Guild Wars 2

then EB would be just like Molvik! i’m down!

thanks Devon. hopefully sooner rather than later

i like the idea of adding the downstate to the lord, and remove the ability to banner except in the downstate (just like players). couple that with making hard rezzing fully defeated players or npcs out of combat only and things get a lot more interesting and fun for both sides imo.

and just to add to this, points for a keep upgrade completing would be good, but couple that with upgraded keeps being worth more when taken and more when defended.

you could even have player stomps in the area of a siege be worth more as well.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

(continued)

2) Keep the reward system as it currently exists in EotM exactly as it is. Reward the karma trains to their hearts’ content over there. Maybe this was the intent with the new map and signals the first ray of hope that this issue is being taken seriously.

3) Substantially increase the rewards earned from scoring kills on opposing players. Enough to compensate for the loss of loot from other activites as suggested in point #1.

4) Player skills can no longer damage gates of a tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle which have been upgraded to tier 3/fortified state.

5) Eliminate points-per-tick. Throw it, the baby, and the bath water out the window. Gone. Done. Never to return. Nothing in the game will earn a server points over time.

6) Points are now earned only from direct player confrontation. Keep the current system whereby players earn a World Score point from a kill, but untie it from the Borderlands Bloodlust buff. Borderlands Bloodlust is just another mechanic that favors overwhelming numbers and coverage, not skill. If anything, additional World Score points should be awarded to the outnumbered side when they make a kill. Keeping it at one-point-per-kill across the board would be an acceptable compromise, though.

World Score points are also awarded to a server which successfully captures a supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle ONLY if the objective was actively defended by real players at some point during the siege. Capturing an empty objective will never award any points under any circumstances.

Lastly, World Score points are the reward for a server which actively defends an objective under attack. The current “Defend the XYZ” events which trigger when an objective is sieged can be left in place. As each is successfully concluded by the defending server (i.e. you held the tower, keep, etc. for 3 minutes), World Score points are rewarded.

Defense events will reward fewer points per event than capture events; a 10-to1 ratio could serve as a starting point, tweaked over time as testing and balance dictate. However, if a siege is prolonged, it’s conceivable the defenders could actually earn more points from multiple defense events than the attackers earn through a single capture event.

Another balancer to throw into the mix is losing an objective results in a loss of a set amount of points for the defenders; half the capture reward, perhaps. Conversely, defenders may earn a bonus if they successfully defend the objective over multiple defense events and/or the objective does not come under attack again for X minutes after the conclusion of the most recent defense event.

With such a scoring system, the points reflect the actual conflicts between players rather than which one of them is the most effective at playing PvDoor. It’s a measure of the players’ skill in combating other players and effectively sieging or countering the sieging of one’s opponents.

A server which grossly outnumbers their opposition, zergs the map, and captures empty fortification after empty fortification will, at the end of the day, have earned almost nothing. Certainly no World Score points and only some marginal account-bound items that can’t be sold nor traded.

If, on the other hand, they attack a fortification in which there are real player opponents, they have the potential to earn some World Score points if they capture the objective as well as more lucrative personal rewards if they manage to kill any of the real players.

The outnumbered server which runs from the blob everytime they show up and/or turtles behind their walls as the zerg goes around them to PvDoor will also earn nothing; even less than the zerg, if they don’t bother capturing anything back.

If, on the other hand, they stand their ground – even in the face of overwhelming odds – and fight, they stand a chance of earning World Score points for their server and potentially some nice loot if they manage to score some kills in the process.

In Conclusion

By implementing something as simple as redefining which activites will be rewarded, you subtly but powerfully shift this game mode into alignment with what WvWvW was originally envisioned to be; epic combat between servers. Assuming, of course, this was indeed the vision.

On the other hand, I could be mistaken and WvWvW is intended as an experiment to test players’ tolerance for mindless repetition and shallow, non-strategic, single-tactic game play. In which case, I bought the wrong game.

