Guild Wars 2

To preface this thread, watch this video below. It’s 15 minutes long and a bit tangential, but the guy’s arguments are truly edifying.

Riveting stuff, especially the part about sandbox games. So if GW2’s PvP was to be an ESport, and the PvE a themepark, why not make WvW more of a sandbox? I say “more” because the many of the fundamental premises and mechanics all fit within the definition of sandbox as they all promote “emergent gameplay”…. or at least they try to, fail and as a result gameplay boils down large groups of players banging on doors.

After seeing this video, I can’t help but the think of the possibilities. What if players were not only able to fight over and capture territory, but to reshape that territory into something that would help them defend or be worth defending.

• Farms that supply rations to NPC defenders or even players.
• Player built defense towers and barricades.
• Resource competitions. (It’s called WvW, not AntagonisticWorldsThatLiketoShare.)
• Reshaping the map in general!

It’s no secret that WvW can get stale fast, and the community has suffered greatly because of it. Do you agree or disagree that the addition sandbox elements will help re-liven the WvW community by adding more “emergent gameplay?” Post your thoughts below.

This indeed. That guy knows what he is talking about. And you are right, WvW tries to be sandboxy but fails miserably due to several elementary design flaws, one of those being simply bad map design.

Hopefully the next patch brings some new life to this game young game that already feels older than it’s precursor.

Master of Timespace.2548:

This indeed. That guy knows what he is talking about. And you are right, WvW tries to be sandboxy but fails miserably due to several elementary design flaws, one of those being simply bad map design.

Hopefully the next patch brings some new life to this game young game that already feels older than it’s precursor.

Sorry, but the most exciting thing for WvW I’ve come to expect from any new patch is what new bug might have been introduced.

Cactus.2710:

Master of Timespace.2548:

This indeed. That guy knows what he is talking about. And you are right, WvW tries to be sandboxy but fails miserably due to several elementary design flaws, one of those being simply bad map design.

Hopefully the next patch brings some new life to this game young game that already feels older than it’s precursor.

Sorry, but the most exciting thing for WvW I’ve come to expect from any new patch is what new bug might have been introduced.

Your cynicism is almost admirable xD. But seriously, I do think that WvW has lots of potential. It’s just that currently WvW looks and feels like a demo or an early version of sorts.

Cactus.2710:

Master of Timespace.2548:

This indeed. That guy knows what he is talking about. And you are right, WvW tries to be sandboxy but fails miserably due to several elementary design flaws, one of those being simply bad map design.

Hopefully the next patch brings some new life to this game young game that already feels older than it’s precursor.

Sorry, but the most exciting thing for WvW I’ve come to expect from any new patch is what new bug might have been introduced.

Seeing as how bugs actually open up interesting ways of playing, I guess you can call them features instead of bugs XD

I do agree that WvW needs to be larger and with more sandbox elements. What they have is good but it’s too small and too canned to be something anyone will play for a whole year.

But I don’t think we’ll see it this year, if ever. Some other game will do it and we’ll all move there. :-p

Cactus.2710:

Master of Timespace.2548:

This indeed. That guy knows what he is talking about. And you are right, WvW tries to be sandboxy but fails miserably due to several elementary design flaws, one of those being simply bad map design.

Hopefully the next patch brings some new life to this game young game that already feels older than it’s precursor.

Sorry, but the most exciting thing for WvW I’ve come to expect from any new patch is what new bug might have been introduced.

Cactus posts all my favorite comments. I’m not holding my breath for March on the patch. I really just wonder which other achievements they will have to lower/reset/break to make the next patch “work”.

Another game he didn’t mention was Shadowbane. that was a great game.

I think WvW is awesome, and can only get better from here =)

i think once they add the wvw rank / ability system next month it will be alot more fun and you will feel like your always building / improving your character. Hopefully they do it similar to DAOC’s realm rank system, that kept people building their characters for years. it also promoted better rewards for NOT zerging

Sat through the video, not familiar with the genre history or the example of Eve, it’d be good if someone could go into more detail. To me it just sounds like an alliance conflict that developed its own content outside the game. WvW has its server identities and established guild groups, the Eve example simply sounds like that on a larger scale. Of course WvW has many design constraints as it is, making a sandbox out of it would have to be a very distant goal.

I would agree that some of the most engaging elements of WvW are those that tend towards the sandbox. I’m thinking mainly the ability to place siege basically anywhere on the map, as well being able to use group utilities in fights that are much larger than sPvP or PvE. I’m not saying that these elements are perfect or that they aren’t part of design, but they have allowed players to spend time working out strategies, improvising, and developing beyond the basics of WvW.

Pirhana.8935:

i think once they add the wvw rank / ability system next month it will be alot more fun and you will feel like your always building / improving your character. Hopefully they do it similar to DAOC’s realm rank system, that kept people building their characters for years. it also promoted better rewards for NOT zerging

I’m going to be cautiously optimistic about the skill system. As we’ve seen from Wow, giving players power progression as an incentive to play is a slippery slope. If the WvW abilities are separate from actual player power then I think it might add a much needed sandbox type progression and playstyle.

