Guild Wars 2

Well you know what. People complain a lot about the issues in WvWvW. And I understand quite a bit of them have merit, but what people dont offer is solutions, or even ideas. You have to think of it this way. While the ideas we offer up may not be implemented, you are adding to the thought process of ANET, giving htem more to work with. One idea may not work, but it might get them thinking of a solution along that idea’s line.

So with that in mind, Im going to throw in my two or 4 or wahtever cents.

Suggestion 1

When a server is outmanned, begin spawning waves of NPC attackers from the main portal, whos AI is set to attack the closet fort, and 2 supply bases. Do not make them over powered. They alone should not be enough to take a fort by themselves, but should be enough to cause issues.

Why do this? The NPCs will essentially act as cannon fodder and distractions. If there are enough NPCs with Players pounding a fort, it will take more and more of the enemy realm to defend it, causing other points a long hte map to be less guarded and more susceptible to attack. This could potentially force enemy realms to have to actually decide whether keeping 1 fort versus losing a few others is worthwhile or not with their numbers. The wave size varies on how outmanned the realm is, acting as an equalizer. They get sent out in waves to assure there is no steady flow of attackers and giving some reprieve to realms on the defensive. Finally, the AI limits them to where they can roam to, so you cannot use the NPCs to conquer the whole map. Just get a foothold on maps where you have no fortifications/camps/ or otherwise. AI will stop spawning once a certain number of AI on the field is met. So you cannot just stock pile an army of AI. AI will despawn upon arriving at a location under realm control. AI will not run to Locations under realm control. If there are no locations needing to be captured, the AI will cease spawning all together.

Suggestion 2

Give guilds the WvWvW upgrade option to detect enemy players within secured keep walls.

Why: This is to counteract the Mesmer portal issue people complain about. This skill is not a default skill and must be researched into on part of the guild, and only works on claimed forts keeps and so forth on maps. This option is pretty much on a CD, and will cause any enemies within unbroken walls/doors of the keep to be revealed on minimap for a small duration of time.

Suggestion 3

Outmanned and Orb Buffs should be swapped.

Everyone has virtually said this before. Switching the buffs would deter people from speed ninjaing the orbs, cause they wont give your realm a direct power.

Suggestion 4

Traversing the terrain beyond a certain speed kills you.

Call it physics. The game has methods of tracking player location, cause our maps reflect our locations among other things. This is is only set up to kill speed hackers. Short of using waypoints, certain skills which have limited ranges, and movement buffs. There is only so fast you can go for so far. If you manage to exceed it, you are either hacking or exploiting and should be punished for it. What this threshold would be is something determined by ANET since they would know based on its their game.

Give me your thoughts, and post a few of your own. You guys want WvWvW to be funner, balanced and playable. Then start brainstorming. Post your ideas here.

Iron Wolf.5973:

Call it physics. The game has methods of tracking player location, cause our maps reflect our locations among other things. This is is only set up to kill speed hackers. Short of using waypoints, certain skills which have limited ranges, and movement buffs. There is only so fast you can go for so far. If you manage to exceed it, you are either hacking or exploiting and should be punished for it. What this threshold would be is something determined by ANET since they would know based on its their game.

Correct me if I wrong but I remember there was such a anti-hack feature in game. And on one of the final betas, whenever you leap, you died because that anti-hack feature was thinking you’re speed hacking. I remember it was the official explanation for that “leap to die” bug.

Here is the video I found about it. It’s at the end of the video.

I remember they closed that feature until they optimize it. I think they never restarted that feature after that bug.

Hmm wasnt aware of that, but I guess the fix owuld be horizontal movement, not vertical.

An idea I’ve been mulling over for some time; by no means do I claim to be an expert just looking to get some opinions on it.

