74 replies to this topic

[PhoenixRed]

Point adjustment as folks have mentioned would be the best improvement, as well as encouraging "comebacks" by placing in mechanics that allow servers in the hole to rally without penalizing servers who earn a win in their match through superior organization. As it is, two week matches would be a horrible decision, as many people who aren't as dedicated to WvW tend to peace out after the weekend + a couple days.

I had plenty of good times in Darkness Falls and would love to see something like that in GW2 - though I am betting it will be a while before we see something like that. The only other thing would simply be a WvW personal advancement system - I suppose the closest analog would be the Renown Rank system from DAoC and WAR.

[Vihar]

I think the Dynamic points idea isn't that great.

  Dominant servers would just not defend, and then when the other servers take something, roll in.

   Dynamic points = no defending anything.

[MrZero]

It appears this game is not what a lot of people want to play. Most of these ideas are a completely different game.

[Specialz]

Locking players out of content in an MMO is never a great thing no matter what game it worked in in the past. A lot of people seem to forget the type of people that played MMO is a lot different than the type that play today. A significant amount of MMO player hate working for stuff (they might claim they do but not really) and all locking them out of content does is make them more likely to ditch their current server and move to the current leader.

I think the only way to fix WvW is to introduce a method to get precursor or really special gear that requires a LOT and I mean a lot of tokens (20k+). Pretty much give WvW some kind of progression, since MMO players seem to need to be rewarded for having fun.

Other suggestions like dynamic scoring rewards people not doing anything. Why fight when you can just give up and still punish your oponent. Honestly, I really think the only way to keep scoring fair is for arenanet to stop making everybody happy and just enforce region locks for WvW. You can play on any server you want but your home server has to be in the same data center as your login.

Edited by Specialz, 09 November 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[Nords21]

I like the idea of getting rid of swords as well, this is a great way to help 3-5 man groups do something without needing a competing zerg.  My biggest issue now with WvW is that as people get sick of it and stop playing my 10-20 person team has dwindled and we mostly get 3-8 people together at any given time. Its fun to grab a camp here and there and maybe fight another small group but you always innevitably run into a zerg more often than not and get owned.

I also think the outmanned buff needs something new or  different.  I thought it would be nice if the outmanned buff allowed you to use ports even when they are contested.  Have a timer on uses based on the population imbalance to control small differences.  Here the fight is still fair 1v1 since no one has 2x the healh and defense and hits 5x harder, but should you see the group with bigger numbers killing off people quickly, the immediate reinforcements can return.  If the population imbalance is small the timer may be up to 1 min to reuse the port.... something like that.

Edited by Nords21, 09 November 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[Meldios]

I think everyone can agree that any element that involves winning without actual PVP is not a long term interest holder. Whatever gets people fighting is what's important. People say the score doesn't matter and just play for fun, but there needs to be some reward outside of just winning the last battle. Don't get me wrong, 3 hr fights over a keep from all 3 factions are the best times I've had playing video games in a long time. The problem I see now is that because of the lopsided score a lot of people stop playing after a bit. We can beat the dead-horse of why they shouldn't (outmanned is motive you server!) but they do.

[Sunt]

i wish they would make WvW 5 days per week or something

give ppl some break and time to do some pve or even celebrate their victory ....

[Izzlyn]

Remove total score display. Keep coverage-pie chart and ppt tally. Announce winner at end of match.
Swap outmanned and orb buffs.
Remove sword icons from map - no more hand holding please and thank you.
Add in server wide achievements for wvw win, give 100% boost to magic find, xp, or any other usual rewards for x amount of time. You want the server community involved? Give them a reason.
Stop claiming that WvW is not supposed to be balanced while enforcing a rating system that keeps it balanced. Remove it, build your own system with elements of random pairings to keep it fresh and entertaining. Some matches may be blowouts, but people dont tend to get any better until they see how things are done higher up the ladder.
Add in negative scoring for losing objectives to eliminate zerg mentality. Make dividing your force and defense as important as conquest.
Remove cash shop hero icons, and pray I never meet the team that dreamed that cash cow up. Give us a real raid manager tool and put icons on leader that are only visible to those in the raid squad. If you want cash I'll give 1k for this feature without blinking.




Just to name a few "what I would do if" ideas.