I think one of the things they could do to improve WvW outside of dangling power in front of players is to turn it into sort of a faction war. Let factions freely travel between maps, form alliances and so forth. Also, I personally think it would work in favor of WvW if they took away the score system and replaced it with something more meaningful and make the “matches” persistent battles. This way, players will get to choose their loyalties and how and when they’ll fight, and their playing won’t be dictaded by an arbitrary score system.

It probably won’t be “WvW” anymore if these changes occur, but it might be for the better. The whole server-wide match system doesn’t seem to be sustainable to me. If anything’s an indicator, PS2 is using nearly the same persistent PvP battlefield format and it’s also been dropping players left and right despite being f2p.

Slamz.5376:

I do agree that WvW needs to be larger and with more sandbox elements. What they have is good but it’s too small and too canned to be something anyone will play for a whole year.

But I don’t think we’ll see it this year, if ever. Some other game will do it and we’ll all move there. :-p

It’s not all that small really, just so much of the maps are not used and avoided, and the entire jumping puzzle is basically disconnected and instead of being part of our w3 world, it’s a queue slot hog to many. Sieges happen much too fast and with features to cater to pvers like map swords and aoe limits, you can’t even think about exploring or doing puzzles. Putting sandbox elements into these maps, even if the map sizes were increased, would be wasted effort unless they axe some of the features that just don’t make sense.

kash.9213:

Slamz.5376:

I do agree that WvW needs to be larger and with more sandbox elements. What they have is good but it’s too small and too canned to be something anyone will play for a whole year.

But I don’t think we’ll see it this year, if ever. Some other game will do it and we’ll all move there. :-p

It’s not all that small really, just so much of the maps are not used and avoided, and the entire jumping puzzle is basically disconnected and instead of being part of our w3 world, it’s a queue slot hog to many. Sieges happen much too fast and with features to cater to pvers like map swords and aoe limits, you can’t even think about exploring or doing puzzles. Putting sandbox elements into these maps, even if the map sizes were increased, would be wasted effort unless they axe some of the features that just don’t make sense.

I agree with your point about siege occurring too fast. Players can zerg down keeps and structures so quickly that claiming and upgrading them becomes less meaningful. It makes it far more difficult for smaller populations to defend when large zergs can afford to rush keeps with golems and mesmer portals. They’ll need to fix that before anything else.

For any sandboxy elements to really work, you have to change some things first:

Upgraded keeps walls & Doors & siege need way more HP
Then rushing/capping wouldnt be that of an option and trying to upgrade asap first priority. Defending/Holding would make more sense. Battles around T2/T3 resolve in a long battle of attrition..maybe for days ..or need a big amount of siege deployed.
And siege cant be that easily destroyed ..except for structural dmg by other siege. More skirmishes around keeps and such would happen, too.

pve champs
Similiarly they have to provoke a battle of attrition and therefore be more tank& spank to be considered “part of WvW”.

pve random mobs
They shouldnt be spread out like in pve zones, but “cramped tightly” into a few dedicated places (1 near each Spawn and 1 mid map) and as such would be more part of WvW meta and attract farmer (guilds/raids) as well as enemies. And some servers might protect these areas (…player generated content).

Convenience Stuff part of keeps&towers
Like vendors, bankers, TP, craft station… SHOULD ONLY become accessible in upgraded keeps (except for the Repair & siege NPC nothing is needed at spawn area). Gives players more incentives to hold on to at least 1 tower/keep. Its the right thing to make everything available in WvW needed to level up, BUT you should have to pvp for it, too.
(even dungeon/cultural karma vendors could be set up in SMC T2/T3)

Crafting nodes
Again, not really bound into WvW. Farming a node should block it for 10 minutes to enemy servers. Or/And give a chance on special pvp related material (lets call it ORB) which you HAVE TO carry to some camp to speed up dolyaks or gain additional supplies…otherwise it lets you blink like a beacon to the enemy on map as long as you dont turn it in or get killed (which drops the ORB and can be picked up by enemy for some minutes).
Or a 10 min buff, which allows you to save 50% supply on building stuff.

Enemy names & Bounty system
Should be possible to optionally show your name in WvW and also make yourself “accessible” for enemy players to be able to put a bounty on you…
The higher the bounty gets, the better the droprate on loot for the hunted player.
On death of the player the bounty will be divided or returned to the players who set the bounty (in the case of falling or pve-only-related deaths).

JPs
Fun, but again not really part of WvW. Entry for EB JP should be at every BL.
Every JP should have some 1-3 conquest points spread out, which could give some bonus points to WvW score – or if all capture points are owned by one server it will result into something “special” ( maybe spawn a mob attacking SMC or bay/hill, blowing a hole into 1 enemy fortress or else, but should be more value to the losing servers than the already winning one).

