Absolutely agree with OP +1
WvW was my favorite aspect of GW2 until the constant blobs and repetitive exchanges of points imo, turned a potentially deeply strategic game-mode into a “gather massive group, exchange towers (since blobs only have any sort of resistance from similiarly sized blobs), rinse repeat”.
I’d like to add a few of my own suggestions:
1. Just like OP mentioned; I think that getting back into fights, whether attacking or defending, tends to be too much of a struggle. I can’t remember how many times I’ve died in a siege fight, only to have to run a ~10min course to participate at all again, whether attacking or defending. Of course staying alive to keep the fight moving is a priority, but dying is sometimes unavoidable. Why does it seem like I’m getting punished again, having to run miles upon miles to get back into any sort of action?
I propose some sort of spawning locations be added to the map, which can be sacked or defended by players to help assist in getting back to key locations in times of need. I feel like these locations would provide a much needed strategic resource for both attacking and defending players in the map.
Example: Fort A is being sieged with few defending players inside, the defending players know they are greatly outnumbered. Instead of spamming chat or TS with requests for help (which more often than not come way to late to make any sort of difference), a small group of players could jump from the towers, and attempt an escape to “sack” and then capture one of these nearby respawn locations to help additional (further away) players flank the attacking army faster. Thus, the attacking army would have more to worry about while having to keep an eye on surrounding strategic locations to ensure they aren’t ambushed to successfully take Fort A, while the defending team inside has more in their deck than just twidling their thumbs, stacking AC or waiting for a greater friendly army to come assist.
2. I also agree that the forts and towers in WvW are ridiculously hard to defend from a strategic standpoint. Walls always seem like a gamble to try and defend from with AoE spam and piercing attacks able to hit defending players while they’re supposed to have some sort of refuge atop towers or walls. Granted, this is a fantasy game with wildly varying military mechanics, but to me it doesn’t make much sense to me why the walls are so low, and the “kill boxes” are more of a boon for attackers. Shouldn’t the people building these walls take random firestorms and armor piercing arrows into the engineering equation?
The defenders should actually have a worthwhile means of DEFENSE. I feel like taking a keep should be more about strategic positioning and operating of the many well made siege engines in this game, rather than gathering a blob and autoattacking down the door. Both the defenders AND attackers should be more focused on placing AC, Cata, Ballista and Trebs effectively to take a keep, rather than relying on just their character’s skills to do the job. I mean, these are literally castles, why should we even be able to punch reinforced doors down with our bare fists/swords/fireballs respectively…
The only solution I can think of would be more protective walls, whether that is via increasing the height, adding barriers atop the walls that are a more useful refuge or possibly adding some sort of buff to wall defenders/defending siege which lessens the impact of AoE/long range skills.
Further, with respect to game balance, yes I know that making the walls higher or making certain areas on the walls un-attackable by ground forces can cause a TON of balance problems. However, limiting the amount of siege that can be placed on walls could be a good idea to stop things like untargetable AC spam or ballista stacking. It makes a vague sort of sense, considering that Cata’s and Ballista probably weigh quite a bit and might mess with the structural integrity of the walls considering they’re already made of some high grade paper mache. The amount of siege available to be placed by defenders could fluctuate on how fortified the fort is (within reason). Additionally, having the attackers be able to “counter-siege” suddenly becomes a realization, and defending the attacking siege weapons instead of just waiting for the doors to get knocked down, becomes another interesting and strategic siege mechanic.
3. I feel like there should be more incentive to participate in events outside of sieging as well. Escort missions, taking npc camps and taking/holding strategic locations should all have some sort of benefit outside of just plain and simple victory. We come into WvW games for an engaging PvP atmosphere, and I feel that atmosphere should be preserved even if were working on taking down npc camps, or completing escort missions. Possibly having those NPC camps actually do something worthwhile instead of static patrols and sitting in their camp waiting for the next blob to clear them out. Make them have meaning. Why should I take this camp, and why should I hold it? What will it give me, and how does it help my world?
I propose having the NPC camps you take actually assist whoever they’re allied with in various tasks. Like spending supply to call in a horde of hyleks to help you siege/defend a tower, or having taken NPC camps cause random events to occur during enemy escort missions where they attack/hinder the escort’s progress. Scaling these events on active players would be a must, since we shouldn’t need a blob to perform simple scouting and event tasks. However, these events could quickly become large skirmishes depending on how actively players in a world participate in them. I feel this could give an interesting bit of purpose (and another strategic source of conflict) to players who want to engage in more than just siege warfare.
4. Blobs is probably the perfect way to describe the majority of fights in WvW for the past 3 years. To me, I feel this is a cheap way to attack/defend anything. More numbers = more win. Granted, in any military situation having more numbers is a great advantage, but it shouldn’t be the “be all end all” of how WvW should is played imo. Why do we even have forts, and why would we even attempt defending when you see a horde of players coming to siege your fort with only a handful of players inside. As above, having capturable spawn locations that can assist in the attacking/defending of towers could help allieviate this burden. Another possible solution would be to give buffs/debuffs to small and large groups of players retroactively.
Consider a combination buff/debuff for a large group of players that reduces their movement speed by, say 20%, and makes their speed unable to increase. However, the buff side of travelling in a large army would be a 20% damage mitigation. I.E. Harder to hit individual targets. Of course this is just a suggestion, I don’t know if something like this would work or would be well recieved. I just feel that 50 or so players travelling at fully buffed speed, lightning fast around the battlefield sort of diminishes the immersion of travelling in an army in WvW.
Smaller groups of players could recieve a buff/debuff of additional supplies carried or faster capping of smaller strategic points of interest, like respawn locations (from above), faster escorting, and camps.
Again, these are just my two cents. Im sure I’ll still be playing WvW, I just want a little more out of it. Also, feedback is absolutely appreciated! I’m sure that my suggestions have issues, these are just some things I’ve been thinking about over the past few years while playing WvW and enjoying this game.