Guild Wars 2

I’m a guy that loves large scale combat and loves RTS games,games like Planetside 2 and Battlefield, etc. I thought that getting memories of battle would be fun, because I would enjoy the large scale combat that guild wars has to offer. However…

In current WvW, you are rewarded for:
-Avoiding drawn out battles
-Cheesing enemy fortifications by placing siege equipment right by the walls
-following the biggest zerg and doing nothing to help maintain supply lines

And that’s just the start of it. When a big fight does happen, It feels more like goku vs vegeta in a kamehameha tug of war than an epic battle. As one blob reaches critical mass, it just pushes back the other as everyone fights a running battle between two points of interest, and the whole thing last no more than a couple of minutes. If you happen to be lucky enough to be part of a castle siege in which one force decides to actually, you know, set up some equipment from afar and assault the castle, it’s fun but good luck getting more WXP than just abandoning the castle and joining a zerg on a different map. And again the whole thing is over in a matter of minutes.

How I would improve it:
-First of all, do not penalize players for dying by giving warscore, and resetting the amount of WXP they get. This will go part of the way to encouraging players not to give ground and prolonging fights. but we need more.

-Always give full credit for killing players, and double the amount of WXP to 120 for such a kill. I get the feeling Anet wants players to care more about objectives than fighting, and while this sounds good on paper, the result is boring and rewards boring play.

-Add siege camps (buildable, movable respawn points) the game, and don’t penalize players for dying by making them run long distances. If we want to make engagements last, we need players back in the fight as soon as possible. Guild wars is fast paced and slowing things down with current mechanics doesn’t suit it. We also want players to not give ground so easily and make fights feel more like fights and less like running tugs of war. If players know they can respawn close by after fifteen seconds, they will more readily stand and fight.

-Put minimum distances on siege weapons with proximity to fortifications

-Add multiple capture zones to large castles, and possibly smaller ones too. Taking the castle needs to have the majority of the the zones be held, which will contribute to an overall progress bar visible by everyone either in the battle or looking at it on the world map (provided you belong to one of the factions in the battle) holding more of a majority of zones will make capture be faster. This will also serve to break up battles and help reduce the current feeling headbutting feeling of large fights.

I would like to thank you for reading this far and welcome feedback. I would ask not to get caught up in exact numbers like amounts of WXP, but instead critique what you think are fundamental flaws, or show your support if you just wholeheartedly agree. As it stands, it is a huge chore for me to log into WvW and make progress towards reward tracks, and there needs to be some mechanical changes.

I believe the respawn points thing has been made to prevent battles from lasting forever. After all it’s not that bad.
I agree on siege machines, there should be a minimum distance (besides rams of course).

What would be cool would instead be having buildable spawn camps.

It seems to me that battles are meant to be relatively brief, but plentiful.

If Arenanet wanted longer meaningful battles, surely they would not have put time and effort into blocking players from banner-rezzing keep Lords or removing the gap between ticks where normal waypoints were available.

Those two things made meaningful objective-based battles even more frequent. They spent programming resources removing them.

TBH If the game engine/servers could support it I think having one giant map like ESO would be a lot better than 4 different maps that don’t really play into each other.

Some benefits would be:
*More space to fight on and considerable distance between objectives so it feels like a big PvP map
*It would make roaming/havok groups more viable and fun as you could totally avoid any large groups and with one big map have a greater impact on the game.
*Could open up more options for siege equipment (especially mobile ones like golems).

Those are just a few but there’s probably more.

Some things would need to change though, like having that camp idea from your post (I think ESO also has a similar thing) so you could respawn nearby and not run forever. Also make it easier to travel between server owned objectives. And some similar things.

I think the only reason why this doesn’t happen and why there are multiple maps in the first place is because the design of the game doesn’t allow so many players on one map, so splitting the maps means you can get more people, so that would have to change in order to support this idea. Also as most people can see now when you get large blob battles the game lags a lot, lots of skill effects and such slow it down.

Sadly this idea is also such a huge rework to the game it might not even be possible. Or if it was it would take a huge investment which would better (debatable) be spent elsewhere. Who knows maybe the “WvW overhaul” they talked about back in the day WAS this idea but they totally scrapped it because they realized it’s not possible because of these issues.

Overall the only thing I think that would be a good change is to not allow catapults and trebuchets to be built near enemy controlled objectives so you don’t get the cheese throw a cata right on the wall experiences. The current maps are small enough that running back isn’t a huge issue and the respawn is also a factor in defending.

I probably haven’t played long enough to experience skill slowdown to the point i notice it’s effect in combat, as it’s such photon soup anyway that the only meaningful thing i can do is some skill rotation and hope that i tag as many people as possible while staying alive. However if it’s something that really hurts gameplay to the point we need to design the game around making sure these larger battles don’t happen then i guess there’s not really much we can do about that. I would like to disagree that the map size is small enough, i often find myself just wanting to log off after being killed from too far away.

