Guild Wars 2

How about instead of bringing back white swords, make it so that keeps & towers have beacon fires/lights that will get lit when the keep is under attack? These beacon fires would be bright enough to be seen from say 15,000 units away. I think this is better than the white sword mechanic because:

1. A map icon that indicates a small attack is pretty cheesy and doesn’t even really make sense in the context of the game scenario. A beacon fire makes much more sense in the scenario.

2. The beacons would make it so keep scouts could keep an eye on towers, and vice versa. This means scouting is still extremely valuable — just as valuable as during the “Sneak Attack” event — but increases the coverage area for a single scout.

You might even able to do fancy things like having the beacon fire be lit by a special guard who spawns the instant an attack starts and is invincible. Then he takes like 10 or 15 seconds to make it to the beacon fire. Or it could also be part of the “Reinforced Walls” upgrade.

I like the idea of the beacon. Some sort of bright tower or fire. I also like the idea of it being a part of an upgrade. Sounds plausible to me. Only problem I see is that one person comes and taps the tower, setting off the beacon, which eventually requires a response of someone to check to see if there really is a threat. So if you eventually would have to check you might as well just have scouts there.

one of the benefits of white swords is that it shows you immediately where something is being attacked so you can respond quickly before a enemy zerg melts through the gate. It gives you a chance to go and and save it. And its directly on the map, anytime it pops up right on the objective, so no need to look around for where the fighting might be, with beacon fires there might be confusion considering terrain and distance.

Yet one of the tragedies of white sword is that they punished small groups for not running with the zerg, by ratting them out. All the while, allowing the other side to run full zerg by allowing them to know where attacks are without splitting up in the least bit.

X T D.6458:

one of the benefits of white swords is that it shows you immediately where something is being attacked so you can respond quickly before a enemy zerg melts through the gate. It gives you a chance to go and and save it. And its directly on the map, anytime it pops up right on the objective, so no need to look around for where the fighting might be, with beacon fires there might be confusion considering terrain and distance.

Since you can actually see the bottom of the EotM airship in all of the Borderlands maps, they can make it possible to have things visible from very far distances regardless of LOD settings or fogging.

if your at north camp, your gonna know bay is being attacked?

X T D.6458:

if your at north camp, your gonna know bay is being attacked?

Are you the only person in the map? If you are, bay’s lost anyway. It’s possible to make the signal flare go as high as they want. So even if you don’t know the exact location of the flare, they could all be color coded (one color for keeps, one for towers, one for camps — or do we even want to bother with camps?).

the point is, speed is key, thats why white swords are important for responding, trying to determine where a signal fire is coming from doesnt increase response time

X T D.6458:

the point is, speed is key, thats why white swords are important for responding, trying to determine where a signal fire is coming from doesnt increase response time

No one is debating the fact white swords make responding way easier. What I’m saying has two parts:

1. White swords is a cheesy, unbalanced attack alert mechanism that devalues the role of active scouting far too much;

2. The game mode still needs an attack alert mechanism, just one that is balanced and makes sense in the context of the game.

The beacon fire concept achieves the second point.

—

I had another thought. It could even be a method to reward scouts. Let’s modify my original concept and say the invincible NPC can light the fires after 30 seconds in a keep (15-20 in a tower), instead of 10-15. Add to that another WXP ability: Early Warning. By getting at least Rank 1 in Early Warning, the player can now interact with the beacon fire lever in the keep or tower. This is all off the top of my head but:

Rank 1: The player can now activate the beacon fire when the structure is contested, and do so 15% sooner than the sentry. (There’s some math to do here, this is just a quick sketch. But if sentry can do 30 seconds, player can activate beacon 25.5 seconds after contested.)

Rank 2: The player-activated beacon fire is now visible from 20% further away. (In the original suggestion I said 15,000 units, so now it’s visible from 18,000 units.)

Rank 3: The player can now activate the beacon fire 25% sooner than the sentry. (If the sentry can do 30 seconds, player can activate in 22.5 seconds.)

Rank 4: The player can now select a particular color for the beacon fire. (Probably the same colors as commander tag. Could be used to indicate particular gates under attack or something? Not sure about this one.)

Rank 5: The player will now receive <some kind of award> for their service in lighting the beacon fire. (This should be a valuable reward, not WVW tokens or ascended crafting items. Maybe 3-5x heavy loot bags.)

Alternatively just make each rank reduce the time the player has to wait to activate the beacon, like the “Mercenary’s Bane” ability.

The beacons are lit and the riders of Rohan shall come to thy aid!

sephiroth.4217:

The beacons are lit and the riders of Rohan shall come to thy aid!

Yeah I have to confess I was inspired by the Warning Beacons of Gondor in LOTR.

