Adding More Waypoints to WvW - How To Potentially Increase Player Attention — Guild Wars 2 Forums

JANUARY 2019 AFC: Members of the team that created Episode 5 of Living World Season 4 – All or Nothing – will be participating in an ArenaNet Forum Chat that is open to your posts now and runs through Friday, January 18. Join us in the dedicated AFC Subforum!

Adding More Waypoints to WvW - How To Potentially Increase Player Attention

Twyn.7320Twyn.7320 Member ✭✭✭

It's kind of already stated in the title, but I'd like to propose a bit more detail before the community gets their fair share of: 'NO.' or 'YES.'

What I'm proposing is that WvW needs more Waypoints. What I'm not proposing is that all of the Waypoints are unlocked without a degree of incentive or 'challenge'.

The simple fact of the matter for a lot of 'average players' is that we walk into WvW, do a couple of team-fights, capture a camp, finish some dailies and disappear to other parts of the game. I'd love to have more of a reason to actually stay in the mode because I think the general foundation of WvW is actually quite impressive, but its potential isn't being utilised effectively. To explain my formula of 'thinking' for WvW: I log in > I do my activities > We lose a team fight > I log out and do other things because running back is 90% of WvW if you're on an outnumbered server, or your team is generally horrendous.

So, why not mitigate the fact that people like me hate spending 90% of their time running around a zone, literally doing nothing, with the chance of surviving long enough to POTENTIALLY do something useful? What if there's another way to actually help other areas of the mode?

And here it is: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

This provides an incentive to capture Keeps and Towers because you're not only gaining more places to quickly respawn at, you're also denying the other team a chance to quickly counter you in other areas. It makes supply caravans more worthwhile, as they're the tools that we'll use to upgrade the Keeps/Towers to forge these Waypoint links. Therefore, Camps become essential to provide the supply caravans, to begin with.

All of it trickles down, and for the benefit of convenience, it actually breathes life and incentives into the wider aspects of WvW. This also benefits people who love team-fights, because they'll happen more often if two teams own Keeps/Towers that are opposite or adjacent to each other, instead of having to run back for 5 minutes to the other side of the map. Honestly, for the benefit of this convenience, I think a large number of players would see an opportunity in playing WvW, even if it's something this minor that flips the balance.

Whilst I'm not expecting this to fix all of the issues, as it's only one fix, I think it's something that could work. I understand that the 'running back' concept could be deemed a sort of 'punishment' for defeat, but it just kills interest for the average player when there's nothing to reinforce the victories that you've had on the lead up to defeat. Looking at a green, red or blue icon that shows that you've captured something is great, but it loses impact unless it actually does something useful.

After a long spell of capturing locations, an average player can look at the map and see a string of Waypoints and be like: 'Mhm, I did something useful for everyone else today. I'll do this again tomorrow because I actually have a use outside of the team-fights!'

It makes small-group roaming more useful, as with multiple avenues for Keeps/Towers to be taken, the Commander Groups might become smaller. Instead of one, huge blob, you might have three, smaller blobs. With smaller blobs to follow, comes the greater risk of being out-roamed by the exceptionally talented roamers, meaning that their role also increases in value as they can delay the capture of a Keep/Tower long enough for another blob to arrive to reinforce it. Thus, it could potentially create instances of actual sieges. Obviously, this last point is hypothetical, but on the rare chance, it could happen.

So these are my ideas, and it all stems from a simple concept: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

Community, say your piece on the matter! DON'T BE TOO MEAN! :cold_sweat:

Comments

  • Etterwyn.5263Etterwyn.5263 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2019

    I've donned 3 layers of asbestos. My body is ready.

    For mobility pusposes, they should enable mounts in WVW. With restrictions!

    They will be mobility enhancers, and have restrictions not necessary in PVE. Foremost, dismounting does NO damage, and has NO CC effect.

    There should be a WXP mastery track for each mount (encourage rank increases)

    1) basic access to the mount (can only be summoned in controlled areas)

    2) dismounting provides a single mount-specific boon for a short time

    3) enhanced mount movement unlocked (similar to PVE Mastery 3)

    4) endurance recharges 25% faster while mounted

    5) ability to summon mounts in non-controlled areas

    I know there will be a lot of contention with #5, but just as Anet has painstakingly ensured mounts can't be used in Jumping Puzzles, they can disable mounts wherever it would break game continuity. (no jumping/flying into keeps)

    People can get around faster, and Anet sells more mount skins... win-win! And maybe people wouldn't hate Desert BL so much anymore!

