Suggestion:Replace Ruins with a Capture the Fort Event

[Acheron.4731]

I think ppl would be more inclined to join in if they saw a 3 way fight with 5 red 5 blue 5 green vs just seeing 15 orange dots...it would look like you are about to run into a havoc grp or small zerg :)

[iKeostuKen.2738]

@Acheron.4731 said:I think ppl would be more inclined to join in if they saw a 3 way fight with 5 red 5 blue 5 green vs just seeing 15 orange dots...it would look like you are about to run into a havoc grp or small zerg :)

Youd be seeing 10 orange dots :P

[Acheron.4731]

@iKeostuKen.2738 said:

@Acheron.4731 said:I think ppl would be more inclined to join in if they saw a 3 way fight with 5 red 5 blue 5 green vs just seeing 15 orange dots...it would look like you are about to run into a havoc grp or small zerg :)

Youd be seeing 10 orange dots :P

Oops, ty :)

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:I like the idea but how about the walls and gates are reduced to rubble. would attract roamers that way.

also it would be cool if it acted like a king of the hill type deal. once your team gets a full capture and hold it for 5 min you get the buff for half an hour or something like that.

If there are no walls or gates, then it is essentially the same as ruins where there is just a capture circle. At least with walls/gates it gives players a chance to defend and time to run to the fort. The problem with having a buff for too long is that it will deter players from continuously fighting over it. The idea is to promote a continuous flow of fights.

you say you want to promote fights and not t3 siege, yet you want the fort to have functioning walls and gates? how does that make sense. if there were 3 entry points, then no it wouldn't be just like ruins. a fight every 30 min that would probably last for a decent while, depending, sounds good to me. if you make it too frequent then everyone will flock there and it will be hard to get people to flip camps and towers. w/e tho lol its not like it matters that much.

[X T D.6458]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:I like the idea but how about the walls and gates are reduced to rubble. would attract roamers that way.

also it would be cool if it acted like a king of the hill type deal. once your team gets a full capture and hold it for 5 min you get the buff for half an hour or something like that.

If there are no walls or gates, then it is essentially the same as ruins where there is just a capture circle. At least with walls/gates it gives players a chance to defend and time to run to the fort. The problem with having a buff for too long is that it will deter players from continuously fighting over it. The idea is to promote a continuous flow of fights.

you say you want to promote fights and not t3 siege, yet you want the fort to have functioning walls and gates? how does that make sense. if there were 3 entry points, then no it wouldn't be just like ruins. a fight every 30 min that would probably last for a decent while, depending, sounds good to me. if you make it too frequent then everyone will flock there and it will be hard to get people to flip camps and towers. w/e tho lol its not like it matters that much.

As I pointed out in my first post, there would be no siege (cannons, mortars etc) and the walls and gates would be paper. There has to be some kind of barrier to entry to give a little breathing room and time for defenders. Also since this doesn't reward points towards warscore for capping, it still leaves regular objectives important to attack and defend.

[Whiteout.1975]

Yea @X T D.6458. I like the idea of a simple fort that is always... Well, simple.

I really like what @"Strider Pj.2193" said about having 3 points inside. Something would just seem kinda off to me to potentially solo something like that. If you truly wish to encourage fights. There is so much space in the middle of that map that honestly a good size structure would probably do it justice. Plus if there are multiple break in points, given it's size, It becomes harder to defend. Like you see with keeps/towers in DB BL. It doesn't have to be a "complex" structure... Just a "simple" structure. Anyways, cool idea ?

• Side note: If you really wanted too also. Depending how the structure is set up. You can even add underwater metal gates. Like in under EBG Green keep. Since the area has a good amount of water surrounding it. If you wanted it to be even harder to defend. Just throwing that out there.

[X T D.6458]

@Whiteout.1975 said:Yea @X T D.6458. I like the idea of a simple fort that is always... Well, simple.

I really like what @"Strider Pj.2193" said about having 3 points inside. Something would just seem kinda off to me to potentially solo something like that. If you truly wish to encourage fights. There is so much space in the middle of that map that honestly a good size structure would probably do it justice. Plus if there are multiple break in points, given it's size, It becomes harder to defend. Like you see with keeps/towers in DB BL. It doesn't have to be a "complex" structure... Just a "simple" structure. Anyways, cool idea ?