I like the idea, I’ve been thinking about similar or other warning systems myself. Having a system that still requires you to scout, but makes it easier than having to be everywhere at the same time would really help.

I was thinking something very similar like a beacon-fire, signal flares, or a warning horn, or even a mix of such. That could be tied to upgrades, start at none, and then add to each upgrade. But somehow leave it possible for an organized group to interrupt and kill guards before they could set of the alarms.

* It would make upgrades feel more valuable, as the more upgrades the better warning system the object could have (either through extending ranges, adding more ways, or even just getting more guards that can pull the alarm).

* It would make scouting easier while having them move about instead of sitting stuck watching the mini-map, and still letting you check out things that happened nearby, without pulling every single person on the map the moment swords on NW camp etc.

* Not as immersion breaking (for those that likes that kind of things, not for everyone I know).

* It could even reward players a scouting bonus to pull the alarm first, giving a tangible bonus to scouting. (not perfect, but at least a step towards).

---

Another idea that might or might not work: Have white swords function like orange swords just with a lower cap, so say 6 people cause white swords. Then a full group of 5 can do things without pulling swords, encouraging small groups, but pulling swords the moment they hit a single enemy player (6 players).

robotempire.2451:

No one is debating the fact white swords make responding way easier. What I’m saying has two parts:

1. White swords is a cheesy, unbalanced attack alert mechanism that devalues the role of active scouting far too much;

2. The game mode still needs an attack alert mechanism, just one that is balanced and makes sense in the context of the game.

The beacon fire concept achieves the second point.

—

I had another thought. It could even be a method to reward scouts. Let’s modify my original concept and say the invincible NPC can light the fires after 30 seconds in a keep (15-20 in a tower), instead of 10-15. Add to that another WXP ability: Early Warning. By getting at least Rank 1 in Early Warning, the player can now interact with the beacon fire lever in the keep or tower. This is all off the top of my head but:

Rank 1: The player can now activate the beacon fire when the structure is contested, and do so 15% sooner than the sentry. (There’s some math to do here, this is just a quick sketch. But if sentry can do 30 seconds, player can activate beacon 25.5 seconds after contested.)

Rank 2: The player-activated beacon fire is now visible from 20% further away. (In the original suggestion I said 15,000 units, so now it’s visible from 18,000 units.)

Rank 3: The player can now activate the beacon fire 25% sooner than the sentry. (If the sentry can do 30 seconds, player can activate in 22.5 seconds.)

Rank 4: The player can now select a particular color for the beacon fire. (Probably the same colors as commander tag. Could be used to indicate particular gates under attack or something? Not sure about this one.)

Rank 5: The player will now receive <some kind of award> for their service in lighting the beacon fire. (This should be a valuable reward, not WVW tokens or ascended crafting items. Maybe 3-5x heavy loot bags.)

I like the beacon fire concept, but why the scout mastery rank? The way i understand it, you want to reward scouting (which i am perfectly fine with).
But wouldn’t it be a lot faster to simply call out in map chat X number attacking X objective, or just a knocker no need to come?
Also the rank 5 idea can be easily abused no? You can just repeatedly contest the objective, and repeatedly light the fire for the rewards. If it were bad rewards then wouldn’t the system be a waste of time in the end?
The only way I can see the rank mastery working is if the signal fire also gives the keep some kind of buff or extra NPC reinforcements, otherwise if a scout is sitting in a tower/keep and an enemy comes instead of waiting 20seconds to light a signal fire that might not even be seen by some, he can just call out in map chat.

skyhawk.5149:

I like the beacon fire concept, but why the scout mastery rank? The way i understand it, you want to reward scouting (which i am perfectly fine with).
But wouldn’t it be a lot faster to simply call out in map chat X number attacking X objective, or just a knocker no need to come?
Also the rank 5 idea can be easily abused no? You can just repeatedly contest the objective, and repeatedly light the fire for the rewards. If it were bad rewards then wouldn’t the system be a waste of time in the end?
The only way I can see the rank mastery working is if the signal fire also gives the keep some kind of buff or extra NPC reinforcements, otherwise if a scout is sitting in a tower/keep and an enemy comes instead of waiting 20seconds to light a signal fire that might not even be seen by some, he can just call out in map chat.

Obviously the scout would both type it out in map chat and do the little mini event or whatever to light the beacon. It’s just a way to reward scouts and increase the effectiveness of each scout, not a replacement for communication.

And yeah it’s definitely repeatable, but who cares? In a long garri siege for example contested will go up and down many many times. Each time might be an opportunity for the event to run. So put it on a 15-minute cooldown for the player. I figured someone would point out the repeatability but personally I do not care at all about it. The situation in WvW with scouting — unbelievably important yet totally unrewarded activity — is so bad that I’m ok with someone getting, say, 5 heavy loot bags every 15 minutes for scouting. If they want to milk it, what does it matter? It’s such a phenomenally horrible way to farm money or crafting items that it can’t possibly matter, especially relative to the current state of WvW.

joneirikb.7506:

But somehow leave it possible for an organized group to interrupt and kill guards before they could set of the alarms.