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The OP raises interesting questions, I'm going to try and offer my opinion in bullet points, and hopefully it will be easy to tell which point I'm addressing:

    • Based on the scenario you described, the reason new players are logging out of WvW isn't because of the long walk, but because they are dying too quickly. Adding waypoints will just enable you to quickly jump to another part of the map to die, and I don't see how that is less frustrating. The question should be: why are they dying so quickly, but that would be forum post on its own.
    • Teams already have incentive to control towers/keeps, though it varies from player to player: warscore, server pride / desire to win, bait to bring enemy groups out so they can fight.
    • Waypoints are so easily contested, most maps you're lucky to be able to port to your garrison. This would just entice even more afk Treb spamming, much like what you see against SMC 24/7
    • Being able to port to towers would massively benefit the larger group, giving even more advantage to large squads over small packs. Roamers have means to traverse terrain quickly and undetected (to a point, harder after Marked mechanic) but that's part of the fun, or so I'm told.
    • Waypoints in every tower would not reduce the size of blob, but result in the exact opposite. Blobs are formed mainly because of a shortage of commanders, but also because of a desire to be unstoppable. A 50 person squad is less likely to lose a fight than 2x 25 person squads. By adding the ability to quickly port around the map, you remove the one disadvantage there is of having large blobs, that being they can only be on one end of the map at a time, and so can't respond quickly to every tap. If the commander could quickly port from one corner to another, you might see more blobs, not less.
    • Running back isn't a punishment, its just a part of the game mode. New players aren't getting frustrated from having to run back, they are frustrated from having died. In organized groups that didn't wipe, players get revived after the fight is over to minimize the travel back. Again the solution is to address why players are dying quickly, again for another forum post.

    Running back to tag / last spot also has some built in advantages:

    • Quick access to a vendor to empty bags. (don't dismiss this, it can be a big deal!)
    • Chance to top off on supply
    • On the journey back you can scout enemy movement or respond to threats near spawn / garrison

    and...

    • Running back to tag / last spot gives opportunities for enemy roamers to play a role beyond scouting when the blobs are out and about.

    TLDR, adding additional waypoints would create more problems for the game mode, and give added support to the very 50 member blob meta that players complain about.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    TL;DR make winning servers win even easier.

    The argument for more waypoints completely breaks down with the way tiered objectives currently work and how they grind all action to a halt at low populations. Making more waypoints would make it pointless to play. Because in addition to T3 theres always going to be people waiting on arrowcarts. Sure solo roamers looking for duels wouldnt be hurt by it but it would completely kill smallscale havocs.

    HoT killed havoc, this would just be a small pile of garbage lit ablaze on the corpse. After all, ewp is already a thing.

    OP, why not advocate point placement wherever you please? Just open the map at spawn and BOOP! there you are safely tucked into the Zerg and ready for action?

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

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

    What happens when they eventually put mounts in wvw?
    You can place emergency waypoints in t3 towers, so it's partly already there.
    The importance of keeps in the game is to hold it for the waypoint.
    The importance of towers in the game is to use it for offensive purposes, either as a place to keep your troops safe, or use long range siege on the next objective, and defending it obviously to cut this off.
    Let's not forget you can also be ressed out in the field, so you don't always have to make a trip.

    ESO kinda uses the same method that you can teleport to any building with a lattice system, as long as you own the previous building connections to it and the 3 objectives around it(if I remember that right). But they have a huge map and buildings don't upgrade like wvw(again if I remember that right) to compensate for this, it's really punishing not to have forward ports even with mounts.

    For wvw, the maps are much smaller and it really doesn't take that long to transverse it. The garrison keeps are usually under your control and waypointed, the towers don't make that much difference in travel(certain exceptions like desert towers, which the south towers were the original spots for the waypoints) and with the way the waypoints lock now under combat forcing ewp instead, it's not going to matter that much.

    The change would also be highly advantageous to defenders as attackers don't usually stick around long enough to baby sit structures to t3, not when it takes a 2 hour period to upgrade which will probably be lost as soon as they leave the map. If it was built like ESO it would make more sense spending time babysitting structures to keep the waypoint while your zerg is on the map. EBG has a hard time even trying to keep the outer towers, nevermind trying to keep an offensive tower to t3 when battle lines change all the time in there. ABL north towers won't ever switch when they get radar active with waypoint, the keeps only ever get waypointed if held from reset. DBL is the only real benefit here since the towers are so far away from other objectives and the map more convoluted with garbage to make traveling harder.

    At the end of the day making movement easier around the map isn't going to make it that much more convenient for a player, if they're still dying easily out in the field. The greatest frustration for a player is dying, having to run back is a minor punishment to push you to get better, but dying to players and potentially broken op specs makes it worse. Players need to play better and smarter to last longer out in the field. Lastly I'm sorry but coming to wvw the the priority of doing dailies and then maybe take a battle on if it's conveniently close to you doesn't exactly sound like a dedicated wvw, I highly doubt these same players will be sticking around for hours to upgrade towers for waypoints.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    Maguuma: Free ppt, come and get it!

