Guild Wars 2

Hey girls and guys. [Edit: adding feedback]

1. The future of World vs. World
World vs. World is as many here realise slowly becoming less and less attractive for people to play, the population on several servers has dropped significantly and match-ups are more often a complete blow-out due to population imbalance. Several other features have also worsened the state of WvW.

Yet, there still are a lot of people posting about it and that shows people actually are passionate about and care about it’s future. The current thread is a proposal to either ‘implement’ a new game mode that takes the best of WvW and replaces it, or exists alongside WvW.

Many players are interested in what is called the “small scale”, “roaming”, “havok” scene. Currently it is not really supported in any way and zergs or blobs have a huge advantage. Smaller groups have many disadvantages due to buff sharing, stability nerfs, aoe caps.

2. Guild-based World vs. World
The core idea is to give guilds a WvW gamemode that allows them to queue up in small squads (my original thought was between 5 and 10 people per group) with any player from any server. Each guild group on the map is hostile to any other guild group. By limiting the number of players per side significantly you reduce any risk of population imbalance.

The precise way this could work is entirely subject for discussion.

• Number of squads per battlefield: the number of squads could be more than the current 3 sides, but as high as 8 sides for example, because of lower numbers per side.
• Guilds: claiming structures could display your guild banner in the map, which makes guilds somewhat more meaningful.
• Match timer: there could be a timer which determines the end of the match-up, so instead of a full week fighting the same guilds you would get some choice as to who you’re fighting.
• Solo players: there could be a queue for solo players or guilds that can’t fill up a full group at a certain time, so for example 3 people can get matched with 5 others to fill a 8-man group.
• Serverwide pool: player pool for the queueing up could be serverwide, so no more restrictions based on what server you’re from.
• Bigger squads: higher player numbers could be possible, but remember that it’ll start looking like EotM then, and it will be less about guilds, and more about pugs.
• WvW maps: one option is to simply recuperate the current WvW maps and mechanics like they are right now.
• Death matches: as Stand The Wall proposed it might just be better to make a smaller map with purely death matches (see his post).
• Temporary alliances: to add more than just “killing enemies” there could be alliances between squads. Possibly with friendly fire, and max. 2 groups allied?
• Guild gimmicks and auto-upgrades: based on preference these could be disabled in these wvw instances.

3. Proposed goals
- Eliminate population balance as a problem
- Stop PvDoor and place focus on fights
- Make guilds meaningful again, GvG leaderboards?
- Bring back the sense of achievement
- Solve the problem of empty maps

Swagger.1459:

Nothing short of having a competitive gvg mode with all the bells and whistles and rewards and ladders and tournaments… will do anything to inspire guilds.

Thanks for any feedback!

There are probably better options to reduce zerging, such as debuffing large groups, making AoE blast combos less effective and biasing rewards so people in large groups get less and small to medium ones much more.

This would mean Blast finishing a water would get a set amount of healing, each toon would get a maximum effect from that but above the level it would be shared out. A zerg of 50 would get much less per person than a group of 10.

Same with loot, less than 25 and you get higher loot levels. 26 to 50, as now. above 50 to 70 low loot applies. Above 70 very low loot.

Your idea could be effective but would need a new map specifically designed for GvG. WvW is not designed for such battles and would require a lot of time. money and effort to change it. Then there would be limited opportunity for randoms and PUGs.

Sirendor.1394:

Player pool
Instead of making who you can play with server-bound like it is now, and which makes no sense at all in the light of megaservers, allow any guild from ANY SERVER who can get 5-10 people together to join up.

The idea sounds ok to me but the numbers may need to be raised. 5 people is probably too low and they should perhaps join PvP instead. Lots of guilds can easily bring 20+ players to the raids.

Serious.6940:

snip

I agree that diminishing returns on blasts, boon share the larger your number could work. In general I dislike the idea of nerfing rewards for people who like to play in a big group though.