Siege
Has to be repairable and maybe even useable by enemy? Why not make siege contestable…the more player “right click and channel” the faster it gets converted.
This might result in more careful consideration what or if to destroy enemy siege.
While siege owner should be able to “deconstruct” their siege and maybe a chance on retaining the blueprint.
(No more running around wall and mindless whacking of siege, while defenders have to consider if they leave their siege or try to deconstruct if pushed to inner ring)

Keep Upgrades-System
Currently its too expensive for most while holding not much (percieved) advantage.
Let players pay into an upgrade that amount they like to spent and if enough money by different players comes togehter the upgrade will start. If interupted the money will be sent back.
This would make it easier for random zergs & solos to help with upgradeing without stressing their purses or haveing to fear that their payment will be lost.

See, in principle there is a lot potential already for sandbox elements, but would need some little tweaks & changes at different points.

Hi!

First i want to say that i LOVE wvwvw. Its the only thing that let me stay in game but there could be really some changes.

1. I would love to see changes like you can place structures outside of keeps. Eg like placing roadblocks which have to be killed to move over it.
2. a reward for guarding dollys and areas even if not attacked. You sit in keeps and noone knocks the door while others have their pvp in open zerg. You should be rewarded for scouting those points
3. I readed this in another thread: Put up a sentry upgrade which can be placed in areas to alarm if attackers inc
4. If you get outmanned your structures have to be harder to drop. Lets say you are outmanned by 40% then the Structures atleast are 20% harder by default (every upgrade) untill the outmanned vanishes. For every 20% outmanned (PER COLOUR not at all!) you get a additional Guard which is harder to kill (maybe like the boss on supply spots when fresh killed)
5. Structures are harder to kill. A group of 5 attacks a keep. It needs around 2 Minutes to drop a wall. If a zerg of 50 attacks a keep it also should need atleast 2 Minutes to drop the wall. What i mean is that it should be hard to take something and zerging would also be toned down. Atleast it should not be so easy to claim “fresh” towers.
6. I want buildable traps on floor IN FRONT and INSIDE of keep but limited to a certain amount in specific area. Lets say 2 Trap brackets in a 10×4 area. Something like that. And if you get trapped you are really and others have to free you.
7. I want to have Siege Equipment Account and not character based.
8. Less culling
9. You want to place siege? Then use a pattern and supply AND mats like wood and ore. → Money sink (most will not like this). You could make it that all mats gathered in pvp are (wood, ore) go directly in a pool for maintenance
10. a commander should be elected and not bought. People should decide Player A is a good commander and i follow him. I do that cause hes good and not someone who had the proper money (no offense.. there are alot good ones but some… oh well). So you buy the book but the bulb only comes up WHEN you have people which JOINED your squad! Not in your squad? No bulb. Thats it.
11. Give us a war “donation system”. For example: War donation means that if you do Point 9 with mats then you should be able to “GIVE” mats to a pool from which the siege is maintained. If you are stingy then your server cant place any siege. Would be a good money sink and people would have to work for the siege they place. You could also change the current influence system that way that it yields mats instead which can be used to place siege. From this pool you could also take mats to maintain the siege so it didnt vanishes when “not used” for a certain time. Atm i rarely see guilds taking structures and putting up anything. Most it is just capped and run cause it gets recapped soon. A few people pay for upgrades; i also do but majority didnt cares.

Well this are just “ideas”. No need to flame but you can discuss =)

PS: My english is not the best. I apologize for that but take in mind that english is not my foreign language. Thanks for your time * hands out a cookie for reading this line *

SoggyFrog.4170:

Sat through the video, not familiar with the genre history or the example of Eve, it’d be good if someone could go into more detail. To me it just sounds like an alliance conflict that developed its own content outside the game.

That’s the beautiful thing about EVE. There is no “players developing their own content”, per se.

That is, in SWTOR there were no game mechanics to support any sort of conflict. You’d see people playing make-believe by pretending to have a viral invasion or some other excuse to fight but really the game didn’t support it. You essentially had to play make-believe.

In EVE, there are good, in-game mechanical reasons to fight. These guys aren’t saying “hey, I know, let’s all meet up and pretend there’s like an invasion or something and have a big war!”

It’s actually an invasion. High value items are at stake. Guilds can lose bases, get kicked off of extremely valuable moon mines and so forth. There are EVE guilds who would very likely get into actual fist fights if they ever met in real-life because emotions can run pretty high when so much is at stake. This is probably why EVE has been around for 10 years and SWTOR lost most of its players in the first 10 months.

Basically, in EVE you don’t have to pretend to hate the enemy and pretend to have some reason to fight and pretend there is something at stake.

There’s always something really at stake. Sometimes it’s something really big that took months to build up or which your guild has literally owned for over a year.

This idea of “player generated content” is just lazy development. If your players are so bored that they are having to pretend to have a reason to care, then your game isn’t going to last long. That certainly happened to SWG. It was a sandbox but it had no mechanics to support a real conflict. And now it’s dead.