I know this thread is pretty much over, but i just wanted to express support for this. I think the PPT scoring system is the root of a lot of issues in WvW, and I even posted an alternative similar to this a while back that didn’t get much support

anybody who thinks any CC in this game lasts too long should play/remember DAoC. Mezzes and Roots could last for MINUTES, not seconds!

i missed the livestream but i see from the notes that if you win the EotM match you get a supply drop in the citadel of your borderland map. but if EotM is an overflow map people from my server could be in one overflow that wins and another that loses.

so how does it determine where/when to drop supply?

I 100% agree with everything the OP wrote. I hate oversimplification, dumbing down, handholding, etc. in mmo’s (one of the many reasons i hated WoW) and hope that GW2 doesn’t start going down this path any more than it already has.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recipe:_Carrot_Souffl%C3%A9

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/41573

it’s not very noticable, but the Dolyak Express thread for WvW was started 3 hours ago and has no responses yet.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dolyak-Express-Jan-24-2014

Josh Foreman.8250:

In the never ending quest to improve our design and find ways to please as many people as possible we’re always digging into constructive criticism. We have not perfected the recipe for an open world boss event, probably because we’re pioneering new territory here.

It might be new territory for Anet, but open world bosses are nothing new. DAoC did open world bosses very well imo. There were even open world dungeons full of bosses. Some of the differences were:

1) bosses were in hard to get to places. you had to have a good sized coordinated group to even get to the boss, and there weren’t waypoints all over the zone so if you wiped you would have to do a full regroup and go back.

2) bossed didn’t despawn on failure. they would remain in the world until killed and would go on a respawn timer after being defeated. (this worked because of #1)

3 likes
1) freedom to play how i want: solo, small group/havoc, or zerg
2) ability to run the same character (build/gear) in pve/wvw
3) server/guild rivalries

3 hates
1) zones are too small, objectives too close together
2) lack of individual/guild leaderboards for kills/wxp/objectives taken/claimed, etc.
3) map queues

i’m pretty sure the balance patch isn’t coming this tuesday…

all of the super expensive mystic forge weapons should be upgraded to ascended stats imo…

I have a Howler and I think the smoke effect is good the way it is. any more would be too much imo. I would really like them to fix the looping howl bug though. it’s super annoying, and doesn’t even sound like a wolf. imo the ranger warhorn effect is better than this legendary.

Zaxares.5419:

Someone on this forum once made an interesting suggestion. What if mobs didn’t drop items at all? Monsters only drop coin and crafting materials; all items in the game come from either NPC vendors (karma or coin), or from PC crafters, with most of the unique skins in the game only available through PC crafting. (Instead of purchasing dungeon weapons/armor, for example, the vendors instead sell crafting recipes. So if you wanted, say, an AC greatsword, you’d need to either run the dungeon a few times to get the tokens to learn the recipe and craft it yourself, or you just buy one from another player who’s crafted one with certain stats and put it up for sale.)

fyi this is the route that Camelot Unchained is taking. no dropped gear at all. everything of value is crafted. there’s even a dedicated crafter class!

2875 hrs since headstart = 5.66hrs/day

i play a lot (4-6 hours a day average) and have never had a problem with gold. I don’t “grind” anything, but i do a little of everything. every night i usually do a couple of world bosses, 1-3 hours of WvW, and maybe a dungeon run or 2. i’ve never bought gold via gems or otherwise, and currently have about 300g after making 1 legendary (a cheap one: Howl) and 6 ascended weapons.

After making my legendary i was down to about 40g but ascended armor dropped right then and i made 10-15g a night for 2 weeks selling Bolts of Damask (had all the mats saved).

One of the quickest and easiest ways to make gold is liquidate your collectibles, and always sell at the lowest sell offer, not the highest buy offer.

