WvW MIGHT need more objectives.

[Riba.3271]

Hey guys, you might know me from "Claim buff is the BANE of WvW" thread and while I believe it is by far the main offender for state of WvW being worse than pre HoT, there are other things anet could experiment with while not changing too much of the essentials.

I will be suggesting map design changes in realistic ways that don't require much resources in this thread. Feel free to toss in your ideas.

Borderlands:

• Replace bloodlust with "neutral" keep similar to stonemist little bit south from the middle. This would add 1 more penetrable objective at borderlands, which small groups and large groups could fight for. The design of this keeps lord room could be more open compared to stonemist. Dolyaks from south camp could run at this objective before south towers making it harder to upgrade (only 1 incoming dolly).
• Make NE tower on alpine borderlands more penetrable by removing possiblity of mortaring the side wall from Garri (move the mortar). People could still build trebs inside garri.
• Remove desert map due to balance issues the player behaviour towards it does

Eternal battlegrounds:

Replace neutral NPCS with similarly themed "sentrytower" that doesn't have siege or supply in it, the NPCs aren't strong and the lord is easy to kill.Location: Sentrytowers could be at locations where the skill points are.Points: Equal amount of points to T0 tower.Why: Sentrytowers would be approachable by both blobs that want to fight at a neutral spot and roaming groups that want something easier to cap than heavily defendable towers.Designwise: Recycling dredge/hylek/ogre themed walls and such from PvE and it is a fun job for designers, making new towers/keeps that are competitively viable.

Skill lag:

• Add another "EB" themed map (maybe just another EB with different kind of middle castle) and reduce the mapcap of players by 10 to 15 to reduce skill lag.

Why add easier-to-cap objectives/another map?

• Less objectivecamping
• Better meaningful spots to fight
• Can "outsmart" enemies by map rotations
• Something for smaller groups to do
• New commanders won't struggle as much
• Removing "outdated" parts of WvW for things more people care about
• Bringing the relaxed/newbie groups back alongside the tryhards!
• Why have only 1 "eb" commander when you can have 2 to choose from?

Note: These are just suggestions and most likely would require about month of playtest to see which are good changes

[Thornwolf.9721]

more it needs objectives and the things peppering the map to matter~ Right now its just ring around the rosey karma train because there is no consequences of not owning a portion of territory or so on.

[Sviel.7493]

These changes may improve your specific play patterns, but they also seem pretty half-baked?

Borderlands:-Replacing Bloodlust is not a bad idea. Replacing it with another Keep doesn't add much. Even if the lord room is open, are people going to go there to have open lord room fights? Not to mention, if Yaks have to go further into the ruins to slowly upgrade that middle fort then the southern towers and side keeps will upgrade more slowly as well.

-Moving the Mortar in Garri is fine.

-What balance issues are you referring to relating to DBL? I can't really comment on this without more specifics.

EBG:-Replacing neutral NPCs is also not a bad idea, but what does this sentry tower do? You mention that it gives a bit of PPT, but is that it? Why would people fight over these? What benefit would taking them confer on your server? Also, even with recycled material, designing 'competitively viable' towers/keeps is not a small job.

-What is objective camping and how would adding these sentry towers reduce it? Also, is it not ideal to have servers defending what they own-How would this allow you to outsmart enemies through map rotations more than you already can?-Smaller groups are already very capable. The problem is the metric of success is based on blobs. If you don't break in, steamroll the opposition and flip the objective on the first try, it's considered a failure.-Adding a second EBG would simply split an already tiny playerbase. Most match-ups simply don't have the numbers to benefit from this, even if the map caps are lowered slightly.

[Chaba.5410]

I think the number of objectives is currently fine. You know what WvW might really need more of? Shattered Aegis! @Caysadia.7405

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

@Chaba.5410 said:I think the number of objectives is currently fine. You know what WvW might really need more of? Shattered Aegis! @Caysadia.7405

NUUUU DONT SUMMON HIM!!!

