Guild Wars 2

I would like to know if we can hash out my ideas and get an answer as to why these ideas wouldn’t work.

Some of these problems in WvW can be fixed in my opinion pretty easily

PvD: make doors like walls so megazergs can’t just melt them down
PvD: make holding objectives per tick worth more than capturing it
PvD: adjust the tick to 1 hour
PvD: nerf all player skills that can easily remove all siege defenses on/behind the wall (minus Omega)
PvD: Increase RI to 1 hour

Remove the Upgrades in camps, towers and keeps/SM make them level 2/3 like in EotM

I think it would be great to throw this stuff in and see what happens

players have evolved in WvW but the WvW mechanics have not; so these changes might add a nifty twist for a few months and commanders would have to think a little more than just zerging. (supply is a premium and success/failure affects the next step immensely)

and for us players reading this, run a few scenarios in your head and see how things would be with this setup.

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.

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.

Zepher.7803:

PvD: make doors like walls so megazergs can’t just melt them down

Then you’d have to make siege (at least basic siege) free of charge.

The problem here is that someone that has no money whatsoever still need to be able to get in that keep. They can do so by hacking down the doors. Its all about the possibility to do it, even if its not ideal. If you remove this possibility, then basicly it means pay to win, no other choice. Random siege drops are nowhere near what they’d need to be to justify using looted resources.

If they remove the ability for players to use weapons to get into keeps, I still think they should make a new type of siege which you can order construction at camps. Cost 50 supply to build and is basicly a miniature personal siege golem (no silver, you talk to the camp dude to initiate construction, max 2 per camp, if the camp is lost they will auto-destruct). Fairly slow, low to mediocre damage compared to rams/etc and require the camp it was built at to be held, but can hit both walls and doors. Perfect for lower pop servers (or just off time) that doesnt have the means, manpower or riches to overcome invounerable doors.

Hamster.4861:

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.

It sounds like these solutions would just shift the focus from active offense/passive defense to active defense/passive offense. Is that really better and would more people stay or more people leave?

I agree that the only damage able to be done to a wall/door should be by siege equipment.

RI probably shouldn’t be more than 15 minutes. An hour sounds like too much. I do like the idea of increasing it, though.

Perhaps upgrading keeps to different tiers should increase the complexity of the keep layout and actual defend-ability. For example, tier 2 has the Lord in a more secure location. Tier 3 could have that and also pre-built arrow carts in specific locations. I’m just throwing out ideas…not sure what would actually help here.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Hamster.4861:

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.

Fair point.

However, I think you have already answered the core question you’re posing. Namely, how to reward the solo roamers. If the solo roamer has already broken away from the zerg, they aren’t all that interested in the personal rewards to begin with. Otherwise, they’d stay with the zerg to reap the fat lootz.

On the contrary, such players are playing to the objectives of the WvW game mode; denying supply to an enemy, attempting to gain territory to increase their server’s PPT, etc. I’d hazard a guess that the personal rewards are a distant and secondary consideration. That’s certainly the case for me when I solo roam and flip camps; I’m not doing it for the personal rewards, I’m doing it to help my server.

Also, by implementing my suggestion of substantially increasing the amount of personal rewards obtained from defeating real players, the solo roamer has the potential to make up any losses incurred from no longer being rewarded for capping undefended camps.

So rather than continue with a system that can reward a solo player but which then massively rewards a zerg for the same action, let’s think of ways the solo roamer can still be rewarded while denying the zerg an equal reward for every member of that zerg.

I do like your diminishing returns suggestion and have made similar suggestions in the past; such as dividing the coin reward from a capture by the number of players participating in that capture. Decreasing the rarity of reward items based on the number of players – as you suggest – is another form of disincentive to zergs.

Regardless of what method is settled on, the current system of low risk = high reward is broken.

Dawdler.8521:

Zepher.7803:

PvD: make doors like walls so megazergs can’t just melt them down

Then you’d have to make siege (at least basic siege) free of charge.

The problem here is that someone that has no money whatsoever still need to be able to get in that keep. They can do so by hacking down the doors. Its all about the possibility to do it, even if its not ideal. If you remove this possibility, then basicly it means pay to win, no other choice. Random siege drops are nowhere near what they’d need to be to justify using looted resources.

