The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: TheLargeUnit.2793

TheLargeUnit.2793

Ok here we go.

We can all agree that WvW is bleeding out. Its on its final legs so I believe it needs one last boost to temporarily revitalize it. In the following paragraph I will provide a solution to this problem.

WvW needs a significant change. I believe that this can be accomplished by more free server transfers and added PvE objectives. I think that the WvW community would benefit from the adding of more champions around the maps, removal of tower/keep/castle upgrades (to keep the doors nice and ripe for a good session of rough, hard PvD), and the overall removal of PvP activity. I really like the idea of guilds from opposing servers working together to 1111111111111 down a giant grub or harpy, or combine their forces to drop a gate in sheer seconds. I also think that all the WvW servers should be mashed up together so everyone can PvE together. I feel like at the moment there is WAY to much incentive for players to fight other players. PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE ASAP!!!

/sarcasm

Achmed Afro Thunder ~ Six Ft Pole Achmed ~ Dharok The Ravenous
Long Live [ASAP] Zerg: The greatest guild that ever was or will be.

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Herr der Friedhoefe.2490

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490

I like your sarcasm, so I’m getting in before the fix.

Seriously, WvW needs a change to PPT, and that’s all. Night capping needs to go.

A server should earn points for capping a point, and then defending that point against other active attacks. Simply holding the point over time should not award anything. The active defense should award points equal to the cap.

Zergs will not die with this idea because you still would need to cap each point as fast as possible, to deny active defense score, but many more players would be playing defense too.

My posts are facts as I know them, or my own opinion, and do not represent any guild.

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: ArchonWing.9480

ArchonWing.9480

Balance needs to be split 3 way between the 3 modes; the “wvw wasn’t meant to be balanced” crap has led to the current situation, and it’s just silly that pve changes can have such impact in wvw.

It’s time to stop treating wvw as the kitten child of pve.

For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards,
for there you have been and there you will long to return.

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Junkpile.7439

Junkpile.7439

People really think that www is dying because some server nightcap or get more points? It’s dying because fights are kitten and PPT is kitten boring.

1. Remove PTT and give players some reason try to cap or defend towers/keeps. Like some frigging treasure chest that would actually give so good loot that players would wanna try to cap/defend.

2. Add personal and guild progression (armor sets, weapons and stuff. If you are bad kitten and kill lot’s of enemies you should have cooler armor than some PvE hero).

3. Reward matchup top players.

4. Add some matchup statistics like kills, capped towers, keeps, killed dolyaks and so on.

Wonder why devs who actually get payed can’t figure out that PvP is about ekitten, bragging rights, fighting, trolling, ganking and hate?

Low quality trolling since launch
Seafarer’s Rest EotM grinch

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Seriously, WvW needs a change to PPT, and that’s all. Night capping needs to go.

A server should earn points for capping a point, and then defending that point against other active attacks. Simply holding the point over time should not award anything. The active defense should award points equal to the cap.

Zergs will not die with this idea because you still would need to cap each point as fast as possible, to deny active defense score, but many more players would be playing defense too.

I used to think PPT needs to be eliminated, too. However, after some long and productive discussions with other posters on this topic in the most recent WvW CDI thread, I revised my original position.

I came to see PPT as the means by which servers in 2nd and 3rd place can continue to apply pressure to the 1st place server. To illustrate, let’s assume a PPT-less system where points are awarded only on capturing and defending objectives:

  • Server A gets into 1st place by capturing a majority of objectives early in the match (maybe they “nightcap”, maybe they blobbed their way to it, etc.).
  • Server A – now in the lead – bunkers down, turtling inside their captured fortifications.
  • Assuming neither Servers B nor C are able to dislodge Server A from their fortifications, Server A is largely guaranteed a win provided they make enough additional captures to keep pace with the captures being made by Servers B and C. However, already holding the majority of objectives, they won’t have to expend much effort in this because there’s now a smaller available pool of objectives to capture (assuming Server A continues to aggressively defend their holdings).
  • So a PPT-less system favors the server that “nightcaps” or blobs to an early lead and then rewards them for turtling rather than engaging in PvP. Not too much different than what we have now.

