Guild Wars 2

…and some thoughts on implementation

Long post ahead. If you want to skim it, the first sentence of each paragraph will give you the general idea.

With the upcoming release of Heart of Thorns, it’s clear that a significant amount of input into the direction of parts of the game, particularly PvE, has been taken from the CDIs of last year. WvW, by comparison, seems to have missed the boat; it’s getting an interesting map rework, but it really needs a substantial change in direction to resurrect it from obscurity. So with no further CDIs on the horizon, I’ve compiled all my thoughts on the matter into one post. Maybe it’ll achieve something, maybe it won’t.

The status quo

The WvW scenario has remained largely the same since launch. We’ve lost the orbs to be replaced with bloodlust; we’ve gained an ‘overflow’ map that’s largely used as a loot train; and there’s these WvW ranks and reward chests now. There have been tweaks to matchmaking and a few tournaments that had mixed responses.

But the biggest change in WvW since launch has been the players. The most obvious change is there are less of them – the remaining players are transferring gradually to the higher ranked servers so that they still have someone left to play with, and against; some players also transfer for a better shot at winning, particularly for tournaments.
But other changes in the playerbase have also occurred. They’re better than they used to be – you don’t have to look particularly hard to find someone who can drop you in seconds if you make a mistake.
And most players no longer care whether their server wins this week. After three years of WvW, there’s nothing left to play for except fights and loot.

The problem is not that WvW has been completely neglected – there have been a number of changes, even if not as many as have been afforded to the other two game modes. Rather, it seems to me that the development focus has been misplaced.

The existing WvW structure is similar to a huge version of the PvP Conquest game mode that lasts for a week instead of to 500 points. There are walls around the cap points, you can use siege weapons to defend them, and there are big maps around them containing all kinds of things that may play into the defense or attack on these cap points – sentries, mercenaries, dolyaks – or are just there for flavour, like the jumping puzzles, beasts, and gathering nodes.
And much the same as Conquest, who gets points the fastest wins… something.
Well, 3 bonus chests.
Maybe that’s not enough – but the problem is, you can’t make winning too important with open teams or you just promote even more bandwagoning.
So winning doesn’t matter that much. And in that case, what’s the point of the game mode?

These days, we seem to make our own ‘point’.

Redirection of focus

Currently, the development focus on WvW seems to be on enriching the WvW environment. The new Desert borderland will provide greater options for map control, more effective defense and a more diverse environment than the current Alpine borderland, which will be making a comeback following a similar upgrade. And I’m looking forward to playing both, but in the end it’s going to be more of the same – roving the map looking for players to stomp and towers to ransack.

What I propose, in order to bring people back, is the tailoring of WvW maps and activities to interest the several different types of players there. We actually don’t play to top the scoreboard at the end of the week now, because that game is won by numbers alone, and numbers alone aren’t an enjoyable game. Further development should address these two points:

What do players like to do?

• Some do still play to improve their server’s standing in the war.
  They arrange effective scouting, sentries, siege placement, and distribution of attacking forces for maximum effect.

• Others play for the loot.
  Presently, the only way to do that is by capturing as much as possible as quickly as possible.

• And some enjoy the challenge of the WvW environment.
  There can you hold out against greater numbers of players, attempt to capture what should not be captured, and rely on your situational awareness to know when you can fight and when it’s time to run.

• Plenty of others just play for the fights.
  From large open field battles, to small groups, to duels – so long as player skill is the single factor that decides the battle, it’s satisfying.

How could WvW be more enjoyable for each group of players?

By rewarding their activities, for a start, but also by giving them more toys.

• For the scouts and siege masters, by making it easier to operate when they’re outnumbered, by removing the charge for upgrading forts (score one for ANet), by providing additional means of tracking enemy movements, and by making defense more lucrative so they can get more help from the karma trainers.

• For those karma trainers, by rewarding them a lot more for conquering a well-defended structure than an empty one.

• For the players who like to defy the odds, by giving them the ability to initiate high-risk, high-reward missions that can make it worth their while.

• And for the PvPers, by giving them venues where defeating other teams in combat provides lasting recognition and a bonus to their server.

That’s only the beginning – I’m sure there are more ways to bring WvW to life for its players.