  • Jumpin Lumpix.6108Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    It's kind of already stated in the title, but I'd like to propose a bit more detail before the community gets their fair share of: 'NO.' or 'YES.'

    What I'm proposing is that WvW needs more Waypoints. What I'm not proposing is that all of the Waypoints are unlocked without a degree of incentive or 'challenge'.

    The simple fact of the matter for a lot of 'average players' is that we walk into WvW, do a couple of team-fights, capture a camp, finish some dailies and disappear to other parts of the game. I'd love to have more of a reason to actually stay in the mode because I think the general foundation of WvW is actually quite impressive, but its potential isn't being utilised effectively. To explain my formula of 'thinking' for WvW: I log in > I do my activities > We lose a team fight > I log out and do other things because running back is 90% of WvW if you're on an outnumbered server, or your team is generally horrendous.

    So, why not mitigate the fact that people like me hate spending 90% of their time running around a zone, literally doing nothing, with the chance of surviving long enough to POTENTIALLY do something useful? What if there's another way to actually help other areas of the mode?

    And here it is: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

    This provides an incentive to capture Keeps and Towers because you're not only gaining more places to quickly respawn at, you're also denying the other team a chance to quickly counter you in other areas. It makes supply caravans more worthwhile, as they're the tools that we'll use to upgrade the Keeps/Towers to forge these Waypoint links. Therefore, Camps become essential to provide the supply caravans, to begin with.

    All of it trickles down, and for the benefit of convenience, it actually breathes life and incentives into the wider aspects of WvW. This also benefits people who love team-fights, because they'll happen more often if two teams own Keeps/Towers that are opposite or adjacent to each other, instead of having to run back for 5 minutes to the other side of the map. Honestly, for the benefit of this convenience, I think a large number of players would see an opportunity in playing WvW, even if it's something this minor that flips the balance.

    Whilst I'm not expecting this to fix all of the issues, as it's only one fix, I think it's something that could work. I understand that the 'running back' concept could be deemed a sort of 'punishment' for defeat, but it just kills interest for the average player when there's nothing to reinforce the victories that you've had on the lead up to defeat. Looking at a green, red or blue icon that shows that you've captured something is great, but it loses impact unless it actually does something useful.

    After a long spell of capturing locations, an average player can look at the map and see a string of Waypoints and be like: 'Mhm, I did something useful for everyone else today. I'll do this again tomorrow because I actually have a use outside of the team-fights!'

    It makes small-group roaming more useful, as with multiple avenues for Keeps/Towers to be taken, the Commander Groups might become smaller. Instead of one, huge blob, you might have three, smaller blobs. With smaller blobs to follow, comes the greater risk of being out-roamed by the exceptionally talented roamers, meaning that their role also increases in value as they can delay the capture of a Keep/Tower long enough for another blob to arrive to reinforce it. Thus, it could potentially create instances of actual sieges. Obviously, this last point is hypothetical, but on the rare chance, it could happen.

    So these are my ideas, and it all stems from a simple concept: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

    Community, say your piece on the matter! DON'T BE TOO MEAN! :cold_sweat:

    They need to add mounts to wvw.

  • @Etterwyn.5263 said:
    I've donned 3 layers of asbestos. My body is ready.

    For mobility pusposes, they should enable mounts in WVW. With restrictions!

    They will be mobility enhancers, and have restrictions not necessary in PVE. Foremost, dismounting does NO damage, and has NO CC effect.

    There should be a WXP mastery track for each mount (encourage rank increases)

    1) basic access to the mount (can only be summoned in controlled areas)

    2) dismounting provides a single mount-specific boon for a short time

    3) enhanced mount movement unlocked (similar to PVE Mastery 3)

    4) endurance recharges 25% faster while mounted

    5) ability to summon mounts in non-controlled areas

    I know there will be a lot of contention with #5, but just as Anet has painstakingly ensured mounts can't be used in Jumping Puzzles, they can disable mounts wherever it would break game continuity. (no jumping/flying into keeps)

    People can get around faster, and Anet sells more mount skins... win-win! And maybe people wouldn't hate Desert BL so much anymore!

    1) only mount up from MAIN starting area for your map.
    2) No extra boons, even glider in WvW does not give any bonus boons.
    3)No standard mount speed ,
    4)No, again glider got no bonus recharge why should mounts.
    5) BIG KITTEN NO, this is one of the main reasons I feel that dev's don't want mounts in WvW. They could easily break some of the maps. As in breaking into enemy keeps etc.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2019

    If it only worked while under the outmanned buff maybe, all things considered. Due to the more dominating server's typically controlling more tower/objectives anyways. And the smaller being able to maintain such tiers on average. Would have to test it tbh. Not gonna pretend like I know exactly what would happen.

