WvW frontline mechanic

[Dawdler.8521]

@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...

[ledernierrempart.6871]

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.8036PS2 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.7091]

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.6871]

@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.2397]

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.5419]

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.

[Quench.7091]

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.7918]

@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.1093]

@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.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@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.6812]

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.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

@"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.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

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.1093]

@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

[ledernierrempart.6871]

one thing we could add to this system is that only the team with the most territory on each map earn one point when the tick occur). so the stronger team will always be the primary target instead of having the second most powerfull team targeting the weakest for easy points.that also means that if one of the loosing team gets a surge of players they can caught up with the first team easier. so we get less situation where the first team has so many points that even when it is not first it still earns points so it is even more complicated to dethrone them.