Jump to content
  • Sign Up

How to lean-out WvW for simple future development


Recommended Posts

I'm feeling inspired, comming off a broader discussion about leaning-out the game, so it is time to restate an old idea I've mentioned in the past:

If I was a design lead or director for WvW: This is the direction that I would establish

  • I would throw out Obsidian Sanctum and Edge of the Mists as we know them, with all their systems included
  • I would throw out the mode-wide interactive map and delete all Borderlands
  • I would then look to establish two separate modes using the same map/instancing system but different friend-or-foe flagging systems
  • So by clicking WvW in the menu I would have two options: buttons A and B

Button A would be the WvW Matchup mode as we know it, but the finished Alliances version, and it would start off with only EBG

  • Spoiler

     

    • It is teams made up of alliances, guilds and players. It is weekly matchups. It is bi-monthly relinks. It is everything we love and know today - no changes beyond changing the map system
    • For that to work with only EBG they would need to create a multi-instancing system for the map, the same mechanics we see in other modes
    • No queues, additional instances of the map(s) added as the caps are hit and a scoring system that reflects multiple map instances being made (note: use "outnumbered")
    • Why just EBG? Because by using just one simple "container" for a map, they can then more easily skin a number of different maps onto the same back-end environment
      As I've understood Anet: The current problem with making new "maps", is that the interactive map is essentially just one big map (EB, borders, EtoM, OS, all is one big map). That makes the environment with the borders the problem so I would sacrifice them for more maps within a simpler environment.
    • The "content updates" for this main WvW mode could then be new maps made by map designers without needing constant programmer support
    • It just has to be the same shape, size and have the same number of objectives to be tied to all other subsystems (like score): The locations, textures and terrain can change
    • This way, by going down to one container (EBG), we can get many more maps that are similar but different in the future - just adding more and more maps to the bank
    • If it is set to weekly rotations even objectives can change: eg., Week 1 SM is SM and Week 2 SM is a camp, etc. Week 1 has an alpine theme. Week 2 has a desert theme and so on
    • That just can't be done with the borders, because they're not designed to be equal maps with tiebreakers, the way EBG is built, so EBG (or a container of similar design) has to be the root

     

     

Button B would be an FFA mode where your guild is your only way to set someone friendly, everyone else is hostile to you

  • Spoiler

     

    • The root of this system is just a mirror of the other system. It is meant to share back-end features, with a few exceptions: Some need code, other just DB entries
    • This, like EotM today, is the mode detached from the scoring system
    • It can use the same basic container for its map(s) and the same multi-instancing system
    • However, being exempt from score, it would not need the same amounts, sizes and values of objectives
    • That creates an opportunity to eg., have a map that has a high number of just "towers" and camps on it
    • That leads to more objectives on a single map being possible to own for different guilds (and with multiple maps, a possibility to expand further)
    • As a result, this overflow can be your lobby, "world PvP" and massive cross-matchup duelling area
    • It can also be your tower-ownership (WvW Guild Hall), grand-strategy and GvG- or other player-made event mode
    • Because you can own a tower- or camp-sized space and with walls as building blocks you could build different things and upgrade them
    • If you just build a ring of walls: Then you can hold GvG inside it without needing any fancy exceptional mechanics
    • You can simply invite an opposing group into your guild so they can pass through the portal and then kick them when inside, to get two hostile teams inside your walls
    • No need for additional team rules and safety measures, you can solve anything you like with the normal guild-mechanics
    • To create a permanence of ownership Anet only has to use the "invulnurable walls" tactic mechanic and shift its database figures to create windows of vulnurability (aka. having the tower vulnurable 1 hour per day, set by the owner, leading to possible tower-siege content).

     

     

With just these two modes you have essentially integrated every type of desired subcontent in WvW into just two modes of WvW in both simpler and better ways than what we have today.
I feel a bit like Diku rehashing my old ideas, but this has always seemed as such a simple and effective solution to most cross-matchup duel/event issues: Use what you already have in smart ways. Things like Guilds and Walls.

