypoints give no reward… I counter that with this: all contested waypoints give some XP as long as you actively participate (ask the bots, that seems to be how they gain levels.). All give experience running your character and learning your class. Almost all have at least trash loot. I wouldn’t call that “no reward”.

I also like that, sometimes, I have to actually walk through the more remote areas. It just makes sense to me for the game to work that way, and A.Net made some pretty landscape. Might as well enjoy it while passing through contested territory. It also makes death just a little more painful… which is never bad game design, in my opinion.

Before Orr I thought contested waypoints were a pretty cool thing. After fort trinity though it just got absurd. Every waypoint except 3 near fort trinity seem to always be contested (at least when I play). So, if I die I have to run across the entire zone, which resulted in me saying screw it and moving on to a different zone and not bothering to complete that one. Maybe I’ll try Orr again later, but it seems to just be totally not fun and not worth my time to claw my way through.

I support contested waypoints, and I think there should be a lot more of them. Events should effect your game in a way that forces you to play it. Given, the events need to be much less repetitive and branch out before I ever want them contesting more waypoints.

I wouldn’t say there need to be more of them. I like the fact that the interior is generally fairly secure, with the outlying areas being more difficult to traverse.