74 replies to this topic

[Mixology]

Many of us appreciate the hard work that has gone into creating GW2 and want to make the game even better.

Currently, WvW is a bit broken.  When matches become one-sided, losing servers log off.  No one has fun.

Let's brainstorm and figure out how to fix WvW instead of complaining about:

Idea 1:

"Darkness Falls concept from DAoC.

Whoever is winning (in PPT, not total), gets access to Darkness falls. this is a cross realm dungeon, pvp enabled, with great rewards for all levels. Whenever one side takes the lead, enivitably many of their players would leave the field to go to DF, returning WvW balance in favor of the losers, who in turn will overtake in PPT. In addition to maintaining balance, it gave PvE'rs a reason to care about WvW, and it gave everyone a great place to level and kill their enemies outside of emain.

as has been pointed out numerous times before, winning in WvW atm only favors the winners. control the supply, fortify your keep, become even harder to upset. we need mechanics that weaken the leader, not the other way around.

server transfers would be a moot point if matches were closer, and they wont be close until mechanics like Darkness Falls give the WvW edge to the underdogs."

This idea is not mine, but I agree with it.

Idea 2:

Dynamic buffing. Currently, WvW is about numbers, not skill.  The server with the most people online wins.

Let's make the unmanned buff give increased dps and defense.  The greater the difference in population, the more powerful the buff.

Idea 3:

Spawn point defense.   Keeps and castles closest to spawn points should maybe have at least one legendary defender so the closer a server is pushed back to its spawn point, the harder it is for the other team to take the closest keep / tower.

Anyway, if you have some good thoughts about how to improve WvW, post here.  I'll take the best ideas and make a thread on the official forums.

[funkybudda]

the single most effective way to improve WvW is to stop the free transfers. Paid transfer with 7 days cooldown and lockout from joining the current match would be great.

[Beastgate]

It's too late for transfers to affect much. SBI will still always be first, and restricted transfers will just make it harder for people to leave the server and for people to join JQ, BG, or SoS to try and beat us.

I believe the only way to fix WvW is to implement a dynamic population cap, this is very extreme but everything else just seems too gimmicky to make a difference.

Edited by Beastgate, 08 November 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[The_Tree_Branch]

Beastgate, on 08 November 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

It's too late for transfers to affect much. SBI will still always be first, and restricted transfers will just make it harder for people to leave the server and for people to join JQ, BG, or SoS to try and beat us.

I believe the only way to fix WvW is to implement a dynamic population cap, this is very extreme but everything else just seems too gimmicky to make a difference.

Funny you say that. I remember a couple weeks in after release when it was HoD that will always be first. Then it was another server after them that would always be first. Seems a lot of people are pretty short-sighted.

[Beastgate]

HoD had an alliance that broke up, some people even predicted this would happen. SBI does not have an alliance so we can't break up. Most WvW guilds that are on here stated that they will stay on SBI. Unless the majority of our players randomly decide to all quit the game at the same time, we will not lose.

[bieberfanxoxo]

Beastgate is by far my new fav troll. Within a week of transferring he just hit the milestone for one million uses of the words "we" and "us" when talking about what SBI has done and is.

[Impmon]

I always liked Darkness Falls.  Especially when your realm first gained access and you rampaged through to the other realms side and wiped them out.  Not only that but it was a great dungeon with awesome loot for all levels.  

As for improving WVW;

1.  You cannot xfer to a server that is currently winning only servers that are losing.  If you xfer to a server that is losing you'll be granted buffs for doing so that last for period of time, say month.  To encourage people to move to servers that need help.

2.  Games will occur during the prime time for which the servers are placed.  After that point the games score will not count.  This means that oceanics will play oceanic servers & North American players their own servers.  You will not require full coverage only coverage during prime time.  Games will be intense & people will strive to win knowing there is a limited time frame.

3.  More rewards.  Items, badges of honor, pvp only skill rewards, more armor & weapons, ranks ?

4.  Games will consist of series with say, best 4 out of 4 matches.  These scores could be tallied daily, restarting every 24 hours.  With rule 2 in mind to avoid off peak time players.