Edragor.9164:

For any sandboxy elements to really work, you have to change some things first:

Upgraded keeps walls & Doors & siege need way more HP
Then rushing/capping wouldnt be that of an option and trying to upgrade asap first priority. Defending/Holding would make more sense. Battles around T2/T3 resolve in a long battle of attrition..maybe for days ..or need a big amount of siege deployed.
And siege cant be that easily destroyed ..except for structural dmg by other siege. More skirmishes around keeps and such would happen, too.

Just starting to read this thread, so I can’t comment on stuff after this, but what you suggest here would virtually kill lower Tier WvW.

All it would take is the morning downtime (there are hours of silence and nothing going on in the lowest ones, where even small groups walk in and recap their Keep without any fight if it had been nightcapped) for everyone to upgrade and supply, and watch as the maps don’t change. Simply not enough people and presence for sieges to work… ever. There goes the rest of the already depleted loyal WvW population.

@Slamz
The good reasons to fight in EVE are part of the sandbox mechanics and the emergent gameplay the video’s author speaks of occurs spontaneously due to those mechanics, not necessarily the rails established by the developers. Without the players wanting to defend their territory there would be no content.

EVE succeeds due to the incentives of its well-designed sandbox elements, whereas SWTOR fails because it’s all around awful outside of the story. I haven’t played SWG but maybe it’s gone because it wasn’t that well-designed? Success doesn’t necessarily hinge on genre, but the quality of the design in my opinion.

@Fizzlepip
What you described is an infrastructure problem with WvWvW. Wall and door HP are low because the most servers can’t provide the coverage to defend them. If they can, the process is slow unrewarding and dull that they people defending wouldn’t even want to. In order to make WvWvW more dynamic and fast things need to be flipped, but ANet’s solutions to that also promotes problems of its own, like making zerging way too rewarding. This is the problem with the developers putting too narrow of a railing on the experience, IMO.

The WvW maps simply need more space for players to play with.

Currently the maps are mostly connect-the-trebs.

E.g. ANet trying to scientifically engineer an organic PvP implementation. Fail.

Players simply need tools to play with, and roadblocks (e.g. gear barriers to entry, PvE leveling, ascended b.s., queues) removed.

@TwoBit
The critical part is the mechanics the game supports. Yes, EVE requires players to care about territory takeover but the game itself mechanically supports the act of taking over territory. SWTOR and SWG didn’t. SWG had structures you could place but you couldn’t destroy them and the PvP was all consensual. So with all PvP being “by your leave”, nothing was ever really at stake unless you wanted it to be and Empire vs Rebels had to be contrived make-believe by the players.

Basically I think some people view “sand box” as a literal empty field (SWTOR, in fact, had one open PvP area that actually was just an empty area that flagged you for PvP — there was nothing to do there; no mechanical support for anything but shooting other players for no reason). A real sandbox has mechanical support for doing things and reasons to want to do them.

It’s kind of like two sandboxes — one is just a box filled with sand. The other has buckets, a water hose, a bulldozer, a dumptruck, a backhoe, ladders, etc. Some roleplayers try to argue that the first sandbox is good enough because you’re supposed to use your imagination for everything else.

I need the game to meet my imagination half-way by providing some tools. EVE has tools. SWG didn’t.

Many tools in the map are already in place. Siege. Some terrain. Supply mechanics. Dolyaks. Sentries.

It’s not a bad setup.

It’s just too constrained and the pressure collapses the overarching strategy into zerg + treb network. More raw space would cause players to try more random kitten like siege setups in the open, more room for tactical maneuvers like feints and such. More chokepoints aside from tower/keep gates.

Drain the lake, who’s with me?

EasymodeX.4062:

Many tools in the map are already in place. Siege. Some terrain. Supply mechanics. Dolyaks. Sentries.

It’s not a bad setup.

It’s just too constrained and the pressure collapses the overarching strategy into zerg + treb network. More raw space would cause players to try more random kitten like siege setups in the open, more room for tactical maneuvers like feints and such. More chokepoints aside from tower/keep gates.

That’s my feeling as well. The GW2 WvW setup is way better than anything in WOW, SWTOR, etc. It’s not blow-your-socks-off awesome but it’s a good start. I mean there’s no construction or exploration or anything that’s really long term (you’re lucky to get up the next day and still own that keep you took last night — likely if you DO own it, it’s because it changed hands twice while you were away), but it’s better than most.

I don’t understand this need to “FILL ALL THE MAPS!” though. Any time I suggest adding more maps the answer is “but then we can’t fill them all up!”

Yes! Exactly! That’s the idea! EVE is like 90% empty sectors. Even Planetside always had a couple of empty maps. That’s room to expand and do sneaky stuff.

WvW really isn’t an “open world sandbox game”. It’s more like a WOW battleground, just somewhat bigger. It’s Super Alterac Valley is all. It could be so much more.

EasymodeX.4062:

Many tools in the map are already in place. Siege. Some terrain. Supply mechanics. Dolyaks. Sentries.

It’s not a bad setup.