With a modified PPT system in which servers have to actively invest in their holdings to earn their World Score (which I’ll paste below), PPT evolves into a method by which the 2nd and 3rd place servers can pressure the 1st place server to come out and fight.

The 1st place server may still capture a majority of the objectives early in the match. However, with the potential to still earn PPT, the 2nd and 3rd place servers have a method by which they can advance their score and threaten the 1st place server’s lead if 1st place doesn’t come out from behind its walls and fight.

What’s more is, with the modified system below in which PPT is only earned along a sliding scale tied to the number of upgrades built, the 1st place server is under greater pressure to maintain vulnerable supply lines across a vast territory. Sure, they may have captured the majority of objectives; but they won’t be earning anything from them if none get upgraded.

It will be very easy for the 2nd and 3rd place servers to flip camps and kill yaks to deny the 1st place server the supply they need to build upgrades and thus earn PPT. The 2nd and 3rd place servers, with smaller territories to defend, may have an easier time of it getting yaks into their fortifications to build upgrades to earn PPT themselves.

It amounts to asking which earns more: the over-extended empire of 40 unupgraded objectives or the smaller kingdom with 10 upgraded fortifications? In the system where PPT is tied to time+upgrades rather than simply time, it’s the latter. The server holding those 40 unupgraded objectives is then going to have to do something to prevent the holder of the 10 from gaining on their lead.

That “something” is either attempting to deny supply by killing yaks and flipping camps and/or attempting to capture those 10 holdings of the smaller empire. This means coming out from behind their walls and engaging in activities that are more likely to bring them and the other servers into direct conflict. In other words, playing PvP rather than PvDoor or turtling to earn PPT.

This modified PPT system has the benefit of offering multiple methods for earning World Score points:

  • World Score points awarded on capturing an objective.
  • World Score points awarded by defending an objective.
  • World Score points awarded from PPT; but only by upgrading what is captured (which then gives the opposing servers a counter through supply denial).

Such a system supports a variety of approaches to earning or denying World Score points; the aggressive assaulter, the industrious upgrader, the stalwart defender, the cunning roamer. Contrast this with the current system where the World Score is limited to just PPT earned over time through cap and hold (not including the World Score points that come from killing yaks and flipping sentries, which would be common to both systems). No wonder blobbing currently predominates; it’s simply the most efficient method of winning under the current one-dimensional scoring mechanic.

(continued)

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

(continued)

So I’ve come to accept PPT as a necessary evil (coupled with the fact that a dev in the CDI discussion referenced above flat out said they won’t be getting rid of PPT). Despite this, I believe there is room for modifying the PPT system into one that rewards active play while adding counters to it. Thus I’ve been heavily promoting the following:

1) Players in combat mode may not resurrect defeated allies.

2) The gates of towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle upgraded to the “Fortify” state (T3) can not be damaged by player skills. Only siege weapons can deal damage to these gates.

3) World Score points are awarded to the server which succeeds in capturing an actively defended objective. Actively defended is defined as at least one player who belongs to the world which owns the objective having been present within the objective’s sphere of influence (the “Defend the X” event radius) at any point during the current siege; they do not have to be present at the moment of capture. Each objective awards a base amount of World Score points on capture plus additional World Score points for each completed upgrade built at the objective.

4) No World Score points are awarded to a server for capturing undefended objectives (PvDoor will award nothing).

5) No personal rewards (loot, experience, karma, etc.) are given to players for capturing undefended objectives. The current rewards for capturing supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle will only be given out when capturing an actively defended objective (per the definition given in #3). To give even greater incentive for attacking actively defended fortifications, perhaps scale up the rewards based on the number of upgrades built at the objective.

