Improving WvW - Objectives, Ruins, Zergs and Loot.

[Lupita.2547]

Improving WvW – Maps, Zergs, and Objectives.

I play GW2, primarily to WvW. I have recently come back after about a 2 year break from GW2 and while I am enjoying myself I was kind of saddened to find that not much has changed… Big Condi Blobs scouring maps, hovering at max range, delicately dancing around red circles. Roaming is virtually non-existent as small groups or individuals as they tend to get run over by the large condition groups with little to no hope of escape. This leaves the small group or individual to join the blob, or die… (Dramatic pause).

How can we change things while allowing for each player to be able to engage in WvW in his or her preferred playstyle? Below are some suggestions I feel could help improve WvW for those that like running in a large group and for those who prefer smaller group encounters.

A larger number of smaller objectives/camps

Currently outside of Supply Camps, Sentries, and the central Ruins, the number of small group objectives are few and far between. Large groups flood Supply depots to claim supply for sieging as they flow through the map. This leads smaller groups to generally get run over by the larger groups as they move through the maps. Increasing the number of smaller scale objectives that directly affect WvW would increase the utility of smaller group play, and potentially break up the large groups to take smaller supporting objectives.

Ruins – Expanding the system

To do this I would suggest an expansion of the Ruins’ system. Set Ruins outside of Towers (2 flanking the tower) and Keeps (3-4 per surrounding the keep) that would directly affect the attack or defense of that facility based upon who holds the Ruins (i.e. Each Ruin is worth a 1-3% attack, or defense, bonus when held. When all Ruins around the keep or Castle are held an added bonus is applied). This would allow for smaller groups to support the larger Zergs by fighting over the Ruins for bonuses directed specifically toward the current larger objective.The Facility related Ruins can default to the owning realm and give base defensive bonuses, and if left unattended by an attacking force would default back to the defending owner’s status. This would provide incentive to stay on the Ruins to Keep the advantage for attackers, and for defenders to try to keep attacker off the points for the defensive bonuses.

Sentry Camps

Beyond Supply Camps - add in Sentry Camps that when captured could spawn roaming Veteran Sentries. These Sentries could be additional support for Supply Caravans or slow down individual and small group movements around the map. You could also use these camps in a similar manner to Conquest (sPvP) to spawn Veteran/Elite/Champion NPCs to help Attack or defend Camps/Keeps/Castles.I admit I haven’t thought this one out as much (it came to me when formulating my thoughts on Ruins and reading the forums), but I thought it would be a cool idea and lead to more small group objectives that can be used to support your team overall. Eternal Battle Grounds already somewhat employs these tactics with the Hylek, Orge’s, and Grawl which support supply camps. I would like to see this implemented in all maps and have the Mob’s respawn and roam maybe between Supply Camps and keeps instead of being extra fodder for the Zerg’s that roll through.

Loot

All of this would also require a redesign of loot rewards from capturing Towers and Keeps. I would suggest removing loot from directly killing (hitting) the Lord, and tie loot to the Capturing the final objective. Any player which helps capture a Keep or Supporting Ruin by scoring points/capture ticks from any capture zone would gain loot from the capture. This means smaller supporting groups do not need to be in the Tower/Keep Lord room to gain loot/killing/capture credit if they are attacking or defending a Ruin while supporting the main force pushing into the objective.

Map Size

To incorporate these changes the Alpine Maps and EBG would probably need to be slightly larger. The Desert map might need to shrink a little but it’s closer to an appropriate size for these additions (without mounts). The current Desert map is actually better for Larger Zerg groups (in my opinion) due to the Tower and Keep layouts and Mechanics slowing how quickly the Zergs can move around the map, however, the Supply camps and Sentries are also spread further apart creating larger distances for small groups to roam. While this is beneficial for the smaller groups so they can avoid getting run over by the larger Zergs finding other small groups to combat with can be tedious/difficult as they are circling the map avoiding the large groups. Also, the larger forces of player tend to avoid this map due to the distances and lack combat on the map overall.

Conclusions

I believe the additions of one or all of these systems (particularly the Ruins system expansion) would lead to a better environment for conflict in WvW for both Large and Small groups allowing people to play in the manner in which they like and would encourage large groups to split up to hold smaller objectives while attacking Castles and Keeps. This could help break the big blob roaming Meta and encourage the coordination of large and small groups to claim objectives.

[Turk.5460]

More small objectives would be a nice addition to promote solo and small 1-3 man teams.

[XenesisII.1540]

We kinda already do have systems in place as what you described, and that is the shrines on the desert borderland, in which you capture all three shrines to gain bonuses for that area with the keep. Mind you those bonuses are kinda crap and an attacking zerg doesn't really care to worry about them, they just smash down the walls or gate and move in without giving a second thought about you being able to travel through lava pits.