I do feel that there needs to be more credit for player kills. Even if it doesn’t really make much sense, at the end of the day it’s a game, and getting 1 WXP for managing to tag a player just doesnt feel good, while doing the same for structures and npcs gives full experience.

Fipmip.7219:

How I would improve it:
-First of all, do not penalize players for dying by giving warscore, and resetting the amount of WXP they get. This will go part of the way to encouraging players not to give ground and prolonging fights. but we need more.

-Always give full credit for killing players, and double the amount of WXP to 120 for such a kill. I get the feeling Anet wants players to care more about objectives than fighting, and while this sounds good on paper, the result is boring and rewards boring play.

Your post had a lot of good stuff. I’d like to address these two ideas though.

1 – For a long time the game did exactly this. There were no points given for killing other players. The issue with this was that it made the game entirely about points for objectives and there was no way to get score other than to ktrain objectives. So no, it didn’t encourage players to do as you suggest it would. The reality is that players will only fight if that’s the kind of WvW they want to play. PPK at least rewards the players who want to fight even if it also rewards blobbing over smaller groups.

2 – Sounds good to me but your suggestion needs to figure out how to not incentivize kill-trading because players will organize to get these kinds of advantages (at one point there were mass kill orgies in Obsidian Sanctum). There’s a kind of diminishing returns on WXP for killing players who have already gotten killed recently for exactly this reason.

Hello fellow large scale MOBA player. I also enjoy large scale MOAB style battle maps, where there roughly 10 – 30 players per team, per battle, average around 20, most of the time.

I see what you are saying, and I agree to a point, but truth be told, the PvP in GW2 is so horrabadly unbalanced the game mode is really not salvageable as a game mode in and of itself. Now I am not trying to dis anyone that loves WvW, but, I have had more fair fights against people using Aim bots in other games then I have had in GW2 against a fotm Cheese build. so it’s not the players. its the game.

Now I wish there was some way to make WvW more balanced and engaging, because I love me some good fast and brutal pvp battles, but at this point, I go to other games for them.

However, they can’t balance the classes, it’s just not possible to make a class designed for PvE, and also for PvP.

The only real way they will be able to fix WvW, is from the ground up and make, perhaps, WvW/PvP Specific Classes, and then balance things from there, once they have those balanced, players will go looking to engage in fights and battles because they will feel more like earnest fights and battles as opposed the cheese and abusing OPed game mechanics, that is feels like right now.

While I agree with you base idea that something needs to be done, but until they make the encounters balanced, nothing they will do will make players want to encounter each other.

It is possible to make players fight, you just need an incentive: and it’s called a cash out system.

A CHEAP EXAMPLE:

1.) Every player killed grants a stacking buff that is consumed on the next tower or keep capture. Every 1000 ranks on the target gives an additional stack, representing their increased experience (and thus they should be more difficult to kill).

2.) When you flip a tower, you get a heavy loot bag for every 10 stacks of said buff. If you flip a keep, you get a heavy loot bag for every 8 stacks. So if you have 100 stacks (from 100 kills), you would get 10 heavy loot bags when you flip a tier 0 tower. (As an example).

3.) Every tier of the structure flipped reduces the stack requirement by 1. So if you flip a tier 3 keep and have 100 stacks, you would get 20 heavy loot bags (100 / 5 instead of 100 / 8 ).

4.) Defense gets the same, although the base reward requirement is doubled (20 for towers, 16 for keeps, and a reduction of 1 per tier), with a minimum of 1 heavy loot bag (you defend a tower and kill 1 person, you may not have the required stacks but you get 1 loot bag for sure).

5.) Camps do not use stacks, but when flipped they will grant you 5 stacks. Successful defense events in camps also grant 5 stacks. Defend your camp, then flip something to cash out! Escorting yaks grants 10 stacks.

tl;dr:
Kill dudes and hold camps, get rewards on next objective flip. This creates an interesting flow.

I would, however, also like to see 5 camps feeding into each keep, and nerfing yak supply accordingly (to try to split up the action and add more directions from which to siege).

Chaba.5410:

Fipmip.7219:

How I would improve it:
-First of all, do not penalize players for dying by giving warscore, and resetting the amount of WXP they get. This will go part of the way to encouraging players not to give ground and prolonging fights. but we need more.

-Always give full credit for killing players, and double the amount of WXP to 120 for such a kill. I get the feeling Anet wants players to care more about objectives than fighting, and while this sounds good on paper, the result is boring and rewards boring play.

Your post had a lot of good stuff. I’d like to address these two ideas though.

1 – For a long time the game did exactly this. There were no points given for killing other players. The issue with this was that it made the game entirely about points for objectives and there was no way to get score other than to ktrain objectives. So no, it didn’t encourage players to do as you suggest it would. The reality is that players will only fight if that’s the kind of WvW they want to play. PPK at least rewards the players who want to fight even if it also rewards blobbing over smaller groups.

