Guild Wars 2

Do you really want to be punished for having a lot of players around you? Do you want to be punished for having more siege on a map than your enemies? Do you want to have an uphill fight because the other server can’t muster enough people? I’m so sick of every thread saying “Punish players for this, that, and their mom!!!!” The answer is not “Punish people for simply playing a game.” Do you not see how completely, forgive my wording here, idiotic, selfish, and lazy that sounds? Would it even be fun for your enemies anymore? What you should be asking is something more like;

“Give us more ways in game to accomplish X, Y, and Z even while outmanned”

This not only gives you the ability to accomplish the same thing but creates a hell of a lot more counter play and just overall depth in game. Think outside the box as well. Think of player roles, new “siege”, anything you as a player would personally find helpful with whatever you thought when I said “X, Y, and Z.” As a game designer you can’t push debuffs on your playerbase just because they’re playing the game. What they can do is help give you (the player) more tools to help yourself. Let’s stop being a lazy community and start brainstorming real ideas. Even a comment like “Wtb anti-zerg trap nuke that deals 10k damage to foes in radius when it goes off for 250 supply” is more helpful than “Debuffs for everyone!!”

Some example ideas to illustrate this are;

-Clearly defined player roles such as:

• Scout
  – At X rank can use signal flare trap(uses supply) that pings and highlights enemy players (such as a zerg) for all allies on the map. (like the green dots for friendlies but red and last for x seconds)
  – At Y rank can deploy a binocular stand (that uses supply) that allows him to see much further into the distance also seeing cloaked siege and trap outlines through walls (walls, not land).
  – At Z rank Ballista’s reinforced shot becomes ground targeted and does not need line of sight. Damage vs. Siege is increased.
  – Gains passive movement speed, snare debuff duration decreases (except immobilizes), increased damage to Yaks and escorts.

• Siegemaster
  – At X rank reduces cost of deployed siege by x amount.
  – At Y rank can carry more supply.
  – At Z rank all siege weapons (except golems) gain a skill that deploys a Wall of Reflection in front of it.
  – Gains passive damage reduction of siege being used, decreases recharge of siege weapon skills, turn siege faster.

• Hunter
  – At X rank can deploy a personal anti-stealth item (uses supply) that shows footprints of stealthed foes and siege within range (1,200ish?) but does not reveal them.
  – At Y rank can loot some supply (1) from foes that had supply and from yaks (2).
  – At Z rank can deploy a siege wall (uses supply) that destroys projectiles and stops foes from passing through it for x seconds.
  – Gains passive movement speed, snare duration buff, and longer lasting siege.

• Defender
  – At X rank repairing becomes twice as effective. Can also repair siege weapons as well.
  – At Y rank can carry more supply.
  – At Z rank can deploy a defensive asuran laser (uses supply(1-2?)) that destroys slow moving enemy siege projectiles(single use). (Motar/Treb specifically)
  – Gains passive reduced damage from siege, and reduced damage from AoE abilities while within friendly walls.

• Assaulter
  – At X rank AoE abilities can hit more foes. (2-5?)
  – At Y rank builds siege 50% faster
  – At Z rank Flame Rams gain a shield skill that blocks effects of ground targeted AoE skills for a few seconds for itself and the user. Golems run faster.
  – Gains passive damage reduction while using siege, deal more damage to gates and walls. (Applies while on siege as well.)

Additions and changes to Siege weapon and equipment

• Ballista:
  – “Reinforced shot” now only damages siege and it’s user and recharge has been drastically reduced.
  – Frontal damage is reduced 75%. Increaded damage from back by 50%.
  – Range of all skills increased to a base of 4,000.
  This addresses the major issues with Ballista which were sub-par at eliminating siege and line of sight which not only requires it to be a prime target for quick dispatches by foes but also drastically limits the areas they can be used in so range was increased as well.

• Asura Cloaking Device:
  – Cloaks siege weapons and build sites in the area, including itself, while they are not being manned. 15 Supply. (Must be manned to distribute cloaking)

• Trap of Slowing:
  – When triggered applies an unrecoverable condition to all foes in range causing them to move and regen endurance 50% slower and negates all swiftness buffs for 30s. 20 supply

• Trap of Shadow:
  – When triggered applies blind (2s) over a large area every 2 seconds to all foes in range for 30s. 15 Supply.

• Mini Illusion Golem:
  - Mini stealthed golem that follows creator that creates illusions of players near it. When the creator becomes engaged in combat the illusions vanish and the golem becomes visible. 15 Supply. (Can be activated and deactivated by talking to it)

• Rocket Launcher Pod:
  - Build a single use rocket that deals heavy damage to (all) infantry in the target area when it lands. 5 Supply. 2,000 Range (Deals no damage to siege, walls, gates, or players manning siege. Approx same damage as one Ballista shot, Radius ~ same as arrow cart skills.)

These new tools can give a huge advantage to smaller groups who can strategically place and capitalize on larger groups during the chaos while not being directly useful to mindless zerg trains.

A player can only have one designated role at a time and, like crafting, are taught by a “Player Role” NPC. The higher a role is the more Badges of Honor it takes to switch back to if the player previously switched roles, again, like crafting. Player roles would be part of the displayed name instead of the rank name currently used. (Ex. r5 Defender might be an “Invincible Defender” while a r3 Assaulter might be a “Feared Assaulter”.) They would level up the same way and at the same time as the current rank feature but be in a separate page/list with passive effects between larger abilities. (Ex. When you rank you you get 2 points to spend, one in siege abilities and another in your battlefield role.) The unlocked current rank names would be available as titles you can wear.