6) The rewards for defeating real players are substantially increased over their current level.

7) World Score points are awarded for each player defeated in combat by default rather than being an award associated with the Bloodlust Buff. Maybe even give a bonus for stomps; sending a player to defeat without stomping awards 1 World Score point, stomping awards 2 World Score points.

8) Supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle no longer earn World Score points for the owning server unless upgrades are built there. The amount of World Score points earned every 15 minutes (PPT) will scale with the number of upgrades; the more upgrades built, the more PPT an objective earns.

9) For each “Defend the X” event completed at an actively defended supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle, the owning server earns World Score points. In recognition of the fact that the defenders have the advantage, the World Score points awarded will be a fraction of what the attacker would earn on capturing the objective; a 10-to-1 ratio is suggested as a starting point.

For example, if capturing a keep with some upgrades would award 50 World Score points to the attackers, the defenders will earn 5 World Score points for each “Defend the X” event successfully concluded at the keep. This only applies while there are players belonging to the world which owns the keep actively defending it; the owning world earns nothing if there are no players defending the keep during any 3 minute “Defend the X” event.

The above shifts WvW from passive rewards (earning PPT by sitting on empty, unupgraded objectives while PvDooring) to active rewards for engaging in conflict with real players and/or making investments in and defending one’s holdings while also addressing the issues of karma training and zerging.

There was a time when it may have made good business sense to turn WvW into a karma training zergfest. With the advent of EotM, however, that’s no longer necessary. Perhaps now, WvW’s potential to become a game of much deeper strategy can finally be realized.

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Cactus.2710

Cactus.2710

What WvW needs more than anything else is for someone at ANet to give a crap about it.

D/D Thief who prefers mobility to stealth … so yeah, I die a lot
Stormbluff Isle [AoD]

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

What WvW needs more than anything else is for someone at ANet to give a crap about it.

Yes, without that then all the posts and great ideas on this forum are a pointless waste of time.

And what’s sad is, there truly may be no solution due to the built-in limitations of the game mode. ArenaNet is not very forthcoming with how many players per server are allowed on a map. However, let’s assume 150. Now for some math:

27 EU servers + 24 NA servers = 51 servers

4 maps for each match x 51 = 204 map instances

204 map instances x 150 players per map per server = 30,600 players

So ~30,000 players can play WvW simultaneously. That’s less than 1% of the number of game sales last time I checked (I’m sure their sales of ~3.5 million have grown since last I bothered to look it up; so the result would be even less than 1%).

Granted, this figure speaks to capacity rather than absolute population; it’s quite likely there’s more than ~30,000 WvW players. Even so, the total number of WvW players is still a very small fractions of the total GW2 population.

There just aren’t enough players nor enough capacity to accommodate any possible increase in WvW population for ArenaNet to justify pouring resources into the game mode. Unfortunate given the vast untapped potential of WvW. It seems the only alternative is to hope the competition on the horizon learns from these mistakes and does a better job of it.

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

(edited by Kraag Deadsoul.2789)

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: munkiman.3068

munkiman.3068

All the things you mention about PPT being necessary can be countered and would actually make WvW more dynamic and interesting. For example, turtling up could lead to the opposing server having access to powerful “take over events”, similar to siegerazor events. The longer a point is defended, the stronger the event gets. They could ad things like dolyak mounted cannons or carts that tote around siege.

Player deaths should also count to point contribution, making the blob bum rushing a really bad idea. Something needs to be done with WvW to balance out the mess it can be now.

[TAO] Founder/Owner and Administrator for the NSP Server Website

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Dayra.7405

Dayra.7405

1) a better scoring: activity (and with that also amount of player) based, and activity needs to include defense, if it based only on offense it’s bad as we have enough PvD already.

2) less teams (as there are less players) with enforce team balance (a cap on max amount of players or an individual penalty for being on an over-populated world) and a more adequate alignment of available objectives and currently in-match players.