Also the “nerf big groups” approach has several pitfalls like the predictable- “Hey you’re lowering our rewards, go away”. Also, how will it measure your rewards, since you get rewards for kills but also for capturing stuff. So if you solo a camp and at the last second a 30 man zerg comes to leech, you get a crap reward?

Just giving a few points for discussion why this might not be the best approach.

Well, do we really need a new map for that? I could see it working on EB, just by adding new spawning locations between the existing ones?

Also about the PUGs and randoms, what if you could queue for a server and get matched into one faction with other people queuing up randomly? Sure, it wouldn’t be as good as a full guild team, but Pick-up Groups aren’t as good as guild teams in normal WvW either.

FogLeg.9354:

The idea sounds ok to me but the numbers may need to be raised. 5 people is probably too low and they should perhaps join PvP instead. Lots of guilds can easily bring 20+ players to the raids.

Yeah true. I called it small scale for a reason though, and in small scale 10 is absolute maximum. Also, many core WvW guilds might have trouble bringing together 20 at the same time.

What’s the point? Is this just sPvP without point capping?

Serious.6940:

WvW is not designed for such battles and would require a lot of time. money and effort to change it. Then there would be limited opportunity for randoms and PUGs.

i think people would be pleased with anything at this point. here ive made a simple map. the yellow is the new boundary, blue is each teams keep/respawn point. you could cut out the first portion of each inner keep for each teams respawn. get rid of the outer sm wall, and add obstacles in its place, but not too many. some trees would be nice too. add more npcs inside the castle, all weak sponges to keep a team engaged while they are waiting. they should provide no bonus to a team that fights near them, and should not res. fill in the 3rd level of sm and put the lord there, with the npcs gaining in sponge health each level.

all of this wouldnt take very long and would probably go a long way to please a lot of folks. the best team size would probably be anywhere from 5-10. i think all 3 teams should decide beforehand what they want the cap set to, so the sides are even.

you could probably do this for alpine, desert, and even eotm too.

FogLeg.9354:

The idea sounds ok to me but the numbers may need to be raised. 5 people is probably too low and they should perhaps join PvP instead. Lots of guilds can easily bring 20+ players to the raids.

i despise this argument. small team wvw is about team deathmatch, and anet has made it quite clear that pvp is not for them.

Sirendor.1394:

As many as 10-20 different roaming groups per battlefield.

they would just turn into zergs. the only way i see is to simply limit the total size of each team.

Sirendor.1394:

Hey girls and guys.

Problem
There seem to be a lot of people interested in small scale for WvW but currently it is not really supported in any way and zergs have a huge advantage. Small scale groups have many disadvantages due to buff sharing, stability nerfs, aoe caps.

Suggestion
So what about a couple world vs. world instances where you do away with the server alliance like we have it now and instead create small squads. Each squad can get up to X (something between 5 and 10) players to join them, they will no longer be red, green, blue sides, but will fight under their own guild banner. (for example “Dark Knights [DARK] has captured Stonemist Castle”)

Player pool
Instead of making who you can play with server-bound like it is now, and which makes no sense at all in the light of megaservers, allow any guild from ANY SERVER who can get 5-10 people together to join up.

Goal
A (slightly) more balanced and more competitive version of WvW without zergs, but with a higher player number than SPvP (8 players really seems the ideal number to me), and no focus on point capping.

TLDR: small scale paradise.

Other ideas to add:

• Temporary alliances between small scale groups, but where they still have friendly fire, and max. 2 groups allied?
• Disable guild gimmicks in this wvw instance
• As many as 10-20 different roaming groups per battlefield.

I just want to ask –
- What is your opinion?
- Would you play it?
- Suggestions to improve?
- Please don’t post off-topic.

The only way gvg would work is if it was a supported mode in heart of the mists with rewards offered.

That’s what spvp should have been from the get go.

Stand The Wall.6987:

Quotes

1.
You managed to capture the idea better than I did. I really like your illustration for the EB map, it’s so simple and yet it’s exactly what I would like, maybe not too heavy on npcs though (so focus stays on PvP).