I pretty much just kitten all this out as I was writing this but as you can see, it adds a lot more dynamics to the game instead of “debuff players!!”. I hope to hear other ideas as well! ^.^

(Edit: An idea I had just a few moments ago (possibly already posted somewhere maybe idk) is to also have the Outmanned buff not allow enemy players to rally off your death. This is a bit of a “debuff/punishment” for enemy players so I’m still pretty iffy on it but I think it would be good to have some input on it none-the-less.)

As long as there will be “spread out” instead “stack up” in team chat, I’ll be fine with it

I still think the AoE 5 ppl cap is the biggest problem in each tactic. When the mindless Zerg actually needs some mind to be successfull, then we’re talking. Until then we’ll remain the “stack up” mentality.

Howerver, to remain on topic: I like the ideas of the original post. But I doubt they will help in balancing out two armies with huge number difference. The mindless Zerg just needs some smart ppl, who utilize the new roles and the outmanned group has still the same problem…

Nikola.3841:

As long as there will be “spread out” instead “stack up” in team chat, I’ll be fine with it

I think this stems from a problem of people taking advantage of combo fields a lot more than they should mostly due to the lack thereof of actually threatening combo fields and effects of stacked foes in larger scale fights.

Some of the traps and siege items I had mentioned would’ve actually punished, quite heavily, people who stacked as well as slowed their ability to do so in certain circumstances if used correctly and capitalized on. If you were to also limit the effect of blast finishers to the same as the AoE cap I feel it’d be a huge deterrent as well. Although I admit stacking has helped win several zerg fights for myself when done correctly over opponents who outnumber us and rely on that tactic only.

Ideally I think the game should favour preparation over everything else. For example, in real life if I were to catch the enemy army in a dense forest in drought conditions, I could plan an ambush by burning the forest down and they’re almost certainly be routed or in complete chaos for my smaller numbers to take advantage of.

defrule.7236:

Ideally I think the game should favour preparation over everything else. For example, in real life if I were to catch the enemy army in a dense forest in drought conditions, I could plan an ambush by burning the forest down and they’re almost certainly be routed or in complete chaos for my smaller numbers to take advantage of.

That is exactly how these changes work.
Traps can be placed near choke points or ambush areas, Illusion golem can be used to lure unorganized player zergs in, single use rockets or other siege can be build in opportune spots under the cloak and when they are in target area rain down hell on them.

Traps go off, they cant use their swiftness spam to get out, dodge less, move slower, mass reapplying blind, siege can rain down upon them. I added in a cheap single use anti infantry weapon simply to counter zergs.

Zergs do not need anti player only siege, they don’t need traps, they don’t need illusion golems, all of it can be used to disable and capitalize on them.

I really like your ideas and most of them would be very useful and funny.
However I don’t like the illusion golem and the cloaking device.
With it enemies and siege weapons could pop out of nowhere. A strike team should be able to do this without those devices. Also the Anti-projectile weapon should have a range where it could be built only once. Otherwise you end up stacking those and would be invulnerable to those shots.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Spreading-WvW-population-using-tax/first#post2216545

You can raise the supply needed to build siege, eg AC from 30 to 60 and then give outmanned servers +100% supply carry. A tax can be presented in the form of bluff using sneaky ways.

SSalp.6423:

I really like your ideas and most of them would be very useful and funny.
However I don’t like the illusion golem and the cloaking device.
With it enemies and siege weapons could pop out of nowhere. A strike team should be able to do this without those devices. Also the Anti-projectile weapon should have a range where it could be built only once. Otherwise you end up stacking those and would be invulnerable to those shots.

The cloaking siege device only cloaks siege and build sites so you’d still be able to see the enemies and in the case of larger groups it isn’t really needed but I thought it’d add a nice item for smaller groups who are building up siege in an area to combat a larger group.

The Illusion Golem I had the idea for when I was thinking about ways to get large groups of people to be distracted or lose focus. If it looks like there is 10 defenders it might ward off some foes, if it looks like there is 10 roamers a lager zerg might walk into an ambush to check them out. Just keeps larger groups on their toes while not giving any direct power to 1v1s or already larger zergs.

Sol.8341:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Spreading-WvW-population-using-tax/first#post2216545

You can raise the supply needed to build siege, eg AC from 30 to 60 and then give outmanned servers +100% supply carry. A tax can be presented in the form of bluff using sneaky ways.

I like the idea of this but what it seems it comes down to is an unavoidable…
More gold to upgrade
Less Supply you can carry
Less WXP earned
…for the server simply because they have more people. Every one of those is a direct debuff for the enemy server. Not only does that subtract from the fun of the larger server it also encourages zerging because more people are needed to build siege.

I like the idea of the supply tax but I think we need to go in a different direction. None of the taxes actually help you, as players, combat larger groups they simply hurt the enemies wallet and WXP gain to the point of forcing them to transfer nor does it add another dynamic to winning.
I think that, for now, we have to think of ways for those teams with less people to combat the larger teams, not just debuff them, as well as finding better ways for single people to use siege instead of it always and only being a mass team thing. That way supply becomes more valuable, there are more ways to use it, more ways for smaller groups to counter larger groups, and finally, more ways for smaller groups to be useful on the map other than camp flipping.

SSalp.6423:

I really like your ideas and most of them would be very useful and funny.
However I don’t like the illusion golem and the cloaking device.
With it enemies and siege weapons could pop out of nowhere. A strike team should be able to do this without those devices. Also the Anti-projectile weapon should have a range where it could be built only once. Otherwise you end up stacking those and would be invulnerable to those shots.

