WvW frontline mechanic — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

WvW frontline mechanic

wouldn't WvW be more enjoyable if castles and forts would be linked to one another and force you to capture the first one before being able to capture the secod one? (you could still destroy walls and doors regardless).

like planetside 2 or ESO.

i just feel like having a sort of frontline would be better than having zerg running everywhere to capture random objectives here and there.
camps and sentinel would not be affected by this.

Comments

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I have suggested this a few times in the past, I use to play PS1 a lot. There are of course problems with it compared to those games, wvw play areas are smaller than planetside or eso, and also wvw structures can be upgraded which could in some cases be a stand still in progress, much like smc is on some days, imagine if a server had to break through smc first in order to get to the other sides.

    While it would be a good mechanic to get frontline focused fighting it also takes away small team stuff, and also being able to sneak cap back line stuff, which is important to provoke split defenses. It does get annoying with zergs just jumping around maps to sneak cap empty stuff though.

    But yeah I think a lattice system would be ok if they make the appropriate changes, first would be to get rid of the scoring system and make structures be worth different bonuses, like how they are in planetside. Then get rid of wall and gate upgrades and put them all to one general level. Then maybe have some open hot spots like camps to still promote some side attacks, or be like eso and have the camps taken first to disable waypoint in keeps, or mini lattice like warhammer online and take the surrounding towers in order to attack the keep.

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    You want the gameplay to be even more linear? Not sure bottle-necking in WvW is wise.

    D:

    it works very well in planetside 2. i believe having a frontline to push or hold would be much more rewarding than capturing random undefended castles.

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    I have suggested this a few times in the past, I use to play PS1 a lot. There are of course problems with it compared to those games, wvw play areas are smaller than planetside or eso, and also wvw structures can be upgraded which could in some cases be a stand still in progress, much like smc is on some days, imagine if a server had to break through smc first in order to get to the other sides.

    While it would be a good mechanic to get frontline focused fighting it also takes away small team stuff, and also being able to sneak cap back line stuff, which is important to provoke split defenses. It does get annoying with zergs just jumping around maps to sneak cap empty stuff though.

    But yeah I think a lattice system would be ok if they make the appropriate changes, first would be to get rid of the scoring system and make structures be worth different bonuses, like how they are in planetside. Then get rid of wall and gate upgrades and put them all to one general level. Then maybe have some open hot spots like camps to still promote some side attacks, or be like eso and have the camps taken first to disable waypoint in keeps, or mini lattice like warhammer online and take the surrounding towers in order to attack the keep.

    what i suggest is to add a mechanic on lords that prevent frontline pushing.
    for example, if a small group take out the lord of a castle behind the frontline the enemy team will not be able to push the frontline unless they heal the lord back.
    so you could have smaller group trying to disrupt the backline and taking camps (camps could be made even more important) while the zergs are trying to push the frontline.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:
    what i suggest is to add a mechanic on lords that prevent frontline pushing.
    for example, if a small group take out the lord of a castle behind the frontline the enemy team will not be able to push the frontline unless they heal the lord back.
    so you could have smaller group trying to disrupt the backline and taking camps (camps could be made even more important) while the zergs are trying to push the frontline.

    Interesting idea. But that would mean that the defending side would just lose the lord and not the structure, which most players would probably shrug and go res him unless it's a more involved process, they didn't really lose anything and would the attackers feel rewarded enough for doing all that work of breaking in and taking out a lord but not able to cap the structure? especially if it's a t3 one.

    Putting that idea to camps could be interesting in disrupting the push line, even an outnumbered side could go sneak a camp and halt attack progress into their side.

    My old image of the lattice proposal, I don't remember which way I proposed the lattice to work, it's been two years and don't feel like digging up the thread...

    ^ Another derailing post - Anet
    Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
    A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
    There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

  • ledernierrempart.6871ledernierrempart.6871 Member ✭✭
    edited May 23, 2020

    thats how i see things
    Wv-W-frontline.jpg

    camps may or may not give you the ability to capture a castle behind the frontline. it could have a debuff mechanic or something affecting the linked castles.

    killing a lord in a castle outside the frontline could reset the castle upgrades.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 23, 2020

    I remember in the old days you can easily treb bay from gari. And that was the most irritating thing but fun.

    Devs ought to remember stuff like that. And build on things that work. Not just visually appealing.

    Camp to tower. Tower to keep. Keep to castle. This rule does not apply in dbl. Although I like the fast movement thing thru shrines

    P.s. eso was inspired by gw2 wvw

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @Dawdler.8521 said:
    This is already in GW2 as a soft mechanic and the reason why ABL/EBG is vastly superior from a gameplay perspective compared to DBL, which broke the "invisible rules" of WvW. The Anet devs that made those maps knew what they where doing. DBL... not so much.

    Its really quite simple - keeps threaten tower, towers threaten keeps, thus creating your "frontline" between them.

