Guild Wars 2

WvWvW is one of the most fun aspects of GW2. But, it is far less fun when your world is vastly outnumbered, especially on your own borderland map. There has to be a way to better balance the worlds. I believe this can be done by making Siege Engines more (or less) affordable, depending upon the amount of land occupied.

I propose that if a World Army occupies more than 1/2 of any map, their cost to make Siege Engines should be doubled: Blueprints should cost Twice as much as the normal/listed price, AND it should take Twice as many supplies to make the siege engine.

Example:
The Red World occupies 2/3 of the Green World borderland map (e.g., 4 Towers & 3 Keeps). Since that is more than half, Red would have to pay 48 Silver (instead of 24) & 200 Supply Materials (instead of 100) for each Trebuchet that they wanted to build on that world map.

If a world occupy less than 1/4 of a map, then the normal cost should be halved: Blueprints should cost Half as much AND it should take Half as many supplies to make the siege engine. As a result, smaller forces could, conceivable, gain & keep footholds. Presently, IF a small force (e.g., 6 PCs) manages to take an area, they will be unable to keep it once the crimson tide of red-named invaders (e.g., 20 PCs) comes in & sweeps over the location. Affordable siege engines are the ONLY way a small force (or an inadequately represented world) can hope to compete on the map.

Example:
The Green World occupies (e.g., 1 Tower & 1 Keep) on their homeland, the Green World borderland map. Since this is less than 1/4 of the map, Green would pay 12 Silver (instead of 24) & 50 Supply Materials (instead of 100) for each Trebuchet built on that map.

Exceptions could be made on your own borderland map, where the home world would not be punished for occupying more than 1/2 of their own map, so they would pay the normal/listed price, unless they occupied less than 1/4 – then they would pay half the normal/listed price (as described above).

Example:
1. The Red World occupies 2/3 of the Red World borderland map (e.g., 4 Towers & 3 Keeps); since this is their own world they continue paying the normal/listed price – such as 24 silver & 100 supplies for each Trebuchet.

Those occupying between 1/4 to 1/2 of the map could continue paying the normal/listed price – such as 24 silver & 100 supplies for each Trebuchet.

A lot of this sounds like a great idea. Im not going to say your idea isnt perfect. This is worth looking into by the developers.

Thanks – agreed it isn’t perfect; it was intended as a starting point for discussion. Because something needs to be done.

I like the increased supply cost, but not the gold cost – people could just stack them at night when they are loosing. Also it shouldn’t be map dependent, because people would then mass jump onto the map where they are loosing, to buy blueprints, and jump back to other maps to use them. So keep the gold cost the same, rather focus on supply cost.

I’d change your idea a bit and make the supply cost dependent from the global situation, not local, specifically from the potential points earned. I believe the maximum possible points per turn are something like ~650 when you own all 4 maps, so taking that into account, one can scale the supply cost of siege machines from say 25% when you own 0% of the 4 maps, to 400% when you get 650 points per turn.

The equation would be something like..
MPP – maximum possible potential points, 650 I believe
PP – potential points per turn, between 0 and MPP
BSSC – base siege supply cost, the amount of supply siege costs now
CSSP – current siege supply cost, amount of supply siege costs after adjustments

CSSP = 25% * BSSC + 375% * BSSC * (1 – ((MPP – PP) / MPP))

If PP = 650, so you own all 4 maps, then CSSP = 400% BSSC, siege costs 4x more
If PP = 0, so you own nothing, then CSSP = 25% BSSC, siege costs 4x less
And it scales smoothly between these extremes, I hope I didn’t make any terrible errors in that simple equation, but I hope the basic idea is visible.

From an in-universe standpoint, I don’t see how this would make sense. Why would it suddenly take twice as much wood/stone/etc to construct a siege weapon when you control more territory?

It’s generic fantasy, why would it have to make any sense? How do you explain how characters can change size and mass, appear tiny or twice as big? Where is the additional mass coming from? I’ll tell you where, from the same place the additional siege costs will come from! :P

Also, does it make sense your catapult can damage people through a gate, without damaging the gate itself?

zerospin.8604:

It’s generic fantasy, why would it have to make any sense? How do you explain how characters can change size and mass, appear tiny or twice as big? Where is the additional mass coming from? I’ll tell you where, from the same place the additional siege costs will come from! :P

Generic fantasy does not equal making up random bollocks

zerospin.8604:

Also, does it make sense your catapult can damage people through a gate, without damaging the gate itself?

A gameplay mechanic which is undoubtedly unintended; do you really think that allowing friendly fire would be a good idea? Admittedly, it would make the zerg much more interesting.

@Sarrs – for Fairness. If world control were based solely on skill, this would not have been suggested. Instead, domination is based on $ & Numbers. Not everyone has deep pockets, and once one world is dominating, people from another world may log in but they will likely soon log out again (if they cannot attain a foothold/conquer territory), THUS domination tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can think of a better way to even things out (such as limiting the number of players each world can have to being no more than the maximum any other world had) – then I’d like to hear it.

Besides, speaking as a member of HoD, it can get old when you own the ENTIRE map – you need challenge to keep things interesting. (Maybe if we had been challenged more, so many of our players would not have left.)