I forgot to address one of those. The anti projectile weapon in automated and only has a single use while costing supply to use. It basically can defend the area around you as long as you have supply and are willing to deploy it. If they are using that siege to block a treb from hitting a treb, they didn’t use that supply to build the treb and opted for a way to defend it. If multiple ones are deployed by multiple people they’re going to fire at the same projectile thus wasting supply and defense. In coordinated group play this makes it a very powerful tool for the defender which makes it a class which people would want to spec in to where as defense is normally rarely seen.

After reading your first paragraph I disagreed with almost each of your reasons for putting up the list of tools. But as much as I dislike your reasons, I love the list of tools and the amount of thought that is put into.

Great list of additions, especially the part about diversified roles for experienced players according to their playstyle. Something like that was what I imagined will come, when they announced WXP Ranks. Sadly, they couldn`t afford you and implemented this zerg favouring monstrosity.

Best regards

Moon.6371:

After reading your first paragraph I disagreed with almost each of your reasons for putting up the list of tools. But as much as I dislike your reasons, I love the list of tools and the amount of thought that is put into.

Great list of additions, especially the part about diversified roles for experienced players according to their playstyle. Something like that was what I imagined will come, when they announced WXP Ranks. Sadly, they couldn`t afford you and implemented this zerg favouring monstrosity.

Best regards

I just lost my entire response which was much more lengthy than I intended but on a quick note can you please elaborate on what reasons for this post you disagree with? At the time of writing it there was thread after thread calling for debuffs entire servers, people in proximity to others, everything. That isn’t fun for your enemies nor does it have any counterplay. I was trying to get us as a community to focus instead on what we thought we could use to bridge the gap between teamwork/skill and superior numbers instead of ways to hurt the enemies ability to play the game.

That being said the most common things I see being complained about are anti-zerg and population heavy servers.

My plan to counter zergs is two part. Discourage zergs and then encourage smaller groups. This is not done with buffs or debuffs but through the use of tools enabling smaller groups to counter and destroy zergs with teamwork while at the same time encouraging smaller groups by giving more ways to effectively use supply and make a difference throughout the map. The tools I suggested, in my opinion and experiences, are what I think would help my smaller groups contend with much larger forces.

As for fixing server WvW population I think increasing the rewards for spending time contributing to the WvW war effort would go a long way. Why spend time in WvW fighting actual people when you can get more of a reward killing an AI in a lvl 15 zone? Give amazing rewards for amazing feats of war. Why shouldn’t I get exotics and rares out the butt for eliminating a 50 person zerg when I can get them killing single world bosses with 30+ people. Yes this would draw in many PvE’ers and yes they would be green for a while but most PvE’ers are a lot more adaptable than people give them credit for.

Total server population is a whole other problem and is not easily solved as by allowing transfers. This quite often encourages guilds to stack lower population servers which can quickly become very powerful. My only solution to this would be to combine the lower population servers while implementing the above paragraph’s idea but there’s a whole plethora of problems regarding server combinations as well I’d rather not get into.

Some servers are just always going to be better equipped. Good matchmaking and teamwork are needed to overcome many of the the problems people have with servers. The thing is there is no good teamwork options in WvW (which this post was aiming to add) and we’re fresh into in a new matchmaking system.

PS. I’m pretty cheap, I’m sure they could afford me if they wanted lol.

My point about your reasoning was, that I feel changes to matchmaking and/or ingame tools won`t ever be able to handle the constant fluctuation of population (= server strength) enough to be sufficiently reliable. I agree, some of the tools you listed would certainly help and improve the wvw longterm experience hugely.

However, I feel, to manage matchup imbalances properly there is also need to implemented weighted point ticks according to the number of players active at that particular time.

I am an off-prime time player myself and I wouldn`t feel that my achievements are diminished, just because points are ticking slower, when there are less people online. I mean, it just is so much easier to cap and decap at night/off-primetime because even in (former) EU T1 there`s empty/almost empty borderlands. Why should my time spent at odd times playing have so much more impact in comparison (looking at the 1 week cycle), when I have literally less resistance.

Additionally, the splitting of WXP is just not handled correctly for any PvP Setting. I won`t go into this, but your first paragraph made it sound as if these issues were somewhat non-legit complaints.

Hope, I made my point a bit more clear. No offense, I`m still a big fan of your tool suggestions.

Best regards

Some of these I would have to see in action to really determine whether or not I would enjoy them.

That said, I really like the ideas conceptually. I especially would enjoy just getting more tools, period, in WvW to change it up. I made a post about the “positive” side of this game becoming “siege wars 2,” and I think if Anet is going to go in that direction, then implementing more tools we can use is nothing but a good thing. I WANT more pieces to use on my chess board, and I WANT an arena where people can get their open field fight on. Once they address these two items, Ill be a happy camper.

As for the “punishment” thing, Ill wax philosophical about it (as I tend to do anyway :P). People rarely look at improving themselves, and would rather bring others down to their level. This is likely the basis behind the ratio of “nerf:buff” posts. Most are much, much more likely to ask for a nerf of “x” than they are to ask for a buff to themselves. Aint nuthin gonna change there!

Moon.6371:

My point about your reasoning was, that I feel changes to matchmaking and/or ingame tools won`t ever be able to handle the constant fluctuation of population (= server strength) enough to be sufficiently reliable. I agree, some of the tools you listed would certainly help and improve the wvw longterm experience hugely.

However, I feel, to manage matchup imbalances properly there is also need to implemented weighted point ticks according to the number of players active at that particular time.