5.  Remove all hostile creature npc's that aren't quest related.  

6.  I like the darkness falls idea.  Do that

7.  When and if one side is seriously destroying the other two, the game will automatically make the other two realms allies for the duration of  game until the series is complete.  This will only occur if one side has 200k points and the other two barely 1/4 that score.

[bieberfanxoxo]

Point 2 is horrible and I don't see how killing 24/7 WvW is in any way an improvement.

[Vihar]

I happen to think that removing the swords from objectives under attack is a great idea.

   That would open a lot of opportunity for small groups to have a big impact.

   Unless there is a waypoint, there should be no way of knowing when something is under attack except for eyes on the target.

[bieberfanxoxo]

Are you volunteering to sit at a tower doing nothing and just waiting in hopes of seeing an attack? If not, why would you expect anyone else to?

[Lynie]

I like the bierberfanxoxo his avatar is sweet it looks like some guy I used to know

[Targanwolf]

1)Make the maps 10x bigger  with apropriate objectives in the new space
2) stop the #$* point allocation every few minutes..........eliminate it completly
3) fire whoever developed the current match up system
4) fire whoever thought micro maps and zergs was a good idea

[thedeapee]

Honestly, the best way to improve wvw...is going to be to change your perception of it.  And by that, I'm not being rude, what I'm saying is join a large, organized guild and learn.  I used to despise wvw, and since joining a rather large guild that is VERY organized (almost militaristic in nature), I have been having a great time.  The best part is that my server came in dead last place this week...and I still had fun.  The map we rolled on each night, we did great on, the other maps, however, we got demolished...hit from both sides.  So what needs to happen is everyone needs to get more organized and you will start to enjoy the epic battles that ensue more and more.

In fact, it doesn't matter if you lose because your server doesn't have 24 hour representation...You control what you can control and you go from there.  Eventually, when server xfers are closed completely (or at least they become paid), the brackets will balance themselves out and things will be a lot more fun for everyone.  This balancing is already starting to work...and there isn't as much tier-hopping.

[bieberfanxoxo]

You don't need to join a large guild.

[Sizmo]

2 good ideas i've heard lately and 1 i'm not entirely sold on:

1.  removing Cross Swords entirely.  Like a previous poster said, this small change alone makes smaller groups more relavent.  its not a fix-all, but it is a great start.

2.  Remove the 5 target limit on siege equipment hitting players.  If you're in the blast radius of a treb shot, you deserve to get the full effect.  This will allow smaller groups of people defend against zergs at your doorstep.

3.  Change the ability for a 'zerg' to bash a gate down w/o siege equipment.  This either means that you remove dmg from anything other than siege equipment on gates/walls or you drastically increase the HP of said structures so its basically not worth your time to bash on with a sword.

[bieberfanxoxo]

Fix 1: The Drought of Tyria

Why do we have 30% at least of the borderlands filled with water? I don't care if quaggans go extinct.

Could even tie in with the no crossed swords thing and have a tower mid with telescopes or whatever up top so by holding it you get a scout tower capable of viewing all 3 keeps.

[Bottoms_Up]

On a macro scale, bigger maps with more, smaller dynamic point scoring nodes, e.g., destroyable bridges that have strategic importance. And more terrain variety. I'd love to have fights in a big forest.

On a smaller scale, give commanders the ability to change the colour of their icons for easy identification.

[Goodhugh]

Mixology, on 08 November 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Idea 2:

Dynamic buffing. Currently, WvW is about numbers, not skill.  The server with the most people online wins.

Let's make the unmanned buff give increased dps and defense.  The greater the difference in population, the more powerful the buff.

I'm not sure about the other ideas, but I'm against this one.  Typically, people will just see how many stacks of the buff they have on them to determine if they'll bother sticking around.  Hmm, Lolbuff x 20. . . . I'll catch the next match.

Tenacity was a complete bust in Wintergrasp.  I don't think it'd help all that much here either.  Quantity is better than quality, especially when siege play such an important role.  

If they do go down this road, giving undermanned servers the ability to carry around additional supply would help out more imo. (as would giving them perma speed buffs)

Edited by Goodhugh, 09 November 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[rukh]

Regular NPC raids against towers and keeps:

• These raids originate from each server's home base, and attack the nearest enemy towers and keeps.
  