    Its one of the reasons why WvW is good. It doesnt really handhold and tells us where to go by locking objectives behind artificial restrictions, it lets us do whatever we want while still encouraging us to keep engaging the enemy.

    well ATM the only thing that sometimes keep a zerg from capturing in deep territory is a potential threat of another zerg coming in the back or possible mortar, etc...
    but in the end zergs just capturing anything everywhere whenever they like with a focus on T3.
    no one defend except stonemist and main fortress IF t3. since they can cap it back in 5 min after capturing another target.

    the feeling of having to push & hold a front line is way more rewarding than the current "cap^ture whatever you like wherever you like".working to capture camps and objectives behind the frontline will have that "inside enemy territory" to it.

    in the end it would just change the order in which you capture stuff and make defending more rewarding as it allow the zerg to be aggressive rather than the current "oh i don't care if this got captured i will capture it back in 5min while taking that other castle"

    you will not defend an objective just to keep the T3 anymore but to protect what lies behind.

  • Strider.7849Strider.7849 Member ✭✭✭

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:
    wouldn't WvW be more enjoyable if castles and forts would be linked to one another and force you to capture the first one before being able to capture the secod one? (you could still destroy walls and doors regardless).

    like planetside 2 or ESO.

    i just feel like having a sort of frontline would be better than having zerg running everywhere to capture random objectives here and there.
    camps and sentinel would not be affected by this.

    It wouldn't for me. I think what would be fun is not having your walls all broken because some coward in hills can keep trebbing your tower safely inside his T3 keep.

    I feel that WvW would be more fun if you couldn't treb in complete safety from one fortification to another a long distance away. Just a couple of some bs spots:

    • upper level of SM trebbing from complete safety to all surrounding towers without fear of retaliation. This benefits more servers that vastly outnumber their opponents.
    • trebbing from hills to redlake.
    • bay to briar.

    I remember claiming redlake and we held it 2v8 after we wiped the same group a few times. We spent time running dolyaks and killing all people trying to get the camps to focus on upgrades only for some donkey to start trebbing from inner hills all the way down and destroying our T3 tower because they couldn't fight us even though they outnumbered us several times over.

  • @Strider.7849 said:
    It wouldn't for me. I think what would be fun is not having your walls all broken because some coward in hills can keep trebbing your tower safely inside his T3 keep.

    I feel that WvW would be more fun if you couldn't treb in complete safety from one fortification to another a long distance away. Just a couple of some bs spots:

    • upper level of SM trebbing from complete safety to all surrounding towers without fear of retaliation. This benefits more servers that vastly outnumber their opponents.
    • trebbing from hills to redlake.
    • bay to briar.

    I remember claiming redlake and we held it 2v8 after we wiped the same group a few times. We spent time running dolyaks and killing all people trying to get the camps to focus on upgrades only for some donkey to start trebbing from inner hills all the way down and destroying our T3 tower because they couldn't fight us even though they outnumbered us several times over.

    and why wouldn't you find it more enjoyable?
    no more ghost capping evreywhere. clear and defined frontline where zerg can clash.
    smaller groups becomes hunting parties and camps snatching groups, promoting roaming back as the zerg would have no reason to leave the frontline just for a few ppl who can't cap their stuff except for camps..

    you could also make so you can't destroy walls of an uncapturable fort.. but no one will like this.
    so the treb problem isn't really fixable.. UNLESS treb use ressources to fire.

  • it frustrate me to see zerg stopping a siege becasue there is an undefended castle in the back that is easy to take...
    the goal is to fight top take territory. not picking isolated objectives here and there because it is easy and quick to capture.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 23, 2020

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:
    and why wouldn't you find it more enjoyable?
    no more ghost capping evreywhere. clear and defined frontline where zerg can clash.
    smaller groups becomes hunting parties and camps snatching groups, promoting roaming back as the zerg would have no reason to leave the frontline just for a few ppl who can't cap their stuff except for camps..

    you could also make so you can't destroy walls of an uncapturable fort.. but no one will like this.
    so the treb problem isn't really fixable.. UNLESS treb use ressources to fire.

    And what happens when there is no zerg? Or there is only 1 zerg? Then what? Its either gonna be a series of complete blowouts for the one on the offense, or if they are defending it will completely grind WvW to a screeching halt. You cant start to attack a border when you're outnumbered and the enemy literally spawncamp you 24/7 at the "frontline" because thats the only thing you can cap and the only thing they need to defend.

    Hell I was watching a Battlefield 1 video the other day (reasons why its better than BFV, heh) and the mode he ended up in while discussing it was frontline... and they never got anywhere. Literally was at the first cap the entire round while he was saying "kitten I wish I had been on the defending side, lol". Thats fine for a 30 minute match or so, but not for days or an entire frikking week.

    WvW is open for a reason.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 23, 2020

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:
    it frustrate me to see zerg stopping a siege becasue there is an undefended castle in the back that is easy to take...
    the goal is to fight top take territory. not picking isolated objectives here and there because it is easy and quick to capture.

    No, that is a goal but also flipping a t2 back tower removes ppt even if they recap it in 4m they are getting less points till it upgrades again

  • @Dawdler.8521 said:
    And what happens when there is no zerg? Or there is only 1 zerg? Then what? Its either gonna be a series of complete blowouts for the one on the offense, or if they are defending it will completely grind WvW to a screeching halt. You cant start to attack a border when you're outnumbered and the enemy literally spawncamp you 24/7 at the "frontline" because thats the only thing you can cap and the only thing they need to defend.

    Hell I was watching a Battlefield 1 video the other day (reasons why its better than BFV, heh) and the mode he ended up in while discussing it was frontline... and they never got anywhere. Literally was at the first cap the entire round while he was saying "kitten I wish I had been on the defending side, lol". Thats fine for a 30 minute match or so, but not for days or an entire frikking week.