I am an off-prime time player myself and I wouldn`t feel that my achievements are diminished, just because points are ticking slower, when there are less people online. I mean, it just is so much easier to cap and decap at night/off-primetime because even in (former) EU T1 there`s empty/almost empty borderlands. Why should my time spent at odd times playing have so much more impact in comparison (looking at the 1 week cycle), when I have literally less resistance.

Additionally, the splitting of WXP is just not handled correctly for any PvP Setting. I won`t go into this, but your first paragraph made it sound as if these issues were somewhat non-legit complaints.

Hope, I made my point a bit more clear. No offense, I`m still a big fan of your tool suggestions.

Best regards

No, no I just wanted to hear more on your thoughts as to improve upon mine some. Thank you very much. ^.^
I wasn’t trying to say the concerns are non-legitmate and I’m sorry for making it seem that way. There are indeed a lot of real issues brought up by these threads and the night capping issue is indeed not a easy problem to solve. I was simply getting at instead of posting something like"Night capping is unfair" and having it followed with stuff like “Debuff players because they play at night” is the problem.

What you just suggested as a possible solution is not a anti-player solution as much as it is a ppt revamp and therefore doesn’t subtract from the players themselves and so is a completely solid suggestion. I currently have no idea how to help with night capping but I know its a serious issue and NA servers with EU guilds or a strong night force typically win just for that reason.

As far as method of ranking up Player roles and Siege ranks I really just bull kitten that out right away lol. It isn’t the best or greatest method I’m sure. I was just simply trying to illustrate a way of leveling it and if you wanted to suggest better options for that I would be thrilled to have you do so.

You did impressively well, at least loving 50% of your tools and huge probs for highlighting the need for diversified wvw roles and identities apart from class and build. I seriously hope many people read this and just understand the shallowness of what we have now, compared to the endless depth through additional tools and progressing you scratched on.

Moon;

I could not agree more. I would love for more complexity to be added in the tools available in WvW.

The thing is, there are some very vocal players (perhaps even the majority in the forums) that want to just go head to head and toe to toe and consider the use of tools as “cheap.”

While I disagree, personally (and even made a long post/thread about it), they have a point. That said, perhaps if more variety was present, it could change the attitude around. I think with the added variety, and expanded arenas that could include up to 100 players (random number), that it would address everyones preference.

Tuluum.9638:

Some of these I would have to see in action to really determine whether or not I would enjoy them.

That said, I really like the ideas conceptually. I especially would enjoy just getting more tools, period, in WvW to change it up. I made a post about the “positive” side of this game becoming “siege wars 2,” and I think if Anet is going to go in that direction, then implementing more tools we can use is nothing but a good thing. I WANT more pieces to use on my chess board, and I WANT an arena where people can get their open field fight on. Once they address these two items, Ill be a happy camper.

As for the “punishment” thing, Ill wax philosophical about it (as I tend to do anyway :P). People rarely look at improving themselves, and would rather bring others down to their level. This is likely the basis behind the ratio of “nerf:buff” posts. Most are much, much more likely to ask for a nerf of “x” than they are to ask for a buff to themselves. Aint nuthin gonna change there!

Thank you for your input as well Tulu. ^.^

Tuluum.9638:

Moon;

I could not agree more. I would love for more complexity to be added in the tools available in WvW.

The thing is, there are some very vocal players (perhaps even the majority in the forums) that want to just go head to head and toe to toe and consider the use of tools as “cheap.”

While I disagree, personally (and even made a long post/thread about it), they have a point. That said, perhaps if more variety was present, it could change the attitude around. I think with the added variety, and expanded arenas that could include up to 100 players (random number), that it would address everyones preference.

Do you have any ideas for some more tools you’d like to see Tulu? Anything your personal experiences in WvW can shed some light on?

I would really like to see some sort of assistance given to servers as they fall behind from a competitive standpoint. So if one server gets to +350 ppt then the other servers can get something more alon the lines of breakout events, whereas that large server loses their breakout events. So as an example, perhaps after you take your local tower on an enemy borderland, a separate breakout can occur to take the keep.

I also think wvw specific items could become available to players if their servers get so far behind in points. Maybe it’s new siege or some powerful item with a handful of uses to make things more fun for players on the servers who are losing and more fair to them, too. There is nothing fun about getting continuously trained by a larger group of players.

I proposed the idea of traps that become available when you are outmanned in this thread (toward the end): https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Server-Match-up-is-TERRIBLE/page/10#post2223012

There are 2 posts back to back.

I’m busy atm but I’ll read that as soon as I get a chance. ^.^
Thank you!

I’m going to run over the points I saw and offer my opinion so the people viewing this don’t miss anything. ^.^

AC not damaging siege.
– Yes. AC should not be the go-to weapon for anti siege. The reason it is so popular is because it’s safe. It doesn’t require line of sight and sometimes no sight at all. This is a huge attribute of the weapon and as it is now makes it impervious to not only other plays but also counter siege. If it cant damage siege it becomes less of an auto win but still very useful for getting players off their equipment.

Diminishing returns for AC effects in the same radius.
– No. Interesting idea indeed but if it looses the ability to damage siege it still needs to maintain the ability to be extremely threatening to players. As much as I hate it if the enemy used 300 supply to make 10 AC for defense and have the man power to use them all they should be allowed. It’s up to us as players to counter that and as hard as it can be I know it’s possible.