A Small (but not that brief) List of Ideas
Roughly in order of implementation complexity. I’m sure some of these have been around before; I’m describing them to illustrate content that could add depth to WvW in a way that appeals to players.

PvP rewards:
Killing players advances your current PvP reward track. The full reward is divided amongst allies in the area.
This could provide greater rewards for players who enjoy open-field PvP, particularly when outnumbered.

A point to consider: Should players hit by siege weapons contribute to rewards?

Siege warfare rewards:
The reward for capturing assets is multiplied by the tier of the asset when captured, and scaled again by the number of defenders fighting during the 15 minutes leading to its capture.
Defenders are rewarded every time a defense event concludes, scaled by the number of attackers.
This could be used to make capturing a well-defended asset at least as lucrative as flipping, karma training or nightcapping.

Scouting tools:
New siege equipment type: Radar Station
All enemy players and siege within line of sight of the station appear on the map. This has low HP and can be affected by siege disablers.

New trap: Tracker Darts
When triggered, all enemy players within 1200 units are visible on the map for 60 seconds.

These tools can provide alternative means of detecting enemy movement for defenders to gain more information about whether to respond – with counterplay options.
That is, radar stations have to be exposed to danger to provide the best field of view. Trackers can be countered by sending one player ahead of the zerg, making the threat appear far less significant.

Scout Mastery track:
Provides the ability to avoid detection by enemy players and return information on them while out of combat.

Rank 1: Scout Mode: Other players in 2000 range appear on the map for the whole server while you are not in combat. Your skill bar is disabled.
Your movement speed is restricted to normal (swiftness and other passive speed boosts have no effect).
Scout Mode is disabled in fortifications not owned by your server.
Rank 2: Your name is invisible while in scout mode (but you can still be targetted)
Rank 3: You can detect enemy commander tags
Rank 4: After remaining still for 5 seconds, you become invisible (but you can still be targetted)
Rank 5: You gain access to short-duration, long-cooldown invisibility and movement speed skills while in Scout Mode
This could promote stealth-based gameplay that provides some benefit to the server, but with enough restrictions that it cannot be abused in combat.

Points to consider: Would Rank 3’s bonus lead to tag spam? If it did, wouldn’t that make things harder for enemies as well? Are there any other bonuses that would be more appropriate?

Guild NPC defense:
Keeps and towers claimed by a guild can be set to receive automatic reinforcements when contested. A guild representative can select from several basic types, including standard WvW NPCs, or special types that the guild can unlock.
These reappear whenever the asset is contested, until they are killed or the asset is captured. Dead guild NPCs can be replaced using supply.
This could aid in making capturing assets from a guild more challenging. (Of course, it also gives unopposed karma trains more sources of loot bags.)

A point to consider: What if you could deploy one champion NPC that hunts down intruders within keeps only, resembling a hero from Stronghold?

NPC followers:
Players within a keep, tower or camp can spend their supply at a quartermaster to receive temporary allies, who follow the player around and actively support them while in the vicinity of that asset.
Followers effectively take the place of regular players, and begin to despawn if additional defenders arrive.
As a guideline, there may be no more than 5 players and mercenaries at a camp, 10 at a tower, and 15 at a keep.
Each player can only lead 4 mercenaries, each costing 5 supply to hire. A player can only hire new ones once per score tick (every 15 minutes).
Presently, very small groups are heavily restricted in how they can tackle larger groups of attackers. This allows them greater freedom to act without relying on siege alone, and could make outnumbered servers more competitive in defense.

Points to consider: In this model, hiring mercenaries would effectively prevent some or all of the next few players from receiving the same benefit. A ‘fair’ solution to this would be to distribute mercenaries amongst players roughly equally, assuming they’ve been hired. But suppose your guardian NPC disappeared in the middle of battle because someone hires their allocation of mercenaries? Additionally, what happens to despawned mercenaries if you lose the fort?

Supply Raids:
A party of up to five players can infiltrate and steal supply from towers and keeps. This is a complicated idea to implement, due to the need to prevent players from using it to capture towers and keeps.