    WvW is open for a reason.

    if there is only one zerg nothing will change. the zerg will cap everything and change map to continue capping..
    capping an isolated castle for it being recap after 5 min because you are too few isn't usefull.
    i prefer having a confrontation with a zerg that will have trouble coming back instead of avoiding fights to ghost cap.
    if the zerg wants to spawncamp and kill any attempt for your team to cap anything because they are the only zerg on the map they already can.
    if attacking a team is too difficult then attack the other team.
    less castle to capture means more fights for ruins and camps.

    this frontline mechanic isn't THE solution to WvW. but it would work kitten well with WvW and provide that sense of accomplishement WvW lacks.

    here what the map would look like:
    Wv-W-frontline.jpg

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 23, 2020

    Nah. I like having options. This would also destroy smallscale.

    Nerf claim buff and dragon banner, thats all. Defending harder => More willing attackers => More action for all sides. Balance that favors defenders even more would just reduce the amount of action.
    For example in our current matchup whole saturday daytime, one server only played when we hit their upgraded stuff. Otherwise they were afk at spawn/keep. They just stand no chance winning any fights when attacking because they're one of the weaker servers.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, innovator
    Social Experiment [sX] leader
    Desolation+Alt
    Diamond Legend

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:
    Nah. I like having options. This would also destroy smallscale.

    Nerf claim buff and dragon banner, thats all. Defending harder => More willing attackers => More action for all sides. Balance that favors defenders even more would just reduce the amount of action.
    For example in our current matchup whole saturday daytime, one server only played when we hit their upgraded stuff. Otherwise they were afk at spawn/keep. They just stand no chance winning any fights when attacking because they're one of the weaker servers.

    Usually happens when the weaker server lacks commanders too. They often only react in defense since the objective is easy to rally behind without a tag (e.g. clouding SMC).

    D:

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • @Threather.9354 said:
    Nah. I like having options. This would also destroy smallscale.

    Nerf claim buff and dragon banner, thats all. Defending harder => More willing attackers => More action for all sides. Balance that favors defenders even more would just reduce the amount of action.
    For example in our current matchup whole saturday daytime, one server only played when we hit their upgraded stuff. Otherwise they were afk at spawn/keep. They just stand no chance winning any fights when attacking because they're one of the weaker servers.

    but smallscale is already dead. and honeslty, what small competitive guilds wants is fights. jus trunning around ghost capping isn't waht they are looking for.
    population problem should be kinda solved with the new alliance system. wait and see about this one.

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    Usually happens when the weaker server lacks commanders too. They often only react in defense since the objective is easy to rally behind without a tag (e.g. clouding SMC).

    D:

    having a defined frontline would make things easier to group of people without a commadner. so they know where to defend efficiently instead of having everyone running around because the zerg you are facing is ghost caping everywhere in a chaotic fashion. (or just target every T3 then leave the map.)

    i do see the problem of defending becoming more important but that will not stop us from wanting to attack and take that objective at all cost.

    lets do it this way:
    benefit of this system:
    _ promoting more fights.
    _more clash between zerg.
    _sense of fullfillment. (you worked to push the frontline and have that feeling of having achieved something)
    _defending is more important. (right now people only care about defending a T3 or home fortress/stonemist).
    _no more ghost caping.
    _more camp fights and hunting. (especially if having all ruins could enable you to perform special actionsin addition of just a minor stats buff.)

    eventual problems:
    _ less freedom. (but the way the territory are liniked still provide alot of attack option while also making some key area way more important than usual)
    _harder to attack in zerg vs zerg since it is easier to defend. (especially if there is T3 on the frontline and you don't have the choice but to attack there.)
    _ low population server will get in a bottleneck if a zerg spawncamp. (could be somehow fixed by adding a sabotage mechanic where you could open a backline fort and sabotage it to downgrade it. it couold also cut the supply line and prevent the enemy zerg from further capping inside your territory..)
    _ 2 servers against 1. in this situation the focused server would have little to no option to take back or attack behind the enemy line.

    this system works best with balanced population anyway. it will be great with the alliance system.

    (winning or losing a WvW match has no impact whatsoever.)

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:
    Nah. I like having options. This would also destroy smallscale.

    Nerf claim buff and dragon banner, thats all. Defending harder => More willing attackers => More action for all sides. Balance that favors defenders even more would just reduce the amount of action.
    For example in our current matchup whole saturday daytime, one server only played when we hit their upgraded stuff. Otherwise they were afk at spawn/keep. They just stand no chance winning any fights when attacking because they're one of the weaker servers.

    but smallscale is already dead. and honeslty, what small competitive guilds wants is fights. jus trunning around ghost capping isn't waht they are looking for.
    population problem should be kinda solved with the new alliance system. wait and see about this one.

    Pop isn't really problem on any server (at least on EU). Just amount of tags and guilds. Commanders just don't want to tag up open without being on stacked server because defender wins 95% of the fights at any inner tower/presence of the keep. Rn, it is just servers/guilds mostly waiting to be attacked (yes even full guilds just wait around waiting for enemy to attack something). And the ones willing to attack "for fights" (read: farm) are just stacked guildblobs.