Outmanned buff affecting max supply or reduced siege cost.
– Reduced supply cost: No. I once thought of a similar idea but what stopped me was how easy it’d be for a server to quickly empty themselves, have the couple remaining deploy tons of siege then every dog-pile back in to build it at reduced cost. Sounds like more trouble than it’s worth but people would undoubtedly abuse it.
– Increased supply capacity: Maybe. Assuming it was something like +5 supply cap I think it’d be really helpful and would involve getting the supply in the first place instead of filling up on another map and coming into one with reduced supply cost like the above option. Would definitely help those teams who need a little something extra to get those siege engines up. I said “Maybe” because I see this possibly being very strong for the weaker team with the suggestions I had above in my original post but alone I support it.

Auto siege refreshment for Outmanned.
– No. A nominal change that simply involves freeing up somebody who just clicks on supply and leaves it. Sounds nice and coming from a very low server back in the day I can say this would be a nice bonus that is really just a fluff buff. But as such I think it’s important for a team who builds siege to take responsibility for it and not simply count on their Outmanned buff to do the job for them. I would instead suggest a timer freeze during the period of being Outmanned so instead of doing the job for you it simply delays it until you have the people to spare.

Reduced priced for traps while Outmanned
– No. Not sure if meant to actually purchase or supply cost to place. Either way I’d have to say no as once Outmanned you can stock up on traps or place them easier which is the same thing as above. I think if there was more creative and useful ways to use supply (such as this thread suggested) I think it’d be unnecessary.

Special traps that can only be used while Outmanned.
– No. For the same reasons above. Deployed while outmanned, stocked up on, etc. Just leads to abuse in my honest opinion and, especially with the stuff I had listed above, it just wouldn’t be needed.

Change to ppt system to accommodate how well players did.
– No. I’m sorry but war is war and if at the end of the day you didn’t accomplish the objectives you don’t get the cake. Simple as that. Plus, assuming this came from kills or such it would encourage field face mash fights instead of objective play. Night capping is a different issue and like how I mentioned above I tend to stay away from ppt topics but I did like how the one in Moon’s post sounded.

I loved reading your input and seeing people think. Thank you very much for your contribution! ^.^

Any Outmanned exploits can be eliminated by adding that the tools can only be used IF the server is outmanned AND is under a certain PPT level.

I’d also like to see Outmanned AND low PPT available explosives which are only usable when both conditions apply that can be used on both walls and players.

Maybe another tool is a trap or buff for outmanned/low-PPT, that doesn’t allow rez in an area and damages downed players, similar to GW1 frozen ground.

Swamurabi.7890:

Any Outmanned exploits can be eliminated by adding that the tools can only be used IF the server is outmanned AND is under a certain PPT level.

I’d also like to see Outmanned AND low PPT available explosives which are only usable when both conditions apply that can be used on both walls and players.

Maybe another tool is a trap or buff for outmanned/low-PPT, that doesn’t allow rez in an area and damages downed players, similar to GW1 frozen ground.

This is a good idea and being ppt restricted stops players simply exploiting it and limits it to those who need it, not who can exploit it. I think that something like this would would allow teams to “break-out” from a bad point but at the end doesn’t do anything besides giving a foothold. It’d still be up to the team to hold their new objectives. As to how it’d work exactly I’m not sure but I’d want it to stay away from traps. They don’t do much siege wise and basically function just as PvP weapons. (That trap sounded a lot like the no-rally-Outmanned buff I mentioned before).

I see a lot of focus on the Outmanned buff, as there should be (since it’s fluff atm), but I also want to be careful because the second it becomes too easy or two powerful you will have servers telling and harassing players to get off so they can purposely have this buff to accomplish objectives. The increased supply cap was a good idea for this because Outmanned would give you a bonus but other players with supply would be equally, if not more, welcomed. Combine that buff with better tools and you’ve already got a powerful combination.

I think, for now, refining the matchmaking system, giving smaller teams better tools to both capture and contend with larger forces, and much more incentive to participate in WvW to begin with is the direction we need to go. Outmanned is a huge deal, especially now, because of the fresh system and some time to refine ratings is needed but as Moon and myself have said; There’s just always going to a better equipped server. Number’s should play a huge role and if you buff Outmanned to the point numbers are completely negligible I think you’ve damaged WvW itself.

Castaliea.3156:

Do you have any ideas for some more tools you’d like to see Tulu? Anything your personal experiences in WvW can shed some light on?

You are actively asking others for their opinion?

Respect. Thats rare nowadays.

I think the first thing is that any changes would need to take place slowly, and ideally, on a test server. It might seem unrelated, but I think implementing a test server would be very, very, very good.

Overall, I want to see more freedom in what we can build and where we can build it. I actually wish that we were given more of a toolset with the BPs, where through some action/work/acheivement/foundry type deal we are actually able to research and design our OWN blueprints, structures, etc.

To be honest, I am not even sure how you could go about implementing this, but it is the “ideal” I dream about.

Now, I know this isnt realistic, but hey! You asked! :P

I would like to see reset start off with completely empty maps, devoid of structures. We would have to build those structures on our own, but to upgrade them past a certain point, we would have to make them “captureable” by the other servers. It could be based on the tried and true RTS-style resource method, where you need to gather wood, ore, and food (something which is already available on the maps).

A man can dream, right?

Tuluum.9638:

Castaliea.3156:

Do you have any ideas for some more tools you’d like to see Tulu? Anything your personal experiences in WvW can shed some light on?

You are actively asking others for their opinion?

Respect. Thats rare nowadays.

I think the first thing is that any changes would need to take place slowly, and ideally, on a test server. It might seem unrelated, but I think implementing a test server would be very, very, very good.