There are a couple other games that I often wonder if their mechanics would work for gw2.In ESO you can capture the three surrounding small objectives in order to break the port to the main keep or tower, like tapping the keep in gw2 but you actually have to hold the objectives to do so.In Warhammer online you had to capture two of three surrounding objectives in order to be able to attack the keep, if you lost the objectives the keeps went back to being invulnerable.In those games the small objectives are forcing you to hold in order to attack the big objective. In gw2 they don't so the mechanics get ignored by the attacking team. You mentioned having to stay and hold the objective to get the bonuses and really that's the first step into getting people to fight over something.

In regards to sentry camps, as you mentioned we already do have that setup, with the skritt, centaur, ogres, hylek, dredge, and formally quaggan in the middle of alpines. The only problem is they're terribly implemented and have no real impact so they get ignored for the most part, they attack supply camps and that's about it. The quaggan use to weakly attack hills. I do like the idea of turning them basically into stronghold npcs to attack structures, maybe paying badges in order to spawn those npcs, to a limit.

I do think there should be more interesting small objectives around the maps, alpine could certainly use a couple in the north areas.

[Thereon.5219]

What if it was changed to the following:

The Keeps/Towers own that particular area on the map like they do already, owning those locations gives the server the rights to earn the points for that territory.

Monuments/other possible additions(Lumber mills/mines/small villages) are added to those particular Keeps/Towers (outside the walls) which when the holding server owns it adds to the points they earn a tick and if they lose detracts from the points they earn per tick. Enemy teams taking it doesn't add to their points unless they capture the tower/keep (To make sure keeps/towers are relevant) but prevents the server who owns the territory from adding those points to it's collective until retaken.

This serves to keep towers/keeps relevant but offers smaller groups an opportunity to dent the economy of the opposing server by not have to bust down the walls but offering them an opportunity to raid and lessen the value of those keeps/towers.

[RodOfDeath.5247]

With you 100% on small groups.

What would be nice is the sentry markers only went off if there were greater than 2-3 players in the general area lets say. My current server is a bit empty, so the bigger servers get incredibly bored so 50 man zergs will show up for 2 of us at times if we are trying to ninja a tower or camp. Small groups rarely get the opportunity they use to IMO depending on the matchup. It further demoralizes people and yet the bigger servers whine "there's nobody to fight, dead game, WVW IS DEAD" when it is entirely their cause. I mean we all been there one time on our server....except blackgate lol

There's too much automated intel being offered to the point scouting has nearly been eradicated. Some players took great pride in helping out commanders with scouting, defensive siege set up, and upgrading towers. I think that's where a lot of wvw went down south. Now players are a like a magnet to the tag instead of spreading out and assisting and working as a core group on map but in various locations. Wonder what would happen if they offered some incentive if a player spend x number of time scouting a tower. As in you build the fortified wall by hand,, the gate, and craft dragon banners, etc.

[Vavume.8065]

@Turk.5460 said:More small objectives would be a nice addition to promote solo and small 1-3 man teams.

There is already enough small objectives for solo roamers or small groups, they are called.... camps... the addition of more small objectives would only mean you are less likely to even get a fight at one of those objectives, since the pool of offensive roamers and roaming defenders is already very small. This is assuming you are roaming for fights.

[Lupita.2547]

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Turk.5460 said:More small objectives would be a nice addition to promote solo and small 1-3 man teams.

There is already enough small objectives for solo roamers or small groups, they are called.... camps... the addition of more small objectives would only mean you are less likely to even get a fight at one of those objectives, since the pool of offensive roamers and roaming defenders is already very small. This is assuming you are roaming for fights.

I think the issue is that the large groups must go to these camps for supply and typically ending up running over the small group roamers. Possibly a fix for this is if the Supply Caravans would carry supply that large groups could regenerate their supply while protecting a caravan instead of having to go tot he camps. Then the camps could possibly remain as small group objective roamers could fight over while the larger groups help escort supply.

Cutting off enemy supply lines/caravans could also assist in resupplying the larger groups once they have killed the caravan. For this Caravans would have to be much more durable both offensively to repel smaller groups from taking them out, and defensively so that it would take a large group more than 5 hits to kill it. This could draw larger fights to the caravans which would serve a much larger purpose carrying enough supply to supply a tower/keep, or a large group of players.

Turn caravan into mobile open area fighting zones between camps that reward victors with Supply for the tower/keep and/or the victorious group.

Let's keep the idea's flowing and give Anet a good basis for improvement that they can put in WvW to make it better.

[Lupita.2547]

@XenesisII.1540 said:We kinda already do have systems in place as what you described, and that is the shrines on the desert borderland, in which you capture all three shrines to gain bonuses for that area with the keep. Mind you those bonuses are kinda crap and an attacking zerg doesn't really care to worry about them, they just smash down the walls or gate and move in without giving a second thought about you being able to travel through lava pits.

