Guild Wars 2

Got this game as a gift from a friend recently and having a blast. WvW is great but could use a tad more smoothing and depth. (I use “tad” not sarcastically, WvW is great).

First and foremost, Waypoints. Respawning in WvW need some smoothing. Poking a base results in a disabled waypoint, forcing long treks across the map when no actual combat is occurring.

Things I can think of that would fix this include, deployable spawn points, spawning waypoints at sentries, and removing “contested” status from waypoints. I’m sure there are more options, but the main goal here is reducing the time it takes for players to get into action.

Thoughts?

Keep waypoint delay.

I can understand the contested status of the waypoint, but a way to move further into the map could certainly liven up the action. It might also be part of the issue/balance of supply running. A waypoint left open could mean a team just jumping waypoints to rapidly repair their door. A good compromise could be a guild deployable waypoint for a few minutes or just lessening the build time on waypoints.

I feel like Sentry (or whatever you call the guys marked with flags on the map) waypoints would be a better fit since they don’t have supply stock. The ability to spawn in them would make disabling all foreward spawn options have a few more steps to it. A nice secondary benefit is allowing skirmish groups to have a small impact on both outgoing and incoming zerg flow by taking sentries.

Special thanks to Muramasa for his concise explanation of why waypoint delays are important. =P

No. This would ruin small group roaming. Also, you zerglings need to be killed on the way to your precious zerg.

Interesting topic. Every other discussion Ive seen or had in the past 9 months has gone in the opposite direction of removing waypoints altogether due to its nature in promoting zerg gameplay over organized smaller scale fights. I also believe it was either stated or inferred that Anet was removing waypoints in the future or at least that they were looking at how to rework them to reduce their effectiveness.

Tricare.2946:

No. This would ruin small group roaming. Also, you zerglings need to be killed on the way to your precious zerg.

I don’t think it would. I’ve always had three issues functioning in small groups.

1. Tracking enemy zergs
2. Respawning after getting rolled over by them
3. Finding something meaningful to accomplishing world goals that can be accomplished before zergs roll over me.

In my mind, this helps 2. and 3. More spawn locations means more ways around a zerg, and in that a waypoint that can be easily flipped gives small roamers a real impact that they are rewarded for.

What are you usually doing in small groups that this would inhibit?

Hmm. We could also be on the same page as the dev’s. Reducing the effectiveness of the zerging strategy I think is the goal to provide better combat options and a generally more engaging sense of gameplay so that other options (small strike forces, defending, etc).

Perhaps movement speed buffs from spawn could be an answer! It would reduce the need for waypoints, keep the balance of risking finding the zerg behind enemy lines, allow for faster defense that become harder the closer you get to players. Simply have it lost upon entering combat and you might even have people keeping to roads and get some fun smaller group gameplay!

I’m sure there are plenty of other tweaks to add more mobility and variety to bland treks across the empty wilderness.

Edit: Formatting for Legibility

Gatvin.6510:

Tricare.2946:

No. This would ruin small group roaming. Also, you zerglings need to be killed on the way to your precious zerg.

I don’t think it would. I’ve always had three issues functioning in small groups.

1. Tracking enemy zergs
2. Respawning after getting rolled over by them
3. Finding something meaningful to accomplishing world goals that can be accomplished before zergs roll over me.

In my mind, this helps 2. and 3. More spawn locations means more ways around a zerg, and in that a waypoint that can be easily flipped gives small roamers a real impact that they are rewarded for.

What are you usually doing in small groups that this would inhibit?

Can’t really say #2 is an issue, if you’re a small group you need to be aware of when to leg it. Adding waypoints would really just help zergs to res-rush you and overwhelm with numbers even more so.

If the hike is the issue, then wait for the waypoint timer.

There shouldn’t be waypoints at all.

Bertrand.3057:

Can’t really say #2 is an issue, if you’re a small group you need to be aware of when to leg it. Adding waypoints would really just help zergs to res-rush you and overwhelm with numbers even more so.

If the hike is the issue, then wait for the waypoint timer.

A given small group does need to know when to leg it. At the same time, they don’t always get away. If getting steamrolled by zergs didn’t feel bad, I wouldn’t see so many people complaining about it.