[subversiontwo.7501]

@"Threather.9354" said:

• Replace bloodlust with "neutral" keep similar to stonemist little bit south from the middle. This would add 1 more penetrable objective at borderlands, which small groups and large groups could fight for. The design of this keeps lord room could be more open compared to stonemist. Dolyaks from south camp could run at this objective before south towers making it harder to upgrade (only 1 incoming dolly).While I would agree with you that EB has a better core design for the WvW mode and that putting some of that design into the borders would be an improvement, that the borders are "home defense" maps with a different playstyle is also their only selling point.

Now, don't get me wrong, I would want them changed. I just don't see a reason to keep the borders and making them more like EB without making them EB. I would remove them. I think that the notion of a home defense map has since long played out its part. It was always an experiment to have two modes in one like that and since winning stopped being determined by players playing those maps defensively in prime time, since guilds that dedicated themselves to that disappeared and since the maps already got changed that has played out its role.

See, removing the borders and only having additional instances with the formula used on EB will open up so many more opportunities for EB and being able to use the systems to address other issues that are problematic within WvW, that the borders are holding back. Removing the borders and just using one formula allows you to build variety around that one best-working formula.

I have used World of Tanks as an example of this before:https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/MapsIn that list you have 43 active maps, 9 event maps and 19 removed maps (or maps put into service for curating). They all look different but if you look closer they are all built around the same formula for the same game mode. So while there are tons of different textures and immersion tied into them, they are all balanced in the same way around that one proven formula: They are all mirrors of two sides, you just have to look either vertically, horizontally or diagonally. The same way that EB is built as a three-sided mirror with a stalemate breaker in the middle.

So removing the borderlands would make it easier to make more maps as they can use the blueprint and make more of the same. Introducing new maps to WoT has proven to be an extremely efficient way to make the game feel new even though nothing has really changed and has let the company keep what is a very basic core game mode stay vibrant for a very long time with rather little effort.

It also allows you to use the overflow system to do away with queues. Queues exist in WvW for absolutely no reason in 2020. They only stop players from playing the mode at the times when it is popular. Other maps are barren as some maps are queued so they are just used as overflows then anyway. Should more maps have content then those maps are bound to get queued as well. We're down to map sizes now that the second someone who can draw at least a bit of crowd tags up you can almost be sure that a queue will appear. So the queues now serve no other purpose than being archaic and being in the way.

If you couple that with a scoring system that uses the outnumbered mechanics to calculate score rather than creating- or mitigating combat imbalances you will also have dealt both with direct population imbalance on a server/score level, but also with some of the underlying reasons for the migrations (ie., transfering to score/win). Now, in 2020 that is far from the only reason as to why people transfer. It used to be more of a reason in the past than it is now. However, it always was one of serveral reasons and it still is one of several reasons. The other being content-matchups (which can be addressed with a properly functioning arena to GvG in) and the final one is content-access which can only be achieved if we manage to turn the trends of guilds dying and more players relying on fewer commanders (from guilds). All of these things will also appeal to new guilds being formed and new commanders being produced. It can't promise a miracle cure but it will create the opportunity to turn things back around. Waiting and doing nothing until all the faceless pugs have milked all the commanders out, and all the transfers have milked all the guilds out will not create that opportunity.

I have said this so many times now, but I will keep pointing it out every time any related topic comes up. This is how you solve most of the core issues that plague WvW and the solutions aren't even very difficult to implement. If they are not implemented it is just a sign of any two things: either stubborn incompetence or that they want to milk the mode to death. It is beyond neglect at this point. In fact, now we need Alliances to piece all the broken pieces back together again after all the transfers but had Anet implemented something like this while every server still had multiple guilds and commanders they wouldn't even have needed Alliances. That people are transfering for access to content is something new that has only been broken in the past 2-3 years.

[Riba.3271]

@"Sviel.7493" said:These changes may improve your specific play patterns, but they also seem pretty half-baked?