There are a couple other games that I often wonder if their mechanics would work for gw2.In ESO you can capture the three surrounding small objectives in order to break the port to the main keep or tower, like tapping the keep in gw2 but you actually have to hold the objectives to do so.In Warhammer online you had to capture two of three surrounding objectives in order to be able to attack the keep, if you lost the objectives the keeps went back to being invulnerable.In those games the small objectives are forcing you to hold in order to attack the big objective. In gw2 they don't so the mechanics get ignored by the attacking team. You mentioned having to stay and hold the objective to get the bonuses and really that's the first step into getting people to fight over something.

In regards to sentry camps, as you mentioned we already do have that setup, with the skritt, centaur, ogres, hylek, dredge, and formally quaggan in the middle of alpines. The only problem is they're terribly implemented and have no real impact so they get ignored for the most part, they attack supply camps and that's about it. The quaggan use to weakly attack hills. I do like the idea of turning them basically into stronghold npcs to attack structures, maybe paying badges in order to spawn those npcs, to a limit.

I do think there should be more interesting small objectives around the maps, alpine could certainly use a couple in the north areas.

Exactly! The systems are in place. Now is the time to expand on them; beef them up; improve them to be more dynamic and have a larger impact on the game world so that players need to address them to further impact the war against the other realms. I by no means think we should reinvent the wheel for WvW but with the systems in the game and the amount of effort and resources that have been put into the rest of the game world, Anet has the assests in the game to improve the WvW experience, they just need to enact them.

[Seffen.2875]

I do not like this post:

@Lupita.2547 said:Improving WvW – Maps, Zergs, and Objectives.

I play GW2, primarily to WvW. I have recently come back after about a 2 year break from GW2 and while I am enjoying myself I was kind of saddened to find that not much has changed… Big Condi Blobs scouring maps, hovering at max range, delicately dancing around red circles. Roaming is virtually non-existent as small groups or individuals as they tend to get run over by the large condition groups with little to no hope of escape. This leaves the small group or individual to join the blob, or die… (Dramatic pause).

This is plain wrong. There is a lot of roaming Happening. Especially in lower Tier Servers.

How can we change things while allowing for each player to be able to engage in WvW in his or her preferred playstyle? Below are some suggestions I feel could help improve WvW for those that like running in a large group and for those who prefer smaller group encounters.

A larger number of smaller objectives/camps

Currently outside of Supply Camps, Sentries, and the central Ruins, the number of small group objectives are few and far between. Large groups flood Supply depots to claim supply for sieging as they flow through the map. This leads smaller groups to generally get run over by the larger groups as they move through the maps. Increasing the number of smaller scale objectives that directly affect WvW would increase the utility of smaller group play, and potentially break up the large groups to take smaller supporting objectives.

This are actually a lot of small objectives. a real lot. and every objective is somehow contributing to the map. Bigger Groups always kill smaller if they are better. Crowding the map will not make it easier to avoid big Zergs. Go on DBL if you want that. ist bigger.

Ruins – Expanding the system

To do this I would suggest an expansion of the Ruins’ system. Set Ruins outside of Towers (2 flanking the tower) and Keeps (3-4 per surrounding the keep) that would directly affect the attack or defense of that facility based upon who holds the Ruins (i.e. Each Ruin is worth a 1-3% attack, or defense, bonus when held. When all Ruins around the keep or Castle are held an added bonus is applied). This would allow for smaller groups to support the larger Zergs by fighting over the Ruins for bonuses directed specifically toward the current larger objective.The Facility related Ruins can default to the owning realm and give base defensive bonuses, and if left unattended by an attacking force would default back to the defending owner’s status. This would provide incentive to stay on the Ruins to Keep the advantage for attackers, and for defenders to try to keep attacker off the points for the defensive bonuses.

Already got that. Improve it first before trying anything. Right now it is useless. Making sieging even harder right now would be just bad. BTW this would make sieging a lot harder for small Groups. No easy peasy going to the Tower and taking it but instead trying to ge a grip on the samll objectives. Totally contrary to what you want. Really, really bad idea.

Sentry Camps

Beyond Supply Camps - add in Sentry Camps that when captured could spawn roaming Veteran Sentries. These Sentries could be additional support for Supply Caravans or slow down individual and small group movements around the map. You could also use these camps in a similar manner to Conquest (sPvP) to spawn Veteran/Elite/Champion NPCs to help Attack or defend Camps/Keeps/Castles.I admit I haven’t thought this one out as much (it came to me when formulating my thoughts on Ruins and reading the forums), but I thought it would be a cool idea and lead to more small group objectives that can be used to support your team overall. Eternal Battle Grounds already somewhat employs these tactics with the Hylek, Orge’s, and Grawl which support supply camps. I would like to see this implemented in all maps and have the Mob’s respawn and roam maybe between Supply Camps and keeps instead of being extra fodder for the Zerg’s that roll through.