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds cool i guess. while they're at it toss the guild hall arenas into wvw so we get wvw balance. add some very basic functions like a round resetter (ends the round and resets every ones cds), scoreboard, and the ability to add props for los and kiting. also a place to see the guilds timezone, roster size, maybe specs they want banned, etc. preferably another wvw window so guilds can just look up whos in their timezone and go fight em.

Edited by Stand The Wall.6987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was design lead or director for WvW, I'd look at this thread and laugh real hard, then go back to making PvE content.

Mostly because of the entire introduction of the idea. Why not simply say a new button for a new mode? WvW, sPvP, whatever-this-button-B-is. Simple. Of course, you'd ruin both modes by splitting and thinning out players into two modes that few if any wanted until neither mode is viable anymore, but still thats an idea.

Edited by Dawdler.8521
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the idea.

Then i remember that there is literally a piece of Wall missing in DBL since forever....

then i remember that you can jump in almost any objective.....

and then i remember that they dont care and will not put any working hours into wvw...

Edited by Sahne.6950
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite them never implementing it... i just wanted to share my idea.

I really like the idea where a Guild can hold a territory and gain ownership of it. It gives those guilds something to be proud off and work towards.

I would even go a bit further, to incentivize Guilds in participating in this i would add a "tax system". Other games have similar systems for example Archeage or Newworld. If a guild holds a territory they will gain daily gold for the Guild bank. This could even pull in some pve or raid guilds. People love their bling bling and if it its a passive 10 gold income per day... alot of people would be incentivized to actually join the fun.

(one thing first to make it clear: Camps can be flipped just like they can now, but they dont have a timer where they are protected from flipping, to encourage constant fighting around those objectives)

My suggestion would be: To take a guild territory you need to fullfill some requirements. For example you need to damage the walls for a set ammount of damage(ALOT of damage... it should not be achievable within an hour, it should take atleast a few hours to get it done). The walls will not break, but lets say after a few mil damage they will look broken and you get the option to declare war against the Guild owning that territory. You then have to pay a fee for declaring the war (20 gold or something). You then can set a timewindow. Time window will be a 4 hour window on the next day (windows can only be set from 15-23 o clock to ensure that the enemy guild will not be sleeping during those times. for example from 16-20 o´clock. The Guild that is being attacked can then decide for a 30 minute window in these hours. to go with the example. they set the war to happen at 18:30. The war will happen in a instanced environment. It will be 5v5 for smaller objectives like towers(to give smaller roaming guilds a chance) and for larger objectives like keeps it will be 50v50(this is where the GvGs will take place). The goal of these wars is to wipe the defenders 3 times. The defenders only have to wipe the attackers 2 times. Should the 30 minute timer run out and there is no clear winner, because no one died, the team that dealt the most damage will win. (this is to prevent teams from stacking 5 or even 50 supports)

If you win the war, the territory will belong to you and it will be protected from any attacks for 48 hours (to ensure you atleast get your money back, otherwise people would cry that they actually lost money while participating) If the attackers lose the war, the 20 gold will go to the defenders Guild bank.

THIS! would surely revive pvp in this game, as it is a clear advantage for any Guild holding such a territory. Even bigger pve guilds might have 5 players that know how to fight other people and they could therefore participate. Maybe they can inspire some of their guildies to get into the fun aswell! it would be a really nice incentive to say the least. We could even go yet again a step further. Guilds that own a territory will gain a title. you can only activate the title should your guild hold a territory right now. Or the guildtag could be underlined, or displayed in a diffrent color... just give something to the people that they can flex on others^^ people love titles or shiny crones above their head:D

If this system would be in place when the game launches on steam, alot of people would for sure make this their endgame goal! If i would start a new MMO and hear of mechanics like this, it would for sure be my endgame goal to form a guild and take a territory. You only need 5 people and thus it looks very achievable.

Edited by Sahne.6950
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If I was design lead or director for WvW, I'd look at this thread and laugh real hard, then go back to making PvE content.

I doubt you would even be reading topics in the forum if you were. Just saying.

Edited by Hotride.2187
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

I am not even going to read whole thing because it is definitely a great idea. Current system just doesn't make any sense compared to what we had in the past.