• Side note: If you really wanted too also. Depending how the structure is set up. You can even add underwater metal gates. Like in under EBG Green keep. Since the area has a good amount of water surrounding it. If you wanted it to be even harder to defend. Just throwing that out there.

It would definitely be a very simple square structure, nothing special about it in terms of design and layout. If you have 3 capture points inside it becomes near impossible to capture it, especially if there are 3 zergs fighting. You would essentially have 3 groups camping points, rather than fighting over one essentially leading to stalemate rather than a continuous flow of fights. The way I see it should be like an alternative to SMC but without all the things that impede fights.

[Whiteout.1975]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:Yea @X T D.6458. I like the idea of a simple fort that is always... Well, simple.

I really like what @"Strider Pj.2193" said about having 3 points inside. Something would just seem kinda off to me to potentially solo something like that. If you truly wish to encourage fights. There is so much space in the middle of that map that honestly a good size structure would probably do it justice. Plus if there are multiple break in points, given it's size, It becomes harder to defend. Like you see with keeps/towers in DB BL. It doesn't have to be a "complex" structure... Just a "simple" structure. Anyways, cool idea ?

• Side note: If you really wanted too also. Depending how the structure is set up. You can even add underwater metal gates. Like in under EBG Green keep. Since the area has a good amount of water surrounding it. If you wanted it to be even harder to defend. Just throwing that out there.

It would definitely be a very simple square structure, nothing special about it in terms of design and layout. If you have 3 capture points inside it becomes near impossible to capture it, especially if there are 3 zergs fighting. You would essentially have 3 groups camping points, rather than fighting over one essentially leading to stalemate rather than a continuous flow of fights. The way I see it should be like an alternative to SMC but without all the things that impede fights.

Well... Let's see. If you have 3 zergs or groups fighting 1 of them is still usually going to win. If it's a stalemate and they are just sitting there (lol) then this add's risk to losing other potential structures that may be owned on the map... Or result in giving up taking a currently owned structure. Risk is added and no one can solo a game wide buff for their team. That's how I see it. Other than that I agree :)

[Strider Pj.2193]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:Yea @X T D.6458. I like the idea of a simple fort that is always... Well, simple.

I really like what @"Strider Pj.2193" said about having 3 points inside. Something would just seem kinda off to me to potentially solo something like that. If you truly wish to encourage fights. There is so much space in the middle of that map that honestly a good size structure would probably do it justice. Plus if there are multiple break in points, given it's size, It becomes harder to defend. Like you see with keeps/towers in DB BL. It doesn't have to be a "complex" structure... Just a "simple" structure. Anyways, cool idea ?

• Side note: If you really wanted too also. Depending how the structure is set up. You can even add underwater metal gates. Like in under EBG Green keep. Since the area has a good amount of water surrounding it. If you wanted it to be even harder to defend. Just throwing that out there.

It would definitely be a very simple square structure, nothing special about it in terms of design and layout. If you have 3 capture points inside it becomes near impossible to capture it, especially if there are 3 zergs fighting. You would essentially have 3 groups camping points, rather than fighting over one essentially leading to stalemate rather than a continuous flow of fights. The way I see it should be like an alternative to SMC but without all the things that impede fights.

That would certainly be a risk and that wouldn’t be what I wanted. Thoughts were to have them juuuuussssttt out of long bow range at the edges.. pulls, bombs etc could definitely happen, but I would not be beholden to the three capture circle idea.

Being someone whose small group loves to jump onto the ruins to engage other groups capping it, it would be fun for me, but a single circle would be fine.

?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@X T D.6458 said:As I pointed out in my first post, there would be no siege (cannons, mortars etc) and the walls and gates would be paper. There has to be some kind of barrier to entry to give a little breathing room and time for defenders. Also since this doesn't reward points towards warscore for capping, it still leaves regular objectives important to attack and defend.

so how would you prevent ppl from building siege? having natural chokepoints makes siege such as arrow carts much less effective since ppl can just run past them. I don't get your idea: like I said, why create a defendable structure when that's what you're trying to prevent? it doesn't have to be another siege type thing. it doesn't have to be defendable. it only has to bring fights every so often. isn't that the goal?