2 – Sounds good to me but your suggestion needs to figure out how to not incentivize kill-trading because players will organize to get these kinds of advantages (at one point there were mass kill orgies in Obsidian Sanctum). There’s a kind of diminishing returns on WXP for killing players who have already gotten killed recently for exactly this reason.

perhaps offer no wxp for player killing in this map? or just have the diminishing death returns on only this map?

The way I’ve set this up is to have players be able to get back in the fight quickly. You could, in theory, set up a kill orgy, but there would be little reason to as really the whole map is now a kill orgy. I’m trying to get the flow of battle to ebb like the sea rather than flare and disappear like fireworks.

The main change here i think is making the map functionally smaller, that is putting waypoints everywhere and reducing walk time. I’m not trying to say that I can’t put up with the current walk time, it’s just that this time is too long to ensure a prolonged battle. It is in my opinion that these prolonged battles, the kind you can rely on getting to whenever you see the crossed swords on the minimap, will serve to give an equal balance in obtaining warscore for your team and wxp for yourself. The game on paper is entirely about objectives as that is the only way to obtain warscore, however in practice when battle does flare up it will for a good amount of time, time enough to give everyone a good time and giving out plenty of wxp for everyone.

These are things i learned playing planetside. That game is similar to gw2 in that the game is fast paced. However in planetside, mobile respawn points are a thing and there is a repsawn room for every poi. The whole game is about getting territory, but because the of the way respawning works there is going to be a battle at every poi, a prolonged one that wont run out of steam until either sides respawning capability has been disabled. There’s no reason to set up some sort of killing farm between the players because the next battle is always a few moments away.

Fipmip.7219:

or just have the diminishing death returns on only this map?

That already exists. Kinda.

A player that’s been recently killed awards far less WXP than one that’s been alive for a prolonged period of time.

Fipmip.7219:

The way I’ve set this up is to have players be able to get back in the fight quickly. You could, in theory, set up a kill orgy, but there would be little reason to as really the whole map is now a kill orgy. I’m trying to get the flow of battle to ebb like the sea rather than flare and disappear like fireworks.

The main change here i think is making the map functionally smaller, that is putting waypoints everywhere and reducing walk time.

Sorry, you lost me here. You sound like you’re trying to make this like pvp.

We already have pvp. With small maps. And no walking (or very little).

Once you play the game a bit longer, you’ll see that walking can be used as strategy, and quite effectively too.

moving siege camps… i can respect this =)

dying requires no repair. sometimes in fights people just need balls =)

Sovereign.1093:

dying requires no repair. sometimes in fights people just need balls =)

We already have that with outmanned buff

And still no .. well, y’know.

Fipmip.7219:

I probably haven’t played long enough to experience skill slowdown to the point i notice it’s effect in combat, as it’s such photon soup anyway that the only meaningful thing i can do is some skill rotation and hope that i tag as many people as possible while staying alive.

In my experience it only happens when all 3 servers are in the same place (with big groups obviously). And all you can do is literally auto-attack or use skills that have 0 cast-time. It’s not so much slowdown as it is just not being able to do anything. I know this is kinda off-topic, just wanted to let you know.

if they build siege beside a wall you just throw a superior shield gen + normal shield gen an toggle in between the 2(best done with a chrono or rev traited into alc for 100% up time on bubbles) well you have a second person build arrow cart on the wall. they will achieve nothing.(techly you can do all 3 if you are fast enough).

Kiroshima.8497:

It is possible to make players fight, you just need an incentive: and it’s called a cash out system.

A CHEAP EXAMPLE:

1.) Every player killed grants a stacking buff that is consumed on the next tower or keep capture. Every 1000 ranks on the target gives an additional stack, representing their increased experience (and thus they should be more difficult to kill).

2.) When you flip a tower, you get a heavy loot bag for every 10 stacks of said buff. If you flip a keep, you get a heavy loot bag for every 8 stacks. So if you have 100 stacks (from 100 kills), you would get 10 heavy loot bags when you flip a tier 0 tower. (As an example).

3.) Every tier of the structure flipped reduces the stack requirement by 1. So if you flip a tier 3 keep and have 100 stacks, you would get 20 heavy loot bags (100 / 5 instead of 100 / 8 ).

4.) Defense gets the same, although the base reward requirement is doubled (20 for towers, 16 for keeps, and a reduction of 1 per tier), with a minimum of 1 heavy loot bag (you defend a tower and kill 1 person, you may not have the required stacks but you get 1 loot bag for sure).

5.) Camps do not use stacks, but when flipped they will grant you 5 stacks. Successful defense events in camps also grant 5 stacks. Defend your camp, then flip something to cash out! Escorting yaks grants 10 stacks.

tl;dr:
Kill dudes and hold camps, get rewards on next objective flip. This creates an interesting flow.