If they remove the ability for players to use weapons to get into keeps, I still think they should make a new type of siege which you can order construction at camps. Cost 50 supply to build and is basicly a miniature personal siege golem (no silver, you talk to the camp dude to initiate construction, max 2 per camp, if the camp is lost they will auto-destruct). Fairly slow, low to mediocre damage compared to rams/etc and require the camp it was built at to be held, but can hit both walls and doors. Perfect for lower pop servers (or just off time) that doesnt have the means, manpower or riches to overcome invounerable doors.

You bring up a good point.

Realistically, I don’t see any shortage of siege out there on the battlefield. However, as you state, just the possibility that someone couldn’t afford a ram has to be taken into consideration or otherwise it devolves into pay-to-win (which we certainly want to avoid).

I like your solution. It allows the original suggestion of making gates only vulnerable to siege (or my modified suggestion of making only the gates of tier 3 fortifications immune to damage from players) to stand; which is critical in reining in the dominance of zergs.

It then goes on to create a new mechanic which addresses the pitfall of that suggestion; namely, the slippery slope of pay-to-win by making siege mandatory at some point in the game.

What’s nice about your suggestion is it allows counter-play. Your suggestion counters the pitfall of the OP (as well as my modification), but it itself can be countered by capturing the camp where these lesser golems are built. That’s genius; everything in the game should have a counter à la rock/paper/scissors.

Scenario:

Tower is fortified.

Oops, can’t just DPS down the gate.

We’re out of siege/can’t afford it. Whatever shall we do?

Let’s capture a camp and build some mini-golems there.

Mini-golems can – slowly – work their way through the gate.

Defenders can counter by capturing the camp at which the golems were built.

Attackers and defenders are now not only fighting over the original tower but over the supply camp at which the mini-golems were built.

Anything to bring players into more direct conflict rather than PvDooring is a good thing in my book. Your suggestion gives them more to fight over and greater incentive to defend what they capture while allowing the original zerg-busting suggestion to stand.

I’ve never ran out of siege/money/badges so I have no idea how 5 people couldn’t figure out how to get a ram blueprint, and if out of 5 people no one can come up with a ram to break the gate, what are you doing in WvW?

I’m almost always in WvW about 1 to 2 hours a day I don’t PvE much so I’m not sure where the notion of not being able to afford siege is valid.

Zepher.7803:

I’ve never ran out of siege/money/badges so I have no idea how 5 people couldn’t figure out how to get a ram blueprint, and if out of 5 people no one can come up with a ram to break the gate, what are you doing in WvW?

I’m almost always in WvW about 1 to 2 hours a day I don’t PvE much so I’m not sure where the notion of not being able to afford siege is valid.

Except WvW is not about you.

Its all about possibilities. Different options. Completely removing the ability to knock down a door by hand is fine. Its an acceptable solution to a problem that’s existed since release. But offering no viable alternative is not good at all. WvW doesnt need that kind of extra gold sink restriction – WvW just need to be fun to play.

To give you some perspective, just look at ESO AvA. It may be grand, but its not fun. Siege is incredibly restricting. You cant capture a keep without siege. You cant even solo the camps surrounding the keeps, its impossible. Imagine fighting 20 buffed keep lords, that’s a tiny camp in ESO. And you have to capture 3 of them. It literally force you to bring 20+ players and siege to do something, otherwise you might as well go do PvE in a dungeon. Do you really think just slapping restrictions on GW2 would make it more fun? I dont think so.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Hamster.4861:

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.

Fair point.

However, I think you have already answered the core question you’re posing. Namely, how to reward the solo roamers. If the solo roamer has already broken away from the zerg, they aren’t all that interested in the personal rewards to begin with. Otherwise, they’d stay with the zerg to reap the fat lootz.

On the contrary, such players are playing to the objectives of the WvW game mode; denying supply to an enemy, attempting to gain territory to increase their server’s PPT, etc. I’d hazard a guess that the personal rewards are a distant and secondary consideration. That’s certainly the case for me when I solo roam and flip camps; I’m not doing it for the personal rewards, I’m doing it to help my server.

Also, by implementing my suggestion of substantially increasing the amount of personal rewards obtained from defeating real players, the solo roamer has the potential to make up any losses incurred from no longer being rewarded for capping undefended camps.

So rather than continue with a system that can reward a solo player but which then massively rewards a zerg for the same action, let’s think of ways the solo roamer can still be rewarded while denying the zerg an equal reward for every member of that zerg.

I do like your diminishing returns suggestion and have made similar suggestions in the past; such as dividing the coin reward from a capture by the number of players participating in that capture. Decreasing the rarity of reward items based on the number of players – as you suggest – is another form of disincentive to zergs.

Regardless of what method is settled on, the current system of low risk = high reward is broken.