Edited by Izzlyn, 09 November 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[lioka qiao]

I have a few ideas for improving WvW.  For the most part I think it is okay but there are a few things.

1.  I like to compare WvW to strategy games like Age of Empires or Total War because that is what it is.  When it comes down to attacking a castle in those games it is quite dangerous to your army to launch a full out assault on the castle.  You get chewed up by enemy siege and defenders.  Total War it is even more dangerous to attack a castle full on without siege weapon assistance.  It should be equally dangerous to assault a keep gate or castle that is defended.  There are some things that would make it as dangerous as this:
a.  Prevent targeted AOE attacks from activating when cast at a vertical wall.  These are pretty much all of the elementalist staff aoe abilities that I'm talking about.  These aoes can reach quite far back into the wall and with a large enough group of them make defending a wall nearly impossible.  It is like the attacking army has guys throwing live grenades onto the wall by the bucketful.
b.  Have walls resemble the design of real castles.  You have structures on the wall that let you shoot arrows through them without being exposed.  There should be murderholes forward of the gate.  Things like that.
c.  On the topic of walls there is a small lip on the outer and inner edge of every wall that actually obstructs a defender's view to shoot at the enemy attackers.  Make it so that this does not obstruct view.  Conversely it would be easy to shoot defenders.
d.  I heard last night that siege weapons despawn if they go unused for a while.  If this is indeed true... get rid of that immediately.  This alone makes preparing a defense for a castle or keep impossible.  Sure you can buy the upgrades to get permanent siege emplacement but those are typically not enough to repel an enemy army.

2.  Make Eternal Battleground at least 3x larger, or reduce the Trebuchet's range by half.
a.  If you make the EB 3x larger then add control points to the extra space.  Control points would include bridges, small gates, guard posts and the likes.  This would add a sense of controlling the land you own and give something to work for when your army pushes forward.
b.  If you reduce the Trebuchet's range by half it would make holding the towers around Stonemist easier.  These towers often provide key support to a siege on stonemist itself.

Personally I like the idea of making the battleground bigger.  It gives more opportunity for tactical maneuvers and strategy.  It also makes taking casualties in battle have a bigger impact on your army's ability to push forward since the reinforcements have to travel farther to reach you.

3.  Opportunity for more tactical strategy.    This idea involves the ability to use your land to your advantage.  Add the ability to trigger rock slides on the mountain passes.  Add the ability to destroy bridges (It would be possible to repair a bridge of you controlled it).  Add the ability to set fire to an area of forest to destroy an advancing enemy army.  I borrow these ideas from the events in the Dynasty Warriors maps.  While that game is stylized it provides an accurate representation of real world tactics that allowed smaller armies incapable of taking on a larger army directly to emerge victorious.  Obviously one would have to pay supplies and use siege plans to construct rockslides and to place oil in locations for a fire attack or to plant explosives on the bridge.  Additionally add to ballistas the ability to lead a target like you normaly do if you shoot a bow at it.  A narrow mountain pass could be turned into a killzone with a few ballistae.


Beyond these changes i could really not care.  If more ppl are online at night then more spoils to them.  The points currently reflect how well your server overall performs in WvW and that can stay that way.

[Scourge]

Someone has already posted this in here and I think it'd be a great idea however e maps would have to be changed for it to be the best it could be (maps need to be changed anyhow).  Naval combat such as having small crafts with just a couple people, medium with up to 10, then larger ships that could only be acquired from the guild pane much like guild catapults and golems are.  I like the idea that instead of going after a keep on foot and either ramming it from close range, catapulting from a med distance or trebbing from afar, we could instead try pushing through the docks with a fleet of ships that could be boarded by other enemy ships but not from players in the water.  It would make combat in the water better and would offer new ways to attack keeps.  On each ship allow some form of siege to be placed, like a ballista on the small ship, maybe catapults, carts and ballistas on the medium, and all that plus mortars and shorter ranged trebs on the largest.

Imagine assaulting a keep with a small fleet fighting against theirs, you defeat it and break through their water gate.  You bring the ships around and dock at their port and unload your forces and bring a couple golems you had on your flagship and rush to their inner gate.  Mortars and ballistas cover your advance to the gates as their cannons start firing as they attempt to hold your forces back.

