WvW Improvement Proposals

[XenesisII.1540]

Long ago in a forum far away, we had a thread proposing scoring changes by anet, this thread eventually led to the current skirmish system. There were a couple items in that thread that didn't make it into the final system, and I feel like there is room to add them in some way to help some long existing problems with wvw. Wvw being a three sided game mode, you pretty much always have a two vs one scenario, the problem with wvw system is it tends to promote snowball effects, where strongest sides(the one with the most numbers) gets stronger and pick on the weakest sides. War is not suppose to be pretty, it's not fair, but for a three sided design, the third side should be used as a buffer to go after the winning side, and not help stomp the weakest side into submission, otherwise there is no real point to having a three sided game.

1. KING OF THE HILL BORDERLAND

Anet's original thread about skirmish mode and scoring in general. Let's Talk Scoring

Here are the parts that did not make it.

Quote

Potential (controversial) additional change:

• While the above change takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line, there’s a good chance it’ll still be overvalued. If that’s the case (and we’ll eventually poll on this), then we have plans for an additional system.
• This is the Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier system
  • This system would multiply the Victory Points awarded by Skirmishes based on map populations and time of day.
  • During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.
  • During off hours, the multiplier might stay at 3 or drop to 2 or 1, depending on on activity level.
  • It’s important to include map populations as a factor, to make the system more fair for off hours players and its important to include time-of-day as a factor to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score muliplier low by exiting WvW

Last Stand

• Last Stand describes the final day of any week long matchup
• During Last Stand, Skirmish placement Victory Points are multiplied
• This is intended to make the last day of the match as exciting as the first, and provide a final comeback mechanic for teams that are behind

Instead of adding hotspot scoring to specific time zones, or based on map populations, or even at the end of the match, I think they should implement a constant "King of the hill" game play.  King of the hill game play, (gw1 apparently had a map or mode for that in pvp), where it promotes always going after the winning side. The side that is currently winning the match through Victory Points, will have their home borderland(not EBG) turn into a hotspot which will add bonuses to all those playing on that map (yes everyone including defenders). 

This system would promote a few things.

First it would provide another map of focused play, other than EBG, which has it's own perks of having the most objectives, least travel time in between, and smc which tends to promote a lot of action on the map. Outnumbered pips use to be a mechanic for players to get some extra bonuses, it was a way to pull players to a map, but not exactly in a positive manner. Instead of providing bonuses in an already negative situation, you're outnumbered you can't do much against bigger numbers, or you're just inviting more afk reward farmers to the map, which then goes away when you get enough players. This new system would constantly be on for everyone on that map, so long as that side is still winning, if another side manages to take the lead then the king of the hill bonus switches over to their home borderland.

Second this would provide a constant focus on the winning side, it would promote the two weakest sides to sorta work together in focusing the winning side. Whereas the usual game play of wvw tends to promote the strongest to hit the weakest, and then second strongest tends to hit the weakest as well in grabbing easy targets. Sometimes the second weakest on the map will hit the strongest, but then the weakest goes and hits the second weakest, all because of easy targets to cap without being contention. There needs to be something to constantly drive the two weakest/losing to hit the strongest/winning.

There is also an option in this method of map bonuses, if the King of Hill map is constantly queued, then place a bonus on the second place side as well with half the bonuses. "King of the Hill" map would get 100% of the bonus, "Prince of the Hill" map would get 50% of the bonus, the "Jester of the HIll" third place team would get nothing, giving their map a break in action and time to upgrade. King/Queen Prince/Princess, name it whatever. This way you are giving priority to map play in order of who's winning, motivating/forcing players to go after the goal of winning.

Finally, the bonuses for playing on that map. I would leave this to Anet to figure out, they're going to put whatever they want anyways, but some suggestions of course could be 100% wxp bonus on everything, 100% magic find, 100% more participation credit, 100% reward track progress, 100% warscore on captures, bonus pips, 100% more OSR, 500% increased drop rate of that new infusion lol, any of these or all of these I'll leave it to anet.

P.S I forgot to mention this should be shut off during prime time hours when all three sides usually have the most players on, so like 7-12pm est.

 

2. OVERWHELMING BUFF

Another way to combat the 2v1 on the weakest situations I had proposed having an Overwhelming buff placed the side with the most players on the map, as opposed to the outnumbered placed on the weakest side with much less numbers on the map. Outnumbered doesn't really help in increasing power, only provide reward bonuses in a situation where your side is already weak and less likely to get kills or captures, so bonuses for doing such things is a little pointless. With the Overwhelming buff, it would be placed on the biggest side on the map so the other two sides could have something to focus on them instead of just going for whatever is easy. When the two weakest are focused on double teaming the strongest there's the potential for those sides to match evenly or even outnumber that winning side. The bonuses is of course up to anet, but the possible rewards could be 100% wxp from the player kill, 100% magic find, 100% more participation credit, 100% more warscore from the kill, 2x from a stomp, etc (Reminder these buffs are on the player, not the entire sides objectives so capture scoring is not affected.)