[X T D.6458]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@X T D.6458 said:As I pointed out in my first post, there would be no siege (cannons, mortars etc) and the walls and gates would be paper. There has to be some kind of barrier to entry to give a little breathing room and time for defenders. Also since this doesn't reward points towards warscore for capping, it still leaves regular objectives important to attack and defend.

so how would you prevent ppl from building siege? having natural chokepoints makes siege such as arrow carts much less effective since ppl can just run past them. I don't get your idea: like I said, why create a defendable structure when that's what you're trying to prevent? it doesn't have to be another siege type thing. it doesn't have to be defendable. it only has to bring fights every so often. isn't that the goal?

Since it does not upgrade it would not have the standard siege that comes with upgrades, like cannons and mortars. It does not prevent people from building siege, you can build siege anywhere on the map.

[Strider Pj.2193]

But if you kept there from being walls, theoretically there could be a large radius where siege was blocked....

[Strider Pj.2193]

But yeah, some siege would be needed. I wonder if they could do different things with the siege cap? Is that limit different in towers vs keeps? Or is it how much siege in one area?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@X T D.6458 said:Since it does not upgrade it would not have the standard siege that comes with upgrades, like cannons and mortars. It does not prevent people from building siege, you can build siege anywhere on the map.

but if ppl can build siege or are incentivized to do so... the goal of eliminating t3 siege battles and drawing fights becomes moot... even if its paper. ppl will stay in it after its been captured and siege it up.

[X T D.6458]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@X T D.6458 said:Since it does not upgrade it would not have the standard siege that comes with upgrades, like cannons and mortars. It does not prevent people from building siege, you can build siege anywhere on the map.

but if ppl can build siege or are incentivized to do so... the goal of eliminating t3 siege battles and drawing fights becomes moot... even if its paper. ppl will stay in it after its been captured and siege it up.

I never said anything about eliminating t3 siege battles. The whole point of this is to encourage fights outside of EB. One of the deterrents for some people to playing on the borderlands is t3 objectives which turns off many smaller groups and forces them to blob up. This structure takes the concept of SMC but removes upgrades, siege that comes with upgrades, and PPT. It is like a secondary objective that people fight over for bloodlust rather than points for warscore.

[X T D.6458]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:But yeah, some siege would be needed. I wonder if they could do different things with the siege cap? Is that limit different in towers vs keeps? Or is it how much siege in one area?

From my understanding there are 2 types of siege caps. There is a map wide cap, and a radius specific cap that is easily avoidable in open field which is how you see groups putting up a dozen catas so close to each other. The radius cap is more noticeable inside objectives, although you would never know it with the amount of arrow carts people build.

[Yasai.3549]

They should have an SMC on every BL which needs a minute of control to cap.

[Baltzenger.2467]

Put a huge beast/kongor/roshanlike creature at the middle (a big wyvern would be cool), hard to kill, impossible to solo. Kill goes to the last hit like beasts(svanir/uthahein) in sPVP, and those who get the kill get a buff, this buff makes you revive if you die in combat.
Yes, this seems both pve like and taken out of a moba, but in games like dota or hon, this type of objective encourages fights around it, makes fights hazardous, while also giving an incentive for groups to get it in order to tackle a difficult objective.

[DaVid Darksoul.4985]

Bring back SkyHammer

[noot.8641]

Please Anet, do something!! Small scale fights are pretty much dead in wvw, thank the mount and soulbeasts for that. The only thing i do when i enter wvw, is look for small scale fights, but you are destroying that update by update, catering the blobbers, giving them OP mounts, making every class a better roamer than thieves.Make something fun for ppl who like small scale combat, or game will be dead.I wonder how many players we lost today with classic wow, how many ppl i know that went to eso.. Feels like gw2 is solo player game, because all we get is living world shit. I mean if i want single player content, there are way better games than gw2 for that.Just fix the game