4: Balance PPT/PPK. Or more Accurately put, dealing with Capping during gaps in Coverage, and being Outmanned.
This would require a massive overhaul in how PPT worked, but I think it would do wonders for the game.
4-A Borderland PPT. Each Team, on their own Borderland, would get 5 PPT for any Camp They Controlled, 10 for Towers, 20 for Keeps.
On an Enemy’s Borderland, they would get 1PPT per Camp for each Active Defender on that Borderland. , 2 for a Tower, and 3 for a Keep. (Note: You can only be a Defender on your OWN borderland) up to a max of 20 Defenders Counted (IE: Max Gain for a Camp would be 20 PPT, if there were 20 Active Defenders On the Borderland) this number would be Divided by the Number of Invaders on that Borderland that Controlled said Camp/Tower/Keep.
IE: (Point Value* Defenders (max 20)) * (Defenders / Controlling Invader)
Note, every Borderland would have by Default 1 Active Player counted at all times. So, no one could get Zero Points. IE: If no one was on the Borderland, it would sill count as if there was 1 Active Player from all Sides.
To explain that: If Red owned one of Greens Keeps, they would get 3PPT per Active Green Player on Greens Borderland, Divided by the Number of Active Red players on Greens Borderland.
IE: Red Owns Greens Keep, Green has Default 1 Active Player, on the Borderland (No one), but Red, has 4 Active Invaders on the map. 3*(1/4) is what they would get for the keep, put another way, 3*.25 = 0.75 PPT.
Using another Example.
Red owns a Camp on Greens BL. There are 10 Active Green Defenders, and 2 Active Red Invaders. That camp is worth 10 (1PPT per Defender) *(10/2) = 5. Now that camp is worth 5 PPT to the Red Team, but they are also 2 people defending against 10 Defenders, it stands to reason that camp is not going to last long.
One more analogy to understand the Math a Bit More.
Green Owns Red’s Camp. There are 5 Red Defenders, and 1 Green Invader
Blue Owns Red’s Keep. There are the same 5 Red Defenders, but there are 12 Blue Invaders.
Camp = 1 PPT / Per Defender, Total Base 5
Keep = 3PPT/Per Defender, Total Base 15
Green gets 5*(5/1) = 25. So that Camp is worth 25 PPT to the Green Team
Blue gets 15*(5/12) = 6.25. So that Tower is worth 6.25 PPT to the Blue Team.
That means that the Camp to Green is worth 4 times what the Keep is worth to Blue. This means the game changes from sheer capped points to playing a game of strategic capping.
This would eliminate the whole problem of winning through coverage gaps, or winning by sheer volume of players. Which is really the main problem with PPT, is how it can be exploited, and doing this would close that loophole in the PPT problem we have right now, especially with the low and mid population server, that simply don’t have the coverage.
4-B Eternal Battlegrounds.
The Battle grounds are divided up by 3 sections and Stone Mist castle. This creates a very special situation.
To do this, Each Team would have Declared “Home Lands” that would provide them a Flat PPT if they Control it, exactly like their own Borderland. This would include their 20 for their, Keep, 10 for their 4 Towers, and 5 for their 2 Camps.
If they took another Teams Homeland, it would function as if they entered their Borderland. IE: (Value) * (Defender/Controlling Invader).
IE: If Green took Blues Keep. They would get (Keep*Active) * (Defenders/Controlling Invader) in this, Red’s active players do not come into play.
So, the Same Keep could be worth a lot More to one team over another.
For Example, if there are 20 Red, 27 Blue, and 7 Green.
Blues Keep is Worth 81 PPT to Red but worth 231 PPT to Green.
The Keep is only worth so much, because of the 27 Active Blue Players on the map, giving the Keep a value of 3PPT* Active Blue, Max 20. So only 20 of the 27 Players are counted, but the Keep is still worth 60PPT Base.
In Contrast, Geens’s Points are not Worth as Much, since there are only 7 active players, their Keeps base is a Paltry 21 PPT.
And Since they are vastly outnumbered, Greens Keep is only worth 7.3 PPT to Red, and 5.4 PPT to Blue.
It works pretty much the same as if you tied to take a Borderland, just in a smaller scale, but we can see how smart play, over simply brute force and capping can win the day with this kind of system.
Moving on.
The Mack Daddy – Stone Mist!
Stonemist, would and should be a prize. As Such Stonemist would Net a flat 100 PPT * (Both Active Teams/Controller)
IE: If there were 20 Blue Players, 35 Red Players, 40 Green players, and Green owned Stonemist.
100 * ((20+35)/40) = 137 PPT.
Now Imagine, if Blue Flips it.