3) Rewards at least as good as EotM and PvE. E.g. why have these Boss-schedule 1-press events a guaranteed rare, while WEXP boxes do not? Why does PvE have biweekly achievements, while WvW has only unrealistic ones and the tournament achievements twice a year?

Ceterum censeo SFR esse delendam!

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

All the things you mention about PPT being necessary can be countered and would actually make WvW more dynamic and interesting. For example, turtling up could lead to the opposing server having access to powerful “take over events”, similar to siegerazor events. The longer a point is defended, the stronger the event gets. They could ad things like dolyak mounted cannons or carts that tote around siege.

Player deaths should also count to point contribution, making the blob bum rushing a really bad idea. Something needs to be done with WvW to balance out the mess it can be now.

Perhaps, but I’m being pragmatic about it:

1) Devs have stated PPT isn’t going away; so no point in arguing against it. Instead, I’m trying to work with the hand we’ve been dealt. Personally, I’d still prefer PPT be eliminated (my OP notwithstanding); but it just ain’t gonna happen. So where do we go from here?

2) Given point #1, my suggestions are made with an eye towards the absolute minimum amount of programming edits needed to revise PPT into a meritorious reward system based on active play rather than passive play. There may be tons of fantastic ideas out there. However, if it means 100+ hours of programmer time to realize them, they’re not likely to ever happen.

The suggestions I’m making take what we already have and – with very minor tweaks (read: very little effort and programming time on ArenaNet’s part) – turn WvW into a more skill-based and strategy-based game rather than who has the biggest blob or who has the best 24 hour coverage.

Even so, it’s unlikely even these suggestions will ever be implemented as the least amount of effort of all is to do absolutely nothing; simply maintain the status quo (which – after 2 years – seems to be the path on which ArenaNet is set).

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Thrumdi.9216

Thrumdi.9216

The WvW Devs should also buy into Camelot Unchained at the cheapest tier ($35), and read their forums. It is very instructive.

The designers of Camelot Unchained are going out of their way to implement community-based competition.

For example, the next stretch goal on their funding is something called “The Bounty”. What this is is an automatically generated quest, by the King of the realm, that puts a bounty on the head of one of the best players on the other team. Then the other realms have to hunt him down and try to kill him.

Can you imagine the amount of excitement that will raise on all sides?

Would something like this ever come to GW2? Doubtful, since the design philosophy does have the tinge of communism (can’t be too much competition, and no one is allowed to stand out). But if they honestly want to reengage their WvW population, that is where they should look.

Thrumdi, Captain of The Tarnished Coastguard

The ultimate GW2 troll.

(edited by Thrumdi.9216)

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: RyuDragnier.9476

RyuDragnier.9476

Balance needs to be split 3 way between the 3 modes; the “wvw wasn’t meant to be balanced” crap has led to the current situation, and it’s just silly that pve changes can have such impact in wvw.

It’s time to stop treating wvw as the kitten child of pve.

More like it needs to stop being changed by the sPvP changes. If you recall, PvE RARELY gets any balance patches whatsoever, it’s all sPvP that changes everything in WvW. While something may come across as balanced in sPvP with a change, due to the fact that it’s often done across the board, it backfires and unbalances WvW more, making some classes even more powerful than they already are.

[hS]
PvE Main – Zar Poisonclaw – Daredevil
WvW Main – Ghost Mistcaller – Herald

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Dawdler.8521

Dawdler.8521

The WvW Devs should also buy into Camelot Unchained at the cheapest tier ($35), and read their forums. It is very instructive.

The designers of Camelot Unchained are going out of their way to implement community-based competition.

For example, the next stretch goal on their funding is something called “The Bounty”. What this is is an automatically generated quest, by the King of the realm, that puts a bounty on the head of one of the best players on the other team. Then the other realms have to hunt him down and try to kill him.