Overall, I want to see more freedom in what we can build and where we can build it. I actually wish that we were given more of a toolset with the BPs, where through some action/work/acheivement/foundry type deal we are actually able to research and design our OWN blueprints, structures, etc.

To be honest, I am not even sure how you could go about implementing this, but it is the “ideal” I dream about.

Now, I know this isnt realistic, but hey! You asked! :P

I would like to see reset start off with completely empty maps, devoid of structures. We would have to build those structures on our own, but to upgrade them past a certain point, we would have to make them “captureable” by the other servers. It could be based on the tried and true RTS-style resource method, where you need to gather wood, ore, and food (something which is already available on the maps).

A man can dream, right?

A very interesting idea indeed. Personally, Trebs + ACs (TrACs) FTW. Lol. I do agree though, more freedom would be nice but I think there needs to be some limiting factors in place. I think if we kept ever expanding the dynamic with useful or situation siege you’d reach a nice spot. You just have to be careful it doesn’t become Siege Wars 2. Siege is a useful tool but I feel it shouldn’t be anything more than that. Too much of it and players become supply caravans themselves instead of people with an identity.

RTS games have one player with one mind and if it becomes too heavily about building your own towers I foresee a lot of problems with resource hoarding. It suddenly becomes more important to gather supply (or another form of it) that teams can build structures just below the “captureable” line and reap points from them while camping out resources so others can’t even get started. I think having pre-made towers gives an objective for players who would otherwise ignore them for straight PvP or SvP (Siege v Player). Much how they killed GvG in GW when they removed the Guild thief and eventually VoD. It suddenly didn’t matter about ganking NPCs, being sneaky with the thief, etc. It got to the point where you had 25min matches of guilds beating on one another by the flag.

Castaliea.3156:

A very interesting idea indeed. Personally, Trebs + ACs (TrACs) FTW. Lol. I do agree though, more freedom would be nice but I think there needs to be some limiting factors in place. I think if we kept ever expanding the dynamic with useful or situation siege you’d reach a nice spot. You just have to be careful it doesn’t become Siege Wars 2. Siege is a useful tool but I feel it shouldn’t be anything more than that. Too much of it and players become supply caravans themselves instead of people with an identity.

I agree, which is why I think a test server would be almost imperative. Heck, I think its imperative even now, lol.

Honestly though, I already feel WvW is “Siege Wars 2.” All you have to do is find a spot where there is a chokepoint, slam down some siege, have some guardians and.. bam! impenetrable (if defended intelligently).

RTS games have one player with one mind and if it becomes too heavily about building your own towers I foresee a lot of problems with resource hoarding. It suddenly becomes more important to gather supply (or another form of it) that teams can build structures just below the “captureable” line and reap points from them while camping out resources so others can’t even get started. I think having pre-made towers gives an objective for players who would otherwise ignore them for straight PvP or SvP (Siege v Player). Much how they killed GvG in GW when they removed the Guild thief and eventually VoD. It suddenly didn’t matter about ganking NPCs, being sneaky with the thief, etc. It got to the point where you had 25min matches of guilds beating on one another by the flag.

Well, not all RTS have just one player in mind There are many that have teams against teams, one vs many, etc.

Like we have now, I think it would be prudent to have a cap of structures that one can build on the field. Dealing with exploits is going to be present regardless of anything that is done, so it is good to try to limit it. At the same time, it will ALWAYS happen, so its also important to address it continually.

I actually think that it would mainly just shape things a bit differently on reset and the next couple days. Once things are established, then it would play out just as it does now. And right now, we already are mostly playing supply mules at reset.

Basically, it would be like adding in a WvW specific crafting variant. Where we could use all of the materials to build the world around us. Obviously, it would take testing and all the normal procedures.

To be blunt though, I feel its a bit like peein in the wind, lol. Anet has their vision, and I dont think that the communities views will influence it much. Its still fun to talk about. And thank you for actually having a conversation. Since its the internet though, I feel compelled to insult you in some way… hmm… Your posts smell like cabbage!

TyPin.9860:

I still think the AoE 5 ppl cap is the biggest problem in each tactic. When the mindless Zerg actually needs some mind to be successfull, then we’re talking. Until then we’ll remain the “stack up” mentality.

Howerver, to remain on topic: I like the ideas of the original post. But I doubt they will help in balancing out two armies with huge number difference. The mindless Zerg just needs some smart ppl, who utilize the new roles and the outmanned group has still the same problem…

I did address the AoE cap in two ways. 1.) With a direct Player Role cap increase and 2.) With a tactical siege weapon.

Not to sound negative but isn’t that point of yours what decides War?
Large group of equally smart and tactical players vs Smaller group of equally smart and tactical players = Numbers win. Why should it NOT be that way? The problem now is that Tacticaly smart small groups have no way to win against even the mindless followers of the pin zerg trains at all. In addition to that if you have the ability to wipe large mindless trains that means you can also wipe large smart ones, it just requires better planning and effort. It also slows down the larger force because they now have to be cautious; There isn’t safety in mass numbers. That’s what we want to see start to happen and that’s when change is going to occur.

Encouraging more people to actually play WvW via rewards and benefits and time to refine matchmaking are really the only ways you’re ever going to combat something numbers wise on the scale I believe you’re talking about. One server is just always going to be better or more well equipped than another and sometimes you’ll be that server and sometimes you wont be.

Sorry for the late reply!