I was thinking the beacon-lighting thinger would be in a place that would be difficult to get to once the enemy was inside. So in garrison, maybe in those “cubbies” across from north inner. In the towers perhaps inside the lord’s room. This way there’s a natural way to inhibit the “repeatability” problem another poster stated, and also a way for groups to counteract the beacon if they get inside fast enough.

I think the signal flare should be automatic. I know it works well in SW because of the sheer amount of players in populated instances, but we’re trying to address the issue of people not wanting to squat towers or keeps for hours on end, and the idea of a manual flare doesn’t help. As I’m moving around the map, and suddenly see a flare go up in the direction of a keep or tower, and the color signifies what objective is being hit, I know exactly where to go. Yes, there would be a learning curve, but it would be fairly short. This also allows anyone anywhere on the map to do something such as call out “red flare at east, check hills?” It’s immersive, and if it was actually implemented, I think would be kind of exciting. Even when maps are dead at certain times of day, there are always 5-10 wandering around or even those just there on crafting stations or merchants. Watching that flare light up the sky and calling it out makes those who would otherwise not pay attention to white swords, let alone constantly look at their map, be able to provide something valuable to those who are out there fighting.

This is, I admit, an idealistic view. Those on crafting stations or merchants may not be at all interested in even talking in map chat or knowing what the flares mean. But they might. But, light up the sky? People will eventually notice.

Ark Bladesteele.2943:

I think the signal flare should be automatic. I know it works well in SW because of the sheer amount of players in populated instances, but we’re trying to address the issue of people not wanting to squat towers or keeps for hours on end, and the idea of a manual flare doesn’t help. As I’m moving around the map, and suddenly see a flare go up in the direction of a keep or tower, and the color signifies what objective is being hit, I know exactly where to go. Yes, there would be a learning curve, but it would be fairly short. This also allows anyone anywhere on the map to do something such as call out “red flare at east, check hills?” It’s immersive, and if it was actually implemented, I think would be kind of exciting. Even when maps are dead at certain times of day, there are always 5-10 wandering around or even those just there on crafting stations or merchants. Watching that flare light up the sky and calling it out makes those who would otherwise not pay attention to white swords, let alone constantly look at their map, be able to provide something valuable to those who are out there fighting.

This is, I admit, an idealistic view. Those on crafting stations or merchants may not be at all interested in even talking in map chat or knowing what the flares mean. But they might. But, light up the sky? People will eventually notice.

Did you read my posts? The beacon is automatic. The WvW ability ranks simply add the ability for a player to do it themselves. If they don’t, then it will happen automatically.

robotempire.2451:

Ark Bladesteele.2943:

I think the signal flare should be automatic. I know it works well in SW because of the sheer amount of players in populated instances, but we’re trying to address the issue of people not wanting to squat towers or keeps for hours on end, and the idea of a manual flare doesn’t help. As I’m moving around the map, and suddenly see a flare go up in the direction of a keep or tower, and the color signifies what objective is being hit, I know exactly where to go. Yes, there would be a learning curve, but it would be fairly short. This also allows anyone anywhere on the map to do something such as call out “red flare at east, check hills?” It’s immersive, and if it was actually implemented, I think would be kind of exciting. Even when maps are dead at certain times of day, there are always 5-10 wandering around or even those just there on crafting stations or merchants. Watching that flare light up the sky and calling it out makes those who would otherwise not pay attention to white swords, let alone constantly look at their map, be able to provide something valuable to those who are out there fighting.

This is, I admit, an idealistic view. Those on crafting stations or merchants may not be at all interested in even talking in map chat or knowing what the flares mean. But they might. But, light up the sky? People will eventually notice.

Did you read my posts? The beacon is automatic. The WvW ability ranks simply add the ability for a player to do it themselves. If they don’t, then it will happen automatically.

Yes, I did, and I agree that if there was indeed a scout near or inside an objective, the ability to manually light the flare immediately is intriguing. I just don’t think it should have to be that way — read the part about off-hours when that may not be a possibility. I don’t think there needs to be any sort of mastery involved, either — everyone should be able to do it regardless of rank or ability points, because that makes casuals inclusive. And, let’s face it: we need more casuals. Not just to get their 30 second daily ruin cap. Or flip a camp. Or defend some random junk. Or kill the Victory Wurm. Scouts are the most underappreciated and garner the least rewards of any other player in WvW; I’d even say they spend more than they ever earn due to superior siege and upgrade costs if they are not stepping outside to do PvP or dungeons or farming, which of course dissolves their ability to scout.