    If fight's are actually good. I could see some incentive here. Though, that's debatable to some degree among each individual (because balance mainly). Thus, is Risky in terms of whether or not fight's will actually be considerably good or not.

    So is this a reliable incentive to have for everyone (at least those that actually like to fight and not hide in towers)? Most likely not, on average (Especially considering balance issues primarily since HoT IMO). Though, does it have potential? Possibly. Just is an overall unreliable source, for a consistent enough incentive to exist IMO. Interesting Post though @Twyn.7320 :) . That said, I wouldn't mind trying in out in light of what I said and as long as it didn't get too much in the way of other more important things in the usually more interesting... view? of @Anet

    Guild Pride > Server Pride
    WvW: "We are all Hamsters running on a wheel. After we are done running on our wheels. Our treat so to speak is ANOTHER WHEEL (Server to fight). If not the same very wheel we just got done running on... excuse me while I go look around for a real treat."

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    If it only worked while under the outmanned buff maybe, all things considered. Due to the more dominating server's typically controlling more tower/objectives anyways. And the smaller being able to maintain such tiers on average. Would have to test it tbh. Not gonna pretend like I know exactly what would happen.

    If fight's are actually good. I could see some incentive here. Though, that's debatable to some degree among each individual (because balance mainly). Thus, is Risky in terms of whether or not fight's will actually be considerably good or not.

    So is this a reliable incentive to have for everyone (at least those that actually like to fight and not hide in towers)? Most likely not, on average (Especially considering balance issues primarily since HoT IMO). Though, does it have potential? Possibly. Just is an overall unreliable source, for a consistent enough incentive to exist IMO. Interesting Post though @Twyn.7320 :) . That said, I wouldn't mind trying in out in light of what I said and as long as it didn't get too much in the way of other more important things in the usually more interesting... view? of @Anet

    Good points. With EMergency Way Points being an option later in the upgrade process (well, actually in the ‘time claimed’ process) we know that WPs are programmed for all towers.

    Maybe this could be a WvW event week to trial it.

    I don’t like the idea personally, but wouldn’t be opposed to an event week, which, IIRC the devs noted event weeks would be things that wouldn’t require significant new coding.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 Yea I agree. A week event wouldn't be a bad idea IMO ether. If it's reasonable enough.

    Guild Pride > Server Pride
    WvW: "We are all Hamsters running on a wheel. After we are done running on our wheels. Our treat so to speak is ANOTHER WHEEL (Server to fight). If not the same very wheel we just got done running on... excuse me while I go look around for a real treat."

  • Kiroshima.8497Kiroshima.8497 Member ✭✭✭

    Personally, waypoints removed from keeps and placed into Camps would be more ideal. Preferably with a supply cost related to the camp's level (Level 0: 10, Level 1: 5, Level 2: 3, Level 3: 1). Camps should be the main staging areas for offense AND defense, as there are more of them, they aren't directly on/in objectives, and they relatively easy to contest, although I would adjust the waypoint to only contest while the camp Ring is up (lets you actually defend the waypoint). The waypoint would be disabled while RI is active of course.

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Do whatever you like to desert borderlands.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • @Kylden Ar.3724 said:
    If anything, WvW needs LESS waypoints to encourage active defense/scouting.

    defense and scouting is boring, and makes people want to quit the game.

    pvp is supposed to be about just that, players vs players... not player standing on a wall admiring the scenery.

    note: not arguing for or against waypoints.

  • @Justine.6351 said:
    Do whatever you like to desert borderlands.

    lol, so true... cant make it any worse... probably not anyhow... i hope

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭

    I wouldn't mind a one-way teleporter at each desert spawn that placed you at one of several random spots in the ruins - maybe with a 5s cooldown between uses or something so you can't just wp an entire zerg halfway across the map.

    It might encourage roaming in the middle/north of the map.

  • rng.1024rng.1024 Member ✭✭✭

    Would be an interesting mechanic as a tactic (1 each map), where you become a siege engine like the charr bike, but slow moving and with a big symbol over your head. The 5 skill ejects you and destroys it, creating an EWP. However it should only work in territory you own, so that when you push the blob out of air keep you better capture both camps fast to deny them the ease of teleportation. Could also be used by a roamer who's opened both walls in order to bring the blob over.

  • Twyn.7320Twyn.7320 Member ✭✭✭

    From the replies, I've mainly gathered 2 things:

    1: People are viewing this from a lens of 'team-fighting = WvW'. If that's all there is to do in WvW, why not just beg for a flat field and three spawns to repeatedly team-fight until you get bored? The reality = It'd get boring very quickly. Additionally, I don't see how it makes dominant servers more dominant. If anything, it makes it easier to counter dominant servers, if outnumbered teams play smartly. If outnumbered teams cap multiple objectives, they can prevent the dominant server from hopping around and dominating. It's a risk-reward, and overall, it's a fundamental fact that some servers will always dominate so it's best to put those servers against each other. If a completely dominant, mass population server is fighting two servers with literally no population, that's a problem for WvW in general, which would need to be rectified for this to become a possibility.