  
• The raids are strong enough so an undefended or lightly defended position will fall to an NPC raid, but generally not so strong that an organized defense can't easily handle them.  NPC's supply their own battering rams.
  
  
• NPC raid strength can vary.  A raid sent to attack keep will be stronger than one against a tower.  If one side is outmanned, NPC's will be stronger and more numerous depending on how disadvantaged that side is.  Strength also varies by how far the enemy position is from home base - if it's on their 3rd of the map it will be a much stronger force than on an enemy 3rd.  A raid sent to attack keep will be stronger than one against a tower.

How will this improve WvW?
- It gives outmanned servers a better fighting chance, like how some games throw in bots to substitute until more players join.
- It gives players a reason to wait around and defend since it guarantees there will be regular attacks on towers and keeps on the perimeter.
- Helps equalize the map during off-hours, when the Player:NPC ratio is much lower.  Overnight crews will actually need to work to keep their points.
- Helps stimulate and focus large player engagements on server matchups with low WvW population.

Edited by rukh, 09 November 2012 - 03:25 AM.

[Junglizm]

Not my ideas but the following 3 I advocate:

1.  Cross Swords need to be removed.  They only advocate "Zerging" instead of actual organized warfare.  The fog of war is vital to making this style of gameplay interesting.  There is a whole lot of other reasons but long story short, just get rid of them.

2.  Remove AOE cap from Siege Equipment.  Overall I think it needs to be adjusted, perhaps costing more supply but less gold, but until it actually does enough damage to discourage "Turtling" you wont really see a change in this tactic, it will just become more prevalent as more people learn the advantages of it.  You might also consider adding significant AOE damage to the guards, also with out a cap, just to discourage turtle stacking further.

3.  The WvW dungeon is also a great idea.  I don't need to explain because the OP covered the advantages pretty well.  I would tie it to the actual Point Tick though just so it doesn't change hands everytime a keep or tower shifts, perhaps even requiring the lead to be held for multiple ticks before access is granted, something like 2-4 would be appropriate, just to keep people from bouncing in and out of the dungeon too much.

In short, Fog of War, No AOE caps on Siege and new uncapped AOE for Guards and a reward for the PPT leader that will distract him from his winning.

The last Tales of Tyria episode covered the first 2 points pretty well and I thought they were brilliant ideas, credit to Bridger and Freelancer.

Edited by Junglizm, 09 November 2012 - 05:27 AM.

[Mooon]

Leave matches weekly but make each match a series of daily matches so best of 7 basicly. Then servers can attempt to focus effort better with much more reward and meaning. The placings are decided by days won.. if a draw occurs e.g. 3 SBI 3 JQ 1 BG then the side that hit 3 first wins.

I also think making the maps allot larger (like twice as large) would help make the open field combat allot more interesting. Make it so trebbing from a tower is impossible imo and if flagging on map was removed the fog of war plus the extra area would help eliminate the zerg gathering at this time because everything is so close a zerg central to the map can respond to everything vital.

[Reisa]

Change the way scoring is kept--either scale it to a number based on the lowest WvW population (not server population, but those actively participating in WvW at the time) or introduce a system where the longer objectives are held, the less return of points they give. Or both.

Give a movement speed bonus in non-combat along roads (say, 10% increase).

Make it so armor doesn't break in WvW.

[The_Tree_Branch]

Would be really nice to have some input from Anet about what they are planning to do, at least to give us a light at the end of the tunnel. If they still have no clue 3 months in despite all the great suggestions I've seen around here, I'm going to lose a lot of heart.

[Lordkrall]

The_Tree_Branch, on 09 November 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Would be really nice to have some input from Anet about what they are planning to do, at least to give us a light at the end of the tunnel. If they still have no clue 3 months in despite all the great suggestions I've seen around here, I'm going to lose a lot of heart.

And if they give us input and then changes their minds people will whine like mad because "ArenaNet promised!!!!"

I believe that is the main reason why they don't talk about anything before they have decided exactly what to do.