    But yea I do have some ideas to help smallscale:

    • Make watchtower only activate when tower is contested
    • Make upgrading objectives require more dolyaks (especially SM), making dolly/camp sniping/defending more important (My recommendation: 25/50/100 dolyaks)
    • Nerf claim buff increasing amount of locations roamers can fight/gank
    • Nerf packed dolyaks to carry 3 times more supply but only count as 1 for upgrade (completely busted rn)
    • increase supply costs to guild golems AND generators while also reducing incoming supply to objectives (supply becomes more important and reduces attacker cheese)
    • remove mount stomping
    • reduce cooldown of Lance (dismount skill) from 30 seconds to 15 seconds

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, innovator
    Social Experiment [sX] leader
    Desolation+Alt
    Diamond Legend

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 24, 2020

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:
    Nah. I like having options. This would also destroy smallscale.

    Nerf claim buff and dragon banner, thats all. Defending harder => More willing attackers => More action for all sides. Balance that favors defenders even more would just reduce the amount of action.
    For example in our current matchup whole saturday daytime, one server only played when we hit their upgraded stuff. Otherwise they were afk at spawn/keep. They just stand no chance winning any fights when attacking because they're one of the weaker servers.

    but smallscale is already dead. and honeslty, what small competitive guilds wants is fights. jus trunning around ghost capping isn't waht they are looking for.
    population problem should be kinda solved with the new alliance system. wait and see about this one.

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    Usually happens when the weaker server lacks commanders too. They often only react in defense since the objective is easy to rally behind without a tag (e.g. clouding SMC).

    D:

    having a defined frontline would make things easier to group of people without a commadner. so they know where to defend efficiently instead of having everyone running around because the zerg you are facing is ghost caping everywhere in a chaotic fashion. (or just target every T3 then leave the map.)

    i do see the problem of defending becoming more important but that will not stop us from wanting to attack and take that objective at all cost.

    lets do it this way:
    benefit of this system:
    _ promoting more fights.
    _more clash between zerg.
    _sense of fullfillment. (you worked to push the frontline and have that feeling of having achieved something)
    _defending is more important. (right now people only care about defending a T3 or home fortress/stonemist).
    _no more ghost caping.
    _more camp fights and hunting. (especially if having all ruins could enable you to perform special actionsin addition of just a minor stats buff.)

    eventual problems:
    _ less freedom. (but the way the territory are liniked still provide alot of attack option while also making some key area way more important than usual)
    _harder to attack in zerg vs zerg since it is easier to defend. (especially if there is T3 on the frontline and you don't have the choice but to attack there.)
    _ low population server will get in a bottleneck if a zerg spawncamp. (could be somehow fixed by adding a sabotage mechanic where you could open a backline fort and sabotage it to downgrade it. it couold also cut the supply line and prevent the enemy zerg from further capping inside your territory..)
    _ 2 servers against 1. in this situation the focused server would have little to no option to take back or attack behind the enemy line.

    this system works best with balanced population anyway. it will be great with the alliance system.

    (winning or losing a WvW match has no impact whatsoever.)

    You forgot the immediate problem:
    People who have played GW2 WvW for 8 years just because its GW2 WvW and the mode they fell in love with gets completely shafted.

    But I suppose that is of no concern. Simple fact is that this mode really doesnt solve any inherent problem of WvW. There is no lack of battles when a map is queued on all sides with commanders.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 24, 2020

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:
    Nah. I like having options. This would also destroy smallscale.

    Nerf claim buff and dragon banner, thats all. Defending harder => More willing attackers => More action for all sides. Balance that favors defenders even more would just reduce the amount of action.
    For example in our current matchup whole saturday daytime, one server only played when we hit their upgraded stuff. Otherwise they were afk at spawn/keep. They just stand no chance winning any fights when attacking because they're one of the weaker servers.

    but smallscale is already dead. and honeslty, what small competitive guilds wants is fights. jus trunning around ghost capping isn't waht they are looking for.
    population problem should be kinda solved with the new alliance system. wait and see about this one.

    Not sure I would try to put down the small scale scene, but you two have fun with that.

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    Usually happens when the weaker server lacks commanders too. They often only react in defense since the objective is easy to rally behind without a tag (e.g. clouding SMC).

    D:

    having a defined frontline would make things easier to group of people without a commadner. so they know where to defend efficiently instead of having everyone running around because the zerg you are facing is ghost caping everywhere in a chaotic fashion. (or just target every T3 then leave the map.)

    That's one interpretation. I'll humor the hypothetical with another. The more guided, and "linear" the game mode becomes it can diminish the point of having a commander tag. Back to a non-hypothetical for a moment: something that ANET has admitted in the past is that a lack of tags seems to correlate with people logging out of the map more quickly. If we influence the need to not have tags, then I would imagine this might align more with ANET's observation. Alternatively people may just cloud-meta to follow a line, and not a person or simply cloud camp their objective. But hey! At least it won't be cloud camping smc 24/7, with this system they can get the same gaming experience at a tower/keep instead.

    i do see the problem of defending becoming more important but that will not stop us from wanting to attack and take that objective at all cost.

    lets do it this way:
    benefit of this system:
    _ promoting more fights.
    _more clash between zerg.
    _sense of fullfillment. (you worked to push the frontline and have that feeling of having achieved something)
    _defending is more important. (right now people only care about defending a T3 or home fortress/stonemist).
    _no more ghost caping.
    _more camp fights and hunting. (especially if having all ruins could enable you to perform special actionsin addition of just a minor stats buff.)