    2: Unfortunately, you're not looking at pulling 'dedicated veterans' into WvW at this point. You're looking to pull the 'average player' into WvW, and the average player adores convenience. Death can be annoying at times, but it's less annoying if there's less challenge in the way of getting back to the action. If you have to run across a map for 10 minutes after dying, that can be a massive turn-off for some people. In the past, Anet's added PvE rewards to artificially inflate the populations of both PvP and WvW. This isn't the answer, as people take up slots that can be used by actual players, just to AFK farm in a base. So, essentially, if you want to hit two birds with one stone:

    ANet could remove the tick counter for reward tracks and the match track, and base it solely on objective capture instead. Like capturing a camp gives 1 pip, capturing a tower gives 2 pips, capturing a keep gives 3. And then, you have the additional pips for rank, additional for outnumbered etc etc.

    The change in my original post can't work in isolation, it has to work with other things in conjunction. If ANet implemented the WP thing in match-ups where one team dominated two others, it'd be absolutely broken and unfair. However, if they implemented it to match-ups that were MORE OR LESS fair, it could help to alleviate some of the issues for the 'average player who adores convenience' and give more incentives to existing players.

  • I think waypoints should be available for sentries, towers (not emergency waypoints). And ambient creatures can be upgraded to provide waypoints so enemies must be forced to deal with it. #empowerbunnies2019lonelycharrsstandingalonesilly

    this would make it possible for a group of 10 who lost to two overpowered roamers obviously on troll/cancer builds to contest the ring before a sentry/tower gets taken over by throwing their lives over and over because they'd get back in action in less than 15 seconds (1 second if you are a thief/Mesmer). this certainly puts a setback on roaming but it would please more people who still are handicapped by less time practicing dodging and jumping puzzle moves required in small scale fights.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2019

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    The change in my original post can't work in isolation, it has to work with other things in conjunction. If ANet implemented the WP thing in match-ups where one team dominated two others, it'd be absolutely broken and unfair. However, if they implemented it to match-ups that were MORE OR LESS fair, it could help to alleviate some of the issues for the 'average player who adores convenience' and give more incentives to existing players.

    Except that the change would make it unfair and help the domination. It wouldnt matter if everyone came into the matchup all balanced because objective tiers - and thus wp inside - unbalance it. The "fights" doesnt matter. It just helps T3. Once you get that T3, it will be prohibitivly pointless to attack it. Scout balloon + free wp? Hahaha... you can literally just sit in a keep and wait for dots to appear before tp. People really wont bother attacking that.

    To take an example in a microcosmos, yesterday I was roaming early prime. It was DBL. Both enemies had small groups (3-4 peeps) and some randoms, while we only had a few randoms. Got ganked by their groups multiple times and they could run around at will. They could cap our camps with 2 peeps even when I fought them 1v2 twice and had time to call it out in chat.

    But guess what? We're ticking 300. Every objective except their spawntower is ours and T3.

    Do you think they would have liked it if our poor, defenseless home border that cant even protect a camp also have waypoints everywhere? Balance isnt determined by fights.

  • Twyn.7320Twyn.7320 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Except that the change would make it unfair and help the domination. It wouldnt matter if everyone came into the matchup all balanced because objective tiers - and thus wp inside - unbalance it. The "fights" doesnt matter. It just helps T3. Once you get that T3, it will be prohibitivly pointless to attack it. Scout balloon + free wp? Hahaha... you can literally just sit in a keep and wait for dots to appear before tp. People really wont bother attacking that.

    So perhaps the solution is to make people choose between the Scout Balloon and the WP? Add some tactical incentive behind it, so that people can't just have everything at once?

    Also, attacking a T3 should be quite difficult. It shouldn't be easy, but there needs to be more reason to actually attack one. Unless you REALLY care about server pride, the point system in WvW is irrelevant. From my experience, WvW = Team-fights and roam-the-map capping objectives for WXP. I rarely ever look at 'who's winning the match', because it means nothing, aside from getting 1 extra pip on a reward track.

    Essentially, the things that you do in WvW mean nothing, they have no lasting effect unless you invent something to take pride in. This is just a potential solution to create more of a lasting effect, so people pop back to actually care about the point system and winning matches. Giving substantial rewards, could be a good fix, if they aren't PvE-related. But I just feel that the issues are largely due to problems with the overall mechanics of the mode, rather than needing to artificially inflate population with rewards.

