How to fix WvW

[Obtena.7952]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:WvW is flawed ... there shouldn't be ANY sides. It should be that you just join a Q and get put on the side that needs you the most.

That exists. You can just go play sPvP.

Have fun!

No, that's not the same as WVW without sides determined by servers. The whole MESS why WvW doesn't work is because it's server-based. Why do you think they are making Alliances? Because server-determined WvW is an amazing idea? It's horrible and we all know why. If server-based was working, we wouldn't NEED Alliances.

[perilisk.1874]

From my terrible, stupid, casual PvEr perspective: fix WvW with more PvE.

Say we throw in a new map with very different mechanics, though tweaked to hopefully score similarly to the other three normal maps overall.

1. Every tower and keep starts at a basically empty state. Even once captured, they provide no war score, and capturing them counts for pretty much nothing in terms of achievements, XP, and so on, until they reach the first level of upgrades (which is equivalent to what you would get just for capturing on other maps -- fixing walls, respawning some defenders). When towers and keeps are captured, they revert to their base unimproved state -- however, any remaining NPC defenders still have to be cleared out, rather than changing teams. There is no timeout on capturing/recapturing; however, there is no benefit to constantly flipping ownership since an unimproved tower or keep counts for jack.

2. Every camp starts occupied by NPCs that need to be cleared out. Once captured, players can complete an endlessly looping camp-specific DE (or maybe a looping chain, for variety's sake) that will spawn a caravan. Periodically, NPCs will attack and try to recapture camps, and caravan production is halted until all waves are cleared. Camps provide no war score, directly. Once captured, they will spawn (or respawn, as necessary) defenders with every caravan produced.

3. Whenever a caravan hits a tower or keep, it spawns a DE. Successfully completing these DEs is the only way to produce war score (it is not produced on a timer), and is also required for the caravan to count towards the upgrade level. The higher the upgrade level of the tower or keep, the more difficult the DE, and the more war score provided on success. Each keep has its own specific chain of DEs, similar to HoT camp metas. There is a level above the highest upgrade level that just repeats, for producing more war score.

4. NPC defenders are (re)spawned as DEs are completed. They do not respawn automatically over time. At higher levels, completing DEs will (re)spawn NPC patrols (for towers and keeps), and an NPC assault team (keeps only), the latter of which will try to take the closest camp that isn't held.

5. Ruins serve a dual purpose on this map -- while the NPC assaults on camps are random, each ruin your team controls reduces the impact on your team by 20%. Control them all, and NPC attacks are disabled on your camps. The attacks aren't prevented, though, just re-directed to the other two teams.

So... it encourages players to de-zerg, and actually focus attention on hunting down caravans (which shuts down war score production), or defending and building up areas (which is needed to get war score). It's inviting to players who come from a PvE background, since they can reduce their exposure to PvP by focusing on DEs are camps, towers, and keeps, while more PvP-oriented players focus on trying to capture sites.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

@Dawdler.8521 said:Uuuuh... if you auto balance maps, whats even the point of choosing a side?

I suppose different reward sets (weapon, armor skins). Anet could even toss mount skins in there per side. Different infusions as well. Number of different options.

I believe I first mentions this sometime back in 2013, and of course at the time many said it wouldn't work or it wouldn't be possible. I suppose jokes on them now, evenly balanced sides would look might nice at the moment.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:WvW is flawed ... there shouldn't be ANY sides. It should be that you just join a Q and get put on the side that needs you the most.

That exists. You can just go play sPvP.

Have fun!

No, that's not the same as WVW without sides determined by servers. The whole MESS why WvW doesn't work is because it's server-based. Why do you think they are making Alliances? Because server-determined WvW is an amazing idea? It's horrible and we all know why. If server-based was working, we wouldn't NEED Alliances.

What’s with the ‘We’ stuff?

You don’t consider yourself a WvW player. Comments such as ‘You WvW players’ kind of give that away.

So.. please don’t use ‘We’. Coming from you it is a pejorative.

But have a nice day! ????????