Can you imagine the amount of excitement that will raise on all sides?

Would something like this ever come to GW2? Doubtful, since the design philosophy does have the tinge of communism (can’t be too much competition, and no one is allowed to stand out). But if they honestly want to reengage their WvW population, that is where they should look.

Already happened in GW2 and it was designed by the community.

Moaing Sacrx, remember? :p

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Infract me please.

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Delta Blues.8507

Delta Blues.8507

I think it would be cool if you could see enemy names on their head.

Also, wouldn’t it be enough to make it so you are rewarded points for keeping a point and maybe repelling invaders to make it more active? You still need to actually HAVE some towers to get points but on the other way not being rewarded for capping might put a brake on those PvD Karma trains

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

I think it would be cool if you could see enemy names on their head.

Also, wouldn’t it be enough to make it so you are rewarded points for keeping a point and maybe repelling invaders to make it more active? You still need to actually HAVE some towers to get points but on the other way not being rewarded for capping might put a brake on those PvD Karma trains

You mean something like this? :

1) Players in combat mode may not resurrect defeated allies.

2) The gates of towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle upgraded to the “Fortify” state (T3) can not be damaged by player skills. Only siege weapons can deal damage to these gates.

3) World Score points are awarded to the server which succeeds in capturing an actively defended objective. Actively defended is defined as at least one player who belongs to the world which owns the objective having been present within the objective’s sphere of influence (the “Defend the X” event radius) at any point during the current siege; they do not have to be present at the moment of capture. Each objective awards a base amount of World Score points on capture plus additional World Score points for each completed upgrade built at the objective.

4) No World Score points are awarded to a server for capturing undefended objectives (PvDoor will award nothing).

5) No personal rewards (loot, experience, karma, etc.) are given to players for capturing undefended objectives. The current rewards for capturing supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle will only be given out when capturing an actively defended objective (per the definition given in #3). To give even greater incentive for attacking actively defended fortifications, perhaps scale up the rewards based on the number of upgrades built at the objective.

6) The rewards for defeating real players are substantially increased over their current level.

7) World Score points are awarded for each player defeated in combat by default rather than being an award associated with the Bloodlust Buff. Maybe even give a bonus for stomps; sending a player to defeat without stomping awards 1 World Score point, stomping awards 2 World Score points.

8) Supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle no longer earn World Score points for the owning server unless upgrades are built there. The amount of World Score points earned every 15 minutes (PPT) will scale with the number of upgrades; the more upgrades built, the more PPT an objective earns.

9) For each “Defend the X” event completed at an actively defended supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle, the owning server earns World Score points. In recognition of the fact that the defenders have the advantage, the World Score points awarded will be a fraction of what the attacker would earn on capturing the objective; a 10-to-1 ratio is suggested as a starting point.

For example, if capturing a keep with some upgrades would award 50 World Score points to the attackers, the defenders will earn 5 World Score points for each “Defend the X” event successfully concluded at the keep. This only applies while there are players belonging to the world which owns the keep actively defending it; the owning world earns nothing if there are no players defending the keep during any 3 minute “Defend the X” event.

The above shifts WvW from passive rewards (earning PPT by sitting on empty, unupgraded objectives while PvDooring) to active rewards for engaging in conflict with real players and/or making investments in and defending one’s holdings while also addressing the issues of karma training and zerging.

There was a time when it may have made good business sense to turn WvW into a karma training zergfest. With the advent of EotM, however, that’s no longer necessary. Perhaps now, WvW’s potential to become a game of much deeper strategy can finally be realized.

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Hamster.4861

Hamster.4861

So kraag, i take it you didn’t get infracted.

