Why doesn’t WvW lock into 3 way? Or do this...

Now before you bash the title, please read the post...

Why doesn’t WvW just lock into some sort of 3 way? I don’t follow gw2 lore too much but something like a new release about the 3 factions getting into a big fight that escalated into a war resulting in a 3 way between the priory, vigil, and sow. Couldn’t that tie in and be integrated into the system?

This way players can just lock into a faction to support and be super active. The community will figure out the rest. The devs could even release an activity chart which players can determine which server could use filling. I mean, we as a community so it already (Kain, SoR, BG, SOS alliances etc)

Also this could prompt a map change. Why not make one giant map that is ever changing, similar to fortnite. Where some event is happening every month changing the game and making it fresh.

On the gem store, new skins could be released to upgrade the look of keeps, or a style for guards etc. nothing pay to win. Just cosmetic.

There’s more I could feed into all of that but that is just a run down

Is the name really people's hangup about the new system?

What? I can see you don't follow GW2 lore, and I don't either, but the three factions you described band together as an alliance (The Pact). That's just in the base game alone. Irrelevant to the specifics you describe. ANET confessed a while ago on the old forums that they can't change out maps (not edits, but flip between ABL, DBL, EBG, or W.e. ) more often than 3 or 6 months (I forget which, but it's a long time). Also straight full queue 3 ways lag still. Not sure you really want to experience that if wished to have a large map that is practically an entirely new game mode to begin with.

TLDR: This is out of scope.

D:

Couldnt the pact come to an end? Aren’t there ways to introduce a story line as to why? Like a new head in each faction that changes their ways/views and wage war on one another. This could essentially create 3 large “Guilds” that go to “war”...

Remember back in the day when maps were always queued? Why can’t they increase their server size or tweak the game to allow more players on the map?

Why can’t they change maps exactly? I’m not an avid forum user. Just curious and nobody seems to have an answer to questions I have

@Dezarys.1372 said:Couldnt the pact come to an end? Aren’t there ways to introduce a story line as to why? Like a new head in each faction that changes their ways/views and wage war on one another. This could essentially create 3 large “Guilds” that go to “war”...

Remember back in the day when maps were always queued? Why can’t they increase their server size or tweak the game to allow more players on the map?

Why can’t they change maps exactly? I’m not an avid forum user. Just curious and nobody seems to have an answer to questions I haveThat's a fantastic idea!!! I have another which is even better!

IMHO what we really need is more raid bosses in the sPvP maps. For example teams have to fight against the respawning champion raid boss the pirate jack sparrow in Revenge of the Capricorn map so they don't lose the capture points.

@Dezarys.1372 said:Couldnt the pact come to an end? Aren’t there ways to introduce a story line as to why? Like a new head in each faction that changes their ways/views and wage war on one another. This could essentially create 3 large “Guilds” that go to “war”...

Remember back in the day when maps were always queued? Why can’t they increase their server size or tweak the game to allow more players on the map?

Why can’t they change maps exactly? I’m not an avid forum user. Just curious and nobody seems to have an answer to questions I have

While dramatic, its counter productive to the long term story arc unless they plan to completely replace it by yet ANOTHER faction. The overarching premise of Guildwars (dating back at least as far as Factions) is about overcoming differences, and banding together against a REAL threat. And you can't get anymore real then the Elder dragons.... which is a tall order considering we've fought several slightly less ancient villains since GW1.

@Dezarys.1372 said:Why not make one giant map that is ever changing, similar to fortnite. Where some event is happening every month changing the game and making it fresh.

On the gem store, new skins could be released to upgrade the look of keeps, or a style for guards etc. nothing pay to win. Just cosmetic.

One big problem people point out tho is the engine doesn't handle the big battles well. A massive 3-way fight like 120 - 200 people you can't even play most times.

PvP could have been better too like when stronghold was announced people were hoping for some cool gvg style 20's or something but that wasn't so great.

They are doing OK catering to PvE farmers tho, the tried and true.

Camelot Unchained boasts steady fights in the hundreds but ever since they missed their beta launch haven't been keeping up with it.

ADD mounts to wvw and guild capes..... that should resolve the issue. PS add more wvw rank abilities and more racial elite and skills to game. We need more fun in wvw. ALso you can make new siege weapons.

@"displayname.8315" said:Camelot Unchained boasts steady fights in the hundreds but ever since they missed their beta launch haven't been keeping up with it.

