Guild Wars 2

Hey all!

I’m Stalker Ryc, guild co-leader of Eternal Phalanx [EPX] based on Fort Aspenwood. Most of those reading this won’t know who I am and probably not my guild, but in the past we have been a main OCX guild on Fort Aspenwood. I have played WvW from a few months after launch up until HoT got released, and have countless hours of all forms of WvW and commanding, and the motivation to play any WvW is non-existent due to a huge number of reasons that we see in complaint posts.

With the incoming WvW ideas and changes coming out of ArenaNet, possibly later this month with a beta version, I thought I would throw my hat into the ring about how I see WvW should be, the issues with the current state and parts that need to be desperately fixed. I have had worked on this a few months prior to HoT, but held off to see the full changes, and recently have revisited it to edit and add onto what I had previously written, especially since balancing WvW is balancing not only the in-game economy but the PvEvP format.

The standpoint I take on WvW tends to be both open field fights as well as PPT/siege mechanics, where a good mix of both make a more fun gameplay. GvG is still in a rough spot and it is still difficult to find a good way to add it in without disrupting the flow of a 24/7 game mode, so I had not written to include it in WvW, apart from how it is conducted now in the Obsidian Sanctum/Guild Halls.

The following link will be to the Google Doc I am using, since it is currently 8 pages long.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11C-O_qDyqq5f7DDqqNbtTmGLkEnEyOTZczzMU9mTrIc

I would appreciate all constructive feedback and differing opinions either in this thread or in the Reddit post found below (as of posting, I will be starting to respond in 9hrs, to allow for me to answer posts more refreshed and in bulk if needed). This will help myself in seeing what the greater community would enjoy, provide my points of view on why I chose particular mechanics and maybe spawn new ideas.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4d6cjm/idea_reforming_wvw_maps_mechanics_and_rewards/

Cheers,

Stalker Ryc

@Maps, Coverage and Glicko

Having different BLs with intentional imbalances baked in is a slap in the face to those who try their hardest. Yes, it will even things out but no, it will not feel fair—because it isn’t. In the worst case, where servers are actually even, it will make it impossible to win two weeks in a row because you’re handicapped and your enemy is given an advantage.

@Shrines

A flat defensive buff is less interesting than what they currently do. Shrines are meant to give players options that they can then use to do great things or not much at all. Meanwhile, a flat offensive buff would mean exacerbate the zerg problem as they would have no issue taking every shrine and could then slam through walls even faster than they already can. There’s a reason the shrines give tools to the keep owners and only a utility speed buff to assaulters—They should be optional to take, not inherently optimal.

@Additional Spawn Location

Having to travel through one’s own border is an advantage, not a drawback. This allows groups to bypass enemy scouts/sentries with ease and, if I’m reading it right, can’t be cut off like a WP can.

@Supply and Objectives

The supply attrition at an objective should be caused by enemy players damaging it, not just degradation over time. Nothing is gained by putting that sort of extra pressure on defense. At least, you don’t state how anything is gained and I can’t extrapolate to that end.

@Lookout Tower

An interesting idea. I’m not sure it would really work in the engine since view range is limited. I’m also not totally sold on being able to capture it and see everything but perhaps it’s worth looking into.

@Objectives and Rushes

This essentially turns towers into pseudo-shrines for keeps, which is not a bad idea. Each tower has a unique theme and could contribute something based on that theme.

@Garrison Lord

I think he’s fine as is…it already takes a long time to kill him, though perhaps his damage output is a bit low. At least, he doesn’t need champions guarding him and all that…let the home server provide the bulk of the defense.

@Outnumbered and Overnumbered

Perma swiftness is obnoxious and should probably not be encouraged. Besides, there’s no need to buff someone for being outnumbered on an enemy BL.

The stat buff on home BL is probably not going to make any sort of difference, but that’s fine. I don’t think this buff is the way to solve population imbalances.

Overnumbered is a no go. We must never, ever, punish people for having more players on the map. That leads to players being unwelcome to join in.

@Contesting and Tapping

Removing white swords, in any capacity, has historically been very unpopular. It would be better to expand on the swords with different colors for tap-level damage or guard aggro and siege damage.

@Breakouts

These are more useful to zergs than anything else. They weren’t a good idea on implementation and should be allowed to die.

@Guild Buffs

Banners are silly, no argument there. As for the rest, making the lord harder to bring down is not all that interesting. The buffs should give players tools that they can use to accomplish their goals instead of simply buffing up the lord. That means utility—not things that make them impervious in combat.

@Renewed PPT calculations

Removing PPT for things owned on enemy borders could pan out. It would, as you say, reduce the runaway scores that happen from owning everything, everywhere, without making it worthless to do so.

Bonus points for taking everything, though, are too much. They also make it dangerous to flip anything if you aren’t flipping everything since you’re just handing enemies that bonus.

Linking PPK to WXP is interesting, though it will likely cancel out like PPK does already. The upside is that players that get farmed won’t give as many points. However, with the larger points here and lower points from PPT, it would make losing a fight very punishing.

Also, it would have to ensure that the points are awarded only once per death instead of once per person that gained WXP. That would mean a mini-zerg that ran over one person and tagged him with 20 people would get the same amount of points as if that one person somehow 1v20d the mini-zerg.

@Rewards

Don’t have much to say here that wasn’t touched on earlier.