DAoC had a really great mechanic where the guild that claimed a keep or tower would get messages in guild chat when a guard near their tower was killed. The message looked like “a guard from your tower was killed with 25 enemies in the area” and showed up in guild chat even if you were in a PVE zone.

DAoC had a really great mechanic where the guild that claimed a keep or tower would get messages in guild chat when a guard near their tower was killed. The message looked like “a guard from your tower was killed with 25 enemies in the area” and showed up in guild chat even if you were in a PVE zone.

Something like that in GW2 would be a great improvement and would alleviate the need for so many static scouts (active scouts following enemy forces would still be very useful though). and while they’re at it, maybe they could add the claiming guild’s tag after the guards/lord’s name so we can see who has a keep claimed in game, instead of having to use an external site!

defintitely yes on 2h axes. also a vote for melee staves (think friar from daoc).

Sanduskel.1850:

ankohra.6384:

Worst reward ever. Never setting foot in wvw or even GW until they give us some proper rewards for our efforts. Being up all nights just to help our server to claim the first place and i get better loot and rewards just by playing for 2 hours. GG…

Hate to be rude, but this isn’t a bad thing. Those of us who love wvw can now play the game we want.

and stay out!

so run fractals if you think that’s more “rewarding” than wvw. most of us do wvw because it’s fun with or without a carrot.

for me the reward for WvW is every day, wrecking other servers/guilds and getting wrecked. any loot I get as a result whether in a bag off a player or in a rank or season chest is just icing and I really couldn’t care less what was in it, although that’s partly because i know it’s going to be junk.

definitely agree with #3. AOE of any kind (player or seige) should not be able to go through walls/doors imo.

there have been a lot of changes but obviously you’ve made up your mind that none of them are good enough for you.

forget dragonite. ascended weapons and armor need to be purchasable for badges/gold/laurels just like the accessories.

that would be a real kick in the teeth to people that didn’t finish the achievement…to get a chest in the mail and not be able to open it?? wow…

I imagine it will be a popup chest just like other achievement chests.

I just got an email from edgeofthemists@arena.net with an excel spreadsheet attached. is this legit?

it’s not that they “cannot” it’s that they “will not.” they have said many times that it is their policy not to release specific numbers.

personally I haven’t had any skill lag in WvW since the patch, until last night. there was a 3 way battle in Hills on SoS borderland with about 40-50 each of SoS, BG, and JQ. for about 5 minutes we started getting 3-5 sec skill lag, but it seemed to recover quickly.

thanks for the improvements!

not really…..

1) Tiers should be set and matchups should be permanent with no reset ever.
2) Transfer costs should be relative to the server pop within the tier, so for example it would free to transfer to the lowest pop server in kitten, T3, etc. but expensive to transfer to the highest pop server within any given tier.

This would accomplish 2 things:
1) with permanent matchups, rivalries and server pride would flourish.
2) if a given tier was unbalanced, people would move around to balance it because they know it’s never going to change on its own. blowout matches are boring for both sides and with no prospect of the matchup changing, people would transfer within the tier in order to find competition.

Overkillengine.6084:

Sirendor.1394:

Overkillengine.6084:

The game could use a revamp of its supply line modeling in the borderlands and EB.

I have attached a picture of what the current supply lines are like, as well as a proposed revamp of those supply likes from the perspective of the Blue force and Green force on the Red Borderlands.

The issue with the current supply lines is that it is very easy for a zerg to dominate all needed supply points and not need to stay and defend them thanks to the recap timers on the camp boss being longer than what it takes for a zerg to obliterate a smaller defense force at nearby towers, plus the camps generating supply out of thin air even when isolated from friendly control points.

This combination makes it difficult for small mobile havok teams to have the impact they should be able to have in cutting enemy supply lines, forcing the enemy to spread out to defend captured locations instead of moving in a singular mass.

Alternate supply modeling should be used to help combat the natural inertia of mass numbers.