Also, what about just making the entrance towers to stonemist the places where the teams can spawn? I mean Quentin, Ogre, Wildcreek, Anza, Durios etc?

2.
Also like you say SPvP is not the place for this:

• SPvP allows too little build customization, just think about the number of people running the same builds… WvW has a lot more variety)
• The focus on point capture is lame. We want death matches, simple as that.
• SPvP is too limited with regards to teams: 5v5 is nowhere near as epic as 5v5v5 or even 5v5v5v5v5.
• Guilds have no real meaning in SPvP, in WvW at least you can capture and defend your own tower.

3.
Would they turn into zergs when each group is hostile? For example have 6 groups instead of 3 but each is enemy to the other? I’m not sure they would start teaming up unless there’s an in-game alliance system (which I suggested but am not entirely convinced of). If you put the cap at 10 people per group it’s still only 60 people (many maps have/had 60 people running at prime time, per server).

Swagger.1459:

The only way gvg would work is if it was a supported mode in heart of the mists with rewards offered.

That’s what spvp should have been from the get go.

Many people have played the ‘self-made’ Guild versus Guild for years even when there were no rewards and no support from ArenaNet. I completely agree SPvP should have been this (I am thinking of you GW1 GvG with 8 players).

I also think a game mode like the one I propose has the significant advantage over WvW that you could play anytime you like and the maps wouldn’t be empty, because you draw players from all servers, and you can queue up independently. The matches could also have a time-limit like SPvP if that’s a good idea (so they don’t drag on infinitely).

Also, to prevent any misunderstandings, I do not claim my suggestion is “how it should be”, I am just trying to get a discussion going, because in my opinion we need something like a GvG, Deathmatch-oriented gamemode, and it could stay alongside WvW and SPvP.

Not sure what the point of this post is. If the problem is large groups of players blobbing up and being unstoppable, what is their incentive to break up into smaller groups for fair fights? WvW is basically a war sim, right? Why would one side volunteer to give up their advantage? Also, keep in mind that blobs form when there is only one person willing to tag up. A blob will never split in 2 unless another respected commander tags up.

Given the population problems wvw faces, do you really want a subset of wvw to pull MORE players out?

If anet wants to make blobbing less attractive, they should tweak the reward system until it influences behavior. If I know that my magic find goes up 200% if my group wipes a blob twice it’s size, you can bet I’ll be more interested in taking on bigger forces. However, a HUGE downside of that is how it will influence player relationships. Now, guilds don’t really care if pugs follow them. If those pugs prevent the guild group from getting better rewards, commanders will get hostile to pugs and/or run tagless, and you’ll alienate even more players. Therefore, I doubt anet will ever support a change to wvw that penalizes large groups.

My point is that World vs. World as we have it now is inherently flawed. There is no balance at all, which makes some servers overpopulated while others are completely dead. Someone (I forgot who) made a thread about their server Crystal Desert having three people against a whole blob. I simply do not believe ANYONE is pleased with a situation like that. I know some people like to PvDoor, but come on, if that’s what you like to do, you’re probably better off playing PvE or EotM.

My point is that population balance, along with many poor design decisions – such as overpowered gimmicks, overpowered elite specs, maps filled with pve – is slowly but surely killing this game mode. What I propose is taking the problem at it’s root and eliminate balancing problems by allowing a predefined number of people per map.

I believe that making a Guild vs. Guild mode like it should have been made LONG ago, would actually bring back a lot of players who are interested in that kind of thing. Would it kill WvW? Maybe initially it would, but it has been dying for years.

And as you say (and I already pointed out earlier) big group debuffs are as bad as they are good, so they’re not the right way to go.

Sirendor.1394:

My point is that World vs. World as we have it now is inherently flawed. There is no balance at all, which makes some servers overpopulated while others are completely dead. Someone (I forgot who) made a thread about their server Crystal Desert having three people against a whole blob. I simply do not believe ANYONE is pleased with a situation like that. I know some people like to PvDoor, but come on, if that’s what you like to do, you’re probably better off playing PvE or EotM.