Oh oh we've seen that, it looked like a slideshow with character animations rivaling top tier modern games like Elder Scrolls Daggerfall. But that was a few years ago.

I actually sometimes search on "Camelot Unchained gameplay" and I see one just 2 weeks old! And aside from the 640x480 still pictures of gameplay, it has a moving clip!!!

... and its a stuttery unplayable lagfest though I must admit, the graphics only look maybe 10 years old now.

Go figure.

maybe pick something that'd make more sense instead of the orders.

Regarding setting up the Vigil/Priory/Whispers as the 3 teams in WvW. It has a few technical limitations, notably that each player character can choose a different one, making that most players would have access to 1 character of each side. Now just imagine how easy it would be for everyone to log out and pick a character o the winning team, then hit massive queue's, but because human nature is the way it is, they would rather wait in queue than to go back to a character of the losing side. This would also encourage a lot of people to get 3 characters of the same class, one for each Order, just to be able to play their "main".

Also, the entire story around these Orders, are just that the player is instrumental in uniting them into the Pact, thus resolving their differences. It would be pretty counter intuitive for ANet to mess that up and have them war against each others. They would be better off creating new factions for that, and they basically did: Red/Blue/Green or the EotM variants.

In that regard, I think it would probably make more sense to change it into a sort of "dragon war", where you pick one of 3 different dragons, and become "minions" of that dragon, and wage war for your dragons glory. Something like Mordemoth (plant theme), Kratal (crystal theme), and Zhaitan (undead/risen). And make that players appear/look more themed after what they choose toward the enemy, so if you're fighting against a groiup of "zhaitan minions" it would kind of look like you're fighting against Risen players.

Also history has shown us that if:

Server A: FullServer B: High populationServer C: Normal/empty

Players/humans does NOT go to server C, they keep pestering ANet to open Server A for "reasons", and in the mean time try to fill up Server B.

Map changes:

The game already struggles with maps like EBG when there are enough players on the map, so already at a guesstimate of 120x3 the game is near unplayable, enabling more players or making larger maps isn't going to magically bypass that limitation. And that limitation is likely deeply rooted in the software/engine, thus not something you can fix by throwing money at bigger computers or internet connections.

Essentially, there is a better argument for going the other way, slightly smaller maps with lower max player cap, and rather try to create a more hectic/active play-style. Put objectives closer to each others, and make it so you can almost always see the next fight, set a cap at around 60 or so players, but with the smaller map size it will generally feel about the same. (And again, in general, just make more DIFFERENT maps with different ideologies and designs, instead of just re-creating the same style map over and over, thus strangling variety and play-styles.)

Regarding changing out maps (on the fly): It is possible to change a map (alpine <-> desert, for example), but it is not a trivial thing. It boils down to them (ANet) needing to take down the game mode to change a map, so they could change a map every week/wvw reset for example, but they would have to make the programs for that, as I believe they don't have that right now (iirc they had to manually swap desert/alpine the times they've done so, so far).

Regarding Queue's: They initially managed/solved thus by adding EotM that works as a waiting room, that lets you play while waiting in queue. This map also has the same mechanics used for PVE maps, in that it can create multiple instances if there are a lot of players. Thus they already have every mechanic needed to actually remove the problem of Queue's. But they can't add that to the existing WvW because it is designed around 4 maps with specific amounts of PPT/Objecives to fight over for X amount of time. They would need to make changes to several core designs of WvW to allow for more/less points, and how to add/remove that before they could do changes to the maps.

And the WvW populations has steadily dwindled over the years, there simply isn't the same amount of people as there used to be, to the level that several servers was getting so de-populated they couldn't even queue a single map on reset night. That is why we currently have "Linking", which was implemented as a "quick-fix" to make wvw "playable" again. So now we get multiple servers glued together to increase the amount of players in each match-up (also reducing NA match-ups from 8 tiers to only 4).

So I can't see much point in actually spending more resources on making more players on a single map, considering how much of a job it most likely is (guessing, considering I don't have access to know how much of a mess their engine code is, but if it was easy low hanging fruit, I'm certain they would already have done so).

@Dezarys.1372 said:

Also this could prompt a map change. Why not make one giant map that is ever changing, similar to fortnite. Where some event is happening every month changing the game and making it fresh.

If I wanted to play Fortnite, I'd play Fortnite.