    Too many assumptions, but I'm guessing you're thinking in theory for the benefits. We both can probably agree it will reduce the "ghost capping" you keep mentioning.

    eventual problems:
    _ less freedom. (but the way the territory are liniked still provide alot of attack option while also making some key area way more important than usual)
    _harder to attack in zerg vs zerg since it is easier to defend. (especially if there is T3 on the frontline and you don't have the choice but to attack there.)
    _ low population server will get in a bottleneck if a zerg spawncamp. (could be somehow fixed by adding a sabotage mechanic where you could open a backline fort and sabotage it to downgrade it. it couold also cut the supply line and prevent the enemy zerg from further capping inside your territory..)
    _ 2 servers against 1. in this situation the focused server would have little to no option to take back or attack behind the enemy line.

    I don't like trying to predict people's behaviors/motivations, but it seems to me you have issues with "ghost capping?" The less freedom certainly would reduce this, but it's coming off as a personal gripe. If it is a personal preference, then is that a good feature to build your idea around? What is wrong with servers attempting the staple "garri rush?" You know. On reset night for example (assuming people play during that laggy time).

    this system works best with balanced population anyway. it will be great with the alliance system.

    Good luck with that! I wouldn't want to base an idea off needing a feature that is coming Soon™.

    (winning or losing a WvW match has no impact whatsoever.)

    I don't know why people bring this up for video games. Almost everything in GW2 has no impact on the real world so it can't be that obvivously. What is meant by impact? Do you want more rewards? Less? Do want the score to be calculated differently? Do you want a quest to complete? Do you need a goal to be created, and completed? Do you want recognition of accomplishment or the perception of it? Do you want a dopamine hit and/or a serotonin hit? Regardless, answering or entertaining this question will probably derail from the main idea in this thread so I'm not going to bother with it after this post. Feel free to think it over if you wish.

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    I don't know why people bring this up for video games. Almost everything in GW2 has no impact on the real world so it can't be that obvivously. What is meant by impact? Do you want more rewards? Less? Do want the score to be calculated differently? Do you want a quest to complete? Do you need a goal to be created, and completed? Do you want recognition of accomplishment or the perception of it? Do you want a dopamine hit and/or a serotonin hit? Regardless, answering or entertaining this question will probably derail from the main idea in this thread so I'm not going to bother with it after this post. Feel free to think it over if you wish.

    what i want is a reward for winning the match.
    you get pips for winning in pvp to get that juicy chest.
    you get stuff to buy and new currency by finishing quests.
    a chest for finishing meta events.
    what do you get in WvW at the end of the week? nothing.

    but here's the thing, the last WvW season got ppl going burnout and stop playing the game.
    so i don't know how this can be tweaked to finally make winning as a useful goal.

  • I thought that once too mainly because it is so in every other game . It gives the whole think structure people know where to be and it is less unfair.
    Yes WvW how it is now gives the player an extreme degree of freedom but honestly it get abused very often or how I often say it : 'WvW in Gw2 is the promised land for all trolls' .

    some e.g
    1.) Press all tactics with no real use so it is in CD
    2.) Farm the people who want to join their zerg as roamer
    3.) Letting on prime time a 7 your map(s) fall for GvG
    4.) Doing 3 as the public zerg
    5.) Being the public zerg and invisible so that every allied is confused which isn't in your squad.
    6.) Running as a commander against your own server .
    7) Fokus said commander from 6

    then there are also counter trolling
    1.) claiming a object and putting useless stuff in it and def is to some degree.( including non public tactics)
    2.) Running visible inside a gild to show the enemy gild where your gild which running in stealth is.
    3.) Showing where the invisible public zerg by tagging up to everyone.

    So I think a bit more structure would help to give the players more of a target what to do in this game mode. Instead of letting them invent their own little games inside the game.

  • Faenar.8036Faenar.8036 Member ✭✭

    Lattice system like in Planetside 2, implemented to Guild Wars 2 WvW? I play Planetside 2 too, so I know what you are talking about.

    But my response is "No". Keep in mind that PS2 is a war arena with 500 v 500 v 500 players on a 3 kilometer wide map. In PS2, theres a good reason for lattice system, beside other things it also creates a well recognizable battlefronts. But it wouldnt do any good in GW2, WvW maps are WAY much smaller and with WAY less players than in PS2. PS2 just works differently than GW2 WvW. Imho it would only encourage even more siege wars than now, border Towers would became impenetrable fortresses with 30+ Arrow Carts, Trebs etc. And btw it will also completelly kill entire gameplay for small roaming guilds which are specialized for sneaky-attacking seemingly safe objectives deep inside enemy territory.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ledernierrempart.6871 said:
    wouldn't WvW be more enjoyable if castles and forts would be linked to one another and force you to capture the first one before being able to capture the secod one? (you could still destroy walls and doors regardless).

    like planetside 2 or ESO.

    i just feel like having a sort of frontline would be better than having zerg running everywhere to capture random objectives here and there.
    camps and sentinel would not be affected by this.