It’s just too constrained and the pressure collapses the overarching strategy into zerg + treb network. More raw space would cause players to try more random kitten like siege setups in the open, more room for tactical maneuvers like feints and such. More chokepoints aside from tower/keep gates.

More space and varied terrain would also strengthen their triangulation design, which is currently defunct with map swords and truncated map quadrants. None of the points on any of the quadrant triangles have to house their own support because the neighborhood zerg can rush to any of them in seconds and minutes, especially with sword indicators. Some things Anet is working on or will be working, but the entire design of w3 has to grow with any big ideas they put into it, at least enough to fit any big change or mechanic.

I just want to thank the OP for pointing me to that video. ‘Riveting’ is indeed a good word to describe it.

There is a lot of good, constructive, points in this thread. Kudos OP for pointing out the sandbox issue. I figured there was something missing with W3 as it is today.. I just wasn’t sure what.

I do agree that if w3 had more of a sandbox design (and I like the example of EVE) then it would be much more enjoyable. I’m not sure that those who shout “I don’t have time to invest in this.. I just want to kill people” would like something that requires more planning and tactics, or even makes defense required, but I do agree that it ultimately would be more fun for those looking for w3.

I can think of plenty of changes that I would personally like to see (you may agree or disagree with them) though I am not holding my breath for any of them.

An example of one change would be to remove the predefined keeps altogether. Leave it up to the world’s teams to decide where resources should be moved, deployed, and where those resources should be used to build the keeps. Found a mine that is rich in stone required for building a fortified keep? Build a supply camp, deploy troops to guard it, and build a supply chain to the build site. You will have to defend a lot of stuff here. On the flip side, you will have scouts looking for where the enemy is doing these things and you will be deploying teams to disrupt or destroy them.

This, of course, would have to be more rewarding to those who put in the effort and not require personal funds to complete it.

As for commanders, they wouldn’t run around on the map. They would sit back in a “command center” and issues build/deploy/defend/attack orders to teams. This will make sure that commanders aren’t just people who spent 100g.

There are flaws with these ideas, and many people won’t like them. But some version of them will be useful in a sandbox type environment. At least, I think so..

It would be very dificult, the changes that will come is because they realized very simple things arent that…great. And since some people JUST do wvwvw they got bored so fast…practically for them gw2=wvwvw, isnt a bad thing is just how the thing is.

They will need to modify a lot of stuff and code a lot of new stuff, so for now apparently some stuff will be added to see how it works.

Swamurabi.7890:

Drain the lake, who’s with me?

There was an incredible thread a few weeks back about “If you were the lead map designer…” or something of the sort.

There were many, many great suggestions about what to do post-lake draining, too.

Lavath.8924:

An example of one change would be to remove the predefined keeps altogether. Leave it up to the world’s teams to decide where resources should be moved, deployed, and where those resources should be used to build the keeps. Found a mine that is rich in stone required for building a fortified keep? Build a supply camp, deploy troops to guard it, and build a supply chain to the build site. You will have to defend a lot of stuff here. On the flip side, you will have scouts looking for where the enemy is doing these things and you will be deploying teams to disrupt or destroy them.

I have also thought that this would be a much better approach, mostly because it would probably add a couple of layers of strategy and a LOT more variety to the game. It would probably require a different game engine, though, since it would need bigger maps and ANet has already said they are max’d out in that regard. It might also require different points system, such as earning points for territory held instead of for structures held. Given, though, that ANet was too cheap to buy a decent game engine in the first place and that their creativity in sPvP was limited to having four maps all with the exact same mechanic I sincerely doubt that any of this will come to pass no matter how good the suggestions from the player base may be.

Slamz.5376:

WvW really isn’t an “open world sandbox game”. It’s more like a WOW battleground, just somewhat bigger. It’s Super Alterac Valley is all. It could be so much more.

^Exactly this^

Tbh, I don’t think it’s useful to even begin any sort of discussion around “build your own keeps”. That seems silly. Edit: in the sense that it’s never going to happen. So no reason to waste the energy.

It’s more useful to discuss a combination of:

1. Making the maps larger, but structured basically the same.

2. Adding non-siege siege items, like collision walls. E.g. walls. Build a small barricade the same way you build a ram. Throw a bunch down and you can create a portable defense to protect siege. You could troll your own server since they have collision, but ohwell. Devil’s in the details.

3. Lay down a bridge across water using similar non-siege ‘siege’ items. Would also be nice to make a siege ladder, but that’s probably more complicated because it has many secondary map exploit implications that would have to be reviewed with a fine-toothed comb. The bridge idea itself would need severe QA around bay keep and the EB keep that has water terrain. Also QA under land if someone falls through the floor into water. May be able to enter the keep using the bridge. That’d be cheating.

As a random sidenote, I hate the term “sandbox”. It’s such a useless marketing buzzword.

Bottom line is that players want more breathing room in WvW to do whatthehell they want. I don’t care if it’s a sandbox or a mud pit, or a romp around the wheat fields. All good PvP implementations have a balanced combination of (a) room for players to be organic, and (b) structure to shape and stabilize the flow of gameplay.