 Ktrain vs nothing : check working has intended (EOTM ported into wvw, note that EOTM was a test subject for WvW).

Low effort perma all boons stacking : check working has intended.

Links systems provides more stacking at the same timezone in the same link rather than spread population trought timezones: check working as intended.

Less fights: check working as intended.

Lass lag: perfect.

Anet toughs.. "we finally fixed wvw", "alliance system not important WvW seams worklign well, but lets keeping adding some lines into its code once in a while".

Edited by Aeolus.3615
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Of course, you'd ruin both modes by splitting and thinning out players into two modes that few if any wanted until neither mode is viable anymore, but still thats an idea.

 

5 hours ago, Sahne.6950 said:

Despite them never implementing it... i just wanted to share my idea.

I really like the idea where a Guild can hold a territory and gain ownership of it. It gives those guilds something to be proud off and work towards.

 

9 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

sounds cool i guess. while they're at it toss the guild hall arenas into wvw so we get wvw balance

I'd say these three qoutes from you guys frames the discussion I wanted to get at with this. The main take away I am trying to put forward here is that we already have these things.

We have the server system and we have the color system. They are represented by EBG+borders and EotM (with OS being its own thing). They have also commented on that the interactive map for WvW is the reason that adding new maps is a much larger undertaking than it needs to be. Removing the borders removes the need for cross-map interactivity, which seems to be the largest part of the problem.

Everything else is just a question of using the tech they already have in other ways, instead of developing new tech when any such complications are not necessary. As in, they do not need to develop a guild hall with WvW physics, when they can simply use already existing assets in WvW to create something that can perform the same function, even better. It is perfectly possible already today to hold events (like GvG) inside the space of a capture point in a camp. The issue is securing that space for events with player-governed rules. It is also possible already today to use walls around a capture point to effectively secure that space against hostile-flagged players and own it as a guild.

Combine the two and you have a simple and superior solution to WvW physics inside the PvE GH, to 10-man interface changes in sPvP or even to whatever work they put into the EotM arena with its teams etc. As it stands today: EotM and the EotM Arena uses two exceptions to the normal server system (the colors of the map and the teams of the arena). An FFA system would would solve both issues and allow people who want a more target-rich environment for other purposes (roaming, duels etc.) have that in the same system. It's all flies in one swat. If they then want to build on it from a simple ring of walls with a portal, they can, but that is a solid foundation that is already superior to anything they have, by simply using other things that they already have.

Of course, ArenaNet are ArenaNet, so they will never implement it. However, the point is that all of this is possible to implement and easier to implement- or equally difficult to implement but with better yield than other things that they have already tried to do. So it doesn't split the mode anymore than it is already split or change the logic/user experience from what we already know. It simply takes the same idea and puts it in a better, leaned-out technical framework with fewer building blocks and interactions. Re-using the same assets for different purposes. It doesn't need additional or exceptional rules. If you want to own an objective, just take it that way you would normally own an objective. It can use the same tech. Just replace the model of the "tower" with a ring-wall and you have an arena.

The systems we already have are more robust than people give them credit, even if yes, you can glitch into objectives in WvW. However, objectives as a mean to secure space and control ownership is already here, it is superior to any other solution that has been attempted and simpler than any solution that may have been considered or suggested. That is sort of the point of this thread.

 

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

I am not even going to read whole thing because it is definitely a great idea. Current system just doesn't make any sense compared to what we had in the past.

I have to say that I do not agree, I do not believe that this mode needs a radical change. I think wvw was designed very well, we have a three-team clash, we have 3 border and property maps ( when you go to an enemy border map it really feels like invading someone else's house )

we have a big central map with that castle in the middle that is no man's land and everyone wants it, and on that map each team has its own safe corner and everyone will do everything to keep it their safe corner.

the current system makes no sense? I certainly agree. but we must ask ourselves why it makes no sense. I can tell you why it doesn't make any sense to me. because competition is not guaranteed. even if my game is balanced I just have to watch another game where a team is outnumbered for 60 days. if you compromise the competition of only one team, consequently you compromise the competition of all the teams in play.