 

3. EXTRA PIP IN PUBLIC SQUAD

This will be a controversial suggestion. But one way to try and promote players to join squads is to give all members of a "Public Squad"(not Private Squad) +1pip while the commander would get +3pips as usual, for having ten players in the squad. This bonus is only on when there is exactly 10 players, any more or less there's no bonus. Or we could be flexible and make it between 10-15, or 10-20, or 10-25 players in the squad, any more than 25 and the extra pip shuts off. In a way this also promotes more smaller squads, as some have suggested to have squad caps reduced to help with the boon ball situation(it wouldn't really help in that way). I'm sure some way this could promote farming for pips in a negative way, but it will also help in getting players more social in joining squads, and more commanders on the maps.

 

4. DOUBLE ALL PARTICIPATION TIMERS

Participation, a touchy subject, particularly around the changes to repairs and defense event credit.

One of the things I would like to see change is the timer for doing any of the required actions.  Increasing Participation

It doesn't make much sense to me that kill any lord only grants 5mins of participation, but capture grants 10mins. I think all defeat castle/keep/tower lord/supervisor/veteran creature should grant 10mins of participation. This way even if someone fails to capture an objective through contesting the circle they get credit for getting to that point. Someone could solo a camp then die to enemy contesting and get 5mins, but someone else could just walk into the circle without even lifting their weapon and get 10mins, doesn't seem right. All events that grant 2mins should be doubled to 4mins or increased to 5mins. The current methods to gain participation level credit should remain the same. I'm not sure if they do, but all Failed Defend Objective events should also give participation timer, but not level.

 

5. DOUBLE REWARD PROGRESS IN EOTM, ENABLE GLIDING AND MOUNT

It's time to make EOTM an attractive place to play while you wait for wvw queues, or really if you're a new player and just want to learn the ropes in a less stressful environment. Permanently double the reward track progress in there so that it attracts pve players to complete their Gift of Battle reward track, and maybe encourage them to keep playing wvw after. Enable gliding and warclaw.

 

6. RANDOM TERRITORY DISASTERS

It would be nice to have more random stuff happen in the mode. One way is to add Mistlock Instabilities to territories(the areas around the objectives), you could even add the opposite of those instabilities to double the events available such as "Frailty" increases damage taken by 10% but move 25% faster, or the opposite "Vitality" reduces damage by 10% but move 25% slower. You could have it happen randomly 2-3 times per hour, not all territories at once, but a random few, and only last 1min(I worry about the lag lol). Think of of it as bad storms passing through the area, speaking of which it might even be cool to have  a Giant Tornado Alley or a massive Chilling Fog Storm show up in multiple territories in the middle of a fight.

 

7. LOWER THE AFK TIMER

It's currently set to 15mins for wvw, should probably drop it to 8-10mins instead. Also boot anyone that has their character "running" for more than 5mins straight, there's no other reason for players to be running that long on any map. I'm sure the afker's will find a way around that, but it's a start at least.

 

Like any of the ideas? got any suggestions to adjust them? or maybe your own?

Edited July 4, 2023 by XenesisII.1540

[Caille.7214]

Donate to the Bellevue ''Pitchfork and Torches'' fund, so they can deliver themselves from evil.

[joneirikb.7506]

(1) Generally like the King of the Hill idea. One note is that the leading team could just throw away the their home map, and dominate the other 3, while the other 2 servers chase rewards in the leader-home. Even with a 100% PPT bonus, it's still 3 whole maps to 1 map x2 points. More if they get the bonus from 2nd map as well. Extreme case, but still worth considering.

I'd be looking forward to the salt when DBL became the hot spot. 😉

(2) Like Overwhelming buff as well.

Something I saw suggested once that I really liked, was having some kind of visual que to big zergs, so this could also be tied to this. Making a rumble sound as the get close, or some kind of visual dust cloud or slight shaking of screen etc. To just make it easier to identify zergs to avoid them. I liked the idea of being able to notice/feel an elephant stampede coming towards you.

And the obligatory half-joke: Add -1% speed per player within X range of you, to simulate how hard it is to run in groups without stumbling or stepping on toes, even on warclaw. 😉

(3) Unsure about Extra pip in squad. While I think it's a good thing to encourage players organising themselves, I see this is just going to end up with "let me join for the pips!" "No if you join we lose the pips!" "No you're just an toxic that won't give me my pips!" etc.

(4) No real opinion about Participation Timers. I don't know enough about the rewards system (I honestly never bothered figuring out how it works).