Great suggestions by the way

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Delta Blues.8507

Delta Blues.8507

I don’t actually like it so much, not everything.
I think that camp backcapping is one cool feature and it gives roamers a good way to help the server. I’m not saying I like to get undefended camps, I roam cause I like fights, but if you take all the rewards away then you are forcing me to join the zerg to get some money (i’m not greedy at all, but I like experimenting and how it is now I get enough to buy/sell stuff to modify my build).
I do agree on putting an incentive on fighting other players, but also keep in mind that if you don’t award points for capping UNDEFENDED towers that means that people will just avoid to defend at all so the enemy won’t get points.
What I meant is that if you just take away points for capping and you just keep the points every amount of time and maybe reward defending than defending objectives will become more important, while capping will still be important because you need to have something to get points in time.

I do like your other points, but i’m afraid some of them will just encourage zergs and penalize roamers. Remember that it’s not always a roamer choice to attack undefended objectives, sometimes you just can’t find good enemies, and that is frustrating enough even when you still get some loot

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Delta Blues.8507

Delta Blues.8507

Also I like your idea to incentivate upgrades, it’s really frustrating how long it takes sometimes to upgrade something that will get stolen in less than 2mins anyway.
Maybe it would be cool to have some more noticeable notification about towers getting attacked other than white swords on the map? Many times you just don’t even notice, but i dunno that might be just a fun thing to do to leave the callings on the scouts

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

I don’t actually like it so much, not everything.
I think that camp backcapping is one cool feature and it gives roamers a good way to help the server. I’m not saying I like to get undefended camps, I roam cause I like fights, but if you take all the rewards away then you are forcing me to join the zerg to get some money (i’m not greedy at all, but I like experimenting and how it is now I get enough to buy/sell stuff to modify my build).
I do agree on putting an incentive on fighting other players, but also keep in mind that if you don’t award points for capping UNDEFENDED towers that means that people will just avoid to defend at all so the enemy won’t get points.
What I meant is that if you just take away points for capping and you just keep the points every amount of time and maybe reward defending than defending objectives will become more important, while capping will still be important because you need to have something to get points in time.

I do like your other points, but i’m afraid some of them will just encourage zergs and penalize roamers. Remember that it’s not always a roamer choice to attack undefended objectives, sometimes you just can’t find good enemies, and that is frustrating enough even when you still get some loot

I do see your point. Jim Hunter in this thread made a similar critique and I revised my original suggestion based on what he had to say (Jim’s post was technically in response to Hamster’s post, which I’ve included below) :

Not bad Kraag.

some of those might actually force guilds and players to unstack and re-distribute.

I like that idea of not gaining any PPT / rewards when you capture an undefended objective. Goodbye Ktrains. Hello fun.

That should be the case if you have more than… 5 or so people. You shouldn’t punish solo roamers flipping camps, towers, and fighting people in between. They have already broken away from the zerg.

Really they just need to institute diminishing returns for the amount of people near you when you take an objective. If you capture a keep with 5 or less people you should have a much better chance of getting a exotic or ascended than if you have 50 people.

Let the zergs only get blue garbage and see how fast they split up.

After thinking over your response above, I’ve revised my original suggestion. I agree that the solo roamers and small parties should still be awarded something for their effort and willingness to break off from the zerg. However, I still want to keep rewards from capturing undefended objectives low so as to disincentivize karma trains and PvDoor. With that in mind, here’s a suggested reward schedule:

Undefended objective

No karma earned (it’s bad karma to capture something that no one is defending).

Use the experience amount currently being awarded (helps new players still learning WvW to continue to level up).

Capture with X or fewer number of players, roll on the Junk through Fine (blue) loot tables. For camps, I’m thinking 5 players or less, towers 10 players or less, and keeps and Stonemist 15 players or less.

Capture with between X+1 and Y number of players, roll on the Junk through Basic (white) loot tables. For camps, this would be 6 to 10 players, towers 11 to 15 players, and keeps and Stonemist 16 to 20 players.

Capture with anything greater than Y number of players, roll only on the Junk loot table. For camps, this would be 11+ players, towers 16+ players, and keeps and Stonemist 21+ players.