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    1: People are viewing this from a lens of 'team-fighting = WvW'. If that's all there is to do in WvW, why not just beg for a flat field and three spawns to repeatedly team-
    fight until you get bored? The reality = It'd get boring very quickly. Additionally, I don't see how it makes dominant servers more dominant. If anything, it makes it easier > to counter dominant servers, if outnumbered teams play smartly. If outnumbered teams cap multiple objectives,

    And by increasing map mobility you make it easier for the enemy team to respond to attacks on objectives they control, making it easier for the larger team to then stomp on the outnumbered team.

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    2: Unfortunately, you're not looking at pulling 'dedicated veterans' into WvW at this point. You're looking to pull the 'average player' into WvW, and the average player
    adores convenience. Death can be annoying at times, but it's less annoying if there's less challenge in the way of getting back to the action. If you have to run across a map > for 10 minutes after dying, that can be a massive turn-off for some people. In the past, Anet's added PvE rewards to artificially inflate the populations of both PvP and
    WvW. This isn't the answer, as people take up slots that can be used by actual players, just to AFK farm in a base. So, essentially, if you want to hit two birds with one
    stone:

    I'm an average player with an account less than a year old. When I first started WvW, I too was frustrated by the long walk from the respawn. But I learned about the WvW game mode, created a character with a meta build, learned how to operate in a squad run by a commander, and learned how to not die while in said squad. 75% of the time if I die it's because the squad was wiped. (clearly I still have room for improvement)

    I no longer find the run back from respawn frustrating, and I enjoy the game mode immensely.

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    ANet could remove the tick counter for reward tracks and the match track, and base it solely on objective capture instead. Like capturing a camp gives 1 pip, capturing a > tower gives 2 pips, capturing a keep gives 3. And then, you have the additional pips for rank, additional for outnumbered etc etc.

    Now you're just trying to shoehorn your idea into the game. If such sweeping changes are required for your vision to be implemented, perhaps that means your vision isn't a good fit for the game?

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    The change in my original post can't work in isolation, it has to work with other things in conjunction. If ANet implemented the WP thing in match-ups where one team > dominated two others, it'd be absolutely broken and unfair. However, if they implemented it to match-ups that were MORE OR LESS fair, it could help to alleviate some > of the issues for the 'average player who adores convenience' and give more incentives to existing players.

    You will never find "fair" in GW2 WvW. If you listen to the players, some want a game mode where only WvW Guilds can queue up to fight against others GvG, with no "pug" players allowed, while others want a game mode where nobody will form groups large than 5/10 because they hate blobs. Still others want 50 vs 50 Conquest style maps, or as you even described, just flat terrain with no NPCs or objectives, where players can focus on just killing each other.

    It's impossible to create a single game mode that everyone will enjoy equally because of a difference in preferences and expectations.

  • When you look at the most successful night RESET NIGHT it has 0 waypoints and 0 upgraded structures.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    VR

  • I could imagine a huge cannon at the spawn. You can climb into the cannon, and got shot to some random location on the map.

    Maybe you'd trop south of the bay, maybe north camp, maybe the ruins, you never know. But you would save the time, to run there by yourself ;)

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    So perhaps the solution is to make people choose between the Scout Balloon and the WP? Add some tactical incentive behind it, so that people can't just have everything at once?

    ... sort of like having waypoints for keeps but not balloons, balloons for towers but not waypoints? Hmm.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    So perhaps the solution is to make people choose between the Scout Balloon and the WP? Add some tactical incentive behind it, so that people can't just have everything at once?

    ... sort of like having waypoints for keeps but not balloons, balloons for towers but not waypoints? Hmm.

    Heh.. I see what you did there. :smile:

  • Twyn.7320Twyn.7320 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Twyn.7320 said:
    So perhaps the solution is to make people choose between the Scout Balloon and the WP? Add some tactical incentive behind it, so that people can't just have everything at once?

    ... sort of like having waypoints for keeps but not balloons, balloons for towers but not waypoints? Hmm.

    That's not remotely what I've suggested. As in, for Towers and Keeps, you get the choice between having a Balloon there or a WP. So, you can either have lots of vision, or lots of waypoint potential, or a blend of the two.

  • Twyn.7320Twyn.7320 Member ✭✭✭

    Overall, from this discussion alone as it's gone in so many different angles, I get the impression that WvW only needs reasonable balance and people will be fine with it? Is there a need for ANet to make additional features for WvW, or is it just the balance that needs fixing? I think that's the point to establish, generally.

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 12, 2019

    What I take from this idea is:

    • Running back sucks.
    • I want a tanglible way to see that what I've done matters.
    • Alternatively: Capturing/Holding should feel important, not numbers.

    Running:

    One side of the coin is that it isn't fun to run back from say Citadel to Bay because someone tapped Garrison as well. But on the other hand the placements of waypoints also serve to create attrition.