My point is that population balance, along with many poor design decisions – such as overpowered gimmicks, overpowered elite specs, maps filled with pve – is slowly but surely killing this game mode. What I propose is taking the problem at it’s root and eliminate balancing problems by allowing a predefined number of people per map.

I believe that making a Guild vs. Guild mode like it should have been made LONG ago, would actually bring back a lot of players who are interested in that kind of thing. Would it kill WvW? Maybe initially it would, but it has been dying for years.

And as you say (and I already pointed out earlier) big group debuffs are as bad as they are good, so they’re not the right way to go.

You would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater with your plan.

Capture activity drives spontaneous fights. I have data to support this claim. I’m all for Anet giving GvG a place to call home, however I am against destroying the larger strategic WvW concept for simple tactical arena fights.

Alliances fix most of the problems with balance while preserving the strategic component and should be considered before outright ditching WvW for fights fights fights.

Sirendor.1394:

1.
3.

yeah that works too, although i think ogres would have to be moved a little closer and something would have to be done to prevent spawn camping (multiple paths out of spawn). i wouldnt want the focus to be pve but neither should the map be barren. i think adding some hp sponges are a good thing.

oh i thought you were trying to artificially separate same side groups.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Capture activity drives spontaneous fights. I have data to support this claim. I’m all for Anet giving GvG a place to call home, however I am against destroying the larger strategic WvW concept for simple tactical arena fights.

Alliances fix most of the problems with balance while preserving the strategic component and should be considered before outright ditching WvW for fights fights fights.

im pretty sure our ideas would not impact the core wvw maps at all.

Stand The Wall.6987:

Sirendor.1394:

1.
3.

yeah that works too, although i think ogres would have to be moved a little closer and something would have to be done to prevent spawn camping (multiple paths out of spawn). i wouldnt want the focus to be pve but neither should the map be barren. i think adding some hp sponges are a good thing.

oh i thought you were trying to artificially separate same side groups.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Capture activity drives spontaneous fights. I have data to support this claim. I’m all for Anet giving GvG a place to call home, however I am against destroying the larger strategic WvW concept for simple tactical arena fights.

Alliances fix most of the problems with balance while preserving the strategic component and should be considered before outright ditching WvW for fights fights fights.

im pretty sure our ideas would not impact the core wvw maps at all.

Who is talking about the maps? I’m talking about incentives and factors that drive conflict. If you remove all forms of territorial scoring and reduce it Guild vs Guild you will essentially be lining up and just fighting one another with the structures on the maps just being props for your fights.

So basically what you are saying is something, anything must be done to rebalance wvw populations. I’m fairly certain the big wvw revamp in the works will include either removing low pop servers or a switch to a faction system.

Actually, it was the change to stability that dealt a mortal blow to wvw. All the balance, overpowered specs, pve bs you mentioned happened after the fact.

As long as anet considers wvw to be basically a crowded version of spvp, none of the “fixes” will accomplish much.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Sirendor.1394:

My point is that World vs. World as we have it now is inherently flawed. There is no balance at all, which makes some servers overpopulated while others are completely dead. Someone (I forgot who) made a thread about their server Crystal Desert having three people against a whole blob. I simply do not believe ANYONE is pleased with a situation like that. I know some people like to PvDoor, but come on, if that’s what you like to do, you’re probably better off playing PvE or EotM.

My point is that population balance, along with many poor design decisions – such as overpowered gimmicks, overpowered elite specs, maps filled with pve – is slowly but surely killing this game mode. What I propose is taking the problem at it’s root and eliminate balancing problems by allowing a predefined number of people per map.

I believe that making a Guild vs. Guild mode like it should have been made LONG ago, would actually bring back a lot of players who are interested in that kind of thing. Would it kill WvW? Maybe initially it would, but it has been dying for years.

And as you say (and I already pointed out earlier) big group debuffs are as bad as they are good, so they’re not the right way to go.