I would, however, also like to see 5 camps feeding into each keep, and nerfing yak supply accordingly (to try to split up the action and add more directions from which to siege).

The main problem with this is, that unless I feel 100% positive that I can win the encounter, I still have zero motive to engage.

Truth is, what needs to be done is balance the classes so people feel that the fights are fare, once that is done, players will want to fight because fighting becomes fun.

As long as the classes remain as unbalanced as they are you can toss all the rewards you want at players, they won’t touch it, unless they are into building whatever is the fotm cheese build.

Jayne.9251:

That already exists. Kinda.

A player that’s been recently killed awards far less WXP than one that’s been alive for a prolonged period of time.

well, yeah dude. Try reading the rest of the context.

Jayne.9251:

Sorry, you lost me here. You sound like you’re trying to make this like pvp.

We already have pvp. With small maps. And no walking (or very little).

Once you play the game a bit longer, you’ll see that walking can be used as strategy, and quite effectively too.

But here’s the thing: You cant get memories of battle in spvp, you cant get gift of battle in spvp, you can’t get big epic fights in spvp. I love spvp precisely because of instant action, something that fits very well in the casual fast paced nature of guild wars. But while I’m playing WvW for the materials, we may as well make that fun too.

Fipmip.7219:

I probably haven’t played long enough to experience skill slowdown to the point i notice it’s effect in combat, as it’s such photon soup anyway that the only meaningful thing i can do is some skill rotation and hope that i tag as many people as possible while staying alive. However if it’s something that really hurts gameplay to the point we need to design the game around making sure these larger battles don’t happen then i guess there’s not really much we can do about that. I would like to disagree that the map size is small enough, i often find myself just wanting to log off after being killed from too far away.

I do feel that there needs to be more credit for player kills. Even if it doesn’t really make much sense, at the end of the day it’s a game, and getting 1 WXP for managing to tag a player just doesnt feel good, while doing the same for structures and npcs gives full experience.

Sometimes I wonder if GW2 combat system was really designed for this kind of big battles. I mean there is such a mass of AOE spam, buffs and visual effects that fights turn into a clash of huge sparkling blobs.

Fipmip.7219:

Jayne.9251:

That already exists. Kinda.

A player that’s been recently killed awards far less WXP than one that’s been alive for a prolonged period of time.

well, yeah dude. Try reading the rest of the context.

Jayne.9251:

Sorry, you lost me here. You sound like you’re trying to make this like pvp.

We already have pvp. With small maps. And no walking (or very little).

Once you play the game a bit longer, you’ll see that walking can be used as strategy, and quite effectively too.

But here’s the thing: You cant get memories of battle in spvp, you cant get gift of battle in spvp, you can’t get big epic fights in spvp. I love spvp precisely because of instant action, something that fits very well in the casual fast paced nature of guild wars. But while I’m playing WvW for the materials, we may as well make that fun too.

Well then you have it in pvp.

Stop trying to make WvW into pvp. It isn’t even remotely the same vehicle.

Actually I hear many player complain that killing players is currently over-rewarded, since this alone might lead to a server is getting enough points for 1. rank. Additional, since it is over-rewarded smaller groups now actively avoiding fights they can’t win.
So we probably need more rewards for the tactical stuff like guarding material transports or defending castles.
And: the gliding option has already increased the game speed since returning from a spawn point is much quicker now possible in most cases.

The biggest problem with wvw now is the que system and lag.

The que system is broken for many servers. As it stands right now on YBBL, we can get one 50 man squad in and we have a que… Other servers (JQ and BG This week) can have 2 50 man squad on the same map before they que.

The lag is also gotten so bad that on reset night, the one 50 man squad we were able to get into EB all lagged out after the first 5 mins.. so we had entire guild squads waiting in que for hours.

Everything else is moot unless you can get in and actually play the game fluidly. The lag on all BLs especially EB, has gotten to the point where it is impossible to even play in NA primetime.

Fipmip.7219:

These are things i learned playing planetside. That game is similar to gw2 in that the game is fast paced. However in planetside, mobile respawn points are a thing and there is a repsawn room for every poi. The whole game is about getting territory, but because the of the way respawning works there is going to be a battle at every poi, a prolonged one that wont run out of steam until either sides respawning capability has been disabled. There’s no reason to set up some sort of killing farm between the players because the next battle is always a few moments away.

Can we be honest for a moment here?

Literally everyone that plays Planetside 2 has complained about this. (Also, killing farms are extremely common in planetside 2. We call them “biolabs”, they’re literally there for the sole purpose of farming, because you sure as hell aren’t taking them with equal numbers.)

It completely gets rid of tactics with your vehicles (Think: Siege weaponry), and replaces it with mindless zerg rushing & spamming revive grenades.

Specifically, everyone hates AoD (Angels of Death) and DaPP (Da Party Poopas) because that is literally ALL they would ever do.