Bottom line: white swords? Yeah, they work, to a point. Scouts? Screwed forever since the game ever began. Want to make people feel valuable and useful? Don’t just throw some sort of mastery their way — let them be active participants in a game mode that consistently rewards people who do the exact opposite of what they do: earn WXP, karma, and silver/gold/drops.

A scout manually lights a signal flare (should only be possible if an objective is actually under attack), that scout gets rewarded. WXP, karma, XP, silver, and perhaps even a small bonus boost in the vein of Bloodlust.

I’m thinking a bit inside and outside of the box here (I’m both a game designer and programmer) so forgive me if I’m rambling a bit, but it’s threads like these where I enjoy airing design ideas, and feel a certain amount of glee in the idea of programming them. I really wish I could.

The general idea I see here is that the signal flare would be automatic, by the npc’s activating it (robotempire wanted the npc to be invulnerable while doing it, I kinda like the idea that he isn’t, so a good coordinated group could assassinate the npc before he got to the flare on say camps and towers).

I agree with Ark’s opinion on the no need for WXP Scout Mastery. This should be something anyone could participate in and get some reward. A possible WXP Scout Mastery might give some bonuses after triggering a signal flare for example.

Other ideas to this, you could have the NPC fire a general flare so you can only see the general direction, but a player could add color signals to it, so others could identify it, or even make a stronger signal flare so it would be visible over larger part of the map.

Most of the towers have those funny looking open domes in lords room, perfect for this.

+1 for this idea. More realistic and immersive than the sword icons for sure.

I really like the original idea of the signal fire but I hate the idea of players having the option to light it. I think if you give a “light the fire” minigame for rewards you are going to see a bunch of pugs wasting time on that when they should be manning siege, throwing disablers, or getting on the commander.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I really like the original idea of the signal fire but I hate the idea of players having the option to light it. I think if you give a “light the fire” minigame for rewards you are going to see a bunch of pugs wasting time on that when they should be manning siege, throwing disablers, or getting on the commander.

It would hardly be a minigame. It could be a small event like escorting yaks or whatever, except only one person could initiate. It’d take like a second, and as I said in another post, if you put the beacon trigger in a spot that is naturally hard to get to when enemy is in the base, you won’t have to worry about it.

Besides, there is literally nothing else in the game that encourages people, during keep/tower attack/defense to get on the tag, nor are they encouraged to disable or man siege. Yak escort events don’t end, bloodlust doesn’t get locked down, camps don’t all turn invincible.

robotempire.2451:

Jim Hunter.6821:

I really like the original idea of the signal fire but I hate the idea of players having the option to light it. I think if you give a “light the fire” minigame for rewards you are going to see a bunch of pugs wasting time on that when they should be manning siege, throwing disablers, or getting on the commander.

It would hardly be a minigame. It could be a small event like escorting yaks or whatever, except only one person could initiate. It’d take like a second, and as I said in another post, if you put the beacon trigger in a spot that is naturally hard to get to when enemy is in the base, you won’t have to worry about it.

Besides, there is literally nothing else in the game that encourages people, during keep/tower attack/defense to get on the tag, nor are they encouraged to disable or man siege. Yak escort events don’t end, bloodlust doesn’t get locked down, camps don’t all turn invincible.

You think if you put a free prize button on a ten minute timer people won’t be scrambling to hit it when there are more important things they can be doing? If a keep is under attack having the free prize button is an unneeded distraction at the worst possible time.

If you want to reward the players scouting and upgrading then make the upgrades investments. When you purchase an upgrade you should get a little gold back per tick. The more you upgrade it the more you make back. If Anet does this I can pretty much guarantee you will have people sieging up keeps and towers and watching them like a hawk.

Jim Hunter.6821:

robotempire.2451:

Jim Hunter.6821:

I really like the original idea of the signal fire but I hate the idea of players having the option to light it. I think if you give a “light the fire” minigame for rewards you are going to see a bunch of pugs wasting time on that when they should be manning siege, throwing disablers, or getting on the commander.

It would hardly be a minigame. It could be a small event like escorting yaks or whatever, except only one person could initiate. It’d take like a second, and as I said in another post, if you put the beacon trigger in a spot that is naturally hard to get to when enemy is in the base, you won’t have to worry about it.

Besides, there is literally nothing else in the game that encourages people, during keep/tower attack/defense to get on the tag, nor are they encouraged to disable or man siege. Yak escort events don’t end, bloodlust doesn’t get locked down, camps don’t all turn invincible.

You think if you put a free prize button on a ten minute timer people won’t be scrambling to hit it when there are more important things they can be doing? If a keep is under attack having the free prize button is an unneeded distraction at the worst possible time.