The overall goal of such a redesign of the supply route model would be to make it increasingly difficult to assault additional objectives as each side has a static amount of supply being distributed per tick to all available camps, towers, and keeps.

Each portal keep should be the sole supply generator for each side; and caravans should all originate from there and radiate outward in a web pattern that requires a drop off point to be friendly before the caravan can continue on.

There should be no recapture blackout timers at any camp or tower; either defend it or lose it. The timers disproportionately benefit the side with greater numbers as is.

This would allow small groups greater ability to disrupt supply availability to the current front line in each zone by either destroying caravans or capturing undefended objectives. This would force an assault zerg to reallocate a portion of its forces to guarding each successive captured point; allowing defense forces on the other factions much needed breathing room when outnumbered.

Supply camps under this would no longer generate supply; but rather serve as a lightly defended stockpile point with a respawn beacon that consumes supply per person spawned there. This would put greater emphasis on fighting efficiently; as poor tactics focused on brute force can easily drain your side of supply at those camps; which means greater travel time to rejoin the battle as well as making it more difficult to quickly bring siege to bear on remaining enemy objectives.

This is a very in-depth analysis offering a sound and possibly very interesting and tactical mechanism. Should there be some kind of capture points that are held clear of enemies at all times or the likes in order to make sure zergs have to split up?

I would suggest any spawn camp under this system be unusable for respawn or teleporting as long as the camp is contested (enemy in the capture circle).

A small force or even a wily individual could cut supply and reinforcement lines at a critical moment this way unless regular patrols are made, which would force a zerg to slowly fracture as it captured more objectives to defend them or immediately lose them to an even moderately persistent havoc squad.

Edit: and the reason I suggest this is that in order to cut down on “server stack to win”, you also have to address “zerg to win”.

this is a great idea. to make it work even better, a commander could “tag” an objective for the squad, and anyone in his squad participating in “defend” events along the supply line would get credit for the “attack” event on the front line as well (if it was successful).

DAoC had a good system in new frontiers for porting into keeps. Each keep had 3 (or 4?) towers surrounding it, and if any one of those towers got taken, you couldn’t port into the keep.

Since Tequatl only gets done as an organized overflow map raid (e.g. TTS guild), it should have a quick pre-event that can be triggered at an NPC so that we don’t have to stand around for an hour after we set up.

To prevent trolling maybe the pre-event could only be started by a commander?

Thanks!

Samhayn.2385:

I want to elaborate of my earlier post.

PPT changed to Points per capture/kill.

Points will only be accrued when you first capture an objective. Points will also be awarded for a stomp well you have bloodlust. When you have the outmanned buff you are worth no points when killed (stomping under BL would still give points). What this will accomplish would be a focus on defense. Denying your enemy points from a capture well also accruing points from killing attackers. Since you only gain points from an initial capture of a point it makes it that a smaller server could concentrate its forces on one map and not have to worry about the objectives on other maps ticking points to the larger server. Thus keeping scoring closer. Also if you are outmanned and defending a tower you will he able to accrue points from kills but since you are outmanned death will not give points to the attacker and during defense stomps are near impossible to pull off.

I really like the idea of getting rid of PPT and just having points awarded based on captured/defend events.

to elaborate on this, capture events should be worth more for upgraded objectives and less for “paper” ones. capture events should also be worth more for each defend event that passes during the seige, and defend events should be worth points as well. this would encourage attacking upgraded, defended objectives because success would be worth the effort. it would also encourage defending since you could gain a lot of points by completing multiple defend events.

servers with more off hour coverage would not gain any more points because they would already own everything, and karma training in a circle flipping paper towers would just result in a stalemate, since everyone would gain points more or less equally.

i’m sure there are unforseen issues/potential exploits with this, but generally i think getting rid of PPT is a step in the right direction.