You would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater with your plan.

Capture activity drives spontaneous fights. I have data to support this claim. I’m all for Anet giving GvG a place to call home, however I am against destroying the larger strategic WvW concept for simple tactical arena fights.

Alliances fix most of the problems with balance while preserving the strategic component and should be considered before outright ditching WvW for fights fights fights.

+1 if I could have given you more for that post I would have. Well said Sir!

TorquedSoul.8097:

Who is talking about the maps? I’m talking about incentives and factors that drive conflict. If you remove all forms of territorial scoring and reduce it Guild vs Guild you will essentially be lining up and just fighting one another with the structures on the maps just being props for your fights.

uh, yeah? thats kind of the whole point? there are people who would rather not ppt at all and basically have a team death match arena. anyway like i said i wouldnt have it effect core wvw at all, it would be totally separate. is that a problem for you, or are our ideas offending you in some way?

TorquedSoul.8097:

Capture activity drives spontaneous fights. I have data to support this claim.

guys he has data.
what about custom arenas in pvp, which is basically a team deathmatch most of the time? or those gankers picking off repawners in wvw? or those duelers that you driveby stomp in your zerg? or actual teams getting in contact with eachother for 5v5 fights? should these people not have a voice because your data says otherwise?

Osu.6307:

So basically what you are saying is something, anything must be done to rebalance wvw populations. I’m fairly certain the big wvw revamp in the works will include either removing low pop servers or a switch to a faction system.

And I am fairly certain Anet said in Reddit AMA they gave up on big WvW revamp already because it is too much work.

FogLeg.9354:

And I am fairly certain Anet said in Reddit AMA they gave up on big WvW revamp already because it is too much work.

No, that’s not what they said. What they said was that they were feature creeping the revamp and brought someone new in to prune the creep.

Stand The Wall.6987:

guys he has data.
what about custom arenas in pvp, which is basically a team deathmatch most of the time? or those gankers picking off repawners in wvw? or those duelers that you driveby stomp in your zerg? or actual teams getting in contact with eachother for 5v5 fights? should these people not have a voice because your data says otherwise?

The correct answer to that is:

What about it? What are you even talking about? Why would they even get a voice?

That capture activity goes hand in hand with fights is a given fact. Because thats what the WvW gameplay mode is. If you only focus on fights or the server is “fight guild” heavy, it drops like a stone in the rankings. Its only the capture activity of pugs that allow a server to climb. Which is what gives the fights to everyone.

All hail the mighty PPT overlords.

Seriously though, guys, what makes you think PPT is in any way important? Do you really think people will stop capturing structures because there is no PPT? I have been in a lot of WvW guilds over the course of 3 years, and most of them did not care about PPT even one bit. What they cared about was the amount of people fighting on different sides.

You seem to have everything mixed up. Yes, PPT balance is an indication of activity, but it’s not the reason WHY there is activity. The reason WHY there is activity is not because there is PPT, but because people have fun fighting most of the time and because they get a sense of achievement from fighting off an attacking force in a tower, or inversely they get a sense of achievement from conquering a heavily guarded tower.

If you really want to hold on to your point that PPT > Fights, go ahead, but lets agree to disagree on that then.

Also, Torqued, I am not “against” capture activity, quite the contrary. My idea was to just peruse for example eternal battleground the same as it is, but with one change that there would be several smaller groups with equal numbers instead of 3 unbalanced ‘servers’.

Capturing would still have a place in there, however it would not be in favor of PPT, it would be in favor of your guild/team winning against the other guilds/teams.

There’s two options there: team deathmatch (i.e. last team standing) or capture X structure (i.e. map domination).

I think one of the worst thing about wvw is that a lot of wvw guilds will never be able to compete against the vast majority of other wvw guilds because matchups are often so locked…

Dawdler.8521:

The correct answer to that is:

What about it? What are you even talking about? Why would they even get a voice?