If you want to reward the players scouting and upgrading then make the upgrades investments. When you purchase an upgrade you should get a little gold back per tick. The more you upgrade it the more you make back. If Anet does this I can pretty much guarantee you will have people sieging up keeps and towers and watching them like a hawk.

Shrug. At the end of the day your argument is really immaterial, IMO. People are gonna squirrel or they’re not. I am far less concerned about that than I am about the general state of the WVW game mode. I appreciate you providing feedback though.

The main point is we need an attack alert system that:

1. is not immersion-breaking as another poster put it;

2. still requires attentiveness to the environment;

3. rewards scouting in a meaningful way.

I’m pretty confident this concept here achieves all of those goals pretty soundly… at least on paper.

Anyway I am glad this idea got some attention from the playerbase. Just wish devs showed up in these forums more frequently.

robotempire.2451:

Jim Hunter.6821:

robotempire.2451:

Jim Hunter.6821:

I really like the original idea of the signal fire but I hate the idea of players having the option to light it. I think if you give a “light the fire” minigame for rewards you are going to see a bunch of pugs wasting time on that when they should be manning siege, throwing disablers, or getting on the commander.

It would hardly be a minigame. It could be a small event like escorting yaks or whatever, except only one person could initiate. It’d take like a second, and as I said in another post, if you put the beacon trigger in a spot that is naturally hard to get to when enemy is in the base, you won’t have to worry about it.

Besides, there is literally nothing else in the game that encourages people, during keep/tower attack/defense to get on the tag, nor are they encouraged to disable or man siege. Yak escort events don’t end, bloodlust doesn’t get locked down, camps don’t all turn invincible.

You think if you put a free prize button on a ten minute timer people won’t be scrambling to hit it when there are more important things they can be doing? If a keep is under attack having the free prize button is an unneeded distraction at the worst possible time.

If you want to reward the players scouting and upgrading then make the upgrades investments. When you purchase an upgrade you should get a little gold back per tick. The more you upgrade it the more you make back. If Anet does this I can pretty much guarantee you will have people sieging up keeps and towers and watching them like a hawk.

Shrug. At the end of the day your argument is really immaterial, IMO. People are gonna squirrel or they’re not. I am far less concerned about that than I am about the general state of the WVW game mode. I appreciate you providing feedback though.

The main point is we need an attack alert system that:

1. is not immersion-breaking as another poster put it;

2. still requires attentiveness to the environment;

3. rewards scouting in a meaningful way.

I’m pretty confident this concept here achieves all of those goals pretty soundly… at least on paper.

Anyway I am glad this idea got some attention from the playerbase. Just wish devs showed up in these forums more frequently.

I absolutely agree. Like I said, I love the original idea and I think scouting should be rewarded, I just think there are better ways to reward scouting.

I know it has Been posted before ,

But like in Warhammer , I thought it was a good idea When a Object was claimed it gave Numbers attacking the structure in a given radius of it , Then updated every 30 seconds ,

would promote organisation more , give a function to guilds other than make siege ,
And also you can use it to let other guilds know, bash on this door we will come ,

I’d love to see this implemented as a basic, cheap upgrade for any structure (including camps.)

Amazing idea, though I don’t agree with the option to let players light it.

I really like the beacon fire concept as an alternative to white swords. White swords isn’t as immersive, and this could both encourage scouting while adding a level of immersion.

Signal Fires should have to be constructed, but the build site would be a part of the base tower/keep. Once the signal fire has been constructed though it should automatically trigger after a certain time period once contested. Specific durations I’m not sure of, but I’m thinking shorter duration on towers and longer on keeps. Signal Fires appearing on the minimap would happen after an additional period of time has elapsed, which would be dependent on the distance of the tower/keep from your home WP. Additionally when a player with the proper traits lights the fire manually it would appear on the minimap.

Being constructed siege, signal fires could also be disabled and destroyed, and would not be able to be re-lit (in the case of destroyed) until a tower/keep is successfully defended in which case a new build site would appear.

As for placement of signal fires on towers it feels like they should be across the bridge for towers that have one. NW, SW, SE towers IIRC. This would give a purpose to the bridge having an HP bar. An attacking team could knock out the bridge removing the option to use the signal fire until the bridge is repaired. Going back to the automatic trigger of the signal fire there may have to be adjustments to the HP of the bridge so that an attacking team can knock out the bridge (with sufficient firepower, not a lone base cata) before the fire is automatically lit. Or maybe not since I’ve never actually aimed a cata at a bridge, so I have no idea what its HP pool is like. This would also give purpose to have scouts in the tower. So that if they see attackers trying to take out the bridge they have a window (albeit a small one) to light the fire.

For NE tower I’d have to say that the fire should be placed on the portion of land that is incorporated into the tower. As for the keeps and BL towers I’d have to think about the locations a bit more. If possible however the theme for towers from the home BL should be reflected in EB tower placement.

