Guild Wars 2

I’ve yet to see this mentioned in recent WvW discussion and I think it constitutes a WvW poll to learn more:

What are people’s thoughts on the number of objectives on a map?

> Should there be more towers?
> Should there be more camps?
> Should there be more sentries?
> Should we have “temporary” power orbs or similar objects of fetch and deliver (5-minute open tunnels between sides of map or an extra 100 supply drop to the tower you drop it off at)?

I want less PvE-type events (looking at you, daily WvW Veteran Slayer) being removed and more actual things to fight over and encourage more coordinated group play/less zerg or at least encourage more people to spread out across the map.

The last I want to see is another WvW poll on the next WvW siege item, “Mobile Waypoint” or some such.

Kinda all the above. They have all that space in the NE and NW corners of the ABL with useless rats and Xena warrior princess centaur looking guys.

I’d like to see them completely go renovation realities on that area and make a new tower or keep with water and a drawbridge upgrade.

Also new siege-Greek Fire baby in boats! It would also allow a new wvw points to spend. Aquatic siege master.

I’m not sure if anyone else has mentioned, but watchtowers would be nice. Something where a defender could hang out and provide some type of buff for their server or BEER IMPORTS!
http://www.davesgames.net/papercraft/png/gallery-watch-tower.png

All my ideas are better than anets, all of them.

Would also love to add:

Server chat (WvW) for cross map comms between a server, and to remove the floating text about objective flips, and place it there.

I think the alpine maps are fine the way they are. Not sure about desert maps, never really played on them.

Well if you’re going to add things to map you have to think what purpose are they going to serve. The skritt and centaur areas on alpine should have been mercenary camps much like the ones in ebg, with bigger groups of them roaming around to take camps and towers.

You could turn them into towers, but then what purpose would they serve? they would be towers out in the middle of nowhere.

Desert was designed with most of the structures at the edges of the borderland, while that does use most of the map space, it also made most of the structures disconnected and pretty pointless to take other than for ppt. They were suppose to serve as blockers to other areas, but that didn’t exactly go over well with the players.

The maps are big but that doesn’t mean you have to use every square inch, as long as the capture areas serve a purpose for other than ppt it’s fine.

Mobile waypoints, reminds me of Advanced Mobile Station from planetside 1, which was a vehicle you could use to place for closer respawns to objectives. Mobile waypoints could be fun to keep fights going, but I think there’s just too many ways to abuse it, it would take the place of the emergency waypoint, or even a long distance mesmer portal of sorts. If they ever introduce something like that in the game then they would have to remove contesting keep waypoints in order to make it fair.

Aileras.9460:

I think the alpine maps are fine the way they are. Not sure about desert maps, never really played on them.

Hope you have an xbox or PS4 console, maybe even set up a gog account because you’re in for a treat

Hexinx.1872:

Would also love to add:

Server chat (WvW) for cross map comms between a server, and to remove the floating text about objective flips, and place it there.

Out of all the zillions of threads with suggestions, these two are, and have been, at the top of my wish list right below lag.

Skynet.7201:

Hexinx.1872:

Would also love to add:

Server chat (WvW) for cross map comms between a server, and to remove the floating text about objective flips, and place it there.

Out of all the zillions of threads with suggestions, these two are, and have been, at the top of my wish list right below lag.

Server chat was in the QoL part of the first poll. Scoring won.

Hmm, it would be difficult to add more capture points to the existing maps without heavy rework. So I honestly doubt it will ever happen.

But assuming it is possible:

Camps could probably be split up, by letting each camp give half supply per yak, you could double the amount of camps, and place them more inward instead of the outside ring. This could create more lanes to go capture, and giving more targets for roamers and small havoc groups. But I don’t think 12 camps would fit on most maps, 9 perhaps, and I have no idea where to place them.

No idea about towers, I feel that they don’t do anything, so I just don’t see much point in having more of them.

Keeps I think could work well with 2 capture areas, even 3 for SMC. So you have to split up into 2/3 groups to take a keep, and fight against 2 lords. This way defenders could try to game one of the capture points to contest. Might make for some interesting plays if defenders decided to stay instead of running.

For other things, probably wouldn’t be a problem to add a couple more sentries, but I’d be more interested in seeing them slightly replaced to be more effective, more of a priority.

Don’t mess with ruins, I think they’re fine as is.

The Shrines on DBL are actually 9 capture points, so DBL actually has more capture points than ABL. But the whole middle of the map is unused so something could fit well in there, would love to see a big Aztec arena that somehow rewarded fighting and winning fights. But don’t know how to execute that without falling for any number of pit-traps.

joneirikb.7506:

Don’t mess with ruins, I think they’re fine as is.

SINK THEM! AND BRING BACK THE QUAGGANS!

Forgot about server chat yes yes yes

Jeknar.6184:

joneirikb.7506:

Don’t mess with ruins, I think they’re fine as is.