That capture activity goes hand in hand with fights is a given fact. Because thats what the WvW gameplay mode is. If you only focus on fights or the server is “fight guild” heavy, it drops like a stone in the rankings. Its only the capture activity of pugs that allow a server to climb. Which is what gives the fights to everyone.

im talking about a group of people that dont care for ppt the way it is now. thought that was obvious. my bad. why? i think youre underestimating the amount of people that would rather just play the game the way they enjoy it, which is small team skirmishes. instead of running across the map, only to be zerged down or worse not find anyone.

capture activity promotes fights. to say they are the sole cause of them is ridiculous. often enough capture points are completely uncontested. ever play a game with a deathmatch mode? its a proven fact that people play them for deathmatch.

Stand The Wall.6987:

Dawdler.8521:

The correct answer to that is:

What about it? What are you even talking about? Why would they even get a voice?

That capture activity goes hand in hand with fights is a given fact. Because thats what the WvW gameplay mode is. If you only focus on fights or the server is “fight guild” heavy, it drops like a stone in the rankings. Its only the capture activity of pugs that allow a server to climb. Which is what gives the fights to everyone.

im talking about a group of people that dont care for ppt the way it is now. thought that was obvious. my bad. why? i think youre underestimating the amount of people that would rather just play the game the way they enjoy it, which is small team skirmishes. instead of running across the map, only to be zerged down or worse not find anyone.

capture activity promotes fights. to say they are the sole cause of them is ridiculous. often enough capture points are completely uncontested. ever play a game with a deathmatch mode? its a proven fact that people play them for deathmatch.

WvW deathmatch? Just post the weekly kdr for all servers and declare I winner. I don’t see why we need to destroy wvw to give you what you want. Some of us still like the game that anet created.

If GvG is to play some kind of role in WvW, just add a set number of GvG slots per week, with the winner of each one pocketing a decent prize and giving their server a substantial points bonus.

And by substantial I mean that if you win every GvG, it’s very hard to lose the week.

Sounds like you want something that already exists… pvp. Personally, I like the idea of having to use the terrain and towers to your advantage. Unfortunately Anet has yet to solve the problem of blob. When they do, Yaks Bend is done.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Stand The Wall.6987:

Dawdler.8521:

The correct answer to that is:

What about it? What are you even talking about? Why would they even get a voice?

That capture activity goes hand in hand with fights is a given fact. Because thats what the WvW gameplay mode is. If you only focus on fights or the server is “fight guild” heavy, it drops like a stone in the rankings. Its only the capture activity of pugs that allow a server to climb. Which is what gives the fights to everyone.

im talking about a group of people that dont care for ppt the way it is now. thought that was obvious. my bad. why? i think youre underestimating the amount of people that would rather just play the game the way they enjoy it, which is small team skirmishes. instead of running across the map, only to be zerged down or worse not find anyone.

capture activity promotes fights. to say they are the sole cause of them is ridiculous. often enough capture points are completely uncontested. ever play a game with a deathmatch mode? its a proven fact that people play them for deathmatch.

WvW deathmatch? Just post the weekly kdr for all servers and declare I winner. I don’t see why we need to destroy wvw to give you what you want. Some of us still like the game that anet created.

The whole approach in this thread is to create a WvW revamp that does what current WvW fails at: giving us good fights 24/7, with multiple sides, no focus on point capping, use of siege and fighting over strategic elements, with a place for guilds.

You’re free to disagree, but it’s not because you like WvW in it’s current state, that everyone else likes it. As a matter of fact, current WvW activity shows that a big share of WvW players have stopped playing, and more are doing that unless something changes.

Link.1049:

Sounds like you want something that already exists… pvp.

This has been commented on before. Read the thread and then try again.

TorquedSoul.8097:

WvW deathmatch? Just post the weekly kdr for all servers and declare I winner. I don’t see why we need to destroy wvw to give you what you want. Some of us still like the game that anet created.

once again, please read what i wrote. my ideas do not entirely coincide with sirendors. once you have then we can continue the discussion. if not then you have no convincing argument and i will ignore you from now on.