[roamzero.9486]

The problem with WVW is that openworld PVP is inherently a hardcore gaming thing and Anet wants GW2 to be super casual.If Anet wants to appeal to the hardcore crowd it can do things like:->Merge WVW into some PVE maps->eliminate downstate->nerf mounts hard->nerf sustain->implement soft collision so blobs cant stack so hard->separate exp/leveling and you die you lose exp->exclusive PVE content opens up for winners

Or Anet could redesign WvW as a fun casual thing->make it like Edge of the Mists, no servers and you (or your guild) now choose to align with a red, green or blue faction->Hard separation for roaming and attacking/defending structures. Attacking/defending numbers are now essentially forced to be balanced, you as a player queue up for an event to initiate. (e.g. 5 players need to queue up to attack and take a tower (capped), and while this is occurring defenders can queue to spawn in to defend (also capped))->Roaming mode is essentially capturing camps, sentries, yaks, ruins, etc, while attackers/defenders of structures appear as uninteractable mist warrior things when engaged in their events (essentially it gives you stuff to do while queued to spawn as an attacker or defender of a structure, a detailed map outlines exactly what's going on at all times)

Right now its sort of trying to do both and it isn't working.

[kappre.3897]

ESO has something like this it seems. I don't play ESO, so I don't know the details, but it has something to do with signing up for a campaign by picking an alliance, but you can be a guest at another campaign anytime you feel like it. I believe that there's a time limit for each campaign, so once time runs out, you get to sign up for a new one. I don't keep up with ESO at all, so I don't know if there are any pop balance issues.

[XatraZaytrax.2601]

@kappre.3897 said:ESO has something like this it seems. I don't play ESO, so I don't know the details, but it has something to do with signing up for a campaign by picking an alliance, but you can be a guest at another campaign anytime you feel like it. I believe that there's a time limit for each campaign, so once time runs out, you get to sign up for a new one. I don't keep up with ESO at all, so I don't know if there are any pop balance issues.

Not really. It all depends who shows up on a given day. Played one ESO set where we were equal the first day of reset and my side dominated. But for the rest of the time we were spawn camped. We were only able to sneak out to get points when we kill them off and they had to get back to us. The maps are so huge, you can end up having to run a long way to get back in it if you don't have all the right segments connected in the waypoint system. There is also lots of pve on the map, so sometimes you get groups just doing that.

The one thing I like about EzoS is that all seige is portable and you can carry as much h supply as you can afford. That said, you have to pay for supply and there is different supply for everything -- like walls take stone and doors take wood.

[snh.7091]

@kappre.3897 said:ESO has something like this it seems. I don't play ESO, so I don't know the details, but it has something to do with signing up for a campaign by picking an alliance, but you can be a guest at another campaign anytime you feel like it. I believe that there's a time limit for each campaign, so once time runs out, you get to sign up for a new one. I don't keep up with ESO at all, so I don't know if there are any pop balance issues.

my guess is, anything they'll introduce as new content will be a ripoff of another game, likely ESO with their alliance system.

[Obtena.7952]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:WvW is flawed ... there shouldn't be ANY sides. It should be that you just join a Q and get put on the side that needs you the most.

That exists. You can just go play sPvP.

Have fun!

No, that's not the same as WVW without sides determined by servers. The whole MESS why WvW doesn't work is because it's server-based. Why do you think they are making Alliances? Because server-determined WvW is an amazing idea? It's horrible and we all know why. If server-based was working, we wouldn't NEED Alliances.

What’s with the ‘We’ stuff?

Lots of people recognize the issue with WVW being based on server-segregation. You're just reading far to much into the words I'm using if you take offense to that ... and you should probably be less sensitive if you want to include yourself in a discussion about it if that's the case. Your proposal to simply play PVP is not a solution to the problem I'm talking about. Come back when you calm down ... THEN we can talk.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@roamzero.9486 said:The problem with WVW is that openworld PVP is inherently a hardcore gaming thing and Anet wants GW2 to be super casual.If Anet wants to appeal to the hardcore crowd it can do things like:->Merge WVW into some PVE maps->eliminate downstate->nerf mounts hard->nerf sustain->implement soft collision so blobs cant stack so hard->separate exp/leveling and you die you lose exp->exclusive PVE content opens up for winners

Or Anet could redesign WvW as a fun casual thing->make it like Edge of the Mists, no servers and you (or your guild) now choose to align with a red, green or blue faction->Hard separation for roaming and attacking/defending structures. Attacking/defending numbers are now essentially forced to be balanced, you as a player queue up for an event to initiate. (e.g. 5 players need to queue up to attack and take a tower (capped), and while this is occurring defenders can queue to spawn in to defend (also capped))->Roaming mode is essentially capturing camps, sentries, yaks, ruins, etc, while attackers/defenders of structures appear as uninteractable mist warrior things when engaged in their events (essentially it gives you stuff to do while queued to spawn as an attacker or defender of a structure, a detailed map outlines exactly what's going on at all times)

Right now its sort of trying to do both and it isn't working.