Would love to see a “Fortification” option for camps that puts wooden walls around the camp with areas that defenders can stand to shoot over them.

The walls would need to be relatively weak so that you could knock the wall out w/out seige, but strong enough to give a decent defensive advantage, essentially give the option to defend supply against a larger force with a smaller one.

EasymodeX.4062:

Tbh, I don’t think it’s useful to even begin any sort of discussion around “build your own keeps”. That seems silly.

It’s not silly at all in the context of a week long match. Keeps/towers/camps, etc could all require blueprints to be built, with supply camps needing to be near various resource nodes to be viable. The location of those resource nodes could even be reset each week (just like already occurs with ore and plants) so that scouts would initially be needed to find them. Some resource nodes could even be richer than others, thereby providing greater supply. If keeps and towers were destroyed upon capture there would be more emphasis on placement, defending, and attacking while weak. The resulting variety of strategies and tactics would be tremendous and make each week a truly fresh match.

I can easily imagine that some of those things would be difficult to implement and may even have unintended consequences, but please tell me why any of that would be “silly.”

Cactus.2710:

Lavath.8924:

An example of one change would be to remove the predefined keeps altogether. Leave it up to the world’s teams to decide where resources should be moved, deployed, and where those resources should be used to build the keeps. Found a mine that is rich in stone required for building a fortified keep? Build a supply camp, deploy troops to guard it, and build a supply chain to the build site. You will have to defend a lot of stuff here. On the flip side, you will have scouts looking for where the enemy is doing these things and you will be deploying teams to disrupt or destroy them.

I have also thought that this would be a much better approach, mostly because it would probably add a couple of layers of strategy and a LOT more variety to the game. It would probably require a different game engine, though, since it would need bigger maps and ANet has already said they are max’d out in that regard. It might also require different points system, such as earning points for territory held instead of for structures held. Given, though, that ANet was too cheap to buy a decent game engine in the first place and that their creativity in sPvP was limited to having four maps all with the exact same mechanic I sincerely doubt that any of this will come to pass no matter how good the suggestions from the player base may be.

All true points. I don’t expect it anytime soon, either. I don’t really understand why though. In all of the MMO’s I’ve played, the communities are always divided the same ways. I would think that developers would know how to cater to those player types by now.

i would really enjoy this, beeing able to build your own map, but it might be a little overpowered if you have a little advantage in the beggining, like snowballing the score, a version of “come at me bro, i have full map T3” version, but with more defense x)

Nedrae.8967:

i would really enjoy this, beeing able to build your own map, but it might be a little overpowered if you have a little advantage in the beggining, like snowballing the score, a version of “come at me bro, i have full map T3” version, but with more defense x)

I think issues such those can be fixed by getting rid of the tier system, and introducing something akin to alliances which would create a system where number and motivations of each opponent are fluid and variable. Say, if one world or alliance dominated a map, other worlds could team up and try to take that map. This would require redesigning the entire WvW infrastructure, however.

TwoBit.5903:

Nedrae.8967:

i would really enjoy this, beeing able to build your own map, but it might be a little overpowered if you have a little advantage in the beggining, like snowballing the score, a version of “come at me bro, i have full map T3” version, but with more defense x)

I think issues such those can be fixed by getting rid of the tier system, and introducing something akin to alliances which would create a system where number and motivations of each opponent are fluid and variable. Say, if one world or alliance dominated a map, other worlds could team up and try to take that map. This would require redesigning the entire WvW infrastructure, however.

But i think even if the don’t redesign EVERYTHING, they can make the effort to include a little bit of this concept with limitation with pve element, like mobs poping and destroying your barricade and such…

btw, i personally think taht they NEED to redesign 3w, at least the things at stakes, i love the idea of special material with area control, or trade with the server/guild that have this area. Even if they don’t implement it in 3W, they can still implement GvG that way, with a totally new feature =)

Fizzlepip.5218:

Edragor.9164:

For any sandboxy elements to really work, you have to change some things first:

Upgraded keeps walls & Doors & siege need way more HP
Then rushing/capping wouldnt be that of an option and trying to upgrade asap first priority. Defending/Holding would make more sense. Battles around T2/T3 resolve in a long battle of attrition..maybe for days ..or need a big amount of siege deployed.
And siege cant be that easily destroyed ..except for structural dmg by other siege. More skirmishes around keeps and such would happen, too.

Just starting to read this thread, so I can’t comment on stuff after this, but what you suggest here would virtually kill lower Tier WvW.

All it would take is the morning downtime (there are hours of silence and nothing going on in the lowest ones, where even small groups walk in and recap their Keep without any fight if it had been nightcapped) for everyone to upgrade and supply, and watch as the maps don’t change. Simply not enough people and presence for sieges to work… ever. There goes the rest of the already depleted loyal WvW population.