Throw 2 platoons on a base with loads of revive grenades & like 6 sundies.

Planetside 2 is so prone to zerging that it’s basically all the vast majority of the players do in that game.

Where as it’s quite often I’ll end up in a small 15-20 man group in WvW in this game, and play havoc, take bases, and maybe take some fights against the other team’s groups.

At least until they pull a whole map Q onto us, and we get wiped. But you know what? That Map Q didn’t come from no where. It most likely came from our BL, or EBG. Which means our 15-20 man group is actually doing quite a bit of work.

Now, if you’re in T1, your experience probably differs from mine. And I can understand the complaints about zerging up there.

But on smaller servers? It’s actually kinda fun to run a smaller group.

I wish people wouldn’t make blanket statements like “Stop trying to make it into spvp” and then just walk out like “heh i sure showed him” and doesn’t need to explain it further. Back up your reasoning.

Whatever game you make, anyone that doesn’t like it or cant get used to it will leave and what are you left with? everyone that does like it. Which means, changing anything in anyway will always draw ire, because the game you have now and and the audience you had before are now offset to eachother.

Which is why I’m quite surprised that I have had any support at all. It’s definitely there and tells me that it’s more than just me that feels like WvW could be improved in this way.

TheOneWhoSighs.7513:

Can we be honest for a moment here?

Literally everyone that plays Planetside 2 has complained about this. (Also, killing farms are extremely common in planetside 2. We call them “biolabs”, they’re literally there for the sole purpose of farming, because you sure as hell aren’t taking them with equal numbers.)

It completely gets rid of tactics with your vehicles (Think: Siege weaponry), and replaces it with mindless zerg rushing & spamming revive grenades.

Specifically, everyone hates AoD (Angels of Death) and DaPP (Da Party Poopas) because that is literally ALL they would ever do.

Throw 2 platoons on a base with loads of revive grenades & like 6 sundies.

Planetside 2 is so prone to zerging that it’s basically all the vast majority of the players do in that game.

Where as it’s quite often I’ll end up in a small 15-20 man group in WvW in this game, and play havoc, take bases, and maybe take some fights against the other team’s groups.

At least until they pull a whole map Q onto us, and we get wiped. But you know what? That Map Q didn’t come from no where. It most likely came from our BL, or EBG. Which means our 15-20 man group is actually doing quite a bit of work.

Now, if you’re in T1, your experience probably differs from mine. And I can understand the complaints about zerging up there.

But on smaller servers? It’s actually kinda fun to run a smaller group.

Have you played planetside recently? Since when has revive grenade spam been anything other than something to possibly tip the balance when the forces fighting over a close quarters base where the forces on either side are about equal? Getting vehicles in and behind sundies is a highly effective maneuver and it often makes for great high level tactics and strategy.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with farming or zerging. I’m saying there isn’t enough. What is WvW? is it a gamemode where you, the average player follows around a commander tag to cap as many circles as you can in as short a time frame as possible, with the occasional hot minute? Or is it a gamemode that you can hop into and expect to take part in sieges, battles, and the joy of doing something to tip the scales of a prolonged fight, all while earning plenty of exp and rewards?

GW is still fast paced enough to cap a base with your little havoc group, except now you’ll get more resistance, and if you brought a siege camp with you, has a good chance of escalating into a prolonged battle, as more and more people get attracted by the crossed swords on the map.

Fipmip.7219:

Have you played planetside recently? Since when has revive grenade spam been anything other than something to possibly tip the balance when the forces fighting over a close quarters base where the forces on either side are about equal? Getting vehicles in and behind sundies is a highly effective maneuver and it often makes for great high level tactics and strategy.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with farming or zerging. I’m saying there isn’t enough. What is WvW? is it a gamemode where you, the average player follows around a commander tag to cap as many circles as you can in as short a time frame as possible, with the occasional hot minute? Or is it a gamemode that you can hop into and expect to take part in sieges, battles, and the joy of doing something to tip the scales of a prolonged fight, all while earning plenty of exp and rewards?

GW is still fast paced enough to cap a base with your little havoc group, except now you’ll get more resistance, and if you brought a siege camp with you, has a good chance of escalating into a prolonged battle, as more and more people get attracted by the crossed swords on the map.

Define recently. I’ve played it off and on for years, and the changes to it have been so incremental that it plays exactly the same as before, except with fewer and fewer organizations that still play it.

Last time I played it was probably a couple of months ago, for a couple of weeks. Exact same crap I was used to for the last few years, which is why I only ever play it for a couple weeks at a time.

Hilariously, Hossin is the only map where zerg rushing isn’t the ultimate strategy, and it’s also the map that everyone hates because they’re so used to zerg rushing.

Air raids on Hossin are loads of fun. Good luck getting people to do an air raid with you though.

