Guild Wars 2

Hello fellow World vs. World players.
I play WvW on a daily base and despite the recent changes adding the possibility to gain ranks, allowing you ability points that give you extra resistence or force, I still feel World vs. World is lacking quite some features.

At the moment, the things we can do in World vs. World are pretty restricted:
Small groups

• Claim supply camps
• Kill sentries
• Roam the land and kill invaders

Big groups

• Claim towers
• Claim keeps
• Fight zergs

That’s it. You don’t even get an option to change the things you claimed: you can add some siege, fortify the walls, add some guards and that’s it. If we place this in a realistic warfare context, this is not the way things are supposed to go. If you have a war, things CHANGE. My suggestion: add more impact on the world features, more objectives for players to go for, more team-play options, covert operations and stuff like that.

1. Player objectives: in warfare you have people that lead and people that follow. The leaders are obviously the ones giving orders and organizing their forces. Some of them are commanders, some of them are guild leaders. It makes sense that the enemy would eliminate the people giving orders. For this to take effect I suggest making a few distinctions.

At the moment we have commanders badges visible for everyone: these are “World-leaders”, visible for every player on the map.

I would opt for adding 2 more “badges”:
- Guild badges: when you play with your guild, you don’t want players to tag along who aren’t in the guild, cause they tend to ruin your strategies. Add a guild commander tag, visible for every guild member in the map, from the moment you have 5+ guild members in the map.

- Party badges: when you go roaming with 3-4 guys, it’s useful when the one leading gets a tag that only the people in the party get to see. The party leader gets nominated by the party members.

Additionally: objectives. What about this: players from the enemy team have the option to make all commanders, guild leaders and party leaders visible. The objective that would be added to this, is that if you kill (e.g. assassinate a leader) you get a reward in Wxp, experience, karma and gold.

2. Changing the world. Does it make sense that if you catapult a place, a moment later the ground still is flat there? Shouldn’t there be some visible effect on the world?
Does it make sense that you can’t order workers to build new walls, expand a fortress?
Does it make sense you can’t create a new camp in the middle of nowhere? Does it make sense you can’t explore past the map? Why would the mists be limited?
Add more options for changing the world.

There are of course a lot more things that should be in WvW, but these are a priority to me. Thank you for reading.

Not that it helps the point but small groups can claim towers, claim keeps, and fight zergs. It’s all a matter of skill level and taking more time to do so. It’s a PvP zone, I don’t get why we need more stuff to do other than kill players. If that’s not in your interest or getting stale, you have other options in PvE and sPvP.

Yeah, I know that, was just a rudimental summary for the average player. I have fought zergs with 5 people, so it’s quite possible, but not everyone is able to do it, and towers too, but that wasn’t really the point.
The point was: World vs. World is ment as a battleground where you can fight on a bigger scale and have an impact. The problem is, it’s lacking that impact. It might seem we can do a lot already, because we can bring down gates, then raze a tower or keep, but in the end the only impact we have is that we make the towers change colour.
Ten minutes later a nice zerg passes by and bye bye the tower is another colour again. Can you call that an impact from the player?

I think wars take in a lot more aspects than this. And indeed it gets a bit stale for me, but as a matter of fact, World vs. World is the part of the game that has the most impact, because the other parts of the game have 0% – 5% impact, while in World vs. World the player has 10% impact: we can claim places, but we can’t modify them.

So you want to feel important, like you’re making a personal difference on the grand scale of things? Like being able to feng shui the furniture, items, and NPCs in Garrison in the shape of your guild’s emblem?

No that is not the purpose of this thread Guardian. I don’t want to feel important in any way, I just want to see that people can do stuff, and change the world. It isn’t normal that all these keeps and fortresses and camps just stay the same all the time.
I think it would just be a great addition to allow for big changes due to players.

Consider this:

• There’s a tower with 5 people inside of it.
• A whole zerg of people attacks the keep with siege engines.
• The virtually raze the keep down, but once they kill the tower lord the tower builds up out of nothing?
• Wouldn’t it give the player a more realistic feeling if the tower actually lay in demise and they had to build it using stone and wood resources? This would indeed mean players would need to change the environment. They would cut down the trees that atm don’t even seem to care if 5 bombs explode right around them.
  They would perhaps destroy rock foundations and use the resources to build new walls etc.