    If we're fighting over Bay and attacker got a WP in SWT, while the defenders has a WP in NWT, that siege will likely not come to an end any time soon. Now I know some would like that, but it kind of wrecks havoc on actually trying to win, and not just wanting a pvp-meat-grinder (which I know some would like). This would have negative impacts for the actual points, and those that wants to play for that.

    What I guess that you want, is basically a map with instant action, and ignore the strategic aspect of wvw. I think there are merits in that, and personally wish they made more varied maps for WvW, so people could enjoy different play-styles.

    While reading your post, I was reminded about a map idea someone asked about a while ago, Basically making the map a circle, where keeps and towers blocked/walled off parts, so you had to break through/take one to get to the next area. Basically a 2 front war. With stronger defensive positions the further back you got pushed, until you basically could stand in your spawn area and roll boulders down to auto-break the walls of your home tower. That kind of map would basically create 2 fronts, so you could always just go there to find action.

    Ironically, I like what EotM did there, auto WP in your home keep. This gives you good mobility to reach a good portion of the map, and if its tapped or taken, you spawn close enough to have attrition in your favor anyways.


    Feeling of Progress:

    I think this is one of the largest problems with WvW as it is, very few people take it very serious because all you do is lose a few points, perhaps lost the week match, yay 1 instead of 3 boxes of random blue+green loot. Most players probably don't feel very engaged by watching PPT numbers.

    The problem with his is that if you put anything valuable/good/important etc to controlling a point, then you're going to get even more stacking problems than we got now.

    So they will have to come up with some sort of "advantage" you have while holding specific buildings, that people would want, but doesn't give a combat advantage to the team owning them. That's a very difficult thing to pull off, I honestly have no suggestions for how to pull that off.

    DaoC was famous for locking one of the best farming dungeons behind winning realm vs realm, imagine the outrage if they did something similar to GW2, and then imagine all the screams, in PVE forums.... for opening BlackGate or whatever other server is perceived as the strongest.


    @coro.3176

    Love the idea!

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    Currently playing: Final Fantasy 14 and Dead Cells (Switch)

  • Twyn.7320Twyn.7320 Member ✭✭✭

    @joneirikb.7506 said:
    If we're fighting over Bay and attacker got a WP in SWT, while the defenders has a WP in NWT, that siege will likely not come to an end any time soon. Now I know some would like that, but it kind of wrecks havoc on actually trying to win, and not just wanting a pvp-meat-grinder (which I know some would like). This would have negative impacts for the actual points, and those that wants to play for that.

    What I guess that you want, is basically a map with instant action, and ignore the strategic aspect of wvw. I think there are merits in that, and personally wish they made more varied maps for WvW, so people could enjoy different play-styles.

    I feel bad for only highlighting this bit because the wider post could solve a few issues! So basically, this is a valid, teething issue. Essentially, the only fixes for this are to make the 'time-to-capture' shorter on points OR make it so you can only WP once you've respawned fully. So you still have to die and go through that 10s punishment of not being able to take part.

    As for what I personally want, I want a map that allows me to hop around and benefit from things, due to the work of others on my team and vice versa. There needs to be more variety in the strategy of WvW because overall, there isn't much strategy involved in WvW at the moment. You run to a Tower, upgrade to get a Scout Balloon. Read the map, engage in team-fights and hope that you can capture more objectives than others to 'keep a number ticking over'. I think the best way to put this is: I want a map that gives instant engagement, rather than instant action.

    If I log in and I see that a Tower near our base has been stealth-capped which denies a WP that could be tactically used to help in an assault, I could gather a group of people up to retake it and feel like I'm helping the 'war effort'.

    Another example is if two Towers/Keeps with waypoints are being attacked, Commanders will have to decide which ones they're going to try and save, thinking about wider strategies. You could split the numbers in half, but run into a full zerg of 50 people and get ruined because you chose to have a Waypoint instead of a Scout Balloon. You could make your own 50-person zerg and try to counter one of the two locations, but another one falls to 10 people who are roaming about and allows another team to capture two camps without you being able to intervene.

    If anything, the two examples inspire more strategy and team-play, purely from an injection of variety. Commanders have to work together to place Scout Balloons in the right locations and Waypoints in the right locations, depending on how the other teams are playing. This inspires more communication within teams (voice or text) because if a guild sticks a Waypoint at a terrible place, it could really hurt a team.

    If the idea needs a limitation to stop people from swapping between the Scout Balloon and Waypoints at will, to keep Camps active, the swap between a Waypoint and a Balloon could have a high supply cost. If suddenly, you feel like a Guild is hampering your chances at winning as a Team, you could be able to 'buy out' their ownership with supplies to prevent trolls and toxicity.

  • aspirine.6852aspirine.6852 Member ✭✭✭

    More waypoints and even mounts in wvw would suck balls.