The hike is the most immediately bothersome thing, but there is more to it than just that. I mean, anything that makes it harder for zergs to spawn, also makes it harder for small groups.

If you think removing WP’s is the answer, you really must be playing another game. All that would do is INCREASE blobbing, Golem rushing, and rezzing. All things people complain about too. Thus, put it this way, people just like to complain when they are losing.

Contested WP’s to me is illogical. Especially in PvE when they have an event you are supposed to participate in yet, they close off access to it! It’s quite the opposite of what should happen.

I think waypoints should stay contested for 10 seconds when hit. If there is continuous damage (ramming, catapulting, PvD’ing), it would stay contested.

However I think while a waypoint is contested, a FEW people should still be able to use it. Maybe 2-3 people per minute or something. The current mechanic leads to really “silly” tactics such as:

—kamikaze yourself to kill siege when timer is getting low, knowing you can respawn with basically 0 penalty
—spamming WP from other maps often puts you at Citadel if you don’t load quickly enough
—you work hard to get into a lord’s room only to have a ~40 man zerg WP onto your head at the last second.

DeWolfe.2174:

If you think removing WP’s is the answer, you really must be playing another game. All that would do is INCREASE blobbing, Golem rushing, and rezzing. All things people complain about too. Thus, put it this way, people just like to complain when they are losing.

Contested WP’s to me is illogical. Especially in PvE when they have an event you are supposed to participate in yet, they close off access to it! It’s quite the opposite of what should happen.

I wouldn’t say playing another game, but yes. Killing waypoints won’t kill zerging. Just about any game with mass pvp has zergs. Its not something that should be hindered, its something to be balanced around. And its not bad either. not everyone likes zergs, but lots of players have fun in them. Both playstyles will probably be supported.

I exactly agree about the mixed message of “go here for combat” and “don’t use the convenient spawn point we put here”. Contested waypoints are (kind of) a necessary evil to prevent waypoint hopping for supplies. The supply system existing is worth it though. In my mind though, players should clash more often, and be rewarded for trying. Winners being rewarded more of course.

After playing RTS games for years and MMOs, the less possible spawn locations/waypoints, it seems there is an increased amount of zerging/blobbing. Here’s an idea that might make some rage, but think about it’s potential. Put a waypoint on the mercenary camps (Dredge, Hylek, Ogres), and make them usable when your server has control over that mercenary camp. Those camps can be flipped by solo roamers fairly easily, it would provide a spear head into an enemy territory and unless guards are left, can be back capped effectively cutting a force off from reinforcements, and if held long enough, would allow an enemy force to come in behind. There would be a lot of potential for it. Also, it would give an underdog server far more of an advantage than a much larger server due to how easy it is to cap, and then a quick assault on an enemy camp/tower/keep to make an enemy force retreat.

No.
Message Body length must at least be 15.

WP in EB are not the problem, the ones on borderlands are, because the travelling time over the map favours attackers most of the time, when no/few WP are up.

Lets take a look at Hills:
>> Attacking team has a very short route for supply dolyaks and a sentry that will alert the presence of roamers. With a Mortar (or Treb at the high south tower) you can even cover the path of the dolly with shells. Your respawn is very close to the keep, so if you get killed, you can run back within a minute with speed boosts (perhaps even grabbing supply from Water camp).
>> The defending team on the other hand has to either run from Citadel (when there is no WP) or Garrison to get to Hills to defend. Dolyaks from East camp take about three times longer to reach the keep than from Water camp. The travelling path from a respawn is long and treacherous and it takes defenders far longer to reach Hills than from the bottom right corner.

Removing the WPs altogether would allow servers with bigger numbers to dominate in invasions of enemy BLs even more, forcing the defenders to zerg more to actually be able to breach a blockade.