    I think it'd be an interesting mechanic for one of the now-mythical WEEK LONG EVENTs, if it could be done easily.

    Thief OP? Better nerf Scourge ... again.
    Hashtag BlameMcLain

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    One idea I saw last time this topic was brought up, that I think looked interesting:

    • Start with the camps, you need to take 1 or 2 associated camps to make a structure vulnerable.
    • Then a tower, once you take a tower, then the associated keep(s) becomes vulnerable.
    • Then go for the Keep (or castle, as SMC shouldn't be locked behind another keep).
      Thus:

    • This both creates a frontline, in that you can see which buildings goes vulnerable.

    • This also usually forces defenders to guess, as most of the time 2 different targets will unlock.
    • This gives roamers, havoc, scouts, defenders something to do, taking camps making towers vulnerable, so others have to go check for zergs/attacks.

    I think it's a system that could work. It doesn't fix all the underlying issues with the game/mode, but it would likely be popular with some people, especially those that enjoy big fights.

    Personally I've always thought that this would make for an interesting stand-alone map, where the entire map resolved around pushing the frontline (territory) back and forth on two fronts (against each other server). I can imagine some people would love it, and others would hate it. But it might work out better to give people different maps for their play style, rather than trying to force everyone into the same.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 25, 2020

    @joneirikb.7506 said:
    One idea I saw last time this topic was brought up, that I think looked interesting:

    • Start with the camps, you need to take 1 or 2 associated camps to make a structure vulnerable.
    • Then a tower, once you take a tower, then the associated keep(s) becomes vulnerable.
    • Then go for the Keep (or castle, as SMC shouldn't be locked behind another keep).
      Thus:

    • This both creates a frontline, in that you can see which buildings goes vulnerable.

    • This also usually forces defenders to guess, as most of the time 2 different targets will unlock.
    • This gives roamers, havoc, scouts, defenders something to do, taking camps making towers vulnerable, so others have to go check for zergs/attacks.

    I think it's a system that could work. It doesn't fix all the underlying issues with the game/mode, but it would likely be popular with some people, especially those that enjoy big fights.

    Personally I've always thought that this would make for an interesting stand-alone map, where the entire map resolved around pushing the frontline (territory) back and forth on two fronts (against each other server). I can imagine some people would love it, and others would hate it. But it might work out better to give people different maps for their play style, rather than trying to force everyone into the same.

    Again this is just such a weird argument.

    If you cap 2 camps supplying a keep, does it not make it vulnerable? It wont get supplies for at least 5 minutes.

    If you take a tower, do you not make the closest keep vulnerable to trebbing? (Ignoring DBL)

    Can you not see what objective is vulnerable when it alerts you within 30s of a nearby enemy action?

    Is not roamers, havocs, scouts, defenders, etc already completely busy keeping the above under control?

    Some people clearly already love this. Does some people hate it? Maybe. Seems odd they would still be playing WvW then...

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • ledernierrempart.6871ledernierrempart.6871 Member ✭✭
    edited May 25, 2020

    i forgot one important thing in my benefit list:
    _ give players a clear objective when no commanders are around leeding to less people leaving.
    this will entice players to naturally group up around a few objectives instead of spreading everywhere until a commander show up.

    anyway, this system NEED to be tested with a quick time event (like the no downed one) and see the feedback.

    @Faenar.8036 said:
    Lattice system like in Planetside 2, implemented to Guild Wars 2 WvW? I play Planetside 2 too, so I know what you are talking about.

    But my response is "No". Keep in mind that PS2 is a war arena with 500 v 500 v 500 players on a 3 kilometer wide map. In PS2, theres a good reason for lattice system, >beside other things it also creates a well recognizable battlefronts. But it wouldnt do any good in GW2, WvW maps are WAY much smaller and with WAY less players than >in PS2. PS2 just works differently than GW2 WvW. Imho it would only encourage even more siege wars than now, border Towers would became impenetrable fortresses >with 30+ Arrow Carts, Trebs etc. And btw it will also completelly kill entire gameplay for small roaming guilds which are specialized for sneaky-attacking seemingly safe >objectives deep inside enemy territory.

    i have the exact opposite opinion about this.
    like i said before comanders prefer taking out easy target first and T3 if possible. most of the time they avoid fights or just mindlessly charge in.
    as there is no reward for winning or losing a match, playing to capture every little structure everywhere to make some points is pointless and not a healthy behavior.
    WvW needs to go back to its root which is clashing and siege warframe.
    roaming will go live again because camps would be the only capturable backline objective which will centralize the fight around them.
    also the frontine, except in some rare occasion, will be set on at least 2-3 fronts (or more if you earn stone mist). so you will have some scout protecting the forts on the other frontline while the zerg go on the offensive. thats when little guilds come in and push the frontline elsewhere.
    or even better! help the zerg while several guild groups doing their thing to kill the other zerg! which would be a sight to behold.

    now i am concerned with lag as there would be more zerg clash than before.. but that should not prevent this frontline idea to at leas tbe tested as a potential WvW upgrade. after all those years, having a little change like this will only be healthy.

    30+ arrow carts can still be done today. people don't do it tho because it is boring to maintain everything every 45min and because of the waste in ressources in can represent.
    also trebs exist.