With some change to the maps (attacking the west keep might already work but would be the only use of naval siege at this point) it could bring a new and interesting form of warfare to wvw that could be immensely entertaining.

As to how it all might work other than what I've previously said, make it so ships can only be damaged by siege, could be boarded by any other ships by shooting a special rope shot from ballistas or something that would connect your ships.  Cannot capture enemy ships (just like you can't take an enemies golem).  Each ship type can only hold so many people, you get on by doing an interact action that puts you on the ship but you can move freely as if you were on normal ground.  Golems can be brought onto ships as well, omegas can shoot rockets and flames off like they normally can and both types can use their shield to circle the ship and protect from enemy siege, however golems take the spot of 3 people, and can only work on the med and large ships.  Each ship is piloted by a person and can be taken over by whoever dropped the siege, much like all siege (except golems for some reason).  Each ship costs supply to build and must be placed on a shore to be made.  Enemy players in the water cannot board your ship by simply jumping up, neither can they harm the ship itself, but they can use abilities to harm players or pull them off by abilities such as a thief's scorpion wire.  Ships can also carry a certain amount of supply on each, say 20 on small, 50 on med and 150 on large, which is acquired by players taking supply from camps then choosing to stash in the ship which can be taken by anyone.

Is could really help increase the fun of WvW by offering new and exciting ways to fight, by making it so ships could either gather in fleets and break through a water outer gate and then land and take out the inner on foot, or perhaps just use a single ship to bombard a land gate from the water by using a mobile form of siege.

[Orikx]

I like that last idea you mentioned. It made me think of the traps int he EB jumping puzzle. Those are a very fun idea but not used much because of where they are.

Would be cool to have traps like that in keeps that people could activate.

[Reisa]

lioka qiao, on 09 November 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

d.  I heard last night that siege weapons despawn if they go unused for a while.  If this is indeed true... get rid of that immediately.  This alone makes preparing a defense for a castle or keep impossible.  Sure you can buy the upgrades to get permanent siege emplacement but those are typically not enough to repel an enemy army.

Do you happen to play on a server with heavy off-hour capping?  I'm not being mean, I'm just curious.  Anyone who's gone to bed with their side doing well only to wake up and see the map painted with one color knows why siege despawns.  Would you like to wake up and see dozens of siege at every tower, keep, and supply camp because the off hour PvDoor players got bored?  The despawning siege is one of the best implementations in WvW.  WvW is already broken enough without adding in another dynamic of losing because one side couldn't build as much or as fast siege as the other side starting from day one.

[Impmon]

removal of swords won't work because people will make mods that show where people are if there isn't already like daoc map hacks.  I find in this game I can generally tell where a zerg is same as with daoc because while panning the field of vision around I get slight but noticeable lag in the direction of other people.

[Beastgate]

Reisa, on 10 November 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

Do you happen to play on a server with heavy off-hour capping?  I'm not being mean, I'm just curious.  Anyone who's gone to bed with their side doing well only to wake up and see the map painted with one color knows why siege despawns.  Would you like to wake up and see dozens of siege at every tower, keep, and supply camp because the off hour PvDoor players got bored?  The despawning siege is one of the best implementations in WvW.  WvW is already broken enough without adding in another dynamic of losing because one side couldn't build as much or as fast siege as the other side starting from day one.

He's making it  way too obvious that he's a Stormbluff Isle player, which is why this matters to him. Every idea he gave makes absolutely no sense when there's a population imbalance. This topic is about fixing population first, then worrying about other things like trebuchet range.

Edited by Beastgate, 10 November 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[chuckles79]

I have a proposal, moving past the same griping over outmanned buffs.

Let's change the upgrade system.

Go away from a list of 4-12 upgrades, make a tree system and you can't select all available upgrades.  Make the trees: Structural, Personnel, Engineering, and Sorcery.

Structural: upgrades like walls, doors, barricades that provide buffs when manned.

Personnel: upgraded guards, (I mean a lot of them) and scout patrols around the structure (I mean a ways out)

Engineering: automatically built defensive siege, or auto-defenses (should be VERY expensive)

Sorcery: a variety of buffs and debuffs within the keep (including firing range of the walls).  Particularly changes to speed and attack power.


Of course if these were implemented incorrectly, it could be disastrous.  However, it would force servers and guilds to adopt comprehensive strategies amongst all land they hold.