With this in mind I’d like to rewrite the player WvW Upgrades.

• Rank 1: Gain ability to light signal fires of contested structures. (Lighting the signal fire would have a cast time (1s perhaps) making it interruptable.)
• Rank 2: Reduce cost of Siege Disablers by 25%. (perhaps 50%)
• Rank 3: Reduce cost of upgrades by 25%. (perhaps 50%)
• Rank 4: Signal fires are instantly visible on the minimap.
• Rank 5: Cannons ordered will be Master Cannons.

Really not sure about Rank 5. Went back and forth on a few different ideas from summoning a Heroes Banner on successful defense, to granting a buff along the lines of 5 stacks of Applied Strength/Fortitude (would not exceed 5 stacks) on successful defense. Having Master Cannons seems to be on theme, but cannons can go down pretty fast.

Sagramor.7395:

• Rank 1: Gain ability to light signal fires of contested structures. (Lighting the signal fire would have a cast time (1s perhaps) making it interruptable.)
• Rank 2: Reduce cost of Siege Disablers by 25%. (perhaps 50%)
• Rank 3: Reduce cost of upgrades by 25%. (perhaps 50%)
• Rank 4: Signal fires are instantly visible on the minimap.
• Rank 5: Cannons ordered will be Master Cannons.

Whoa!! I love these!! I like that they’re more general purpose scouting stuff vice directly related to beacon fire concept at every level.

Props, this is awesome.

Its not a bad ideal it adds more skill then simply having the map do the hard work for you. At the same time you give up being able to see some objective when your attking for other objective a good risk reward.

I would not mind seeing a “sound” system too where you can hear the sound of war when some one is attking a tower or keep. There is a system of sound from wvw weapons but the ranges on them is a bit too small.

Jski.6180:

Its not a bad ideal it adds more skill then simply having the map do the hard work for you. At the same time you give up being able to see some objective when your attking for other objective a good risk reward.

I would not mind seeing a “sound” system too where you can hear the sound of war when some one is attking a tower or keep. There is a system of sound from wvw weapons but the ranges on them is a bit too small.

This is also a good idea, increase the distance from which you can hear siege weapons. I don’t know anything about game audio so my question is, would this be possible without making the siege weapons deafening at close range?

Include a WarHorn or a belltower or something else fitting for the place, that works together with the other warning system.

joneirikb.7506:

Include a WarHorn or a belltower or something else fitting for the place, that works together with the other warning system.

I think making siege audible from a greater distance away is a a more natural way to introduce audio cues as an attack alert system. Siege on the NW outer garrison wall should be audible from NW tower, for example. Maybe not super clearly but if a player is listening for that stuff (e.g. scouting) they would hear it.

Making audio even potentially affect the outcome of an encounter is a bad idea since a significant portion of the player base likely plays with in-game sound off or at a reduced volume.

Sagramor.7395:

Making audio even potentially affect the outcome of an encounter is a bad idea since a significant portion of the player base likely plays with in-game sound off or at a reduced volume.

Audio already potentially effects the outcome of an encounter. Many has been the time I’ve been alerted to the presence of siege weaponry by the sound alone. All anyone is talking about in this thread is making it potentially BETTER for people who have in-game sound turned down or have a hearing impairment by making it louder or more audible from farther away. It’s amplifying the already-existing audio cues to coordinate better with these theoretical new visual cues being discussed.

There are all kinds of audio cues in this game which, if you hear them, alert you to what’s going on around you in some way.

Just realized that Bay, at least, already has the in-game assets to do this. There are two huge flames over water gate. Turn those into the sky-laser thing when the keep is attacked and it’s done.

I really like your idea of beacon fires, but instead of an upgrade to a structure how about making a beacon fire a new type of siege equipment?

By default, no tower or keep would display white swords. A player would drop a building site for a beacon fire within the walls of the tower or keep. It would require some modest amount of supply to build, on par with other basic siege. A tower or keep under attack with a beacon fire triggers white swords on the map.

The beacon fire would have a reduced siege decay timer (10-20 minutes), encouraging scouts and roamers to visit it to refresh. Failing to refresh the beacon fire causes the flame to extinguish, and white swords will no longer trigger on the tower or keep.

Another possibility would be to have automatic build sites at pre-determined locations within the tower keep, similar to the oils in keeps.

Thoughts?

xihorus.2804:

I really like your idea of beacon fires, but instead of an upgrade to a structure how about making a beacon fire a new type of siege equipment?

By default, no tower or keep would display white swords. A player would drop a building site for a beacon fire within the walls of the tower or keep. It would require some modest amount of supply to build, on par with other basic siege. A tower or keep under attack with a beacon fire triggers white swords on the map.