New siege type: Infiltrator’s Toolkit
Can only be constructed by the party of the deployer. Requires 200 supply to build. (In other words you have to resupply at least once to complete it.)
Must be deployed adjacent to an enemy wall. Low HP while under construction to make it easily countered by defenders.

On completion, the toolkit spawns a race-themed system for the party to scale the wall (grappling hooks, magitech lift, vines etc.). All party members must enter simultaneously. After this, the system is destroyed.
Successfully using a toolkit spawns an event with several lightly-armed allied NPCs who the players must escort to a supply hut within the tower or fort. Once they reach the supply hut, they require 5 uninterrupted minutes to salvage the supply.
During this period, walls and gates take no damage from allied players.
NPCs can be resurrected, but the event fails if all of them die, if the guild lord is slain, or if any other allied players enter the tower or fort. Upon completion or failure, all allied players are removed from the fort.

If successful, the raid destroys all supply in the tower or fort, and returns a portion of that to the raid participants, scaled according to the number of defenders on the map – completing a raid while outmanned would be extremely lucrative. The supply could be redeemed as badges, WvW reward chests, or other selectable rewards.

Points to consider: Third-tier assets could automatically show raid NPCs and siege via radar based in the lord room. This would make them considerably riskier to penetrate, and require careful co-ordination of siege disablers to mitigate that risk.
A raid could also be used to destroy siege equipment and supply prior to an attack. Would this be acceptable?
Scaling by the number of defenders on the map could be a powerful tool in preventing farming supply during off-hours or against outnumbered servers, and could make raiding from the more powerful servers more lucrative. However, the balance may be difficult to get right.

WvW Dungeons:
Every few hours, groups or squads may queue to enter a PvP dungeon against two (maybe more for some dungeons) similar groups or squads from any other servers in their block (NA, EU or CN).
Victory grants a substantial boss chest. Winning the Fissure of Woe grants Favor of the Gods to the victor’s server (non-stacking).
In these dungeons, players can not respawn, though they may be revived by other members of their team – while there are any. They provide variants of open-world PvP that offer greater risk/reward to participants, and are intended mainly for roaming and ganking enthusiasts.

Fissure of Woe
Inspired by the GW1 elite zone, it allows larger squads of 30 players per team per instance.
Teams complete events around the Fissure of Woe to recruit mercenaries to assault the Temple of War. Mercenaries tilt the battlefield in your team’s favour; however, recruiting them takes time and must be weighed against the need to control the Temple of War. The first team to control the Temple of War for 10 uninterrupted minutes wins.
Mercenaries can be killed by enemy teams, and may be replaced by repeating the recruitment events.
Players who are defeated for more than 5 minutes leave the fight – so camping their corpse can be a useful strategy, but if their team wins they are eligible for the same reward.

The Underworld
Also inspired by the GW1 elite zone, this allows groups of 5 players per team per instance.
Teams complete objectives to unlock access to final boss – it doesn’t matter who does them, but only one team can defeat the boss.
When a team enters the final arena, they seal it from the other teams. The final boss is timed: if a team takes too long, they wipe and allow another team (if any are still alive) to make an attempt.
This one is more PvE-oriented and can be completed while avoiding the other teams, but killing the others off increases your odds of making it to the boss first.

Guild castles:
Separate maps in WvW, each containing its own castle that is contested on different terms and contributes to the PPT total of the server.
They are contestable at the same time each day (except for reset day) in a GvG format. Most castles are contestable during primetime, but some are contested earlier or later to cater to players from other timezones.

The number of castles available is a multiple of 3; at reset, a third are granted to each server as defender.
Guilds can apply to contest a castle during the 24 hours leading up to the fight; they can only contest one per timezone. If all three servers contest, the two attacking servers fight first for the right to face the defender. One guild is chosen to represent a server based on votes from the server population.

The fight itself involves two even teams, usually 15-25 players but some castles permit up to 60. The last team standing wins automatically; however, an attacking team can win by expelling all defenders from the castle capture point, and a defending team can win if the time limit is reached. Guild castle battles should permit observers if possible.

The winning guild controls the castle for the next 24 hours, and their server has access to its facilities.

And that’s all I have for now (thankfully). At the very least it should illustrate how I think WvW could offer a lot more activities than it does at present, and it saves anyone from reading this mess in a CDI.