Defended objective

Use the karma amount currently being awarded.

Use the experience amount currently being awarded.

Use the current reward system for defeating the supervisor/lord and capturing the objective. As I suggested previously, perhaps scale up the reward based on the number of upgrades built at the objective. But only a little bit; nothing too extreme like precursors falling from the sky.

Then, add an additional role on the loot tables based on the number of allied players in the vicinity as you suggested.

Capture with X or fewer number of players, roll on the Masterwork through Exotic loot tables. For camps, I’m thinking 5 or less players, towers 10 or less players, and keeps and Stonemist 15 players or less.

Capture with between X+1 and Y number of players, roll on the Fine through Rare loot tables. For camps, this would 6 to 10 players, towers 11 to 15 players, and keeps and Stonemist 16 to 20 players.

Capture with anything greater than Y number of players, roll on the Basic through Masterwork loot tables. For camps, this would be 11+ players, towers 16+ players, and keeps and Stonemist 21+ players.

(continued)

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

(continued)

Complaints from a developer perspective that this would imbalance the game’s economy don’t hold water. The loot from PvDooring/karma-training is being severely curtailed by this suggestion. Any additional loot gained from capturing actively defended objectives is greatly offset by the decrease in loot from undefended objectives.

As to your assertion that players wouldn’t defend at all, I’m not sure that would bear out. Yes, you’re right in one respect; if a server defends something and loses it, the enemy server gains points whereas they would not have gained those points had the owning server simply let them have it without defending it.

However, because of the counter I built into the suggested modifications, it is now actually worth something to defend what you own. With each successfully completed “Defend the X” event, the owning server is gaining World Score points. Though on a per event basis it’s a fraction of what the assaulter gains on capture, the defender has the potential to earn as much and perhaps even more World Score points than the attacker if they can hold out long enough in their defense.

So maybe there would be times a server would choose to let an enemy capture an objective without resistance in order to deny them the points-on-capture. Then there will be times they will choose to defend because they have a chance of holding out long enough to actually earn a reasonable amount of World Score points on defense.

This isn’t too different than the current situation where cost:benefit choices are made all the time. For example, allowing an enemy to capture a tower while you’re capturing their garrison. If anything, the proposed system is deepening the strategy involved beyond simply, “We’re capturing something bigger than they are, so we’ll just let them have it.” With the revised system, players/commanders/servers will have to weigh even more variables:

  • How many upgrades are at the objective?
  • How much will it be worth to the enemy if they capture it from us while we’re defending (because on-capture points will scale with the number of upgrades built)?
  • What’s our guestimate on how long we can hold out defending it, earning World Score points in the process?
  • If we defend, would we earn more World Score points than the attacker (assuming they were to capture it)?
  • Would it be more worth our while to let them capture the objective, deny them the points from capture, and go capture something else in the meantime?
  • If the enemy captures this objective – even if denied points from an undefended capture – how many World Score points will it potentially earn them if and when they start upgrading it?
  • If the objective has upgrades built there, it earns our server PPT (per the new suggestion I’ve made where PPT is tied to number of upgrades). Do we really want to sacrifice one of our PPT “resource nodes” just to deny on-capture points to the enemy?

This adds more variety and strategy to the process rather than a simple “We’ll trade objective X for objective Y.” as currently exists. It also would finally give defenders a direct method for contributing to World Score points, making their contributions meaningful and measurable in the context of the score.

Under the new system, there’d certainly be players/servers/commanders who will continue on in the current vein of running circles around the map PvDooring everything in sight. They aren’t prevented from doing this. However, it will no longer be anywhere near as personally rewarding nor will it do much to advance their server’s score.

Then, on the flip side, there’s whole new options for earning PPT added to the game which support alternative approaches; those who hate PvDoor and prefer a direct confrontation with enemy players while engaging in a siege, the open-field PvPers who can earn World Score points for each opponent they send to defeat, and the defensive minded who welcome the challenge of holding out at a tower or keep against overwhelming odds.