The beacon fire would have a reduced siege decay timer (10-20 minutes), encouraging scouts and roamers to visit it to refresh. Failing to refresh the beacon fire causes the flame to extinguish, and white swords will no longer trigger on the tower or keep.

Another possibility would be to have automatic build sites at pre-determined locations within the tower keep, similar to the oils in keeps.

Thoughts?

This idea suffers from the same setbacks as the “no white swords” idea. That being that lower tiered servers just do not have the population to dedicate to scouting and lighting signal fires.

Kanebrake.6192:

xihorus.2804:

I really like your idea of beacon fires, but instead of an upgrade to a structure how about making a beacon fire a new type of siege equipment?

By default, no tower or keep would display white swords. A player would drop a building site for a beacon fire within the walls of the tower or keep. It would require some modest amount of supply to build, on par with other basic siege. A tower or keep under attack with a beacon fire triggers white swords on the map.

The beacon fire would have a reduced siege decay timer (10-20 minutes), encouraging scouts and roamers to visit it to refresh. Failing to refresh the beacon fire causes the flame to extinguish, and white swords will no longer trigger on the tower or keep.

Another possibility would be to have automatic build sites at pre-determined locations within the tower keep, similar to the oils in keeps.

Thoughts?

This idea suffers from the same setbacks as the “no white swords” idea. That being that lower tiered servers just do not have the population to dedicate to scouting and lighting signal fires.

First off, there are two issues here.

1. I agree that xihorus’s idea takes too many people or too much time to get going. Building a piece of siege, happening to carry around that siege with you (like supply traps, stealth traps, etc.), knowing where to drop it, etc., all goes against the simplicity and the automation of the beacon fire idea. The core idea is that through an upgrade to the keep NPCs will light the signal fire on their own. Optionally, a player can light it.

2. The signal fire idea, if you read what I wrote carefully, helps to ease the burden of scouting. A single scout can scout garrison & the two towers simultaneously without needing to move. If he’s at garrison, of course. So it actually HELPS what you were complaining about. Also if again you read what I wrote, lighting the signal fire in this idea does not require human intervention. It’s automated via an NPC. Optionally a human can light it.

Finally, it looks like in the feature patch ANet has a couple of signal fire mechanics in the living story. That’s pretty cool. Maybe it already existed, idk, I don’t PVE much. It’d obviously have to be changed a bit graphically but exactly the same mechanic would work in WvW.

Would the upgrade be available immediately after taking a keep or tower?

Also, don’t get me wrong -I still really like your idea. Coming from a smaller population server, though, I see two issues with it. First, if the beacon fire is available to all three servers it would heavily favor the server(s) with a higher population. I think an idea like this could be used more effectively to attempt to balance the matchup somewhat.

Second, allowing a player to light the signal fire encourages griefing. In the same way that enemies with accounts on the server they are up against will run into a tower or keep and burn supply on useless siege, or trigger unwanted upgrades.

xihorus.2804:

Would the upgrade be available immediately after taking a keep or tower?

Also, don’t get me wrong -I still really like your idea. Coming from a smaller population server, though, I see two issues with it. First, if the beacon fire is available to all three servers it would heavily favor the server(s) with a higher population. I think an idea like this could be used more effectively to attempt to balance the matchup somewhat.

Second, allowing a player to light the signal fire encourages griefing. In the same way that enemies with accounts on the server they are up against will run into a tower or keep and burn supply on useless siege, or trigger unwanted upgrades.

1. WvW always favors the server with the higher population. I am not sure there’s even a way around it, or that there should be a way around it.

2. How would it encourage griefing? The signal fire can only be lit when the keep is contested. It works exactly like white swords do; the signal fires are replacements for white swords. I do not follow the griefing thing.

robotempire.2451:

xihorus.2804:

Would the upgrade be available immediately after taking a keep or tower?

Also, don’t get me wrong -I still really like your idea. Coming from a smaller population server, though, I see two issues with it. First, if the beacon fire is available to all three servers it would heavily favor the server(s) with a higher population. I think an idea like this could be used more effectively to attempt to balance the matchup somewhat.

Second, allowing a player to light the signal fire encourages griefing. In the same way that enemies with accounts on the server they are up against will run into a tower or keep and burn supply on useless siege, or trigger unwanted upgrades.

1. WvW always favors the server with the higher population. I am not sure there’s even a way around it, or that there should be a way around it.

2. How would it encourage griefing? The signal fire can only be lit when the keep is contested. It works exactly like white swords do; the signal fires are replacements for white swords. I do not follow the griefing thing.

I think there is a way around favoring the server with the higher population, it just requires giving exclusive bonuses or access to certain things to the lower population servers. Also, you correct that the system you proposed wouldn’t allow griefing. I missed the part in one of your subsequent posts where you mentioned that the tower/keep would have to be under attack in order to allow a player to light the fire.