[DutchAres]

You cant fix population imbalance in a game like this:
There will always be times of a day were one server will have more people then others.

They problem is the zerging and the too less ways to fight a zerg when outnumbered.
Lots of small groups instead off a few large zergs would mean population difference wouldnt matter that much.
DAOC had ways for small organised groups to deal with zergs by making CC very powerfull but easy breakable.
So an unorganised group, or zerg made CC useless.
And ways for groups to buff/help group members, so people working well together would always be better then a buch of random players who just shoothing at stuff.

So we need ways to make it that smaller good groups could ambush/kill a larger group of solo players(the zerg).
But also that you still can do keep takes with large groups (the epic fights)

My ideas i would give to anet if i would worked for them would be:
-SUPPLY CAMPS: Make a lot more supply camps around towers and keeps. So a lot more supplies would be brought by caravans to them. And a lot faster the supplies inside would increase

-KEEPS: make the keeps much harder to get, and easier to defend. Getting a keep shouldnt mean you can take it within 10 minutes when you have a zerg and only a few defender. So give siege weapons and people on walls better ways to defend. Like reflection bubbles and shields will work on walls also against AOE and siege damage(ofcourse will not protect walls and doors),  to keep people from taking the keep within minutes. So no way for a zerg to kill the few defenders with a minute of focussed AOE damage on the top of the walls. (see also AOE DAMAGE) Repairing walls and doors should be cheaper. This also would mean no easy capping everything at night time.. a small group of defenders could stall enough, if the attackers cant surround it and stop all supplies comming in.

-SIEGE: make siege so you can increase the time they will stay up by adding more supplies to it(maintenance). And change the time it takes to build a siege. Like only one person can build at a time. Building will take for example 50 seconds (every supply 5 seconds). This way defenders will have a siege advantage. And for the attackers protecting the siege will be very important. (defenders doing suicide runs to distroy them). The time to build siege will decrease if your server has lower points. How bigger the difference in points how more motivated the builders are  and faster they can build siege

-Zerg: like in real life larger armies should have relocating and supplying problems.
People in large groups get a large group debuff. This mean they cant use speed buffs And the debuff in a large group would reduce the supply you are carrying. Like 1 every 10 minutes. Having the outnumbered buff would increase the numbers of people you need to have to get the debuff.
It will take about 20 seconds when leaving the zerg before the large group debuff dissapear.

-Map: Also the number of people that is needed so the crossed swords on maps appear, should be higher, So small groups stay unnoticed. The number of people that determines if the icon will be showed on map is increase when you have the outmanned buff

-AOE SPELLS: instead of having a max cap on howmuch people an AOE spells hits, remove the cap. But change it so 2 of the same AOE cant hit the same area. So lots of stacking meteor showers on the same spot would not be possible. The first one will succeed casting the spell, the rest would fail and have an x seconds they cant use that spell. This way groups without organisation would be more penalyzing  themselfs and make the spiking/stacking damage large zergs have be a lot less. Also this way smaller groups working well together have a bigger chance against a larger force. (like the DAOC CC example)

Edited by DutchAres, 10 November 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[Lordkrall]

chuckles79, on 10 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

I have a proposal, moving past the same griping over outmanned buffs.

Let's change the upgrade system.

Go away from a list of 4-12 upgrades, make a tree system and you can't select all available upgrades.  Make the trees: Structural, Personnel, Engineering, and Sorcery.

Structural: upgrades like walls, doors, barricades that provide buffs when manned.

Personnel: upgraded guards, (I mean a lot of them) and scout patrols around the structure (I mean a ways out)

Engineering: automatically built defensive siege, or auto-defenses (should be VERY expensive)

Sorcery: a variety of buffs and debuffs within the keep (including firing range of the walls).  Particularly changes to speed and attack power.


Of course if these were implemented incorrectly, it could be disastrous.  However, it would force servers and guilds to adopt comprehensive strategies amongst all land they hold.

Love this suggestion.

The biggest problem however is that there are always idiots that start upgrades without thinking (such as cannons before upgrading walls and such) and the ability to grief would be rather big.

[chuckles79]

Lordkrall, on 10 November 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

Love this suggestion.

The biggest problem however is that there are always idiots that start upgrades without thinking (such as cannons before upgrading walls and such) and the ability to grief would be rather big.