now I already know that you will tell me that wvw is a 24/7 mode and you can not guarantee the competition. it is not true, you can do it safely depends on how you want to build the teams, you can choose whether to do it dynamically or statically I explained it in a previous post of mine that you can read. 24/7 is not a problem but a character of this competitive mode.

now with alliances we have a great opportunity to really improve this mode, to guarantee the competition to all the teams, to finally have a real ranking to climb that makes sense. but much depends on many small details. this is the time this is the place. they asked for a constructive and critical discussion of how we want wvw to be in the near future. we cannot achieve this with an official guideline every 3 months.

we need an open and free communication channel, where developers can confront themselves with players without commitment without constraint. but maybe I'm in the wrong forum. I'm talking about gw2 wvw mode.

Edited by Mabi black.1824
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thing is people that want to do gvgs would rather have some official support for it, i.e. an actual arena that has all the bells and whistles that is free from outside interference. doing gvgs inside objectives sounds like more of the same unsupported you're ruining my game mode type attitude from anet. when people are doing a gvg they don't care about anything else like not splitting up the player base. there is no reason to do gvgs in objectives cuz it doesn't offer anything new. in fact people would probably avoid it cuz the spaces would be too small and respawn times too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

the thing is people that want to do gvgs would rather have some official support for it, i.e. an actual arena that has all the bells and whistles that is free from outside interference. doing gvgs inside objectives sounds like more of the same unsupported you're ruining my game mode type attitude from anet. when people are doing a gvg they don't care about anything else like not splitting up the player base. there is no reason to do gvgs in objectives cuz it doesn't offer anything new. in fact people would probably avoid it cuz the spaces would be too small and respawn times too long.

Are you one of those people? I was one of those people for many years and most of my friends still are (including leaders- and co-leaders of various guilds). Most people I know from that "scene" do everything in WvW, just like I did. They GvG, skirmish, raid, roam, pug and havoc. They play 1, 5, 15 and 50. I know it, because they do it with me. It feels like you are describing "those people" as something completely different from yourself. That makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about.

Holding events in objectives is not meant to do anything different, it is meant to do the same but better, simpler and thus more effective from a development standpoint. That's what I imply by saying "lean-out", it is about finding something to work from that isn't a tangled-up mess that eats too much resources to work on. I would rather take a high-quality foundation over lower-quality, feature-specked complications any day of the week. If they can re-use existing assets, not only do  they not have to develop new assets, but they also have fewer loose ends for future development should they want to build other things ontop.

A perfect arena with all bells and whistles sounds nice, but no such work is being done to anyone's knowledge and while the EotM arena was an attempt at something like that, and a step forward from nothing, it still isn't that and looks nowhere close to be. It is still inferior to the days of the GH arena and still inferior to the simple suggestions in this thread: From my experience, which at least is some experience. The same experience that tells me that the space of a camp is large enough or that people don't respawn when they play such events, they usually ressurrect by hand.

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nocturnal Lunacy.8563 said:

You can't come to these forums with well thought out intelligent comments or threads. 99% won't understand you and the rest will just passively/aggressively troll you since apparently that is okay with anet as long as you don't come right out and say how you feel. But beating around the bush and making hints to what you want to say is okay. Anet likes the "more fearful" among us.

I know it, but what can I say? I am a glutton for punishment 😅.

These days it feels like I only post on these forums because I think ArenaNet should use them (better).

I have no expectations, beyond enjoying to talk, whenever I can stomach it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Are you one of those people? I was one of those people for many years and most of my friends still are (including leaders- and co-leaders of various guilds). Most people I know from that "scene" do everything in WvW, just like I did. They GvG, skirmish, raid, roam, pug and havoc. They play 1, 5, 15 and 50. I know it, because they do it with me. It feels like you are describing "those people" as something completely different from yourself. That makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about.

Holding events in objectives is not meant to do anything different, it is meant to do the same but better, simpler and thus more effective from a development standpoint. That's what I imply by saying "lean-out", it is about finding something to work from that isn't a tangled-up mess that eats too much resources to work on. I would rather take a high-quality foundation over lower-quality, feature-specked complications any day of the week. If they can re-use existing assets, not only do  they not have to develop new assets, but they also have fewer loose ends for future development should they want to build other things ontop.