Possible solutions to the contested WP dilemma (IMHO):
1. Make a tower or keep only contested by roaming if all of the gate guards on the ground are killed (that would mean 2 guards & 2 scouts at keep gates and IIRC one guard and one scout at towers). This would make contesting by just running by much more difficult.
2. Give keeps in BLs two WP spots. One on the outer yard and the current one. Also add two different areas to contest, the outer and the inner. If the outer perimeter is contested or breached, the WP in the outer yard gets disabled. The inner works as it works right now, when attackers hit the inner structures.
This would give defenders a chance to get manpower to the inner even when the main attackers are still at the outer gates. I would also force attackers with large numbers to attack (“treb”) from at least two different spots to contest both WPs as once.

PS: I have other ideas involving better defensive play via skills & new abilities, but that would be supplemental to the WP idea.

Spicyhash.7605:

There shouldn’t be waypoints at all.

That’s a bit extreme. I mean, having to log off the game, re-enter PvE, just to re-enter WvW again every time you die…

Killing waypoints won’t kill zerging but the point is it can reduce their effectiveness. When a Zerg can port all over a map to respond to anything in such a short amount of time it trivializes smaller guerrilla tactics that can actually prevail over a huge group. Sure some groups may be caught, but if you’re taking more points faster than the Zerg can respond, it ends up working.

Make contesting a WP require a certain amount of gate damage, instead of just a tap. This would mean either one person would have to attack it for several minutes, risking discovery and death in order to be successful, or a larger group, say a havoc-sized group, would have to do the job. It needs to take more of an effort than it currently does.

slingblade.1437:

Make contesting a WP require a certain amount of gate damage, instead of just a tap. This would mean either one person would have to attack it for several minutes, risking discovery and death in order to be successful, or a larger group, say a havoc-sized group, would have to do the job. It needs to take more of an effort than it currently does.

just make it shorter. you have to keep hitting it to keep it contested.

Roe.3679:

Killing waypoints won’t kill zerging but the point is it can reduce their effectiveness. When a Zerg can port all over a map to respond to anything in such a short amount of time it trivializes smaller guerrilla tactics that can actually prevail over a huge group. Sure some groups may be caught, but if you’re taking more points faster than the Zerg can respond, it ends up working.

I did think about this. The problem here is while it makes zergs worse in one way, it makes them more desireble in others. Since fewer waypoints will punish death more, players will stick together more to stay alive, and take even fewer chances to engage enemy groups of similar size.

Very competent players will be able to outmaneuver, but I’m not sure they’d be able to accomplish much since if they are killed, they’re punished just as much as the zergers (in terms of time to get back into combat and mobility).

I remember Devon saying they were going to remove waypoints and it still seems like a really great idea to me.

Reading the map to see where enemies are, cutting off reinforcements, creating diversions, all of these things are PvP that’s on a different level (not a better or worse level, just different) than just straight out combat (it’s more server versus server than guild versus guild). I think it’s a fun level and I would like to see it continue to be relevant. It definitely makes small group stuff more fun as it gives you valuable roles.

My opinion: Waypoints should only be contested when the inner gate is being damaged. At that point, it will be permanently contested. This will fix 2 things: 1) thieves tapping gates continuously to keep waypoints contested or trebs hitting smc walls and 2) waypointing entire map blobs into lords when the enemy has already breached inner.
Right now the problem is that the waypoint is linked to the event status on the keep. The even status is easily triggered by just a small amount of damage to the outer gate, and leaves a ‘dead period’ in between the 3min event timers where the waypoint becomes accessible for a few seconds. It’s just bad mechanics imo.

I am fine with getting rid of them. It will be a direct disadvantage to single minded massive zerging.

^^ Inner gates can always be tapped by a treb

IMO waypoints/structures should have to take a certain percentage of damage to be contested. Structures currently get the 3 minute “Repel the Attackers” message immediately after being tapped and then 30 seconds later are contested. I believe that structures should get a 30 seconds “Repel the Attackers” message immediately after being tapped and then once those 30 seconds are up, the structure becomes contested if more than 5% of the gate hp OR 2.5% of wall hp has been depleted in that 30 second period. If a structure goes down slowly and was never contested because dmg never exceeded the threshold, then your server just didn’t scout properly. As far as waypoints, I don’t think that you should be able to spam click a waypoint that is about to uncontest. When the 3 minute contest is about to end, it should just auto recontest if the structure is still taking damage over the threshold. Of course, it appears to intentionally still be in the game so I am guessing the developers like having it.