See.. I would argue they aren’t tying to do anything, which is the inherent issue we are truly dealing with.

An occasional skill split, an occasional thread noting they are working on something, throw in a skin or two, copy paste an item from a different mode..,

Doing ANYTHING at this rate would objectively be better than where we are.

Sure, some people would be upset, some would leave, but right now, it would appear, from watching both the EU and the NA world population statuses, I would suggest they are leaving faster with NO change.

[SilentKill.9586]

@perilisk.1874 said:From my terrible, stupid, casual PvEr perspective: fix WvW with more PvE.

Say we throw in a new map with very different mechanics, though tweaked to hopefully score similarly to the other three normal maps overall.

1. Every tower and keep starts at a basically empty state. Even once captured, they provide no war score, and capturing them counts for pretty much nothing in terms of achievements, XP, and so on, until they reach the first level of upgrades (which is equivalent to what you would get just for capturing on other maps -- fixing walls, respawning some defenders). When towers and keeps are captured, they revert to their base unimproved state -- however, any remaining NPC defenders still have to be cleared out, rather than changing teams. There is no timeout on capturing/recapturing; however, there is no benefit to constantly flipping ownership since an unimproved tower or keep counts for jack.

2. Every camp starts occupied by NPCs that need to be cleared out. Once captured, players can complete an endlessly looping camp-specific DE (or maybe a looping chain, for variety's sake) that will spawn a caravan. Periodically, NPCs will attack and try to recapture camps, and caravan production is halted until all waves are cleared. Camps provide no war score, directly. Once captured, they will spawn (or respawn, as necessary) defenders with every caravan produced.

3. Whenever a caravan hits a tower or keep, it spawns a DE. Successfully completing these DEs is the only way to produce war score (it is not produced on a timer), and is also required for the caravan to count towards the upgrade level. The higher the upgrade level of the tower or keep, the more difficult the DE, and the more war score provided on success. Each keep has its own specific chain of DEs, similar to HoT camp metas. There is a level above the highest upgrade level that just repeats, for producing more war score.

4. NPC defenders are (re)spawned as DEs are completed. They do not respawn automatically over time. At higher levels, completing DEs will (re)spawn NPC patrols (for towers and keeps), and an NPC assault team (keeps only), the latter of which will try to take the closest camp that isn't held.

5. Ruins serve a dual purpose on this map -- while the NPC assaults on camps are random, each ruin your team controls reduces the impact on your team by 20%. Control them all, and NPC attacks are disabled on your camps. The attacks aren't prevented, though, just re-directed to the other two teams.

So... it encourages players to de-zerg, and actually focus attention on hunting down caravans (which shuts down war score production), or defending and building up areas (which is needed to get war score). It's inviting to players who come from a PvE background, since they can reduce their exposure to PvP by focusing on DEs are camps, towers, and keeps, while more PvP-oriented players focus on trying to capture sites.

wvw is not pve land

[perilisk.1874]

@SilentKill.9586 said:

@perilisk.1874 said:From my terrible, stupid, casual PvEr perspective: fix WvW with more PvE.

Say we throw in a new map with very different mechanics, though tweaked to hopefully score similarly to the other three normal maps overall.

1. Every tower and keep starts at a basically empty state. Even once captured, they provide no war score, and capturing them counts for pretty much nothing in terms of achievements, XP, and so on, until they reach the first level of upgrades (which is equivalent to what you would get just for capturing on other maps -- fixing walls, respawning some defenders). When towers and keeps are captured, they revert to their base unimproved state -- however, any remaining NPC defenders still have to be cleared out, rather than changing teams. There is no timeout on capturing/recapturing; however, there is no benefit to constantly flipping ownership since an unimproved tower or keep counts for jack.

2. Every camp starts occupied by NPCs that need to be cleared out. Once captured, players can complete an endlessly looping camp-specific DE (or maybe a looping chain, for variety's sake) that will spawn a caravan. Periodically, NPCs will attack and try to recapture camps, and caravan production is halted until all waves are cleared. Camps provide no war score, directly. Once captured, they will spawn (or respawn, as necessary) defenders with every caravan produced.