Borderlands:-Replacing Bloodlust is not a bad idea. Replacing it with another Keep doesn't add much. Even if the lord room is open, are people going to go there to have open lord room fights? Not to mention, if Yaks have to go further into the ruins to slowly upgrade that middle fort then the southern towers and side keeps will upgrade more slowly as well.

Adding another keep would make groups have more options for assaulting enemy map. There wouldn't be massive jump from attacking easy south towers to suiciding in enemy T3 keeps with full buffs but an objective to smoothen that transition (middle "castle" shouldn't have presence of the keep).

Point would be that the new keeps south gate would be around the south ruin so it wouldn't make that big of a difference for dolyak distance. And side keeps upgrading a few dollies slower would be actually towards better balance. Issue is that if you place the new keep in the middle of map, it would be way too close to garri.

Point regarding lord room openness would be that it has more space than SM lord room making it different from existing keeps. Similar to bay lord room but open to more sides.

-What balance issues are you referring to relating to DBL? I can't really comment on this without more specifics.

Some servers and lot of commanders don't play Desert map specifically. Meaning when it is their home border they just drop tiers and go up next week. And they don't defend it which makes it boring map for all sides.

EBG:-Replacing neutral NPCs is also not a bad idea, but what does this sentry tower do? You mention that it gives a bit of PPT, but is that it? Why would people fight over these? What benefit would taking them confer on your server? Also, even with recycled material, designing 'competitively viable' towers/keeps is not a small job.-What is objective camping and how would adding these sentry towers reduce it? Also, is it not ideal to have servers defending what they own

Open commanding meta right now is very defensive territorywise, which is mostly because effect claim buff has on fights, but also the strongest server has tendency to sit in SM and farm enemies whenever they move out of their corner (you really need to keep eye on anza and QL against greens). Same is happening on offensive borderlands where ton of commanders never come out of their keeps where they have MASSIVE advantages, so then you could hit the middlefort that upgrades superslow and has no presence of the keep.

-How would this allow you to outsmart enemies through map rotations more than you already can?Having more objectives, especially keeps on borderlands and another EB, would allow you to borderhop more often. There just aren't enough options right now.

-Smaller groups are already very capable. The problem is the metric of success is based on blobs. If you don't break in, steamroll the opposition and flip the objective on the first try, it's considered a failure.

Smaller groups have had issues doing anything other than flipping camps since HoT due to all the introduced defender advantages and upgrade times being 3+ times less. Not every small group needs to play WvW as hardcore gamers and they should have at least some easier options on EB where usually 6-7 out of 8 enemy towers are T3.

What would the sentrytower do, nothing much really. It would be just equal to flipping the NPCs or killing grub except you need siege for it and possibility of being scouted. And be good spot for equal fights. It wouldn't be improvement for veterans but quite noticeable for new players, commanders and casuals. Guess they could do something like spawn a few mercenaries for camps you own and give you some small non-combat buff like mounted speed or amount of supply you can carry.

-Adding a second EBG would simply split an already tiny playerbase. Most match-ups simply don't have the numbers to benefit from this, even if the map caps are lowered slightly.Skill lags in 3-ways are terrible meaning map cap needs to be lowered and adding another of the most popular map to make up for it is something they could playtest. There is a chance population is too small on some servers but T1-T2 servers could definitely manage with the increased activity. As I said, playtest. There is no argument that having 4 maps is the perfect solution just because it has always been so. If they plan to keep objectives as hard to capture and fast to upgrade as they currently are, they need to increase amount of options players have.

Anyways, I am just saying map changes should be tried out. I am sure someone can think of a better solution than a sentrytower. Maybe just adding extra tower, that upgrades based on time held instead of incoming dollies, to the borderlands would suffice.

[Wraistlin.6072]

I had posted this in a previous thread that didn't get much response, but adding more objectives would be fun imo if they had a purpose. I suggested something like stables, where you can only obtain a warclaw at the stables, and if you lose the stables and dismount on your current warclaw you no longer have it. Can do something similar with gliders. Would require some new map designs, but they could make it strategical if they had keeps or towers that could only be reached via glider, or mounts, etc.