Yes, but that adds a discipline in the ranks as a new attribute towards victory; moving past 24/7 coverage, and number of large guilds as factors in victory.

I think anything that adds new variables towards victory will improve the format.

DutchAres, on 10 November 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

snip

Your ideas are steps towards stagnant battles that are 100% decided by coverage; which is the number one problem with the format right now.

If anything, making keeps and towers harder to defend would make more fluid battles; though I'm not advocating this.

Your idea will result in each land being locked until one server logs off, and then whichever server has more people on will grab all the land.

Your idea will see SBI's rating go past 3000 LOL

[Lordkrall]

chuckles79, on 10 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Yes, but that adds a discipline in the ranks as a new attribute towards victory; moving past 24/7 coverage, and number of large guilds as factors in victory.

I think anything that adds new variables towards victory will improve the format.

Indeed, the main problem as I see it is that griefers tend to ignore discipline and do anything to destroy anyway.

Might be possible to have a restriction that only the officers from the guild that claimed it could start upgrades or something like that I suppose.

[Acidbaron]

Anarchy Online a game from the same era as DAOC also mixed PvP with PvE in form of Tarasque, what also encouraged more to join in on PvP.

Dynamic point system was been pointed out by myself and many others, their stance remained unchanged. WvW is a constant zone and therefor all contributions made are equal regardless of how many are playing. The main reason you see people caring so much about constant coverage as well for their servers.

A lot of things could be improved and avoided, right now the most important thing to change is the lead designer and the developers involved stance on WvW. As long that doesn't happen don't expect big changes, i even forsee future changes when they are looking into WvW with that mindset to be peanuts compared to what's needed.

their primary concern was giving the underdog a bigger edge and preventing spawn camping (what can be changed by added big direction signs for those who still haven't learned there are 3 exits to a camp).

On that front they could add something controversial to what The secret world is doing and that is, adding a big robot that can be made active for the underdog side once people collected enough specific resources on the map. Once active it is not only offensive but defensive strong as it has a pulsing HoT. Again very controversial and don't see it fitting in here with people spending time and gold for keep upgrades.


But again, i expect them to purely add and change things on the front of helping the underdog a bit that is getting heavily spawn camped as their stance on WvW is still "Everything is fine and working as intended by our design philosophy"

[Dalure]

lioka qiao, on 09 November 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

I have a few ideas for improving WvW.  For the most part I think it is okay but there are a few things.

1.  I like to compare WvW to strategy games like Age of Empires or Total War because that is what it is.  When it comes down to attacking a castle in those games it is quite dangerous to your army to launch a full out assault on the castle.  You get chewed up by enemy siege and defenders.  Total War it is even more dangerous to attack a castle full on without siege weapon assistance.  It should be equally dangerous to assault a keep gate or castle that is defended.  There are some things that would make it as dangerous as this:
a.  Prevent targeted AOE attacks from activating when cast at a vertical wall.  These are pretty much all of the elementalist staff aoe abilities that I'm talking about.  These aoes can reach quite far back into the wall and with a large enough group of them make defending a wall nearly impossible.  It is like the attacking army has guys throwing live grenades onto the wall by the bucketful.
b.  Have walls resemble the design of real castles.  You have structures on the wall that let you shoot arrows through them without being exposed.  There should be murderholes forward of the gate.  Things like that.
c.  On the topic of walls there is a small lip on the outer and inner edge of every wall that actually obstructs a defender's view to shoot at the enemy attackers.  Make it so that this does not obstruct view.  Conversely it would be easy to shoot defenders.
d.  I heard last night that siege weapons despawn if they go unused for a while.  If this is indeed true... get rid of that immediately.  This alone makes preparing a defense for a castle or keep impossible.  Sure you can buy the upgrades to get permanent siege emplacement but those are typically not enough to repel an enemy army.

2.  Make Eternal Battleground at least 3x larger, or reduce the Trebuchet's range by half.
a.  If you make the EB 3x larger then add control points to the extra space.  Control points would include bridges, small gates, guard posts and the likes.  This would add a sense of controlling the land you own and give something to work for when your army pushes forward.
b.  If you reduce the Trebuchet's range by half it would make holding the towers around Stonemist easier.  These towers often provide key support to a siege on stonemist itself.