[GoGoGhosty]

Maps is probably one of the biggest things that needs work. Having spent many matches on both EB and the borderlands, I have found that EB flows far better. The even split generally makes the server with more points get attacked more. Having 4 towers and a keep per side gives plenty of targets to attack, allowing low pop servers to go around the bigger zergs.and hit targets. Stonemist is a great center target, as it is both difficult and rewarding to hold.

In the borderlands, things are much less interesting. When evenly numbers are online, the 3 sides default to there respective 1 keep 1 tower (2 towers for defenders) and only supply camps are traded back and forth much of the match. When one server gets pushed off the map, it takes a large number to be able to push back, as the first target (other than supply camp) pretty much has to be there close tower before they can take their keep back. This makes it demotivating to come on to a borderlands you are pushed off of, and people usually jump to a different map or out of wvw before the map can make it to enough players to compete.

What I would like to see is for differently styled maps with different game mechanics to keep things interesting.
1. EB - standard wvw fare, no changes needed
2. Large map - 3-4 times the size of EB, with keeps and towers far enough apart so they can't treb each other. Focus is on choke points (such as bridges over ravines or mountainside tunnels) and controlling transport systems. Maybe have asura trains moving around places that players can ride on so they don't have to walk everywhere, but they also have to protect and repair the trains/tracks.
3. Island hopping map - Lots of small islands with keeps/towers as well as underwater bases. New siege plans for small (2-4 person) and medium (5-10 person) size ships, as well as extremely expensive galleons (mainly for guilds to buy).
4. A 3 way base fight. Each side has a large base on the outer rim of a valley. This base provides some sort of bonus for keeping it functioning (plus is worth a lot of points). Inside the valley are a ton of objectives/towers that help in preparing an attack. The primary goal is to destroy the enemy base. You can't capture it, but you can deny the enemy the points for holding it.

Edited by GoGoGhosty, 09 November 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[Meldios]

Reisa, on 09 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Change the way scoring is kept--either scale it to a number based on the lowest WvW population (not server population, but those actively participating in WvW at the time) or introduce a system where the longer objectives are held, the less return of points they give. Or both.

Give a movement speed bonus in non-combat along roads (say, 10% increase).

Make it so armor doesn't break in WvW.

I think the dynamic points idea is so obvious. I really hope they make a change like that.

[The_Tree_Branch]

Lordkrall, on 09 November 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

And if they give us input and then changes their minds people will whine like mad because "ArenaNet promised!!!!"

I believe that is the main reason why they don't talk about anything before they have decided exactly what to do.

That's not what I'm asking for. I don't want a bullet point of changes. I have to believe that there are several possible solutions that they are arguing about behind office doors. I'd like a summary of what those potential changes are and what they think the pros and cons are. Then your player base can look at it and agree/disagree/point out weak spots.

[Orikx]

The Darkness Falls idea might help on lower tier servers but would do nothing to help the top tier servers. T1 and 2 have dedicated PvP'rs that play GW2 to WvW. Giving a bounce of puggers incentive to storm the borderlands would just make it so the winning side has even more of an advantage because the puggers would take up spots in queue on the losing sides borderlands.

When servers are outmanned it might help get more people in for the winning side to kill but wouldn't help the losing side at all. Puggers aren't going to know how to fight organized WvW guilds.

Now on lower tier servers that don't have much of a dedicated WvW presence this may help because the losing side might be able to get a bigger zerg to overwhelm the winners.

[Reisa]

Meldios, on 09 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

I think the dynamic points idea is so obvious. I really hope they make a change like that.

Maybe.  The major problems of WvW were brought up in Alpha (or so I hear, from no one in particular), and Anet deemed it inappropriate.

On the other hand, the Orb situation was one of them and Anet fixed (or rather, removed, which is the definition of fix by developers these days) that.  So could be!

I hope Anet keeps the format in one week rotations for the forseeable future.  I think WvW would die on the majority of servers if they switched to the planned two week battles right now.

[Goodhugh]

Reisa, on 09 November 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

I hope Anet keeps the format in one week rotations for the forseeable future.  I think WvW would die on the majority of servers if they switched to the planned two week battles right now.

Agreed.  As it stands now, match resets are the when the most fun is to be had in WvW anyway imo.