Currently, none of these play styles contribute directly to World Score; with my revised system, they would. I believe this would offer a much greater variety of strategies in WvW, empower players by making them feel their contributions to their server’s efforts are worth something that is quantifiable (World Score points), and diminish the dominance of zerging as the single most effective method for earning PPT.

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

(edited by Kraag Deadsoul.2789)

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Kraag Deadsoul.2789

Also I like your idea to incentivate upgrades, it’s really frustrating how long it takes sometimes to upgrade something that will get stolen in less than 2mins anyway.
Maybe it would be cool to have some more noticeable notification about towers getting attacked other than white swords on the map? Many times you just don’t even notice, but i dunno that might be just a fun thing to do to leave the callings on the scouts

Yeah, that’s really what I’m trying to achieve with my suggestions; the rewarding of players’ actions across the full spectrum of play styles in WvW rather than the rewarding of players’ inactions by earning PPT from largely empty, undefended, and unupgraded fortifications while PvDooring.

The goal isn’t to make one play style dominant over another; it’s to give equal weight to all approaches to WvW be it siegers, PvP-ers, defenders, upgraders, builders, etc. The current system overwhelmingly favors zerg ball and PvDoor. I’m simply looking to balance that out with other methods for earning PPT and rewarding players’ actions in all facets of WvW.

So many souls, so little time. ~ Kraag Deadsoul

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: BooHud.2681

BooHud.2681

Kragg:

See, in re: Charzooka tanks …

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Mattargul.9235

Mattargul.9235

With all the suggestions, take a moment and think about how with the available tools you can subvert the purpose. E.g.

“actively defended structures” – make an account on the other server, park your alt in the structure your guys will be attacking, bingo. (already happening with the supply wasters) Also, this will lead to a lot of friction on a server, if you try to defend an objective and still lose it. You’ll be blamed for giving the other side points. (already happening when people get yelled at for pointlessly dying when the other server has the orbs)

bounty – “Oh, hey, guys, I just heard I got the bounty on me, so I’mma log (or sit in citadel or sit behind a million arrow carts) until it drops off. Later!”

The one, huge and self-inflicted WvW community wound is people being kitteny kittening kittens, and people going the easy route to “win”.

Anyway, I do hope ANet gets WvW going again, somehow. Still have great memories from the first 12 months.

Dances with Leaves – Guardian – Sanctum of Rall (SoR)

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Jamais vu.5284

Jamais vu.5284

I reckon in 9 out of 10 cases community managers from other forums would swoop into this thread and congratulate Kraag with a big fat sweaty handshake for the insane amount of detail and passion he put into his posts.

But we live in ANet/NS country, so your sincere attempts to improve the game are worth less than dirt.

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Nymph of Meliai.6739

Nymph of Meliai.6739

I will throw an idea out for people to consider… what if…

when you killed someone you didn’t get some generic loot… what if you stripped that person of a possession?

So your incentive to fight is that you might get something nice like ascended armor or weapons…

your incentive to fight back is that you don’t want to lose that nice thing you got.

Nymeria Meliae | SoS
Acid Bath Babies Go Plop Plop [FizZ]

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: Wanderer.3248

Wanderer.3248

I will throw an idea out for people to consider… what if…

when you killed someone you didn’t get some generic loot… what if you stripped that person of a possession?

So your incentive to fight is that you might get something nice like ascended armor or weapons…

your incentive to fight back is that you don’t want to lose that nice thing you got.

If that was the case only an idiot would wear ascended in WvW. Most people would be wearing cheap karma or badge gear.

The Changes WvW Desperately Needs

in WvW

Posted by: CrazyDuck.4610

CrazyDuck.4610

Please more PVE in WvW! I remember when the living world was in WvW, oh man that was amazing!

YouWish – Guard
DragonBrand – [Agg] Aggression