Tuluum.9638:

Castaliea.3156:

A very interesting idea indeed. Personally, Trebs + ACs (TrACs) FTW. Lol. I do agree though, more freedom would be nice but I think there needs to be some limiting factors in place. I think if we kept ever expanding the dynamic with useful or situation siege you’d reach a nice spot. You just have to be careful it doesn’t become Siege Wars 2. Siege is a useful tool but I feel it shouldn’t be anything more than that. Too much of it and players become supply caravans themselves instead of people with an identity.

I agree, which is why I think a test server would be almost imperative. Heck, I think its imperative even now, lol.

Honestly though, I already feel WvW is “Siege Wars 2.” All you have to do is find a spot where there is a chokepoint, slam down some siege, have some guardians and.. bam! impenetrable (if defended intelligently).

RTS games have one player with one mind and if it becomes too heavily about building your own towers I foresee a lot of problems with resource hoarding. It suddenly becomes more important to gather supply (or another form of it) that teams can build structures just below the “captureable” line and reap points from them while camping out resources so others can’t even get started. I think having pre-made towers gives an objective for players who would otherwise ignore them for straight PvP or SvP (Siege v Player). Much how they killed GvG in GW when they removed the Guild thief and eventually VoD. It suddenly didn’t matter about ganking NPCs, being sneaky with the thief, etc. It got to the point where you had 25min matches of guilds beating on one another by the flag.

Well, not all RTS have just one player in mind There are many that have teams against teams, one vs many, etc.

Like we have now, I think it would be prudent to have a cap of structures that one can build on the field. Dealing with exploits is going to be present regardless of anything that is done, so it is good to try to limit it. At the same time, it will ALWAYS happen, so its also important to address it continually.

I actually think that it would mainly just shape things a bit differently on reset and the next couple days. Once things are established, then it would play out just as it does now. And right now, we already are mostly playing supply mules at reset.

Basically, it would be like adding in a WvW specific crafting variant. Where we could use all of the materials to build the world around us. Obviously, it would take testing and all the normal procedures.

To be blunt though, I feel its a bit like peein in the wind, lol. Anet has their vision, and I dont think that the communities views will influence it much. Its still fun to talk about. And thank you for actually having a conversation. Since its the internet though, I feel compelled to insult you in some way… hmm… Your posts smell like cabbage!

I think it sounds like a great system if built from the ground up but as you said, it’s got a bit of a different vision attached to it as it is. lol. Which is okay too, it just needs some improvement.

I meant Siege Wars 2 as in something slightly more drastic. lolxD Liiiiiike Charr or Pact level of siege weaponry.

PS.

Castaliea, I completely agree with the sentiment of your first post, but all of your suggestions sound like they would be OP, some even game-breaking. The idea of clearly defined player roles goes against the GW2 manifesto of any player being able to fill any role. You’ve got some good ideas in there, but they should be toned down a bit and provided as world ability tracks.

EnemyCrusher.7324:

Castaliea, I completely agree with the sentiment of your first post, but all of your suggestions sound like they would be OP, some even game-breaking. The idea of clearly defined player roles goes against the GW2 manifesto of any player being able to fill any role. You’ve got some good ideas in there, but they should be toned down a bit and provided as world ability tracks.

Please elaborate on your opinions. Every single one. If you’re going to tear down a suggestion there has to be reasons provided otherwise nothing ever improves.

The idea of clearly defined player roles does not in any way go against the manifesto either. The manifesto referenced players being able to do anything they wanted not be free of choice. If they picked heavy armor they weren’t going to be stuck as a tank a character. They could pick any spec they wanted. This is no more a permanent choice than crafting is and do you have a problem with that? On top of that If you were going to apply the manifesto in such a way why cant my Ranger remove boons as well as a Necromancer assuming that’s what I wanted to do? Because there is a difference between having choices made for you and making choices yourself.

A lot has happened over this last month and I still see “just debuff zergs” floating around every other post. Obviously this thread failed in not only starting constructive conversations among players but to also to show ANet how much more they could do with their game. Hey, WvW population is going up though I hear so that must mean we’re all just crazy for thinking it isn’t perfectly fine as is.

It sucks this thread died and got almost no actual attention from players. I was enjoying having good conversations about people’s ideas. I wish there was more I could do to help but there isn’t. Not from a silly forums poster status. Hope everyone has had fun this last month. I’ve mostly just become a PvE casual. I just don’t see things changing, ever.

opened watergate on all keeps while outmaned.

im just joking. or am i? i am…

Lol. Thanks I needed that. xD

What about some actual underwater siege? I know we could at least come up with that lol.

I like a lot of the ideas expressed in this thread. You also need to add better delegation / grouping function in WvWvW. Private tags, guild tags, possibly party tags. Which allows for more macro-coordination than just sticking to the solo dorito.

I love my supply traps and I was banging my head about what new traps could be implemented that would be as devastating as supply traps but could not think of anything in particular. Your blind and movement traps are definitely useful; they would be circular traps covering a radius rather than the current ones. However, with more traps I hope they add a new currency into acquiring them outside of badges. Dont get me wrong I go into each reset with around 80 supply traps but I would still want another way to acquire them.

The rez sickness mentioned in another thread I think is a positive. A sickness that restricts healing / regen / for X seconds when rezed from death will definately make zergs a bit smarter in their play than just mass-rezzing dead players. I know its a ‘punishment’ but this is one that I think is not as far-fetched as some of the other anti-zerg ones.

I think outmanned should definitely give a lot more increased bonus to WXP gain than it currently is as well. Will encourage more people to keep on playing while outmanned as well as extra supply capacity that stacks with +5 guild supply buff. However as mentioned above it should be based on PPT as well as outmanned status so people cant simply exploit it. The reason is because a lot of the positives to WvW that we are talking about here will come through WXP trees and masteries and its currently the most valuable reward for a regular WvW-er therefore if outmanned/ppt restriction gave higher PPT it would benefit the smaller squads / solo roamers and also encourage people to not just mapzerg on one map and rather split up more.