Personally I like the idea of making the battleground bigger.  It gives more opportunity for tactical maneuvers and strategy.  It also makes taking casualties in battle have a bigger impact on your army's ability to push forward since the reinforcements have to travel farther to reach you.

3.  Opportunity for more tactical strategy. This idea involves the ability to use your land to your advantage.  Add the ability to trigger rock slides on the mountain passes.  Add the ability to destroy bridges (It would be possible to repair a bridge of you controlled it).  Add the ability to set fire to an area of forest to destroy an advancing enemy army.  I borrow these ideas from the events in the Dynasty Warriors maps.  While that game is stylized it provides an accurate representation of real world tactics that allowed smaller armies incapable of taking on a larger army directly to emerge victorious.  Obviously one would have to pay supplies and use siege plans to construct rockslides and to place oil in locations for a fire attack or to plant explosives on the bridge.  Additionally add to ballistas the ability to lead a target like you normaly do if you shoot a bow at it.  A narrow mountain pass could be turned into a killzone with a few ballistae.


Beyond these changes i could really not care.  If more ppl are online at night then more spoils to them.  The points currently reflect how well your server overall performs in WvW and that can stay that way.

I really like your ideas mate.....WvW i will do for many years.....but with your ideas implented it would be double the fun and extend my fun and ofcourse make me play it even longer.
Everyone please bump this post and even push this towards Arenanet....extra help in ideas is always good;)
Awesome job!

Orikx, on 09 November 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I like that last idea you mentioned. It made me think of the traps int he EB jumping puzzle. Those are a very fun idea but not used much because of where they are.

Would be cool to have traps like that in keeps that people could activate.

Good idea aswell mate:)

[Dalure]

chuckles79, on 10 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

I have a proposal, moving past the same griping over outmanned buffs.

Let's change the upgrade system.

Go away from a list of 4-12 upgrades, make a tree system and you can't select all available upgrades.  Make the trees: Structural, Personnel, Engineering, and Sorcery.

Structural: upgrades like walls, doors, barricades that provide buffs when manned.

Personnel: upgraded guards, (I mean a lot of them) and scout patrols around the structure (I mean a ways out)

Engineering: automatically built defensive siege, or auto-defenses (should be VERY expensive)

Sorcery: a variety of buffs and debuffs within the keep (including firing range of the walls).  Particularly changes to speed and attack power.


Of course if these were implemented incorrectly, it could be disastrous.  However, it would force servers and guilds to adopt comprehensive strategies amongst all land they hold.

I bumped this idea nice one mate:)
I always wanted more upgrades and more paths/ways that can be changed to def or attack......just 1 way and same upgrades can get doll)if you know what i mean).
Keep the ideas flowing;)

[Dalure]

Lordkrall, on 10 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Indeed, the main problem as I see it is that griefers tend to ignore discipline and do anything to destroy anyway.

Might be possible to have a restriction that only the officers from the guild that claimed it could start upgrades or something like that I suppose.

My thought was always that the guild who claimed the keep should upgrade it....so only let the claimed guild have permission for this is the only way.

[chuckles79]

So a few good ideas going forward

1. Interactive terrain via triggered events (destroyed bridges, forest fires, etc.)

2. upgrade trees that force planned strategies over a hodge podge of generic upgrades

3. Outmanned buff to actually buff

4. New Maps

5. Better squad interface for commanders and squad members.  It's ridiculous that people are reliant upon 3rd party software if they want any kind of coordination

Ideas that are stale or just misguided and need to go away

1. eliminating night capping (Unless you are willing to donate for separate Oceanic servers, please stop griping)

2. Making objectives harder to capture

3. Point differential based upon continental "primetime" (see point 1)

4. "Darkness Falls"  Sounds good on the surface, but it would just be another reason for people to bandwagon onto winning servers and make things horrible for the losing teams.  Think of early GW1 when HoH and which continent's team were winning for Favor of the Gods.  Weekends were owned by the US, days by Europe, and Asia and Oceania never got to do UW or FoW.