Depends on what you believe the meta should be about?
If your in favor that even a 5 man group should cap every keep/tower in a short time frame and without much costs attached?
Its currently the case and resolves in a “flat meta” about “flipping objectives”…
- no real incentive to upgrade
- no possibilities for guilds to get “attached”
- not much time for other elements/meta to “evolve around”

Now, lets imagine every structure would have way enhanced HP.
i.e. T1 wall would need 10 catas to destroy in the same time (like currently with one cata):
-> More coordination/time needed (with more “siege sites”)
-> zergs have to spread more
-> more defending of & travel between camps (supply line)
-> more need for repair teams and supply runners

—> more spread out fights overall
—> more options for defenders to react & counter
—> more feints and tactical retreats for attackers
—> more emphasis on supplies (thus holding / defending camps)

Now, imagine siege equip could only be destroyed by other siege fast, but player dps would take like 10 times. Siege would be repairable,too :
-> siege on walls wouldnt be destroyed that easily
—> zerging it not worthwhile
—> more counter siege needed
-> defence gets easier
-> more need/work for supply runners / dolyak guards & repairs
-> more rushing/pushing onto battlefield to take out siege sites
-> more siege would be build “in-the-wild”, cuz of high hp and being repairable
—> more “eagles nests” to take out = more “sandboxy” meta

Overall the meta would change from little cap-flipping fights to more prolonged battles, which would result/attract lot more fighting, as well as tactical retreats and such.
With way more damage to repair on walls & siege after a fight/battle, the strategic meta would “spice-up”, too.
Who gets repairs coordinated faster after a battle? Maybe leaving a wall at 50% and feinting to go for another objective only to return shortly after?

Defending/holding would hold more meaning and be easier vs uncoordinated zergs.
Small groups might be “excluded” from siegeing, but would hold way more strategic/tactical value for defending/capping camps, harrassing supply lines or siege sites.
Big guilds/zergs would focus on siegeing the upgraded / better defended objectives more, while T1 fortresses would be still “doable in a reasonable” manner for smaller zergs or effective guild groups.

IMHO a complete rework of WvW would be ridiculous and some ideas like farms or constructed stuff by players maybe “too unrealistic”, BUT tweaking / adding little things would/could change the whole meta to allow for more “sandboxy feeling”…

Edit:
To add an analogy to EVE.
Mining (or most other stuff) around solo takes FOREVER!
Only by grouping up and/or investing into “effective equip” it gets worthwhile and in pvp zones attracts other players.

Same should hold true for a siege battle. Siege equip should be easy to afford, but more emphasize should be on supply and (re-)organizing it. To make:
- ORGANIZING SUPPLY (&TIME)
- SIEGE AMOUNT
- PLAYER SKILL
- STARTEGY & TACTICS
the “modifiers” to the battle and divide between good / organized groups and mindless zerg rushes.

Currently its mostly too much about player numbers and who “didnt forgot to buy some blueprints”…

I really like this thread.

What games DO use a sandbox approach, like the examples that have been given in this thread, for world/realm/whatever PvP ? I am asking specifically for games that are currently active and not just by diehards that refused to accept their game is actually dead. I mean, games that are still current and active.

Any?

As for GW2, it would be really nice if Anet were to cater to each of the PvP personalities.
*Those that would love a true sandbox experience (obviously like most of us in this thread)
*Those that would like a free for all pit just to bash people and maybe one or two simple objectives (like Alterac Valley)
*Those that would like a free for all pit with NO objectives
*Those that like solo/small team PvP (sPvP or tournament PvP)

Most importantly, have these all separated. That way, when you join, you know what is expected of you. I would hope this would minimize the types of complaints we see from various mindsets (the tactician vs the zerglord, and the hard-fought reward seeker vs the “if it’s easy, it’s fun” crew).

/twocents

I’m glad he mentioned Minecraft, because it is a best example of a game that uses the players’ creativity to keep them hooked.

Creativity itself IS the content in that game.

RockonHarder.7235:

Another game he didn’t mention was Shadowbane. that was a great game.

Wow, you are a veteran, Sir.

Also you’re showing your age right now :p

1st: That video totally blew me out, MJ + EVE online + Morricone’s music? great video
2nd: If u never tried EVE, and you like the “sandboxy” elements of GW you should definitively try it (spent almost 6 years there, till they decided cash shop+subscription was the way to go)
3rd: as long as i agree with the OP, i still think is pointless hoping to get a (real) sandbox experience out of GW2, wasn’t designed that way and will never become such, they will have to change too many mechanics, which will in the end affect also the PvE side “ruining” their product.

And Lavath EVE is still runing, and as far as i know kicking, 1 single server 200kish active players, all fighting for the same (and huge) space, just be prepared to set your alarm at weird times to save your base/POS from someone in a diff timezone, a base that maybe took your corp months (If not ages) to build ;P

RockonHarder.7235:

Another game he didn’t mention was Shadowbane. that was a great game.

best seige/pvp game ever; daoc was garbage compared to SB!