Good ideas.
Coming soon to WvW in 2020.

We need to get Castaliea a job at ANet.

Lanimal.6541:

I like a lot of the ideas expressed in this thread. You also need to add better delegation / grouping function in WvWvW. Private tags, guild tags, possibly party tags. Which allows for more macro-coordination than just sticking to the solo dorito.

I love my supply traps and I was banging my head about what new traps could be implemented that would be as devastating as supply traps but could not think of anything in particular. Your blind and movement traps are definitely useful; they would be circular traps covering a radius rather than the current ones. However, with more traps I hope they add a new currency into acquiring them outside of badges. Dont get me wrong I go into each reset with around 80 supply traps but I would still want another way to acquire them.

The rez sickness mentioned in another thread I think is a positive. A sickness that restricts healing / regen / for X seconds when rezed from death will definately make zergs a bit smarter in their play than just mass-rezzing dead players. I know its a ‘punishment’ but this is one that I think is not as far-fetched as some of the other anti-zerg ones.

I think outmanned should definitely give a lot more increased bonus to WXP gain than it currently is as well. Will encourage more people to keep on playing while outmanned as well as extra supply capacity that stacks with +5 guild supply buff. However as mentioned above it should be based on PPT as well as outmanned status so people cant simply exploit it. The reason is because a lot of the positives to WvW that we are talking about here will come through WXP trees and masteries and its currently the most valuable reward for a regular WvW-er therefore if outmanned/ppt restriction gave higher PPT it would benefit the smaller squads / solo roamers and also encourage people to not just mapzerg on one map and rather split up more.

Personally I feel a Rez sickness is a good stand alone idea but if Zergs were to become much less safe via certain changes further taking away their ability to rez effectively kinda defeats the purpose of even having the option. Traps do however definitely need more ways to be obtained but they’d be very powerful so they shouldn’t be like Flame Ram easy.
(Another note about traps is possibly having them be on a few second fuse so after being triggered larger groups of foes pass over them more fully instead of tripping on the first 1-3 guys running ahead.)

Nick.6972:

Good ideas.
Coming soon to WvW in 2020.

This. lol

Nikked.7365:

We need to get Castaliea a job at ANet.

Lol /dream or /wish.

This is a very good thread. The devs need to see it.

I don’t know about others, but I came into this game for WvW. Other games do PVE better, quite frankly, but WvW is a quite unique selling point that noone else has at the moment.

BUT.

Right now, WvW is mostly “zerg or die” in that you can roam, yes, but there is so much zerging going on that most of your time is going to be spent running around (away from a zerg or just looking for a fight) and not fighting. This isn’t fun. And zerging is even less fun, because it’s pretty brainless, so, yes, there are problems.

Turn WvW from mostly zergs into mostly roaming to let the unique selling point of GW2 that is WvW really shine!

Focusing in on the idea we want Zergs to spread out instead of stack up let’s pull a couple of classics out of the hat and reexamine them. Also note I bring this up primarily, because Anet promised new abilities are on the horizon to spice up current classes.

Skill Shots (skills that require aiming and a bit of finess to pull off – see burning speed or fire grab) and combos (skills that require you to have pulled off previous skills).

Now what if certain skill shot combos that are particularly hard to pull off made the end result ignore player cap and hit all 40 in that zerg ball.

Bad example using existing skills that’s too easy to pull off: burning speed into fire grab causes fire grab to hit all targets that could of been hit by burning speed (although burning speed itself only hit 5 or whatever..)

But why stop there? With new abilities in the works it’s possible to make these combos pro level, or even require more than one player to pull off (another bad example: I lay down burning speed in front of you (no not burning retreat or a fire circle, it only works with the correct combo) and you leap through it with 1000 blades smashing into the zerg ball.. I pity the ones who do not dodge).

Suddenly 10 masterful players can do a lot of hurt to a zerg ball, and players who [select target] and spam ¹¹¹¹ find themselves feeling a bit less pro.

Edit: Afterthought, this may a bit of good spice to add to some of the currently -more useless- weapons and utilites. Who uses flame axe? no one you say? We’ll what if I told you it was a Pandora’s box of skill shot combos suitable for striking fear into the heart of a zerg ball. (ya, your right, I probably still wouldn’t use it either…)

How about skills like this: you put a poison onto a player, and that poison ticks each second, doing stacking damage and spreading to 5 nearby players. This would still obey the AOE target cap that is there, because otherwise the servers wouldn’t be able to deal with the amount of computations (see posts from devs), yet it would allow small groups of players to decimate zergs effectively (because, given proper numeric balance, 5 people would be able to kill half of the 50-man zerg, because zerg can’t easily spread away), no?

(Added later:)

Or maybe even this: you set up a trap, and if at some moment there are more than 10 people in the vicinity of the trap, the trap explodes doing so much damage that the 5 players it hits are at 5% health (or maybe killing them outright)? A true zerg-buster, of the sorts = don’t run in big groups. What do you think?

Exploding traps. That was my first idea when Anet talked about traps.
But they introduces supply trap and stealth trap.

Mob Mentality – precision is decreased by 1% for every teammate over 10 in X radius… again this may cause conflict with the computations I guess. But would definitely be a quick solve.

I didn’t see any of these I’m sorry. I can’t reply to them at this moment but when I can I will. Thank you.