100 * ((35+40)/20) = 375 PPT.
This idea would remove the sting of Night Capping, or Coverage Gaps, as well as the whole issue of getting rolled by a larger servers. It would reward smart play vs what we have now.
Now, Notice I have said Active Players this needs to be a way to distinguish between active and just on the map. Which happens, IE: What about the people there for crafting or banking, or whatever.
Any player with the “invulnerable” buff you get for being in the “Safe Area” would NOT be counted as Active.
I believe that PPK should be 1PPK, unless the outmanned buff is up, and then it’s 0 PPK to kill an Outmanned Opponent, but they get 2PPK for killing someone with an Outmanned buff on.
Simple enough with that.
5: The Making of Guild Alliance.
Ok that sounds a lot more dramatic then it is, in reality, all I am doing is basically asking players to pick their WvW Server after they started playing the game, as opposed to needing to pick the server when they walk in the door.
As I see it, there would be 10 Established “Alliances” which would be, loosely what Servers as we know them today that Guilds Could Join. I believe Naming them after Famous People would be Ideal, like the ‘Old Roar’ Alliance
Anyway, not to get wrapped up in names. Moving on to the Important part.
There would be 10 Public Alliances. Any Guild of Any Size, Could join a Public Alliance, with no limit to the number of Guilds that could join them.
However, guilds would change a Bit. Guilds would need to be flagged for WvW to Join an Alliance.
To Stop everyone and their Brother from joining Alliances and just making a mess, Each Guild, would only be given 1 Free Flag, this could be used to Flag the Guild for PvE, PvP, or WvW. Additional Flags would be 1000 Gems each. Payable by the guild, individual Members could donate up to 10 gems to help pay for it. Yes, the design here is for a guild that does not do much WvW to not get involved in it, and allow WvW centric Guilds to be just that, WvW Centric.
Once a Guild Joins an Alliance, All its members become a part of that Alliance, if a Guidl Changes it’s Alliance, all its members move with the change. No longer would a guild have members staying behind in old servers and what have you. If the Guild moves, everyone moves with it.
Each Guild could Join One Alliance for Free. Any Transfers after that would cost 1000 Gems, each member could donate up to 50 Gems to fund the move, leaving the GL to pick up the rest of the tab. This is designed so that either the Guild Leader foots the Bill, or they have the backing of at least several members to make the move. But, no one would get left behind. The Guild Moves, the entire guild moves.
Now this is a much smaller cost then what we have now, with around 500 gems per person in the guild. This is 1000 gems and everyone moves, if you had 10 members that saving 4000 Gems, if you had 100 members that’s 49000 Gems. It’s a huge saving, and it would remove any issues with who did and did not stay.
Now, there would be a trick here, to prevent (or at least lessen) spying, an account could only be in 1 WvW Flagged Guild. That way, you don’t have players being a part of several alliances at once. You pick your Team, and you stick with it, if you don’t like the team, you leave it and join another, you don’t play on two teams.
Players could not Rep a Guild that was not Flagged for what they were doing. IE: If they are in PvE, they could not rep a Guild that did not have a PvE Flag, if they were in SPvP same applies, the guild would need to be flagged for it.
Guilds that required 100% Rep would need to pay for the Extra Flags, this could be another way for Guilds to Enforce their 100% rep policy, by having that WvW Flag. When a player enters WvW, they would auto-rep their WvW Guild.
A player could be part of more than one PvE guild or PvP guild. Only WvW would have the 1 guild limitation, so if players had a social guild, they could flag for PvE or PvP and keep their social guild.
What about, wanting to run with friends. Well, much like today, if you are not on the same server, you could not run with them, if you are on the same server, you can run with them, if you want a social guild to link you all together, flag it for PvE or PvP and it becomes a cozy Chat Channel.
If a player was not in a Guild, they would become tagless, and only be allowed to go to EotM, if they wanted to WvW. There they could find a WvW Centric Guild, or even find one in PvE content, since players can advertise their guilds, even if they are not repping that guild.
The idea here is simple, it’s guild wars, allow guilds to control who they want to war with.
Now, Guilds could also buy a Private Alliance. It would require 5 Guild leaders, of WvW Flagged Guilds to apply for the Alliance, and then they would vote on anyone that wants to join it. 50%+ required to be accepted.
Simple enough.
Private Alliances could Challenge other Private Alliances, it does not mean they will fight, only that they have a much higher chance to fight. IF a T1 Alliance challenges a T8 alliance, there is a better then good chance, that fight is never gonna happen. If a T7 alliance challenges a T6 alliance, they would have around a 75% greater chance to matched up.
Again,. Simple enough.
I think this would really, change and improve the Landscape for WvW for everyone.