(5) Like it.

(6) Can't decide what I think about this one. One option could be to tie it to a tactic, and have it change between various instabilities constantly.

(7) Agreed.

[Junkpile.7439]

Anet should add game mode where treasure chests spawn in random location, then all groups (solo, party, squad) run there and fight and try to open it. It takes 30 sec to open chest and taking damage reset counter. Of course only one player get good loot so players need to think what size group they join. Players could try to ninja it solo too.

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

(1) Generally like the King of the Hill idea. One note is that the leading team could just throw away the their home map, and dominate the other 3, while the other 2 servers chase rewards in the leader-home. Even with a 100% PPT bonus, it's still 3 whole maps to 1 map x2 points. More if they get the bonus from 2nd map as well. Extreme case, but still worth considering.

I'd be looking forward to the salt when DBL became the hot spot. 😉

The leading team could do that if they wanted, but then they'll just be racking up the ppt on empty maps as usual, and not getting the extra rewards. But I'm sure if the rewards are good enough it will attract a lot of the casual crowd so it should keep the map populated on all sides, even the defenders. Of course it depends on how stingy anet is with the rewards...

I wonder if even Mag would play on hotspot DBL. 🤭

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

(2) Like Overwhelming buff as well.

Something I saw suggested once that I really liked, was having some kind of visual que to big zergs, so this could also be tied to this. Making a rumble sound as the get close, or some kind of visual dust cloud or slight shaking of screen etc. To just make it easier to identify zergs to avoid them. I liked the idea of being able to notice/feel an elephant stampede coming towards you.

And the obligatory half-joke: Add -1% speed per player within X range of you, to simulate how hard it is to run in groups without stumbling or stepping on toes, even on warclaw. 😉

Green dust cloud for groups around 20-30, yellow dust cloud for groups 30-40, and red angry dust cloud for groups 40-50. 🤭

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

(3) Unsure about Extra pip in squad. While I think it's a good thing to encourage players organising themselves, I see this is just going to end up with "let me join for the pips!" "No if you join we lose the pips!" "No you're just an toxic that won't give me my pips!" etc.

Players still have control over making their own squads, and who to invite. No one can be angry about not getting invited, make their own group and advertise for it.

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

(4) No real opinion about Participation Timers. I don't know enough about the rewards system (I honestly never bothered figuring out how it works).

Apparently some people have a hard time getting and maintaining participation, so it's a freebie for them really. 🤷‍♂️

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

(5) Like it.

👍

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

(6) Can't decide what I think about this one. One option could be to tie it to a tactic, and have it change between various instabilities constantly.

Tactics would be a cool option to have, and makes it use controllable, place it in the same tier as chilling fog.  Would be nice to have some random effects out and about the world though.

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

(7) Agreed.

👍

Appreciate the reply!

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, Junkpile.7439 said:

Anet should add game mode where treasure chests spawn in random location, then all groups (solo, party, squad) run there and fight and try to open it. It takes 30 sec to open chest and taking damage reset counter. Of course only one player get good loot so players need to think what size group they join. Players could try to ninja it solo too.

Should add it like the old node system, but mark it on the map for everyone to see and rush to.

[Mabi black.1824]

18 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Anet's original thread about skirmish mode and scoring in general.

I must say I like your first quote. Especially because it comes directly from development, for this reason it should be picked up on the fly and exploited the rare initiative of '' doing '' for WWW by development. ( at least this is my thought )

however if there were 4 money to invest in wvw to change something, I would like to see 2 things.

1 - Solve the problem in EU of 3 servers, considered and treated differently from all the others.

2 - Put transfers under control. The transfer limit should be determined by the sum of 2 paired servers. and should always be allowed in reference to a small percentage of that limit.

The priority in WWW should be to have (as far as possible) servers with a similar number of users. If you create or if you approach this condition all players have fun. and the initiatives of the 3 servers will come by themselves. Of course there will still be only 1 of the 3 who wins or proves to be more skillful. But it doesn't matter. If he shows up at your home fielding 50 players you will respond with as many 50 players. and I'm sure they will have quite a bit of fun on all 2 sides. Even better if you add to the party the other 50 players of the third side. The problem in WWW is when 50 enemies show up and you only have 20 to respond, always and constantly, hour after hour and day after day. without ever seeing an alternation of this numerical condition. Because on the bandwagon of the best players have poured all the possible and imaginable transfers at the modest cost of 500 gems.

This is probably the only and true condition that makes WVW boring and unengaging. First for the constantly inferior side and shortly after also for the constantly overloaded side, because in a short time no one shows up to play.