I definitely don’t do it for the rewards (or lack of). It would just be nice to come out a little bit ahead. After paying for buffs, siege, and upgrades to structures I am lucky to break even in WvW.

Dawdler.8521:

Zepher.7803:

PvD: make doors like walls so megazergs can’t just melt them down

Then you’d have to make siege (at least basic siege) free of charge.

The problem here is that someone that has no money whatsoever still need to be able to get in that keep.

So, you’ve got someone who is able to solo the content, has armor/runes/sigils to handle it, but can’t afford a ram?

Or a small party that can’t manage a ram between them?

Siegerazor will provide if it’s a breakout event, otherwise there are four WvW jumping puzzles (actually two, with three of them being identical) that provide siege for a few minutes of semi-precise jumping.

Sorted.

Dawdler.8521:

Zepher.7803:

I’ve never ran out of siege/money/badges so I have no idea how 5 people couldn’t figure out how to get a ram blueprint, and if out of 5 people no one can come up with a ram to break the gate, what are you doing in WvW?

I’m almost always in WvW about 1 to 2 hours a day I don’t PvE much so I’m not sure where the notion of not being able to afford siege is valid.

Except WvW is not about you.

Its all about possibilities. Different options. Completely removing the ability to knock down a door by hand is fine. Its an acceptable solution to a problem that’s existed since release. But offering no viable alternative is not good at all. WvW doesnt need that kind of extra gold sink restriction – WvW just need to be fun to play.

To give you some perspective, just look at ESO AvA. It may be grand, but its not fun. Siege is incredibly restricting. You cant capture a keep without siege. You cant even solo the camps surrounding the keeps, its impossible. Imagine fighting 20 buffed keep lords, that’s a tiny camp in ESO. And you have to capture 3 of them. It literally force you to bring 20+ players and siege to do something, otherwise you might as well go do PvE in a dungeon. Do you really think just slapping restrictions on GW2 would make it more fun? I dont think so.

I can tell from your post that you don’t quite know Gw2 WvW, you wouldn’t want to try and solo a tower or keep the time it would take to kill the guards in between running to a camp then building the siege in between killing the guards again, breaking the gate, killing the lord and his guards, and in that amount of time the odds of no one showing up is very small.

and you can’t compare ESO to GW2 there is no comparison GW2 FTW!

Zepher.7803:

Dawdler.8521:

Zepher.7803:

I’ve never ran out of siege/money/badges so I have no idea how 5 people couldn’t figure out how to get a ram blueprint, and if out of 5 people no one can come up with a ram to break the gate, what are you doing in WvW?

I’m almost always in WvW about 1 to 2 hours a day I don’t PvE much so I’m not sure where the notion of not being able to afford siege is valid.

Except WvW is not about you.

Its all about possibilities. Different options. Completely removing the ability to knock down a door by hand is fine. Its an acceptable solution to a problem that’s existed since release. But offering no viable alternative is not good at all. WvW doesnt need that kind of extra gold sink restriction – WvW just need to be fun to play.

To give you some perspective, just look at ESO AvA. It may be grand, but its not fun. Siege is incredibly restricting. You cant capture a keep without siege. You cant even solo the camps surrounding the keeps, its impossible. Imagine fighting 20 buffed keep lords, that’s a tiny camp in ESO. And you have to capture 3 of them. It literally force you to bring 20+ players and siege to do something, otherwise you might as well go do PvE in a dungeon. Do you really think just slapping restrictions on GW2 would make it more fun? I dont think so.

I can tell from your post that you don’t quite know Gw2 WvW, you wouldn’t want to try and solo a tower or keep the time it would take to kill the guards in between running to a camp then building the siege in between killing the guards again, breaking the gate, killing the lord and his guards, and in that amount of time the odds of no one showing up is very small.

and you can’t compare ESO to GW2 there is no comparison GW2 FTW!

I’ve done it a bunch of times. You wait until the other servers are fighting over a keep and you throw down a guild cata so you don’t have to worry about guards. If I see a battle going on at hills or bay I will take every camp and as many towers as I can while they are occupied.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

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.

Agreed with every point made. WvWvW should be like chess not a glorified karma train. Maybe then it might attract more players who want battles and fights rather than just loot. As you said EOTM is the place for ktrains the map is so big you barely even have to fight other players.

None of your points are too restrictive as long as they are not applied to EOTM. Let that be the “KTRAIN” map for pvers and as you said let WvWvW be all that it can be. There are so many good ideas on these forums. Please Arenanet just implement some of them for example better loot for wvwers. Thank you for your post and time.