JonPeters.5630:

I think a good way to look at it is that there will generally be the same amount of PvE, but more PvE variety in objectives. Right now in WvW, when no enemies are present the content is the same Door killing and meat sack tower lord fight over and over. In Edge of the mists, the activity you do when no one is around will have variety. The nice part of this is that it also means the PvP activity you do at those locations will have variety.

along these lines…how about a mine with LOTS of orichalcum nodes that only the team that controls the mine can harvest?

solution here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/TP-only-works-if-I-run-as-administrator/first#post2753874

Lurch.9517:

Wouldn’t the guys that are obsessed by PPT under the current system just exploit your system by keeping all their structures permanently ‘aggroed’ by 2nd accounts so as to farm defence events?

yeah that’s a good point. i guess if there’s a way to exploit something, people will find it. i wonder if anet have anything in place to detect/ban people that run 2 accounts on separate servers in the same match already??

I agree about defense being boring, heh. They could keep the PPS (point per stomp) mechanic in to encourage more open field fighting, and make the outmanned buff give more PPS and more points per event also to help the lower pop servers.

as already discussed in this thread, the point per tick mechanic eliminates the balancing effect of having 3 (instead of 2) servers matched against each other.

Anet should get rid of PPT entirely!

Points should be awarded on event completion only. This would solve the coverage problems since if a server “nightcapped” everything they would only get points when they first captured each objective. It would also greatly reward defending, since a long siege can go through several defense events but only 1 (if successful) capture event.

Thoughts?

Xcom.1926:

Ghoulina.2976:

Gotta love the DOAC comments.. and that game is still hugely successful, am I right? Hmm, musta been some crappy stuff about that game that drove people to other games.

That is a pretty hilarious comment, when GW2’s WvW is basically a clone of DAoC RvR. The ANet devs themselves stated it was their inspiration. Even to the very fact that players name are not visible by enemies is taken from DAoC. I am also certain there are former Mythic devs on the ANet staff.

So I am sure they can use additional tips from DAoC in terms of how scoring worked.

This thread is relevant here.

would like an invite for this. when is the next organized attempt?

need an invite on Berner pls

you don’t have to put content in an instance to keep the pugs out and make it “raid” like. look at how DAoC did dragons and high level dungeons. they just need to be harder to get to so noobs can’t just rez zerg from waypoints that are 5 seconds away.

imo they should move the dragons to their own dedicated zones, with only 1 waypoint at the opposite end. it should require a raid sized force just to get to the dragon, and there should be no timer. imo the only reason for the timer in these events is because they are so easily res zerged. if the nearest waypoint was a 5 minute run instead of 5 seconds, the whole zerg would be wiped by the time you got back, and the dragon would reset. the penalty for wiping should just be that you have to start completely over at the start of the zone.

people would only show up to these open world “raids” if they were serious about downing the dragon. trolls wouldn’t be able to just waypoint in and screw around.

you don’t have to put content in an instance to keep the pugs out and make it “raid” like. look at how DAoC did dragons and high level dungeons. they just need to be harder to get to so noobs can’t just rez zerg from waypoints that are 5 seconds away.

imo they should move the dragons to their own dedicated zones, with only 1 waypoint at the opposite end. it should require a raid sized force just to get to the dragon, and there should be no timer. the penalty for wiping should just be that you have to start completely over at the start of the zone. imo the only reason for the timer in these events is because they are so easily res zerged. if the nearest waypoint was a 5 minute run instead of 5 seconds, the whole zerg would be wiped by the time you got back, and the dragon would reset.

people would only show up to these open world “raids” if they were serious about downing the dragon. trolls wouldn’t be able to just waypoint in and screw around.

no thanks. if there was a reward for capping the points, the karma/wxp zerg train would overrun the new areas.

the opportunity to engage in small scale skirmishes without worrying about getting run over by a zerg is more than enough reward imo.

LameFox.6349:

It’s not worth the time. The risk is at most a few silver.

exactly. there’s really no “risk” in anything in this game. it’s just time. and teq is no longer worth the time.