A perfect arena with all bells and whistles sounds nice, but no such work is being done to anyone's knowledge and while the EotM arena was an attempt at something like that, and a step forward from nothing, it still isn't that and looks nowhere close to be. It is still inferior to the days of the GH arena and still inferior to the simple suggestions in this thread: From my experience, which at least is some experience. The same experience that tells me that the space of a camp is large enough or that people don't respawn when they play such events, they usually ressurrect by hand.

i did gvgs for a couple years in the core and hot days and a little bit early pof, but thats irrelevant to the point i'm making. when people are doing a gvg, any outside interference wastes everyones time. this includes free casters on the edge on the arena. do you really want to give players the ability to build walls in objectives? sounds like griefer heaven and i wouldn't want to wait for the bug fixes that never come. anet can't even stop people from jumping into already existing objectives. what if people want to do 10 gvgs at once but don't hit the map cap to spawn another instance, should anet always have multiple selectable instances open? i guess that would work but people would waste time running to the gvg when they can just have them in the guild hall if it was moved to wvw. most towers are too small so that leaves camps and keeps which limits the amount of gvgs that can happen at once. then there are the griefers which will create multiple guilds and just sit there claiming the objective, while probably building a wall maze in the process. it doesn't matter if gvg'ers want to do other types of content, when a gvg is happening they do not want that content to get in the way so cramming everyone into one space just to satisfy some mixed population ideal doesn't make any sense. i like the button a part for normal wvw, it makes sense but for people wanting to gvg nothing new is being added, in fact its making things more complicated then they have to be. why do this claim objective thing when people can just use the eotm arena, obsidan sanctum, or go to south camp? the current system uses 0 resources. if they are going to use any resources at all it would make more sense to actually do it right.

Edited by Stand The Wall.6987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

Do you really want to give players the ability to build walls in objectives? sounds like griefer heaven and i wouldn't want to wait for the bug fixes that never come. anet can't even stop people from jumping into already existing objectives. what if people want to do 10 gvgs at once but don't hit the map cap to spawn another instance, should anet always have multiple selectable instances open? i guess that would work but people would waste time running to the gvg when they can just have them in the guild hall if it was moved to wvw. most towers are too small so that leaves camps and keeps which limits the amount of gvgs that can happen at once. then there are the griefers which will create multiple guilds and just sit there claiming the objective, while probably building a wall maze in the process.

Think of it less in terms of building walls within the existing structures of an objective and more in terms of that objectives have structures and those structures can be changed.

A camp, at the end of the day, is just a ring.

A tower is just a larger ring with a smaller ring (the capture point) inside of it.

A keep is an even larger ring with a camp-sized ring inside of it.

Or whatever shape the (hit-) boxes are. The walls and shapes you see are not the actual objective, they're structures on it and changing those structures are unlikely to be major commitments to change on a map.

Instead of having a tower it could have roman-arena type of structure (like the Colosseum): Just a ring of walls.

That's only as far as I care to take it for now, but if you can envision that you can envision other possibilities too, like maybe giving the owners various different upgrade routes using the existing upgrade system to change the structures and services of the objective. One guild may choose an arena, another guild may choose some other structure that could bring another benefit (maybe a farm, with more synths inside or other guild-bonuses that apply to members while you own the objective). That however, are questions that goes into a post-development discussion. I'm just saying that there are possibilities within such a system (that are unlikely to be development bottlenecks in the system: For example, creating DBL was a major project, I don't think turning Ogre's or shortening north SM were). Only ArenaNet knows exactly how tangled-up their code is though, I can only talk about trade norms and logic.

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still separate from the rest of the game and the same problem of isolation and a lot of dead time around a prime time would still remain after the novelty wears off. I'd much rather have flagged open world pvp with a dense varied map for persistent battlegrounds but having only WvW as we have it, the only thing making it interesting is the variety of people to run around with.

Alliances are already going to mess with the vibe people play for right now and your suggestion would kind of compound that with another demographic split.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...