Hi Sviel,

Thanks for your time in reading and providing feedback on my ideas on WvW reformations. I had written what I felt would be the extreme limit to what I feel WvW should be, and toning down the mechanics and such tends to be easier than buffing.
__________________________________________________________________

-Maps;
I have always loved strategy games/RTS and felt that having unique maps like this would make things more interesting. I had spawned the idea from GW1 Kurzicks vs Luxon, where as you would push into enemy territory, it would be harder and tougher to break defenses, obtain supply or get reinforcements. Where all 3 servers are even, it can shuffle around the colours on a much regular basis, and can provide more variety in strategy in how guilds and servers cooperate. But this wouldn’t help in all circumstances where there is lack of cooperation or guilds that prefer fights over more PPT play. But I see your point in standardised maps suiting more needs overall.
__________________________________________________________________

-Shrines;
Probably one of the areas I hate the most. I’ve never liked the thought of having them in the game, much apart from them providing extra options. I had written what I felt shrines should be if it was to be kept in, where it allowed smaller groups to fight over the shrines while a keep as being assaulted. Of course the problem arises in imbalanced timezones.
__________________________________________________________________

-Additional spawn locaton;
The idea had stemmed from having access to behind enemy lines, but a possible disadvantage would be it is much harder to take objectives if you have not taken previous objectives around the upper objectives. This could also be a top tier upgrade to prevent major usage if you cannot hold your side keeps.
__________________________________________________________________

-Supply and Objectives;
The intention of attrition was not to put much more pressure on the defense, but rather have a system where your borderland had to be maintained and having supply camps captured. My thought was that it can be unfair for the defending team to sit on max supply until they get attacked and forget about their supply camps. This would allow smaller roaming groups or scouts to move around and maintain their borderland. The attrition rate will be low enough, for example 10 supply every 15mins, a dolyak reaching the keep would give 70 (140 when upgraded), thus 105mins of attrition = 1 dolyak.
__________________________________________________________________

-Lookout Tower;
I think the use of camera angles like in spectator PvP mode could work with interacting panels, but still a big work in progress on how it should work and what you should be able to see. But I do like the idea of having a sort of gaint scouting tower to provide more intel when used.
__________________________________________________________________

-Garrison lord;
Yeah this one is a tough one. The Alpine borderland was a bit too easy, and the current ones seem to be in an alright spot. I just feel there has to be something else to aid the defending team, in an NPC or passive sort of way for main keep that doesn’t force the enemy to be deterred.
__________________________________________________________________

-Outnumbered and Overnumbered;
Overnumbered was probably a bit extreme, and from a community standpoint, yeah it will cause issues with militia or other smaller guilds that tip the balance. A rework I had commented on the Reddit thread was to divide the map up in invisible quandrants, and provide some sort of buffs when necessary for outnumbered and overnumbered.
__________________________________________________________________

-Contesting and Tapping;
Having someone walk up to a gate, hit it and run away shouldn’t contest a keep’s waypoint for 3mins. The system used where the first 30s would not show white swords was decent and you had to have scouts, so in that time if the game calculates there hasn’t had enough damage done to the gate, it won’t contest, but as soon as it reaches the threshold, the white swords do pop up. The colour idea is actually great and could more useful for scouts.
__________________________________________________________________

-Guild Buffs;
I see you point. I haven’t had much use on the banners, but definitely both them and buffs need something less direct and more utility like you said. The amount of PvE mechanics I had put in can be a bit much, and this is probably an area that can be cut in favour for more interesting mechanics for players.
__________________________________________________________________

-PPT;
The bonus points are currently placeholders, but I think removing the retaking home boarderlands shouldn’t be in there now. The idea is if a server is willing to attempt to take everything, they should be rewarded as in more even matchups, this becomes very hard and rare to do so, sort of like an optional mega achievement to do that can be fun and frustrating.
Possibly can inverse the amount of PPT given, where it is half of WXP to help reduce the impact it will have on PPT, since it should have a majority ratio on the PPT calculations. The current 1 PPT (2 for stomp) seems fine also and would be the standard if kept in.
Yes, the idea for 1v20, is when that 1 person dies, it only gives PPT once and not 20×.
__________________________________________________________________

I really appreciate your indepth response and your major contriubtion to the WvW forum, it is great to have someone like you help provide feedback to me and put ideas out there for more consideration.

Cheers,

Stalker Ryc

@Supply and Objectives

Yaks only give half of the supply they used to since HoT dropped. This change was to compensate for not using supply for upgrades. Of course, you could just adjust the attrition numbers.

Still, I don’t think this will accomplish what you’re trying to do. It will still be a better idea for the roamers to actually attack an objective than just try and starve it into submission—even if they only want to weaken it rather than take it. Also, no matter how low the rate, it will become a bitter factor in any extended siege.

In order to give an idea a test run, it needs to have a clearly defined vision for how it will improve the game. While I see the goal, here, I don’t think it clears that bar.

@Contesting/Tapping
What if white swords didn’t contest a waypoint but red swords (damage threshold or siege damage) did? We would lose being able to easily keep an objective tapped but…that’s probably for the best.

@PPT
The bonus points would be exciting in an even match, but they would not realistically be triggered unless the match was uneven. At that point, they become a snowball effect for the biggest server.

- Supply;

Yeah at the current moment my write up is quite clunky and too strict in how it is to be implemented, but a sort of upkeep is needed that doesn’t push it becoming a chore for scouts or having to force players back.

-Contesting/Tapping;

That seems to be a much better choice, colours will help identify and distinguish when a keep will be contested or not.