Demonbox.4703:

1st: That video totally blew me out, MJ + EVE online + Morricone’s music? great video
2nd: If u never tried EVE, and you like the “sandboxy” elements of GW you should definitively try it (spent almost 6 years there, till they decided cash shop+subscription was the way to go)
3rd: as long as i agree with the OP, i still think is pointless hoping to get a (real) sandbox experience out of GW2, wasn’t designed that way and will never become such, they will have to change too many mechanics, which will in the end affect also the PvE side “ruining” their product.

And Lavath EVE is still runing, and as far as i know kicking, 1 single server 200kish active players, all fighting for the same (and huge) space, just be prepared to set your alarm at weird times to save your base/POS from someone in a diff timezone, a base that maybe took your corp months (If not ages) to build ;P

Totally agree, but its not about converting GW2 to Eve (or else), but the “spirit” or finding analogies.
In principle EvE might seem very complicated, but its “only” complexity via a lot of small, simplistic mechanics/ideas which are dependant on each other and in conjunction work (mostly) as a “whole complex system”.

In Eve Ressources/Credits are needed and scarce (for the higher tiered stuff).
The “harder”/high tiered/expensive objectives rise extremely in defense/hp pools.
You therefore have to come in “Numbers” and/or “Prepared” (with the right and mostly similiar expensive equip). As well as bringing some diversity in your fleet to be able to fullfill different “roles” (in and out of battle, i.e. scouting, mining as well as haveing some “firepower”). Still, battles will take some time which allows even pilots some systems away to join in.
While earning/getting credits/ressources is also depending on your “Numbers” and “Investments” and in itself scales the rewards according to the risks.
… roughly put

Now in WvW we have supply & gold. “Roles” are defined roughly by equip, weapon, trait build or siege used.
BUT supply are not really a limiting factor for setting up siege or upgradeing and should become way more scarce. Gold in GW2 case shouldnt be that limiting (imho), cuz of weekly resets and faster meta (compared to EvE).
While almost everything SHOULD be more “tanky” especially upgraded structures and scale rewards for attacker&defenders, which in itself sets the incentive to upgrade and/or “be best prepared” as well as makeing supply scarcer aka more important.
We dont lose ships/equip, but siege and objectives/upgraded stuff are still at stake.

Thats why imho easiest and best solution to enhance GW2 meta:
- T2> objectives, siege equip, Dolyaks, Veteran guards & Champs
—> HP x5 – x10

- Camp supply output
—> about 2x – 4x faster

- Dolyak supply amount
—> 2x – 4x supply per Dolyak

- Supply drop on player death
—> Should be FFA to “ninja” for ALL other players

- Rewards scaleing with difficulty

I like GW2 fast-paced fighting style, but battles/siegeing SHOULD NEVER be fast, otherwise you eliminate possibilities to counter/react and defender cannot get attached enough to care about the objective that much.

If you were to siege a castle in real life, you most certainly make camp somewhere near because sieging isn’t something that is achieved in a few hours, it can take days or weeks. Attackers must also consider their own supply, such as food in order to keep up the siege. Your siege won’t last long if your army starves in a few days, and it isn’t as easy as just bring food with you. Food needs to be carted to the camp and by nature it is slower and therefore logistics plays a huge part of successful siege.

If I were a commander sieging a castle that is nearly done for, but I was running low on food and desperately waiting on my next supply wagon to arrive. The enemy if they had had the intel could sabotage my incoming delivery, meaning I won’t have enough food to sustain the siege any longer and hence must withdraw.

A sandbox WvW would keep me playing for a long time because it isn’t just about fighting, there would be a lot of other things that contribute to the war.

Ross Biddle.2367:

RockonHarder.7235:

Another game he didn’t mention was Shadowbane. that was a great game.

Wow, you are a veteran, Sir.

Also you’re showing your age right now :p

Shadowbane was the best Sandbox game to date. Played from Beta to Death. Let the community decide what the map looks like, The “Hook” is that you actually make a difference.

@defrule
That actually gives me an idea. Instead of one giant map that the game’s engine can’t render, why not make a bunch of small or medium sized maps akin to tiles in Civilization? In order for one world to attack a key location, players of that world will have to take over and control a series of interconnected maps in order to maintain a supply line of troops.

Cactus.2710:

I can easily imagine that some of those things would be difficult to implement and may even have unintended consequences, but please tell me why any of that would be “silly.”

Underlined for your convenience.

ANet’s not going to overhaul WvW from top to bottom. They’d lose more players than they’d gain.

Hence, silly notion. Much better to enhance what already exists to shift it towards a better course, rather than try to re-build the entire thing.

Folk.2093:

RockonHarder.7235:

Another game he didn’t mention was Shadowbane. that was a great game.

best seige/pvp game ever; daoc was garbage compared to SB!

Shadowbane was trash. You couldn’t PvP without $ because of the death costs. You had to grind PvE for $ and then get ganked by overpowered “naked” (0 gear) PK builds.

Raw hacking and cheating meant you were always out-geared.

Game model pretty much had 0 capability of sustaining itself.

And, of course, there was SB.EXE.

SB had some vague potential, but it’s about as niche as my little pony.