Supply camps contest the instant the supervisor is aggro’d (dmg to or from the supervisor doesn’t matter). That is kinda weird but probably fine since the camps are already so easy to take.

styx.7294:

I remember Devon saying they were going to remove waypoints and it still seems like a really great idea to me.

Reading the map to see where enemies are, cutting off reinforcements, creating diversions, all of these things are PvP that’s on a different level (not a better or worse level, just different) than just straight out combat (it’s more server versus server than guild versus guild). I think it’s a fun level and I would like to see it continue to be relevant. It definitely makes small group stuff more fun as it gives you valuable roles.

I would be ok with very different WvW, as long as it rewards players appropriately for playing in a fun way.

That said, WvW is about avoiding combat as much as possible right now, so I don’t feel removing them will introduce much change beyond walking further.

Gatvin.6510:

styx.7294:

I remember Devon saying they were going to remove waypoints and it still seems like a really great idea to me.

Reading the map to see where enemies are, cutting off reinforcements, creating diversions, all of these things are PvP that’s on a different level (not a better or worse level, just different) than just straight out combat (it’s more server versus server than guild versus guild). I think it’s a fun level and I would like to see it continue to be relevant. It definitely makes small group stuff more fun as it gives you valuable roles.

I would be ok with very different WvW, as long as it rewards players appropriately for playing in a fun way.

That said, WvW is about avoiding combat as much as possible right now, so I don’t feel removing them will introduce much change beyond walking further.

I highly disagree with the last statement. You can have all sorts of objectives. Some are served by not fighting (especially an uneven fight) but others are just as well served by bringing fights.

Making people walk farther means a big group can’t be as reactive and as mobile, hopefully splitting them up to defend things. I don’t know if that’s what would happen but I like to think WvW fought on more fronts would be a more interesting WvW.

—Get rid of the defense “event” altogether
—Give bonus WXP and karma etc for killing enemies and enemy siege within XX distance of an objective
—Put white map swords on anything for 15 seconds when it takes damage
—Contest waypoints while map swords are up
—Contested waypoints are limited to 1 person every 15 seconds.

This means

-constant damage will never allow a waypoint to open up for a map blob to port
-people can still trickle in. after 5 minutes you could have up to 20 defenders ported in
-fake ‘taps’ will go away quickly
-there is more reward for defending based on actual success and not standing inside
-to keep a WP contested alone you must stay there and keep hitting it

The problem with short timer on contested is that after the attacking team has breached the outer gate they are in a real hurry to get to another gate to keep the waypoint contested.

styx.7294:

I highly disagree with the last statement. You can have all sorts of objectives. Some are served by not fighting (especially an uneven fight) but others are just as well served by bringing fights.

Making people walk farther means a big group can’t be as reactive and as mobile, hopefully splitting them up to defend things. I don’t know if that’s what would happen but I like to think WvW fought on more fronts would be a more interesting WvW.

Removing waypoints will restrict mobility, but of BOTH large and small groups.

I’m fine with rewarding defending, and small group play, but making defense the primary activity on top of the extra walking doesn’t sound like much fun.

I fail to see how removing wp’s would be a game-changer. They mainly serve as a mobility convenience during times at which defense is not critical. Any serious attackers are going to contest any nearby wp before committing anyway, thus making the wp a non-factor in an attack, with the exception of that 2 seconds between contested timers.

I think a more serious discussion needs to be regarding the effort it takes to capture a tower or keep. As of now, even a fortified gate will melt with a few superior rams or golems, making that 2 hours or more of uncontested upgrading futile if you don’t have consistently equal zerg numbers. Most people know the frustration of spending a couple hours to get that tower upgraded only to have the superior zerg run in and take it in a couple mins.

We’re speculating in an area of minimal changes. Neither of these changes would be super huge for someone running around, mostly either slightly more convenient, or slightly less.

Its just idle speculation on how that convenience will affect combat flow.

The reason fortified gates melt so easily is because they are often undefended. When people are actually there doing a combination of repairing and arrow-carting, you only need a handful of people to stop a zerg.