Also already in game. Useless to the bones and not a challenge for anyone. If you really want to Change something try to implement offensive NPC commanders. (like in MOBAS a big minion that can carry you into the Tower.) make camps for them.

Loot

All of this would also require a redesign of loot rewards from capturing Towers and Keeps. I would suggest removing loot from directly killing (hitting) the Lord, and tie loot to the Capturing the final objective. Any player which helps capture a Keep or Supporting Ruin by scoring points/capture ticks from any capture zone would gain loot from the capture. This means smaller supporting groups do not need to be in the Tower/Keep Lord room to gain loot/killing/capture credit if they are attacking or defending a Ruin while supporting the main force pushing into the objective.

Getting the loot for capturing is a good idea. Getting loot for beeing somewhere else is again a very very bad idea. Will be exploited as soon as you implement it.

Map Size

To incorporate these changes the Alpine Maps and EBG would probably need to be slightly larger. The Desert map might need to shrink a little but it’s closer to an appropriate size for these additions (without mounts). The current Desert map is actually better for Larger Zerg groups (in my opinion) due to the Tower and Keep layouts and Mechanics slowing how quickly the Zergs can move around the map, however, the Supply camps and Sentries are also spread further apart creating larger distances for small groups to roam. While this is beneficial for the smaller groups so they can avoid getting run over by the larger Zergs finding other small groups to combat with can be tedious/difficult as they are circling the map avoiding the large groups. Also, the larger forces of player tend to avoid this map due to the distances and lack combat on the map overall.

Nobody likes the map size of DBL and you want to make the ABL the same size. Not good. (Just take a look at any trait on this.) What is the Point of WvW if you make so everyone can avaoid each other?

Conclusions

I believe the additions of one or all of these systems (particularly the Ruins system expansion) would lead to a better environment for conflict in WvW for both Large and Small groups allowing people to play in the manner in which they like and would encourage large groups to split up to hold smaller objectives while attacking Castles and Keeps. This could help break the big blob roaming Meta and encourage the coordination of large and small groups to claim objectives.

My Conclusion:

Just Keep playing WvW for some more time. These ideas are plain bad and will not help anyone.

[Malafaia.8903]

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Turk.5460 said:More small objectives would be a nice addition to promote solo and small 1-3 man teams.

There is already enough small objectives for solo roamers or small groups, they are called.... camps... the addition of more small objectives would only mean you are less likely to even get a fight at one of those objectives, since the pool of offensive roamers and roaming defenders is already very small. This is assuming you are roaming for fights.

What came first, egg or chicken?

[Vavume.8065]

@Malafaia.8903 said:

What came first, egg or chicken?

Wrong forums...

[Lupita.2547]

Does anyone have ideas of how to get more people interested in WvW. Many of the threads are about how locked servers are preventing people from moving to consolidate the WvW population to populate the maps. Why don't we discuss how to get more people from populated servers interested in WvW and into the maps participating in the battles.

This would be a great addition to the ideas I've posted above. Please share how you think we can get more people involved in WvW that doesn't have to do with server merges as that topic is being beat to death.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Lupita.2547 said:Does anyone have ideas of how to get more people interested in WvW. Many of the threads are about how locked servers are preventing people from moving to consolidate the WvW population to populate the maps. Why don't we discuss how to get more people from populated servers interested in WvW and into the maps participating in the battles.

This would be a great addition to the ideas I've posted above. Please share how you think we can get more people involved in WvW that doesn't have to do with server merges as that topic is being beat to death.

That's a little complicated since the mega servers make the PvE areas tough to recruit from.

We have had an influx of, (depending on your perspective) new players interested in WvW, or pip farmers looking for more shinies, which has been met with mixed reactions by some.

The veteran base needs to be willing to offer training/advice in a fashion that comes across different than: 'you are an idiot, do what I tell you'

And the new players need to be willing to receive the guidance to do well in the mode,

If both of those things happen, we might expand the base.

One of the hardest things, is that any new to the game player starts on a server that is in a lower tier. Identifying those and bringing them into guilds is vital. Just from a sheer numbers perspective, there are fewer of those guilds in the lower pop servers..

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Lupita.2547 said:Does anyone have ideas of how to get more people interested in WvW. Many of the threads are about how locked servers are preventing people from moving to consolidate the WvW population to populate the maps. Why don't we discuss how to get more people from populated servers interested in WvW and into the maps participating in the battles.

This would be a great addition to the ideas I've posted above. Please share how you think we can get more people involved in WvW that doesn't have to do with server merges as that topic is being beat to death.

Those was once done via two things; non-mega server map chat and pvx guilds that do wvw.

For the first thing, we are now megalized.

For the second thing, anet doesn't want pvx guilds.