I’m a tri-factioning nanite bag and I still struggle to get people together that are willing & able to fly liberators & esfs.

Your siege camp idea would just break the game, to be honest.
I don’t see how you think you would get “prolonged battles”. The bigger army is just going to steamroll over the small one, and then it’s going to bomb the hell out of the small one’s spawn area, so no one can jump in to help.

To be honest with you, we already have a prolonged fight mechanic built into the game.

You want a long siege warfare, it’s called cap SM and try to hold it when both teams are trebbing the hell out of your walls.

It’s lots of fun, and it’s why EBG has a queue 24/7.

Compare that to the other maps, with no central objective, and a long travel time to a battle, due to the WPs being contested at the slightest tap of the gates at bay/hills/firekeep/air/garri.

Maps need central objectives, and the stupid ruins haven’t been a valuable objective in ages.

TheOneWhoSighs.7513:

Your siege camp idea would just break the game, to be honest.
I don’t see how you think you would get “prolonged battles”. The bigger army is just going to steamroll over the small one, and then it’s going to bomb the hell out of the small one’s spawn area, so no one can jump in to help.

To be honest with you, we already have a prolonged fight mechanic built into the game.

You want a long siege warfare, it’s called cap SM and try to hold it when both teams are trebbing the hell out of your walls.

It’s lots of fun, and it’s why EBG has a queue 24/7.

Compare that to the other maps, with no central objective, and a long travel time to a battle, due to the WPs being contested at the slightest tap of the gates at bay/hills/firekeep/air/garri.

Maps need central objectives, and the stupid ruins haven’t been a valuable objective in ages.

You say that seige camps will break the game, and then say the larger army will roll over the smaller one. So how is that breaking the game exactly? are you contradicting yourself? I’ve played for quite a while now and having a long siege in smc is something that has yet to happen to me, unless you’re talking about the random dudes that set up a treb from miles away and just bomb the same wall over and over again.

Yes, large armies roll over small ones. No one disagrees with that. The way it currently works, this happens in the span of about ~60 seconds and then you’re back to running around for the next five minutes. With respawn points closer together, it will go some way to making those fights last longer. It’s that simple.

You also just admitted that these mythical smc prolonged fights are lots of fun, and are why ebg gets such long queues. I’m trying to get more of that, in more places, more of the time.

Fipmip.7219:

TheOneWhoSighs.7513:

Your siege camp idea would just break the game, to be honest.
I don’t see how you think you would get “prolonged battles”. The bigger army is just going to steamroll over the small one, and then it’s going to bomb the hell out of the small one’s spawn area, so no one can jump in to help.

To be honest with you, we already have a prolonged fight mechanic built into the game.

You want a long siege warfare, it’s called cap SM and try to hold it when both teams are trebbing the hell out of your walls.

It’s lots of fun, and it’s why EBG has a queue 24/7.

Compare that to the other maps, with no central objective, and a long travel time to a battle, due to the WPs being contested at the slightest tap of the gates at bay/hills/firekeep/air/garri.

Maps need central objectives, and the stupid ruins haven’t been a valuable objective in ages.

You say that seige camps will break the game, and then say the larger army will roll over the smaller one. So how is that breaking the game exactly? are you contradicting yourself? I’ve played for quite a while now and having a long siege in smc is something that has yet to happen to me, unless you’re talking about the random dudes that set up a treb from miles away and just bomb the same wall over and over again.

Yes, large armies roll over small ones. No one disagrees with that. The way it currently works, this happens in the span of about ~60 seconds and then you’re back to running around for the next five minutes. With respawn points closer together, it will go some way to making those fights last longer. It’s that simple.

You also just admitted that these mythical smc prolonged fights are lots of fun, and are why ebg gets such long queues. I’m trying to get more of that, in more places, more of the time.

The reason it will break it, and I probably should’ve elaborated on this.

Is that if a 20-30 man group manages to demolish a much larger zerg, they will not have the power to bomb the larger zerg’s spawn.

So basically, the entire advantage of spawn points, goes to the person with the larger zerg.

So a tower a smaller group may have been able to flip before, will become a tower they cannot ever flip due to the larger group being able to reinforce themselves.

Basically, it completely dooms the little man.

As for a lack of SMC fun, what server are you on? Because I always have SMC fun every day.

Fipmip.7219:

You also just admitted that these mythical smc prolonged fights are lots of fun, and are why ebg gets such long queues. I’m trying to get more of that, in more places, more of the time.

Getting more of that will inevitably lead to having new maps, not features.

EB is a fantastic map that constantly pressure whatever server is holding the center. DBL tried to mimic it but got about 30% of the way, then ran off a cliff and broke its limbs. Yes, all the limbs. And its still lying there on the bottom, crying for help. ABL was never designed for it even though they also tried to revive the center, its great on its own because it focus the top and bottom half seperately.