No, my purpose isn’t to make this a personal feature, my purpose is to make the game a living thing, where everyone has his share in accomplishing things. It isn’t about being able to shape furniture the way I want.

But then what? Every week the world resets to it’s former glory? I understand where you’re coming from, but what about people just taking rocks from the sides of maps to get on top of the barriers and then just dropping in a keep from above, they don’t need to worry about any of the walls.

Sirendor.1394:

No that is not the purpose of this thread Guardian. I don’t want to feel important in any way, I just want to see that people can do stuff, and change the world. It isn’t normal that all these keeps and fortresses and camps just stay the same all the time.
I think it would just be a great addition to allow for big changes due to players.

Consider this:

• There’s a tower with 5 people inside of it.
• A whole zerg of people attacks the keep with siege engines.
• The virtually raze the keep down, but once they kill the tower lord the tower builds up out of nothing?
• Wouldn’t it give the player a more realistic feeling if the tower actually lay in demise and they had to build it using stone and wood resources? This would indeed mean players would need to change the environment. They would cut down the trees that atm don’t even seem to care if 5 bombs explode right around them.
  They would perhaps destroy rock foundations and use the resources to build new walls etc.

No, my purpose isn’t to make this a personal feature, my purpose is to make the game a living thing, where everyone has his share in accomplishing things. It isn’t about being able to shape furniture the way I want.

I actually like this. Basically when you “invest” in a objective, you feel the need to hold it. Gives more sense of ownership and realism.

On objectives there should be more impact on the overall scheme of things and larger rewards for smaller group activities like escorting dolyalks, destroying/defending NPC Camps, defeating gurads and defending objectives, a quick way to alleviate the lack of objectives. I like your idea of “assassinating” enemy commanders though

I do not think there is a need for that many badges though. Badges are there for coordination. It would be better if we can give commanders more UI options, for example they are able to indicate “Need more man to defend the keep” on the map.
Party badges are only needed if the system allows “chain parties” or basically 4-5 parties are able to see each other.

@Esplen: I see this makes up a rather big problem with the suggestion, one I hadn’t overseen as of yet. Though there might be a solution to the problem:
As it is we have 3 Borderlands and 1 Eternal Battleground map.

For the Borderlands: every server gets his own Borderland each matchup, though the places are named something else depending on the colour that is appointed to that particular server. In theory, it would be possible to not reset the borderlands, but save the previous status of the borderland.
For example: consider a case where your borderland has been practically razed to the ground: 2 keeps don’t have nearly any defenses left, 1 tower has a few walls down too.
Though you have upgraded the garrison and built it out to be your maior base, in response to the devastations. The bigger you make one of the keeps, the bigger the amount of points you get from them. If you get 25 points normally for a keep:
- The 2 keeps that have been destroyed will only be worth 15 points for the time until they get properly built again.
- The garrison will be worth 35 points, equaling stonemist.
With the new match-up you just keep the whole map as it is, with 2 destroyed keeps and 1 super-fortified garrison. The server whose BL it is will get all the fortifications.

If you are worried about tactical disadvantages: since these 2 other keeps are now worth way less, when the enemy takes them, they will gain a lot less from them, until they decide to fortify them.

Eternal Battleground:
There are 3 parts in EB, so just use the same method, but reverse.
Server 1 = green = south-west
Server 2 = blue = south-east
Server 3 = red = north
This is how it should work. Server 1 gets the south-west part of the map of their previous match-up. Server 2 gets the south-east part of the map from their previous match-up. Server 3 gets the northern part of the map from their previous match-up.

! It doesn’t matter if Server 1 was on northern part the last match-up, they just get the south-east now. The 3 map pieces will be fit together into one map.

@Stratosphere:
I agree party badges are rather optional, but I think guild badges would make it worthwhile. There are many guilds that can muster a force of 15-30 people.
Investing in objectives is very much the way I want it to be, to give players a feeling they have done something and that they can continue to change things!

This sounds like an interesting idea but from a development standpoint it’s probably too big to ever get done. I would like the ability to build small walls, similar to siege equipment except with collision so enemies can’t run through it. It wouldn’t have enough HP to stop a zerg, but if placed strategically it could slow them down enough to buy you some time.

Yeah, i’m aware of the size of such an update. Would require months of work and effort, but I think it’s helpful to bring up similar ideas in order to give Anet some.