3. Whenever a caravan hits a tower or keep, it spawns a DE. Successfully completing these DEs is the only way to produce war score (it is not produced on a timer), and is also required for the caravan to count towards the upgrade level. The higher the upgrade level of the tower or keep, the more difficult the DE, and the more war score provided on success. Each keep has its own specific chain of DEs, similar to HoT camp metas. There is a level above the highest upgrade level that just repeats, for producing more war score.

4. NPC defenders are (re)spawned as DEs are completed. They do not respawn automatically over time. At higher levels, completing DEs will (re)spawn NPC patrols (for towers and keeps), and an NPC assault team (keeps only), the latter of which will try to take the closest camp that isn't held.

5. Ruins serve a dual purpose on this map -- while the NPC assaults on camps are random, each ruin your team controls reduces the impact on your team by 20%. Control them all, and NPC attacks are disabled on your camps. The attacks aren't prevented, though, just re-directed to the other two teams.

So... it encourages players to de-zerg, and actually focus attention on hunting down caravans (which shuts down war score production), or defending and building up areas (which is needed to get war score). It's inviting to players who come from a PvE background, since they can reduce their exposure to PvP by focusing on DEs are camps, towers, and keeps, while more PvP-oriented players focus on trying to capture sites.

wvw is not pve land

Like I said, I'm just a filthy PvE casual type who barely plays except for GoBs and the mount. Tho, it sure seems like a lot of WvW involves running around in a giant zerg to undefended objectives and slaughtering NPCs, which sounds an awful lot like vanilla PvE. Not to mention the wildlife, existing NPC camps, and so on, and the fact that to some extent WvW exists to theoretically satisfy people who want PvP in OW.

But note that I wasn't pushing PvE for its own sake. I did think it would provide a little bit of a shallow end for PvErs to splash about in before getting brave enough to seek out PvP, sure. But mostly, I wanted to address the fact that people don't defend as much as they would in an actual wargame, because defending is only participating if someone decides to show up and fight. Not only is it not extrinsically rewarding, it's also not intrinsically rewarding -- it's mind-numbingly boring.

If you give people a means to contribute to the war effort by staying parked on an objective and doing something at least moderately engaging, and it's required to score (and scoring actually matters a little more than it does now) then it means teams stay more spread out, which means more and smaller fights, which are better suited to a combat system which is inherently balanced around groups of 5-10, and breaks down in zergs. No cap timeout means that no objective is safe, so defense is always relevant. No automatic NPC respawn means human defenders are always needed to prevent small attack groups from winning by attrition.

That said, it doesn't over-emphasize defense. In the system above, holding an objective does you no good if you can't get caravans there. Attacking and defending supply lines is as important as holding objectives.

[Knighthonor.4061]

Needs Objectives both big and small.

I came up with a Dynamic Event system for WvW. Every 3-4 hour rotation WvW Meta Event triggers with objectives and a cleared defined Winner/Loser unlike current WvW which is just mindless fighting with no winners.

Need small soloable objectives that are meaningful to the overall battle and still rewarding for progression.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Needs Objectives both big and small.

I came up with a Dynamic Event system for WvW. Every 3-4 hour rotation WvW Meta Event triggers with objectives and a cleared defined Winner/Loser unlike current WvW which is just mindless fighting with no winners.

Need small soloable objectives that are meaningful to the overall battle and still rewarding for progression.With Anets track record on WvW meta event you know it'll start lagging the entire border as soon it starts.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Needs Objectives both big and small.

I came up with a Dynamic Event system for WvW. Every 3-4 hour rotation WvW Meta Event triggers with objectives and a cleared defined Winner/Loser unlike current WvW which is just mindless fighting with no winners.

Need small soloable objectives that are meaningful to the overall battle and still rewarding for progression.With Anets track record on WvW meta event you know it'll start lagging the entire border as soon it starts.

Someone should like a video of the laser event on the old desert BL.

The process of getting that to work for you was outstanding. The laser it self was..... nightmarish.

[XenesisII.1540]

The event, not really zergs fighting around it to see the lag.

This one I guess kinda has some lag? but he slows down the vid a couple times for highlights so hard to tell.

Beta footage of the map, you can see some differences compared to current map.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Nice @""XenesisII.1540" the fights leading up to the laser event were usually good...

[Svarty.8019]

Looks like it'd take more than 10 minutes to implement. Therefore it's not viable.