  • Twyn.7320Twyn.7320 Member ✭✭✭

    @aspirine.6852 said:
    More waypoints and even mounts in wvw would suck balls.

    If Waypoints were added with no adjustments to other areas, it wouldn't work. So, unfortunately, we don't have a working model of WvW to assess that would benefit by adding more Waypoints. For instance, if they just added Waypoints tomorrow, and nothing else was done to fit them in, it'd be a really unpopular move. But as part of a wider move to inject more strategy and tactics in WvW, such as increasing the progression time of upgrading Towers and Keeps so that you don't unlock Waypoints or Scout Balloons in the early game, I believe that it'd be highly beneficial and would add more depth to WvW. And overall, if a Tower/Keep is captured, the upgrades are removed and it starts again, and the same when the round ends. At the start of a new round, there wouldn't be any Waypoints. They'd likely only start coming into play at around the halfway mark, maybe even 75% of the way through a round of WvW. I'm not saying that it should be instant access and just by capturing a Tower, you unlock a Waypoint. I'm saying that there needs to be progression on top of capturing a Keep/Tower that unlocks Waypoints and Scout Balloons and makes players choose between the two for variety and tactics. To me, that's a strategic move, and benefits WvW.

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

    Short reply (because I'm tired):

    • I think part of what you want could be achieved with simple changes to the upgrade system, like having 1 optional upgrade for towers/keeps, with a list of different ones that where mutually exclusive. And I'm going to point out that that could be very interesting if it came at the cost of T3 fortifications. Either get Waypoint OR T3 fortifications on that keep.
    • Irrelevant of map etc, there still doesn't feel like any point to most structures (other than points).
    • I think it would be better to replicate most of what you're asking for with just designing a new map based around it. (closer/smaller, shorter time to reach activity etc) But obviously that is not going to happen.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    Currently playing: Final Fantasy 14 and Dead Cells (Switch)

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    I could imagine a huge cannon at the spawn. You can climb into the cannon, and got shot to some random location on the map.

    Maybe you'd trop south of the bay, maybe north camp, maybe the ruins, you never know. But you would save the time, to run there by yourself ;)

    You know what, that would be actually kinda fun. I'm down.

    Leader of PvE/WvW Havoc Guild - Tyrian Adventure Corporation [TACO] - Kaineng since the start, and till KN is no more.

    Do not fear simplification of the game, there is elegance in simplicity that allows more time for playing and less time building.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    I could imagine a huge cannon at the spawn. You can climb into the cannon, and got shot to some random location on the map.

    Maybe you'd trop south of the bay, maybe north camp, maybe the ruins, you never know. But you would save the time, to run there by yourself ;)

    You know what, that would be actually kinda fun. I'm down.

    Just put the ‘cattlepault’ there. It’s already in PvE

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

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    I could imagine a huge cannon at the spawn. You can climb into the cannon, and got shot to some random location on the map.

    Maybe you'd trop south of the bay, maybe north camp, maybe the ruins, you never know. But you would save the time, to run there by yourself ;)

    You know what, that would be actually kinda fun. I'm down.

    Just put the ‘cattlepault’ there. It’s already in PvE

    Cattlepult for life!

    Question is, would it also let you land inside objectives ? I can just imagine the pain of a mesmer or thief cattlepulted into your keep :p

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    Currently playing: Final Fantasy 14 and Dead Cells (Switch)

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    I could imagine a huge cannon at the spawn. You can climb into the cannon, and got shot to some random location on the map.

    Maybe you'd trop south of the bay, maybe north camp, maybe the ruins, you never know. But you would save the time, to run there by yourself ;)

    You know what, that would be actually kinda fun. I'm down.

    Just put the ‘cattlepault’ there. It’s already in PvE

    Cattlepult for life!

    Question is, would it also let you land inside objectives ? I can just imagine the pain of a mesmer or thief cattlepulted into your keep :p

    I think we got our next WvW weekend boys!

    Leader of PvE/WvW Havoc Guild - Tyrian Adventure Corporation [TACO] - Kaineng since the start, and till KN is no more.

    Do not fear simplification of the game, there is elegance in simplicity that allows more time for playing and less time building.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    I could imagine a huge cannon at the spawn. You can climb into the cannon, and got shot to some random location on the map.

    Maybe you'd trop south of the bay, maybe north camp, maybe the ruins, you never know. But you would save the time, to run there by yourself ;)

    You know what, that would be actually kinda fun. I'm down.

    Just put the ‘cattlepault’ there. It’s already in PvE

    Cattlepult for life!

    Question is, would it also let you land inside objectives ? I can just imagine the pain of a mesmer or thief cattlepulted into your keep :p

    No gliding, and it would need to be like a catapaukt shot: so if direction or height is off.... splat

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.