SINK THEM! AND BRING BACK THE QUAGGANS!

Hush you, there is no worries about that happening, ANet won’t put more water fighting into the game. For good and bad, do like the small bits of water there is on ABL currently, but don’t want to have a Ranger/Pirhanna death zone where you’ll never be able to rout those darn rangers from. On the positive it would make thieves useless in that area.

what i see as nice new WvW content:

_debuff for too big bus.
_glider.
_an order systeme for creatures in camps so they can go target something else than just the nearest camp.
_moving or stealable siege weaponery.
_a trap detector with new traps like bumping ones or debuff ones.
_airship battles with landing for the winners onto some fortress or distant point. (i can dream)
_tweak on aoe and most spells for them to touch more than 5 people. (its good to dream)

ledernierrempart.6871:

what i see as nice new WvW content:

_debuff for too big bus.

That discourages teamplay and would create huge infighting (players telling da scrubs to move off the map). That isn’t going to happen.

ledernierrempart.6871:

_glider.

You can’t put Gliders on the current WvW maps. You could glide from towers/high areas into keeps (and even spawn points). You could raise the walls or redo terrain – in either case, a huge amount of effort for low return. After all, you can’t fight while Gliding.

ledernierrempart.6871:

_an order systeme for creatures in camps so they can go target something else than just the nearest camp.

Generally speaking, many NPCs were removed from the maps. Adding more NPCs or roaming Veteran squads would be very much unlike WvW. There is some thought to helping an outmanned side here though.

ledernierrempart.6871:

_moving or stealable siege weaponery.

Like. Simpler and much more viable option is to have the siege you tag for destruction (receive WXP on) have a chance to give supply to you like enemy dolyaks. This discourages overuse of siege placement by large zergs (you add enough and a single person can take down that same wall without supply runs).

ledernierrempart.6871:

_a trap detector with new traps like bumping ones or debuff ones.

Traps (the WvW ones) don’t get used all that often – I wonder if ANet can give us stats on usage. Siege Disablers are a different story. I think that speaks volumes on their cost/cast time.

ledernierrempart.6871:

_airship battles with landing for the winners onto some fortress or distant point. (i can dream)

Like the idea. It beckons back to the exclusive dungeon access from DAoC days idea but I’d rather ANet just focus on reward tracks and get them right first. PvP tracks still progress much faster than WvW in the same amount of time with doing nothing/waiting for queues in between.

ledernierrempart.6871:

_tweak on aoe and most spells for them to touch more than 5 people. (its good to dream)

This is really for a different thread as it gets into WvW balance discussion. AoE in WvW has been tweaked for ~4 years to what it is now. There’s a good reason.

i am not speaking about adding npc but giving orders to the one currently ingame at camps.

glider was planned on the new desert borderlands map but didnt make it to release.
if there were glider, obvioulsy there will be invisible walls to prevent going in towers.

traps are not that used because there is not alot of use of them. more traps type and a detector would provide more strategy

moving or stealable weaponery would be a nice feature to add to the current WvW.
new content for a new meta without changing WvW overall is always a good thing after 4 years.

I find that the thing that’s missing is fights, not objectives.

It often seems that if your side can cap one keep without a fight, the map will turn your colour.

So the NUMBER of objectives is fine, in my opinion, but we need a way to make mismatched battles more viable encounters for smaller sides.

• At the moment small groups either avoid big battles or wipe.
• All-too-often we see a server’s small groups unable to participate in the game at all.
• Defending an objective with a small group is a fool’s errand and with the abundance of superior siege, almost impossible.

Well, I ended up railroading your thread, but it’s a related topic. Sorry.

Svarty.8019:

I find that the thing that’s missing is fights, not objectives.

It often seems that if your side can cap one keep without a fight, the map will turn your colour.

So the NUMBER of objectives is fine, in my opinion, but we need a way to make mismatched battles more viable encounters for smaller sides.

• At the moment small groups either avoid big battles or wipe.
• All-too-often we see a server’s small groups unable to participate in the game at all.
• Defending an objective with a small group is a fool’s errand and with the abundance of superior siege, almost impossible.

Well, I ended up railroading your thread, but it’s a related topic. Sorry.

Agreed, really don’t feel encouraged to fight enemy players in the current system. But the only way to give the smaller server a way to fight back is efficiently a handicap of some sort ?

Lots of problems with the current system, but I think this might be one of the largest ones:

1. Dying is frustrating when you don’t feel you could win

As with others, I don’t really think we need more objectives that provide points, but I do feel like there could be more places to fight over to promote fights, whether that being over “daoc artifacts”, or something to provide boosts, or provide a map specialty like dune rollers type of thing, capture-able waypoints north side of the map, and yeah maybe extra supply.

They kinda tried it with ruins, shrines, and the dino cannon, but those are pretty much a fail, two of which can pretty much be solo capped. The problem is getting even fights in an open map setting, hard to do.