    @Faenar.8036
    PS2 have a tiny map like the new one they made for 48v48v48 competition. (WvW has at least 80+ max people per team)
    they kept their frontline system and it works very well.
    now imagine that same map but without any frontline system where you can go and cap anything anywhere.
    the zerg would go left and rigth to capture every last undefended area to get points. we would start getting a few small group of 2-3 players roaming everywhere to try to defend areas so that their main zerg would capture quicker than they would lose areas.
    would that be better? i don't think so.

    WvW needs to be designed for people to fight. not running around to make the most points of it!

  • Quench.7091Quench.7091 Member ✭✭

    What if there was a lattice system, but the walls and guards get super buffed, instead of being uncapturable. So buffed that the guards cannot even lose a 5v1. Maybe make it so the lord of the backline camps and towers cannot be soloed. Good compromise, yeah?

  • ledernierrempart.6871ledernierrempart.6871 Member ✭✭
    edited May 26, 2020

    @Quench.7091 said:
    What if there was a lattice system, but the walls and guards get super buffed, instead of being uncapturable. So buffed that the guards cannot even lose a 5v1. Maybe make it so the lord of the backline camps and towers cannot be soloed. Good compromise, yeah?

    spending too much time on pve in a PvP gamemode isn't gonna work. also forts needs to be capturable by a small amount of people in case of low population.

    what we could do is, upon a lord dying, he will auto resurrect in 5 min but can't be healed. while the lord is dead the castle/fort can't be upgraded with dolyack nor will it recieve ressources.
    you could even make so the death of a lord reset upgrades.

    but honestly it is better if we keep it as simple as possible. adding too much mechanic would confuse people and may change the WvW people love and are already accustomed to, too much.
    see how it is already hard to make people acknowledge a simple frontlione system that doesn't change any WvW core mechanic.

  • Mokk.2397Mokk.2397 Member ✭✭✭

    We already have a system that favours the most populated side . A mechanic like this would further skew the battle to the highest population . It would become pointless for people to play when all the over populated side needs to hold a couple points on the map. It would become impossible for the lower populated side to capture anything.
    It would also enforce the massive zerg mentality which is precisely one of the biggest problems in WvW now.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but the OP's suggestion seems like it would offer even more of an advantage to sides that have more players on at any given time. As it is now, players can threaten objectives deeper in enemy territory, forcing the advantaged side to choose whether to divert resources from defending forward objectives to deal with a deeper threat. Without the threat of losing those objectives, nothing would keep the advantaged side from just stacking all of their force on the objectives that would have to be taken first. Servers with numerical advantages already have a stacked deck. I don't see how this would help the underdogs.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Quench.7091Quench.7091 Member ✭✭

    This system can actually bring some stuff against the most populated faction, if the lattice is set up properly. A lattice system requires you to own a connecting base to progress to the next base. The entire idea of the three faction system is that if one faction fails, the other faction can stab the winning side in the back. The current system in WvW doesn't encourage this at all. The two losing sides are often fighting each other. The lattice system in Planetside 2 demotivates the two losing factions from fighting each other by potentially leaving no objective for them to fight over. If one losing side tries to capture a base and they get overwhelmed by a zerg, there might be another team on the second losing side on the other side of the map that does succeed in taking the winning team's bases. The GW2 maps were designed in a way to attempt to capture this. Too bad the freedom to attack any base cannot allow for it to work.

    The current number of bases though might be too small for lattices to provide this benefit. The two losing teams would need to be cutoff from each other to validate this benefit, but the number of bases is so small that the losing teams could probably attack each other from at least one base at all times.

  • hobotnicax.7918hobotnicax.7918 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    I remember in the old days you can easily treb bay from gari. And that was the most irritating thing but fun.

    Devs ought to remember stuff like that. And build on things that work. Not just visually appealing.

    Camp to tower. Tower to keep. Keep to castle. This rule does not apply in dbl. Although I like the fast movement thing thru shrines

    P.s. eso was inspired by gw2 wvw

    You can still treb bay from garri ;)

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @hobotnicax.7918 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    I remember in the old days you can easily treb bay from gari. And that was the most irritating thing but fun.

    Devs ought to remember stuff like that. And build on things that work. Not just visually appealing.

    Camp to tower. Tower to keep. Keep to castle. This rule does not apply in dbl. Although I like the fast movement thing thru shrines

    P.s. eso was inspired by gw2 wvw

    You can still treb bay from garri ;)

    Yes, but it's easy to counter. It's in that cliff where all they need is to balista it.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @Quench.7091 said:
    This system can actually bring some stuff against the most populated faction, if the lattice is set up properly. A lattice system requires you to own a connecting base to progress to the next base. The entire idea of the three faction system is that if one faction fails, the other faction can stab the winning side in the back. The current system in WvW doesn't encourage this at all. The two losing sides are often fighting each other. The lattice system in Planetside 2 demotivates the two losing factions from fighting each other by potentially leaving no objective for them to fight over. If one losing side tries to capture a base and they get overwhelmed by a zerg, there might be another team on the second losing side on the other side of the map that does succeed in taking the winning team's bases. The GW2 maps were designed in a way to attempt to capture this. Too bad the freedom to attack any base cannot allow for it to work.

    The current number of bases though might be too small for lattices to provide this benefit. The two losing teams would need to be cutoff from each other to validate this benefit, but the number of bases is so small that the losing teams could probably attack each other from at least one base at all times.