[chuckles79]

Dalure, on 12 November 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

I bumped this idea nice one mate:)
I always wanted more upgrades and more paths/ways that can be changed to def or attack......just 1 way and same upgrades can get doll)if you know what i mean).
Keep the ideas flowing;)

Ok building off of what Scourge said, but different as well.  We don't want manned craft or vehicles, but as part of the upgrade trees on keeps, have a naval (in BL) or Aerial (in EB) bombardment upgrade.  It should be VERY expensive, but the pay off is a very showy DE triggered on the target of the upgrader's choice where a keep is bombarded by cannons.  Should be enough to take down non-upgraded walls.

The idea being a massive game changer to break static deadlocks.  All too often the teams get their corners of the maps and then can do nothing but raid supply.  This mechanic would mean that a devastating attack could happen at any time and people would be forced to guard their keeps.
It should be "very showy" so that it's obvious to everyone what's happening so that the 3rd server can act as well.

Lastly, this will force servers to not be complacent, and strive to hold all keeps as things could flip radically if any remain in enemy hands.

At this point, stasis is what will kill the format faster than anything and I support any ideas that create variety, unpredictability, and changeable tactics.

Edited by chuckles79, 12 November 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[Tumaras]

WvW is the thing keeping me playing this game because I enjoy (when not just a mindless zerg) the strategy of cutting off and draining resources, different ways to take a tower/keep, hit and run, managing resources, distraction attacks, defending a tower, etc.  None of those exist really in the same way in spvp and I'm not too interested the the glitchy dungeons.  

But at this point I'm barely hanging on to see what the November 15th patch really holds as far as improvement for wvw.  The game isn't that far off from being great, but there are still a lot of issues that so far aren't being addressed like like mesmer portals, culling, server transfers, the same boring repeat matches, the outmanned buff needing redesigned, treb distance, and no rewards for wvw performance.  There has been no talk of new maps or any significant improvements even in the works for wvw while pve already gets a new dungeon/zone/puzzles and spvp gets new map and game modes.  Wvw just doesn't seem to be a priority, which imo is a mistake when a large segment of gw2 only play for wvw.  The only change of note we've seen so far is the disabling of orbs, which seemed like a quick lazy fix for orb hacking and orb buff tuning.  This game isn't beta anymore, so I don't think that saying just wait the game is pretty new is a reasonable response to these problems.  The level of development effort currently into pve and spvp (aiming for esports) seems to be far higher than wvw.  To be honest I am curious if Anet still has developers working on wvw at all.

[Don Zaloog]

There is a glaring problem with your idea 2 and that is small fights of 2v2 or 3v3 or even 5v5 would be lopsided in favor of the people with buff.

[RabidusIncendia]

Acidbaron, on 10 November 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

A lot of things could be improved and avoided, right now the most important thing to change is the lead designer and the developers involved stance on WvW. As long that doesn't happen don't expect big changes, i even forsee future changes when they are looking into WvW with that mindset to be peanuts compared to what's needed.

Pretty much this.  I don't think talking about ideas will solve anything at this point anymore.  Currently I think they have the same mindset they have of WvWvW as they did with hero battles.  "it's the players' fault it's turning to crap, not our crappy design".  Despite 30 pages of descriptions of nightcapping and suggestions and questions in the main forum, they have yet to make a response after page 6.  Last we heard Jon Peters was making his design decisions based on the top servers which has nothing to do with the WvW problems.

Personally, I've given up.  I've stayed on my server in hopes that Anet would do something, but screw it.  To get recruits for my guild I have to play WvW a lot, but all there is to do is protect camps fully owned maps, or take camps on fully overrun maps.  So I'm just helping to make SF even more of a ghost town and leaving to a better populated sever.  It has simply ceased to be fun, nevermind winning or losing.

[ilr]

Good Start to this topic but I don't think #3 is necessary.

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

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.

Legendary Defenders also make any ally standing near them invincible which is total overkill. Anet just needs to find a way to make smaller "elite" groups of players present more of a challenge to large clumsy Zergs. (in a way that doesn't require Siege weapons).  And Anet already stated that they had plans for something like that so I'm waiting for them to get back to us with Details before I bother suggesting alternatives.

Edited by ilr, 12 November 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[johnnyutah21]

One way to help population imbalance would be to only leave Eternal Battlegrounds on during off hours and halt play on all other BL's.  This way servers with a smaller night presence can consolidate their forces into one map, and even if that map gets wiped the score does not change as much as wiping all 4 maps.