Or recently there has been alot of complaining about downstate. Maybe have some structure dedicated as a medical facility that if your server holds it you have downstate and the others do not, and if you really want to get wicked and actually have a tie in between WvW servers and the pve world, you can have it remove downstate in all modes if that server doesn't hold it :)

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Wraistlin.6072" said:Or recently there has been alot of complaining about downstate."alot" = a dozen vocal people fanatically repeating the same thing over and over in the hopes of forcing it onto the silent majority.

[Wraistlin.6072]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Wraistlin.6072" said:Or recently there has been alot of complaining about downstate."alot" = a dozen vocal people fanatically repeating the same thing over and over in the hopes of forcing it onto the silent majority.

True, but that is all everything is on these forums, the same thing repeated every month or so.

[Riba.3271]

@Wraistlin.6072 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Wraistlin.6072 said:Or recently there has been alot of complaining about downstate."alot" = a dozen vocal people fanatically repeating the same thing over and over in the hopes of forcing it onto the silent majority.

True, but that is all everything is on these forums, the same thing repeated every month or so.

Lot of people in these forums have been void of logic for a long time. It is either "WvW is already perfect, don't change anything!" attitude, too bad to understand healthy organised play or "My oneshot build isn't the best, remove boonsharing!" statement.

Like everyone with logic can understand that someone randomly arriving late to a fight with a mount shouldn't be able to finish downstates. But still there are people defending it.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Threather.9354 said:Like everyone with logic can understand that someone randomly arriving late to a fight with a mount shouldn't be able to finish downstates. But still there are people defending it.Expect they didnt arrive late.

They arrived just in time.

[subversiontwo.7501]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Threather.9354 said:Like everyone with logic can understand that someone randomly arriving late to a fight with a mount shouldn't be able to finish downstates. But still there are people defending it.Expect they didnt arrive late.

They arrived just in time.

Or they re-arrived from spawn :3

[joneirikb.7506]

I'm just going to comment on the general "more objectives" part.

I don't see more objectives as a good thing, simply because WvW is a game mode that is trying (and failing) to guide players toward each others for PvP battles. As such the very basic of your idea to make more objectives so groups can avoid other groups works against the game-mode.

Sviel just posted a good post about this, that it's more reward efficient to quickly flip undefended tier1 objectives, than fighting other players, or especially fighting defended objectives. Which leads us into the same mentality that dominated Edge of the Mist.

As such, the best thing for the game mode would actually to be the opposite, less objectives (*), make them more impact-full, make players want to defend them. And basically reward them for that. This would encourage plays much more to attack and defend against each others, creating those sieges and mass combats people claim they want.

• a BL map already got 4 towers, and 3 keeps, that are defensible positions, if the enemy team has a zerg in the map, you still got plenty of targets you can hit at, and trigger for swords to fake them to go to the wrong place etc.

There's also a good bit of smaller targets for small groups 1-5 targets already, from camps, bloodlust, to sentries. I do agree that these could be more impactful, and wouldn't mind more small targets like these. (example more sentries, so you can have a string of sentries that attacks yaks and actually manage to kill them).

---

Also agree with everything @subversiontwo.7501 said, saved me the trouble of writing up the same idea about the map system (again).

[DemonSeed.3528]

@Wraistlin.6072 said:Or recently there has been alot of complaining about downstate. Maybe have some structure dedicated as a medical facility that if your server holds it you have downstate and the others do not, and if you really want to get wicked and actually have a tie in between WvW servers and the pve world, you can have it remove downstate in all modes if that server doesn't hold it :)

Maybe we can find a compromise, like a little mini event where player can gain buff where his enemies will get no downstate but it only lasts for a few minutes. I think it will satisfy everyone as there will still be downstate, and only nodownstate when you gain the buff. As for how you'll gain that buff on the maps, that's another story.

[Cuks.8241]

Well I really like DBL, probably best map imo.And I think EB is by far the most boring one.What I would like is a third BL that is as interesting as DBL, maybe a little smaller.