Either way the tl;dr is that we need new 3-way maps that are shaped like EB in general. Fancy features cant replace basic gameplay.

Yes I won’t deny that having near respawns will make it almost impossible to demolish larger zergs with smaller ones. It all depends on how the game would evolve over time. If say, The fights devolve into prolonged brawling, but the initial encounter is still that of the two flocks flying straight into eachother, there’s still room for zerg stomping and getting a ton of rewards, even if you probably wont take the castle. On camps or sentry points it could be a different story though. It is in my opinion that this is a sacrifice worth making to make the core gameplay a better experience.

I’m on blackgate by the way, fights over smc are like the same as a fight over any other castle. Your zerg will be away doing something else and another zerg will try and take it, If your zerg is able to to notice and redeploy in time, there will be a short fight and whichever zerg loses probably won’t retry for a while. The only time a defense of smc is actually prepared and waiting for another zerg to attack is when it was retreating away from the attacking army and back into smc in the first place, again, like any other castle

Dawdler.8521:

Getting more of that will inevitably lead to having new maps, not features.

EB is a fantastic map that constantly pressure whatever server is holding the center. DBL tried to mimic it but got about 30% of the way, then ran off a cliff and broke its limbs. Yes, all the limbs. And its still lying there on the bottom, crying for help. ABL was never designed for it even though they also tried to revive the center, its great on its own because it focus the top and bottom half seperately.

Either way the tl;dr is that we need new 3-way maps that are shaped like EB in general. Fancy features cant replace basic gameplay.

The system I’m trying to create, like i said, is trying to get longer fights to happen in more places than just these focal points. Changing basic gameplay is exactly what i’m trying to do, there’s nothing fancy about it.

Fipmip.7219:

Yes I won’t deny that having near respawns will make it almost impossible to demolish larger zergs with smaller ones. It all depends on how the game would evolve over time. If say, The fights devolve into prolonged brawling, but the initial encounter is still that of the two flocks flying straight into eachother, there’s still room for zerg stomping and getting a ton of rewards, even if you probably wont take the castle. On camps or sentry points it could be a different story though. It is in my opinion that this is a sacrifice worth making to make the core gameplay a better experience.

I’m on blackgate by the way, fights over smc are like the same as a fight over any other castle. Your zerg will be away doing something else and another zerg will try and take it, If your zerg is able to to notice and redeploy in time, there will be a short fight and whichever zerg loses probably won’t retry for a while. The only time a defense of smc is actually prepared and waiting for another zerg to attack is when it was retreating away from the attacking army and back into smc in the first place, again, like any other castle

Dawdler.8521:

Getting more of that will inevitably lead to having new maps, not features.

EB is a fantastic map that constantly pressure whatever server is holding the center. DBL tried to mimic it but got about 30% of the way, then ran off a cliff and broke its limbs. Yes, all the limbs. And its still lying there on the bottom, crying for help. ABL was never designed for it even though they also tried to revive the center, its great on its own because it focus the top and bottom half seperately.

Either way the tl;dr is that we need new 3-way maps that are shaped like EB in general. Fancy features cant replace basic gameplay.

The system I’m trying to create, like i said, is trying to get longer fights to happen in more places than just these focal points. Changing basic gameplay is exactly what i’m trying to do, there’s nothing fancy about it.

You should really see the fights from another server’s perspective. What you see in BG is different then what everyone else sees.

Fipmip.7219:

Yes I won’t deny that having near respawns will make it almost impossible to demolish larger zergs with smaller ones. It all depends on how the game would evolve over time. If say, The fights devolve into prolonged brawling, but the initial encounter is still that of the two flocks flying straight into eachother, there’s still room for zerg stomping and getting a ton of rewards, even if you probably wont take the castle. On camps or sentry points it could be a different story though. It is in my opinion that this is a sacrifice worth making to make the core gameplay a better experience.

I’m on blackgate by the way, fights over smc are like the same as a fight over any other castle. Your zerg will be away doing something else and another zerg will try and take it, If your zerg is able to to notice and redeploy in time, there will be a short fight and whichever zerg loses probably won’t retry for a while. The only time a defense of smc is actually prepared and waiting for another zerg to attack is when it was retreating away from the attacking army and back into smc in the first place, again, like any other castle

Dawdler.8521:

Getting more of that will inevitably lead to having new maps, not features.

EB is a fantastic map that constantly pressure whatever server is holding the center. DBL tried to mimic it but got about 30% of the way, then ran off a cliff and broke its limbs. Yes, all the limbs. And its still lying there on the bottom, crying for help. ABL was never designed for it even though they also tried to revive the center, its great on its own because it focus the top and bottom half seperately.

Either way the tl;dr is that we need new 3-way maps that are shaped like EB in general. Fancy features cant replace basic gameplay.

The system I’m trying to create, like i said, is trying to get longer fights to happen in more places than just these focal points. Changing basic gameplay is exactly what i’m trying to do, there’s nothing fancy about it.