The “bonuses” suggestion is most def an interesting conversation I and a lot of other people have some thoughts on, but I don’t wanna clutter up this topic with it here.

At first I liked the Idea of Beacon fires, then I thought about it more and decided it is not a good idea. This is why, its like putting orange swords on towers and keep every time its attacked. Making small Havoc squads useless, and trying to take a keep without the opposing forces noticing imposable. I think the white swords are designed to be overlooked unless there is a scout or you happen to be watching the map, just so small groups have a chance to take an objective before anyone can respond. Maybe it could only be triggered if a certain amount of damage is done in a certain amount of time but the damage would have to be pretty lager say 20k.

downtownal.9718:

At first I liked the Idea of Beacon fires, then I thought about it more and decided it is not a good idea. This is why, its like putting orange swords on towers and keep every time its attacked. Making small Havoc squads useless, and trying to take a keep without the opposing forces noticing imposable. I think the white swords are designed to be overlooked unless there is a scout or you happen to be watching the map, just so small groups have a chance to take an objective before anyone can respond. Maybe it could only be triggered if a certain amount of damage is done in a certain amount of time but the damage would have to be pretty lager say 20k.

How is it like putting orange swords on, exactly? And do you realize you just said that white swords are designed to be ignored? That makes absolutely no sense.

You seem to be making the point that havoc squads should be able to run buck wild all over the map with absolutely no counter, which is ridiculous. One of the counters to havocs is having scouts. Unfortunately not every server can afford to post up a scout at every tower and keep.

I mean I feel like responding is kind of pointless if you truly think white swords were “designed to be ignored” and that havoc squads/roamers should face no opposition whatsoever.

edit: Oh yeah, 20k damage is about two hits from a flame ram on a gate so it’s not a large amount of damage at all.

When did I say ignored? I said overlooked, which means not easy to see not ignored.
It’s like orange swords in the fact that it is putting a large indicator on the map (orange swords put crossed orange swords on the map) a beacon fire or flare would do the same thing (I assume that is what u want).
Havoc squads have a counter it called white crossed swords or scouting. Sounds to me like you hate havoc squads and want them to be pointless in WvW.
20k could be a lot depending on the time interval, how many rams do you think a havoc squad put on a door?
You don’t need to respond because it sounds like you don’t even read the post others replay that disagree with you.

downtownal.9718:

It’s like orange swords in the fact that it is putting a large indicator on the map (orange swords put crossed orange swords on the map) a beacon fire or flare would do the same thing (I assume that is what u want).

No. There would be no indicator on the map from the beacon. That is the whole point of the beacon, that it is an in-game visual, not an “immersion-breaking” thing like white/orange swords.

I even said, in my first post:

A map icon that indicates a small attack is pretty cheesy and doesn’t even really make sense in the context of the game scenario. A beacon fire makes much more sense in the scenario.

So I dunno whether you wanna believe it or not but we are on the same side of this topic. I think havoc squads should be empowered to play as they want, but I also believe the same for scouts. And empowering scouts — and the servers they play on — means not requiring a scout at every keep and tower.

Havoc squads will never ever pop white swords (because in the scenario I’m proposing there are no more white swords), so for example if your havoc hits Northwest Tower, and there’s no scout either in/around the tower, at garrison, or even at NW camp, no one will ever know. But if there is a scout, then you know the cap is much riskier.

edit: And I’m sorry I got snippy with you.

Ok if it dose not show on the map and is LOS only then I would be back on board. The 15,000 los is a good number (I think), from garrison you could see both North towers but not Bay or Hills no camps would be visible. I guess you would still need a scout for Bay or Hills (if you owned them) and they could scout the towers and the home camps next to them. How long dose the fire or flare stay lit for? same as white swords?
I think then it is an extension of the “sneak attack” but on a limited scale. Havoc squads can then wreak havoc as most camps would be flipped easily, but towers are a bit harder (unless the scouts aren’t paying attention to the areas around the towers).

So you get my vote back.

downtownal.9718:

How long dose the fire or flare stay lit for? same as white swords?

It would last as long as the “Contested” event lasts, so ~3 minutes. But since the beacon-lighting “ceremony” takes 10-30 seconds to complete, it’s a little less than that. I think that’s a good compromise between “lasts 30 seconds because that is how long white swords lasts” and “lasts until the enemy are gone because the sentries wouldn’t let the beacons go out if the place wasn’t safe”.

downtownal.9718:

I think then it is an extension of the “sneak attack” but on a limited scale. Havoc squads can then wreak havoc as most camps would be flipped easily, but towers are a bit harder (unless the scouts aren’t paying attention to the areas around the towers).

Yes! You nailed it exactly.