Will there be a day when we finally try to face a real obstacle to more fun for everyone in WWW? Without inventing alliances, kings or queens, drifting communities or who knows what else? I don't know, we'll only find out by playing.🤭

[Stand The Wall.6987]

make boons and heals apply to only your party

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I must say I like your first quote. Especially because it comes directly from development, for this reason it should be picked up on the fly and exploited the rare initiative of '' doing '' for WWW by development. ( at least this is my thought )

however if there were 4 money to invest in wvw to change something, I would like to see 2 things.

1 - Solve the problem in EU of 3 servers, considered and treated differently from all the others.

2 - Put transfers under control. The transfer limit should be determined by the sum of 2 paired servers. and should always be allowed in reference to a small percentage of that limit.

The priority in WWW should be to have (as far as possible) servers with a similar number of users. If you create or if you approach this condition all players have fun. and the initiatives of the 3 servers will come by themselves. Of course there will still be only 1 of the 3 who wins or proves to be more skillful. But it doesn't matter. If he shows up at your home fielding 50 players you will respond with as many 50 players. and I'm sure they will have quite a bit of fun on all 2 sides. Even better if you add to the party the other 50 players of the third side. The problem in WWW is when 50 enemies show up and you only have 20 to respond, always and constantly, hour after hour and day after day. without ever seeing an alternation of this numerical condition. Because on the bandwagon of the best players have poured all the possible and imaginable transfers at the modest cost of 500 gems.

This is probably the only and true condition that makes WVW boring and unengaging. First for the constantly inferior side and shortly after also for the constantly overloaded side, because in a short time no one shows up to play.

Will there be a day when we finally try to face a real obstacle to more fun for everyone in WWW? Without inventing alliances, kings or queens, drifting communities or who knows what else? I don't know, we'll only find out by playing.🤭

Well they're working on world restructuring and alliances, so there's not much point in suggesting any other type of server/world population balancing systems at this point. But even when servers are down on low times in off hours, having two of the lowest hit the highest pop at the time could help even out those fights, but the only motivation for players is always go after whatever is easy regardless of who's struggling at the moment or not.

The only temporary measure I would change right now is the transfer cost, back to one price for every server regardless of population status, there's just no point to the 500 gem cost anymore cause players aren't sticking to those servers for very long.

Same goes with boons, too far gone with the system to one side, and highly favored by the people in power, there's no point talking about counters to it anymore.

[ArchonWing.9480]

Dear Anet,

OP actually plays WvW 

Please heed this thread. 

[Ronin.4501]

For the record, I voted for: King of the Hill, Overwhelming Buff, and Random Territory Disasters.

But I have another suggestion. Any time you have more than 50 players on one side in a specific area (maybe similar to the size of where only 5 pieces of siege can be placed...maybe double that?), all players for said team in that area lose all boons and boon generation, both active and passive. We can call it Blob Quicksand Buff.

[b k.1648]

I would like to see participation adjusted (5 min is not much in low pop timezones) and some reason to ever go to EotM would be a plus. Other ideas seem like they'd have problems with exploits (extra pip), or I find them a bit unsatisfying as an incentive (overwhelming, King of the Hill), or in the case of the environmental hazard, I like the reasoning behind adding it but I'm not sure I'd find that kind of design enjoyable.
We have already got a champion grub and that spirit tree thing, which act as environmental hazards though. If they were actually worth fighting over, that could be a bit of fun.

[Gorani.7205]

I am not sure to agree with OPs ideas for 1) + 2) completely, but anything that breaks up the "1+2 beat 3" toward "2+3 team up against 1" is a good idea.
I think ANet needs to fix broken defense event participation and I fear they won't do, because they are so silent about the topic.
If environment effects are triggered by player agency (even if it is a collection event like the old Krait/Quaggan thing), I am all for that. Random automation I think we have enough.

[joneirikb.7506]

Probably not a very popular idea, but on the topic of creating something semi-random with some way to affect/counter.

They could make the grub etc into more or less invulnerable, that you can move around by fighting against it (enough damage push away), and have them neutralize control over objectives. That way they serve as localized natural hazards, but that you can gather up people and fight off to push it away from your objectives, or toward enemies. (Would have to be a very slow decap though so people have plenty of time to respond)

 

[XenesisII.1540]

17 minutes ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Probably not a very popular idea, but on the topic of creating something semi-random with some way to affect/counter.

They could make the grub etc into more or less invulnerable, that you can move around by fighting against it (enough damage push away), and have them neutralize control over objectives. That way they serve as localized natural hazards, but that you can gather up people and fight off to push it away from your objectives, or toward enemies. (Would have to be a very slow decap though so people have plenty of time to respond)

/smh

I knew I forgot one, I forgot to add the siegerazor makeover.

[XenesisII.1540]

Oh lookit, it's double team ktrain saturday on the weakest server woooooo woooooo... 😏🍦