Guild Wars 2

The idea here is to create a system that awards war score based on both objectives and PPT. PPT functions the same way it does now except it doesn’t tick every 15 min, it ticks every hour instead effectively reducing it’s effectiveness by 75%. The new (primary) way to get war score now is based on objectives.

The reasoning behind this is that PvE is solely based on objectives; everything from heart quests, random world spawns, and meta events. It all comes down to completing the objective for the reward. WvW is just a mix of PvP and PvE, so it seems logical to have objectives given in WvW. I don’t think many people would have a problem with completing objectives as it gives some sense of accomplishment.

The proposal is having a database of objectives (maybe 50-100) that are randomly drawn every hour for each server and for each map. Every map will have a different set of objectives for each server. 5 objectives are given every hour (200 war score each) for a total of 1000 war score per map if all objectives are completed on every map. At the end of the hour, the objectives reset and new ones are given.

Some possible objectives could be:

- Capture “X” color’s camps/towers/keeps/Garrison
- Capture SM
- Keep SM/Garrison/Keep/Tower for the tick
- Capture “X” amount of towers
- Kill “X” amount of players (50-200)
- Kill “X” amount of yaks (5-10)
- Defend towers/keeps camps “X” amount of times
- Own all mercenary camps

An example, the Red server could see this in Eternal Battle Grounds:

- Capture 1 blue tower
- Defend towers 3 times
- Capture 5 camps (Obviously better done with a couple smaller groups)
- Kill 200 players
- Down 100 players

As you can see from above, if Red is being 2vs1 in this case, it actually could drastically work out to their advantage. Depending on the objectives; it could hurt servers with supreme off hours coverage. You can’t capture/defend/kill players if you own everything and the map is void of enemies. Some objectives would require some good ole fashion blobbing, while others would be better served broken up into smaller groups. It gives small groups a fair chance, especially if they are coordinated and map hop.

It basically comes down to evening out the score while not punishing players too much on both sides of the fence (stacked servers vs small numbers). I think it’s also important to point out that completing an objective on a map gives a map-wide reward (champ chest + silver + karma). Completing all the objectives on the map allows you to see your enemies objectives and what they’ve completed (more incentive to complete yours).

The advantages:

- Stacked servers still keep their guaranteed PPT in the off hours (just not as much)
- Encourages both small and large group play
- Could force zergs to bust up and spread across all maps
- Gives birth to a whole line of new strategy and tactics
- Gives servers with small numbers and dismal coverage a fighting chance
- Gives reason to defend if the objectives call for it
- Receiving end of a 2vs1 could be a massive advantage
- It might not be advantageous to have superior coverage during off hours
- More chances at rewards
- Servers may de-stack as it no longer makes sense to have superior coverage
- More PvE’ers may join WvW as they are familiar with objective based missions

Feel free to poke holes in this, but I feel this would be a much better system than we have now. The TL;DR version of this is, things basically stay the same, PPT’s effectiveness is reduced and war score is now added in through objectives.

With regard to the objectives system, I like that idea. The only change I would make is to remove the “Defend towers/keeps camps X amount of times”. The reason being is this isn’t under the control of the server assigned this objective. To successfully complete it relies on waiting for an opposing server to attack a camp, tower, or keep. Contrast this with the other objectives in which it’s wholly under the control of the server to initiate them itself (capture this, attack that, kill so many of X, etc.).

With regard to the PPT changes, even though it’s slowed to ticking once per hour under your suggestion, passive accumulation of points is still passive accumulation of points. As I’m sure you’re aware from my other postings, I’m very much opposed to amassing PPT passively.

I’ll continue to argue in favor of a more active system which ties PPT to the number of upgrades completed at fortifications with no upgrades at all = zero PPT. This is because not only does it force servers to take an active role in building up and maintaining their source of PPT, it also gives outnumbered servers the counter-play option of slowing their opponent’s PPT by denying supply used to build those upgrades.

I like it.

/15 char

At first I was like, no, it adds too much PvE into WvW. But then I thought what if the objectives could be calculated and planned to create actual fights between players instead of PvD. Now that would awesome!

The objective creating system would need to be able to determine who holds what at the beginning of a new round of objectives. But I don’t see how hard that could be – it already knows who holds what for the PPT calculation.

Given the initial state of conditions at the beginning, the system could choose objectives that would lead to fights for that objective.

It would also address Kraag’s concern about defensive objectives. For example, the system would know that Red held SM and Green and Blue’s objectives could be to capture SM and Reds would be to defend it and maybe even if lost cap it back.

I think you may be on to something here. It would help with two of the biggest complaints: lack of actual fights and PvD gaining too many points.

Thanks for the feedback

Much like Kraag, I’m also opposed to a passive accumulation of points. I only suggest slowing them once per hour so that the servers who did build a large WvW community had something to still actively fight for in the off hours. If Anet decides to scrap PPT all together in favor of objectives, I won’t lose any sleep over it. I also don’t mind PPT being tied to upgrades; it makes more sense to award PPT to an upgraded structure, not one you just capped in the last few seconds of the tick. An objective in itself could be to complete an upgrade on whatever tower.

If Anet ever does decide to add an objective based point system to WvW, I’m sure between them and the entire WvW community could come up 50-100 random objectives to be accomplished.

I also agree that the system should be able to determine whom owns what then based the set of objectives on that. For example, as you said, Red owns SM, green’s and blue’s job is to capture it; red’s would be to defend it. That could stand as 1 of the 5 objectives. Now wouldn’t it be interesting if some objectives called for 2vs1’s. For instance, any keep, garrison, or SM now has the potential to call for an objective where 2 colors must attack (and 1 captures), to get war score for both. I think something like that could also solve coverage/numbers issues.

Either way, I’d like to see a system in place that awards score based more on actual game play and less on coverage and numbers. I think an objective based system that dynamically changes with who owns what at the top of the hour could do the trick. Couple that with a PPT system that only awards points if your structures are upgraded (more upgrades = more points), then have that PPT tick once per hour.