7 24-hour rounds
scoring is objective based not timed based etc:
-all positions neutral at start and first cap is worth no points instead they provide extra supply (1 time only)
-taking a supply/tower/keep is worth 10/20/40 points
-defending a supply/tower/keep is worth 5/10/20 points (possible to defend multiple times in a single push if you can hold that long)
-each kill is worth +1 point, each death (pvp only) is worth -1 point, a revive (also only if killed by or the result of a player ability) is worth +2 points
-A one time bonus for controlling a certain percentage of the map say 25%/50%/75% worth 15/30/60 points

At the end of the 24 hours the server with the most points wins the round and the maps are reset with starting positions randomly selected

To win a server would need 4 round victories (in the event of a 2×2×2 tie the final round would naturally determine the victor)
each round worth X amount of points (for ladder purposes)
in addition to the points for the round victories points are awarded for position (again for ladder)
-first place worth 50 points
-second place worth 25 points
-third place worth 10 points

Its an interesting idea, but how would you take into account numbers difference. It works if all teams ahve the same player count, but if one side is dramatically larger, then its gonna be a steam roll farm fest.

There really is no way to negate numbers in any form of team play honestly any system is going to have that problem. The best would be to try to reduce the advantage sheer numbers gives a server. To that end I’d suggest that the outnumbered buff grants a modest increase in HP and DMG but the big thing would be once you are outnumbered say 3-1 (somebody far better than me I’m sure could make a better figure for balance) points earned are doubled.

While i think such posts will only draw in the hordes of trolls that patrol the forums i think an easier solution would be to implement static points. To put it simply every keep and camp is woth a set of points. Once taken thats it, those are the points you get. If it doesnt change hands or is defended * A feature already in place that activates when players attack said points* then you get no benefit for owning it hours on end besides tactical and supplies.

I agree Eihder not sure if it was clear but thats also what I was suggesting. My other changes were brainstorms to try to keep interest up for as long as possible thus the 24 hour rounds to prevent matches from simply running away from a server. Also I agree with Wolfs 4th suggestion wholeheartedly.

As someone mentioned above, option 4 was a similar thought ANET had in their betas, but it had issues and its either been scrapped or put on the shelf.

I dont think I personally understand the suggestion made with the static points thing, so I cant comment on that. Beyond that, while if this thread gets more responses and views that trolls will show up, I still want people to post their ideas, feedback and so forth. As I said, complaining isnt solving anything, so lets throw ideas anets way and try to help fix problems instead of stand there and kitten about them. So please keep posting.

A lot of people have argued for splitting up the weeklong matches into 3-day weekend matches Friday through Sunday and then 4-day matches Monday through Thursday. Honestly, I wish Anet would vary up matches – they could have their two week matches but also mix in one week, weekend, weekday, and 24 hour matches. I don’t understand why it has to all be one way or another.

I think if they split the match ups into a 3day weekend match up, and 4 day weekday match up, the value of hte weekday match ups will decline.

People have less time during the week, and since there is a weekend match up coming up at the start of every friday, people will just tell themselves that fighting during the weekdays is pointless as itll be the weekend when everyone gets in on the action.

It also might be server load, mixed in with the idea that if the matches are done in 3 day/4 day alternations that people would complain that the 3 day match ups would not be fair compared to the 4 day match ups having ‘more time to fight it out and change the outcome’ then 3 day match ups. And the flipside being people saying 4 day match ups would be unfair cause that extra day gives people time to screw up the score.

Would the realms change who they verse between the 3 and 4 day rotations? Or would that rotation be week long?

Please keep posting ideas though.

Wolf on the static thing it is instead of earning points for an objective every 15 minutes you get a set amount of points once you take it and thats its. So if its worth say 50 points and you hold it uncontested for say 7 hours you only get 50 points, however if say you repel 3 attacks and each repel is worth say 25 then your total points for that objective over the 7 hours would be 125, and say if you lost it then retook it you would get another 50 points.

Wouldnt that idea support people to abandon keeps just so they can retake them? If its 50 points to hold a keep and never let it fall, but you can let a keep fall and retake it multiple times for a profit of 150 points, it would behoove players to let keeps get overrun so that they can take it again. So it would be a cycle of taking, leaving, taking leaving over and over.

Repelling would have to be worht more then taking the keep, or to take the keep would have to have positive benefits to make it worth defending.

I think thats what I took away from what you said.

Defending when you actually have people respond quickly is actually easier than attacking so a single defense should be worth less what I was trying to say with my idea was the repel timer repeats as long as they keep attacking so defenders can earn multiple defense points. Eventually the attackers would have to stop and rethink if it takes too long or else they’d give their opponents more points from defense than they’d earn by taking it.