    ^ THIS.
    i ll add that if a base in the middle of the connected forts/castle gets taken then all the further structure can't be captured since all the lines (connections between structures) needs to be connected up to the main spawn. gate.

  • thehipone.6812thehipone.6812 Member ✭✭✭

    The new pve map made me think that this mechanic would be fun if it were other players on the opposing side and not just npc charr. I honestly can’t see front line being a replacement for “classic” wvw. I think it works better as 1 side v 1side instead of the current 1v1v1. Makes sense to me as as expansion feature and, much like DBL preceded the PoF desert, maybe the current living story map is a sort of test bed for a future Kurzick v Luzon frontline pvp/wvw style fight that would seem to fit a more linear frontline battle. I’d like such a system that more or less automatically balanced the numbers on each side through a lobby or pooling servers- sort of like hotjoin wvw where it might be 15v20, might be 20v20, but it’s not going to be 5vzerg. Whether there is actually the population to support another game mode is a question though, might need to do like ebg where people get pooled and aren’t strictly server separated.

  • @Faenar.8036 said:
    Lattice system like in Planetside 2, implemented to Guild Wars 2 WvW? I play Planetside 2 too, so I know what you are talking about.

    But my response is "No". Keep in mind that PS2 is a war arena with 500 v 500 v 500 players on a 3 kilometer wide map. In PS2, theres a good reason for lattice system, beside other things it also creates a well recognizable battlefronts. But it wouldnt do any good in GW2, WvW maps are WAY much smaller and with WAY less players than in PS2. PS2 just works differently than GW2 WvW. Imho it would only encourage even more siege wars than now, border Towers would became impenetrable fortresses with 30+ Arrow Carts, Trebs etc. And btw it will also completelly kill entire gameplay for** small roaming guilds which are specialized for sneaky-attacking seemingly safe objectives deep inside enemy territory**.

    Well I can only say that is the point people don't want defend their stuff which far away from the front also some commander getting angry because some people running around not with the zerg. About flipping stuff itself there was a thread where some said they reduced the mount jumps because it was too easy to defend . I wished I had a video how wrong this comment was you can even flip a T3 tower in a ludicrous speed when you know how and no I don't mean the Charr Car . Just using offensive boons , build Templates, and PVE rota a iron T3 champion can be killed in 30 s or less and quickness and alacrity works on the catapults and often you can build over cap by building on 2 points. So it takes about 2 minutes(or less) to flip it when everyone know what they are doing. This is for a big zerg too short to react to it.

    Anyway I don't think Arena.NET will do anything because all other stuff we wanted to tie up the lose ends we haven't seen implemented like:

    • private zergs only up to 30 people.
    • 15vs 15 maps in spvp for GvG ?
    • Better rewards for defending objects and capturing it.(even a piece of not identified gear would do it by now9
    • And I don't want to get started on the alliance system.
  • I just realized that with the next add-on there will be properly a new way to travel like in the last 2 add-ons . With the private waypoint in the new PvE map we can guess in which direction this goes also we know that it will be adopted sooner or later in wvw.

    Without such a frontline mechanic the game would be unplayable with such a feature.

    What this also would mean:

    • perma stealth thief can't be a thing in such an environment or people would port in like crazy.
    • the nerfs for the mount would be absolute unjustified in retrospect when/if this comes
  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lord of the Fire.6870 said:

    @Faenar.8036 said:
    Lattice system like in Planetside 2, implemented to Guild Wars 2 WvW? I play Planetside 2 too, so I know what you are talking about.

    But my response is "No". Keep in mind that PS2 is a war arena with 500 v 500 v 500 players on a 3 kilometer wide map. In PS2, theres a good reason for lattice system, beside other things it also creates a well recognizable battlefronts. But it wouldnt do any good in GW2, WvW maps are WAY much smaller and with WAY less players than in PS2. PS2 just works differently than GW2 WvW. Imho it would only encourage even more siege wars than now, border Towers would became impenetrable fortresses with 30+ Arrow Carts, Trebs etc. And btw it will also completelly kill entire gameplay for** small roaming guilds which are specialized for sneaky-attacking seemingly safe objectives deep inside enemy territory**.

    Well I can only say that is the point people don't want defend their stuff which far away from the front also some commander getting angry because some people running around not with the zerg. About flipping stuff itself there was a thread where some said they reduced the mount jumps because it was too easy to defend . I wished I had a video how wrong this comment was you can even flip a T3 tower in a ludicrous speed when you know how and no I don't mean the Charr Car . Just using offensive boons , build Templates, and PVE rota a iron T3 champion can be killed in 30 s or less and quickness and alacrity works on the catapults and often you can build over cap by building on 2 points. So it takes about 2 minutes(or less) to flip it when everyone know what they are doing. This is for a big zerg too short to react to it.

    Anyway I don't think Arena.NET will do anything because all other stuff we wanted to tie up the lose ends we haven't seen implemented like:

    • private zergs only up to 30 people.
    • 15vs 15 maps in spvp for GvG ?
    • Better rewards for defending objects and capturing it.(even a piece of not identified gear would do it by now9
    • And I don't want to get started on the alliance system.

    You can manually lock your squad. I now limit my group to 35 at max so less ppl to worry and proper classes

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.