Blackgate is really weird.

Honestly, if I had any complaint about my server (PPT wise), it’s that we over focus SMC when other people are holding it.

Everyone does from what I’ve seen.

Spent an entire day running around and defending SMC from both teams hitting it over and over on both sides.

Similarly, when my server was heavily out matched, we spent loads of time re-attacking SMC over & over, just like the other out matched server did.

I think the reason for this, is because it’s actually valuable for smaller servers to hit SMC.

Everyone wants to defend SMC, it’s the freaking castle after all.

So people will pull their entire zerg off of a BL and go to EB to defend said castle.

That opens up opportunities to hit up their BL, or provides useful time to repair up your BL if they were hitting it hard.

TheOneWhoSighs.7513:

Blackgate is really weird.

Honestly, if I had any complaint about my server (PPT wise), it’s that we over focus SMC when other people are holding it.

Everyone does from what I’ve seen.

Spent an entire day running around and defending SMC from both teams hitting it over and over on both sides.

Similarly, when my server was heavily out matched, we spent loads of time re-attacking SMC over & over, just like the other out matched server did.

I think the reason for this, is because it’s actually valuable for smaller servers to hit SMC.

Everyone wants to defend SMC, it’s the freaking castle after all.

So people will pull their entire zerg off of a BL and go to EB to defend said castle.

That opens up opportunities to hit up their BL, or provides useful time to repair up your BL if they were hitting it hard.

You dont think that the reason people just keep hitting smc over and over is because it’s you know, just fun? Perhaps there’s some other reason, perhaps monetary, perhaps strategic? You said yourself, the endless battle for smc is simply a good time. Something i’d like to experience too.

If the reason you’re getting this constant pressure over the central castle is because it’s just fun to be a part of a rough ongoing battle and trying to either just get as many kills as you can or do something to tip the balance, then I really think i don’t need to make my case any more. You can see right in front of you that this is what people want. so lets give it to them.

Fipmip.7219:

TheOneWhoSighs.7513:

Blackgate is really weird.

Honestly, if I had any complaint about my server (PPT wise), it’s that we over focus SMC when other people are holding it.

Everyone does from what I’ve seen.

Spent an entire day running around and defending SMC from both teams hitting it over and over on both sides.

Similarly, when my server was heavily out matched, we spent loads of time re-attacking SMC over & over, just like the other out matched server did.

I think the reason for this, is because it’s actually valuable for smaller servers to hit SMC.

Everyone wants to defend SMC, it’s the freaking castle after all.

So people will pull their entire zerg off of a BL and go to EB to defend said castle.

That opens up opportunities to hit up their BL, or provides useful time to repair up your BL if they were hitting it hard.

You dont think that the reason people just keep hitting smc over and over is because it’s you know, just fun? Perhaps there’s some other reason, perhaps monetary, perhaps strategic? You said yourself, the endless battle for smc is simply a good time. Something i’d like to experience too.

If the reason you’re getting this constant pressure over the central castle is because it’s just fun to be a part of a rough ongoing battle and trying to either just get as many kills as you can or do something to tip the balance, then I really think i don’t need to make my case any more. You can see right in front of you that this is what people want. so lets give it to them.

Even if it were purely because it’s fun, (it isn’t, but lets roll with it), your change wouldn’t accomplish that.

If you want to accomplish the SMC fun across the rest of the game, change all the maps to have a valuable, powerful, center objective.

No need to add whole new siege weaponry to act as mobile spawn points, which is bound to be bugged since the spawn points already in the game break frequently.

Just give us more central objectives.

Also, consider changing up the skirmishing system. Currently my server will win first place just by maintaining second place.

There needs to be more emphasis on keeping your top place throughout the week.

TheOneWhoSighs.7513:

Even if it were purely because it’s fun, (it isn’t, but lets roll with it), your change wouldn’t accomplish that.

If you want to accomplish the SMC fun across the rest of the game, change all the maps to have a valuable, powerful, center objective.

No need to add whole new siege weaponry to act as mobile spawn points, which is bound to be bugged since the spawn points already in the game break frequently.

Just give us more central objectives.

Also, consider changing up the skirmishing system. Currently my server will win first place just by maintaining second place.

There needs to be more emphasis on keeping your top place throughout the week.

You need to explain your assertions before I can continue this further, otherwise you’re just making claims without backing them up. I’d say that the reason people keep coming back for more in an ongoing fight is more because it’s fun than because it’s strategic, and we only need to look at the map chat to verify that. You say it’s not the case however, so why do you say that? And how do you figure my solution wouldn’t work? and how can you say the possibility that the spawns might be bugged is a legitmate reason not to push this change? and how would your solution fix the case for servers like blackgate? like i said, every fight in bg is the same, smc or not. My solution would have us fight in more locations, which in principle would be more fun than just a few central positions.