Pretty much the lack of everything stated here already in game made people get bored, there should be a really change on tactics\game mechaincs for WvW and the next season.

all looks interesting.

Zepher.7803:

Dawdler.8521:

Zepher.7803:

I’ve never ran out of siege/money/badges so I have no idea how 5 people couldn’t figure out how to get a ram blueprint, and if out of 5 people no one can come up with a ram to break the gate, what are you doing in WvW?

I’m almost always in WvW about 1 to 2 hours a day I don’t PvE much so I’m not sure where the notion of not being able to afford siege is valid.

Except WvW is not about you.

Its all about possibilities. Different options. Completely removing the ability to knock down a door by hand is fine. Its an acceptable solution to a problem that’s existed since release. But offering no viable alternative is not good at all. WvW doesnt need that kind of extra gold sink restriction – WvW just need to be fun to play.

To give you some perspective, just look at ESO AvA. It may be grand, but its not fun. Siege is incredibly restricting. You cant capture a keep without siege. You cant even solo the camps surrounding the keeps, its impossible. Imagine fighting 20 buffed keep lords, that’s a tiny camp in ESO. And you have to capture 3 of them. It literally force you to bring 20+ players and siege to do something, otherwise you might as well go do PvE in a dungeon. Do you really think just slapping restrictions on GW2 would make it more fun? I dont think so.

I can tell from your post that you don’t quite know Gw2 WvW, you wouldn’t want to try and solo a tower or keep the time it would take to kill the guards in between running to a camp then building the siege in between killing the guards again, breaking the gate, killing the lord and his guards, and in that amount of time the odds of no one showing up is very small.

and you can’t compare ESO to GW2 there is no comparison GW2 FTW!

Yes, clearly I dont know anything about GW2 WvW. I mean I’ve barely played anything in the 2500ish hours I got on my account. And the ~600 siege equipments and ~300 superior siege I usually keep in my inventory is at an all time low due to having sold much of it to get my second legendary and granted I usually run solo/small group nowadays instead of raiding with the guild.

But fact remains that the possibility should be there. The actual way this possibility is implemented can be… well, anything. Something as simple as actually being able to order Siegerazer to a specific keep (except maybe garrison), rather than just a breakout event. Maybe not as often as the breakout, but you get the idea.

Its always better to add something to the game, instead of just removing it. Most of us like GW2 for a reason. Changing is fine if you do it for the greater good, just plain removing is not. Otherwise it would be just like the orbs. Its the same reason I will argue against anyone that want the downed state removed.

I think it would be interesting if all the siege that is suppose to move can (rams, cata and ballista) but can only be built inside towers and keeps, so you would have to travel with and protect the siege equipment on route to the target location,

also make all siege usable be all factions so be careful where you leave stuff of the enemy could use it against you.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Hamster.4861:

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.

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.

Infract me please.

-How about immediate war score bonuses (a reasonable and enticing amount of points) for taking multiple objectives simultaneously (within a reasonable time frame)?
Why? It will reward servers that play and organize better than others (plus it will force some distribution of players rather than all zerging). The same could be said about defending.
-How about adding supply blockades that can be deployed only near sentry (flags) areas that are easy to deploy and easy to break?
Why? To add a bit of depth and a bit more strategy to solo (small group) roaming. They would really have to escort Pack Dolyaks. Plus it makes sentries matter a bit more.
-How about adding supply runners (npcs that carry small amounts of supply but move faster than Pack Dolyaks) that can be bought from the supply camp. These can bypass the above supply blockades, but can’t attack (they also die easier than the Dolyaks, duh).
Why? Same as above.
-How about being able to buy an upgrade at the Keep, that allows a passive timer restricted benefit (say WvW exp and silver per every tick) to people that stay and defend camps, fortresses, etc (stays as guards). Plus the ability for commanders to see how many people are defending said places.
Why? More depth to defending forces. It allows commanders to better strategize, and adds a motivation for players to stay and defend (even if there are no enemies). Plus adds intensive to capture enemy keeps and protect your own.

Why not just take away the commander tag and let the true commander to rise and shine?
Each WvW ranks allows you do different thing like control the golem, tank, mobile arrow cart, mobile ram, etc.
Add in the nature effects like sand storm, snow storm, wind, rain, etc.
Make the players in WvW to work together to solve problem thru obstacle that cause by the Mother Nature. The enemy, monster, etc.
oh, I forgot camouflage.