How to really fix WvW through game design

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> I came upon this article the other day which made a point that perfectly describes what is wrong with WvW.

>

> https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals

>

> "One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone."

>

> WvW is designed as a positive feedback game instead of one of negative feedback. I'm not going to go through detailing every little thing that feeds into making it a positive feedback game. I feel that many of you reading this already inherently understand how life in game gets easier when you have upgraded objectives and higher numbers than an opponent. I'm only going to offer some ideas for introducing negative feedback and I encourage others to do the same in this thread.

>

> - Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

> - Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.

> - (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.

> - Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

>

> Edit: Additional suggestions from other posters.

> - Yaks from camps not in your starting zone deliver less supply. Yaks from camps not in your starting zone are slower. (Swamurabi)

> - Controlling SMC drains supply from other structures in EBG. Controlling other keeps drains supply from other structures. (Swamurabi)

>

> Edit: So far most responses center around using supply as a negative feedback mechanism.

 

Introducing annoying mechanics certainly won’t improve the current state of wvw.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Introducing annoying mechanics certainly won’t improve the current state of wvw.

 

There are annoying mechanics then there are negative feedback mechanics. Annoying mechanics are disincentives that are applied to everyone regardless of their winning status. Negative mechanics, on the other hand, help control the game flow not necessarily through disincentives but through handicaps against the leader. The current state of WvW is a direct result of positive feedback mechanics that reward the leader. Players ask constantly, "What is the point?". What we have is a direct result of too much positive feedback.

 

Here's another article... http://cecilsunkure.blogspot.com/2010/05/game-design-positive-and-negative.html

 

"I also see games made in which the leader has no way of letting the other players catch up to him, because he has such a great advantage over the other players. I also see the losers in a game have no means of catching up to the leaders. What's the point of continuing play if the outcome of the match has already been determined in the middle of the game because the leading player has a tremendous advantage over the rest of the players? These types of design flaws can be controlled with positive and negative feedback loops. Usually positive feedback loops are harmful to a game's flow (flow will be explained more in depth soon), and should be switched out for negative feedback loops. If a leading player seems to be constantly destroying all the other players in an unfair way, create a negative feedback response in which the system (the game) reacts and hinders the leading player. Similarly, you can give advantages to the players in last place to encourage and help them catch up to the leaders."

 

If you look back at the original design of WvW, the non-randomized glicko matchmaking was a type of negative feedback that required a leading server to work harder in order to increase their rank and move up a tier because glicko rating increases require performance above expectations. We lost that along the way.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

Most of the suggestions on how to "fix" WvW that come up on these forums involve either changing the entire game mode into something completely different or require resources that self-evidently aren't and won't become available. The OP's suggestions are a lot more practical and feasible than that.

 

The "Darkness Falls" idea has been raised over and over since even before launch, though. I'd have thought if it was going to happen it would have happened by now. The problems with it are a) PvE players who don't like WvW (which is most of them, most likely) would find it a gross imposition if the new map was seen as one worth playing on (and of course if it wasn't seen as worth playing on the whole idea would fail). Conversely, pure WvW players, who drive the game mode, would be largely unaffected and wouldn't leave to go to the new map anyway, again undermining the basic plan. Now if the new map could somehow be made to be extremely appealing to core WvW players but of very low interest to PvE players...

 

I always liked the idea of resetting objectives back to T1 although I think doing it every 2 hours would be problematic. That was kind of the plan with the old Laser Cannon from the original version of DBL and that was very unpopular. A daily reset on a rolling 8 hour block might be interesting. Meaning that every day the maps reset at the start of a different main Time Zone. (Possibly 6 hour block if we think there are 4 timezones?)

 

Setting two servers as non-aggressive on a certain condition appeals to me as someone who always believed the tripartite system was intended to foster alliances. I get the impression that's a minority view, though, and most players dislike teaming up with other servers even when it's clearly in their interest. I guess if the game gave them no choice it might be easier but I have a feeling a lot of people would just log out and wait for it to be over.

 

Can't see any problem with enemy watchtowers/sentries deactivating against Outnumbered teams. That sounds like a great idea.

 

The supply ideas are a bit fiddly. How about just making tactivators apply only in "home" camps and only for the "home" team? That way, if you take someone's Bay or Hills you have to upgrade it the old-fashioned way but if someone takes yours and you get it back you get a boost to bring it back to T3.

 

Overall, though, I think the basic concept of Negative Feedback is very sound and should be possible to implement in some form without huge, time-consuming and expensive changes to the basic infrastructure. I hope someone from ANet is paying close attention to this thread.

[Burnfall.9573]

How to really fix WvW through game design?

 

In **my opinion**; i agree that wvw need fix through game design but foremost; it need a complete new game design team whose goals focus is to make ww healthy.

 

Secondly; wvw need a complete overall-to be entirely redesign wvw from the ground up. 5 years+ of toxicity must to be rooted out and be replaced with healthy roots

 

' **If you truly want to solve a problem, you must dig at the roots. Hacking at the leaves will only delay it** '

 

 

[Lonami.2987]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> I came upon this article the other day which made a point that perfectly describes what is wrong with WvW.

>

> https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals

>

> "One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone."

>

> WvW is designed as a positive feedback game instead of one of negative feedback. I'm not going to go through detailing every little thing that feeds into making it a positive feedback game. I feel that many of you reading this already inherently understand how life in game gets easier when you have upgraded objectives and higher numbers than an opponent. I'm only going to offer some ideas for introducing negative feedback and I encourage others to do the same in this thread.

>

> - Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

> - Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.

> - (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.

> - Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

>

> Edit: Additional suggestions from other posters.

> - Yaks from camps not in your starting zone deliver less supply. Yaks from camps not in your starting zone are slower. (Swamurabi)

> - Controlling SMC drains supply from other structures in EBG. Controlling other keeps drains supply from other structures. (Swamurabi)

>

> Edit: So far most responses center around using supply as a negative feedback mechanism.

 

Completely agree with the negative feedback approach. There's more to it than that, but it's a good start. Very interesting article too, good to see stuff like that posted here.

 

Anyway, how I would improve World vs World. Note that I'm going wild, almost redesigning half of it:

 

---

 

**Buildings and upgrades**

 

Buildings are one of the major problems of WvW. They just don't work well. Let's stat with a few basic changes:

 

* Capturing and upgrading objectives does not reset damaged walls and doors.

* Some buildings require a minimum number of people to be captured. Towers could be 3, keeps 5, and castles 10. This forces you to group and survive. Lonely roamers don't become that big of a menace now, and you can focus on the bigger threats. A single player can still decapture any building, turning it neutral with no guards, so you can still hurt the other factions even if you don't have the numbers to steal their buildings. The original owners will need to walk in and recapture it if they want it back.

* Castles now have a third door before the lord. The garrison of each borderland is now considered a castle.

* Keeps can now be claimed by two guilds at once, each taking care of a side, and have two lords at the capture point. Castles can be claimed by three guilds at once, and have three lords at the capture point. All lords need to be killed to enable capture.

* Lords have two phases with two health bars. Once you finish the first phase, all the guards run towards the lord's capture point. The lord becomes invulnerable until you kill all the guards. This makes guards useful and worth killing during the siege.

* Damaged walls and doors of captured buildings get repaired slowly, up to 80%, thanks to repair NPCs. Walls and doors over 80% health lose it slowly, back to 80%. Undefended buildings will be more vulnerable, and defending players have a constant maintenance job.

 

With that in mind, let's start with the structural upgrades. The whole system is flawed, because the upgrades are permanent. That's the major problem. So instead, we'll turn the upgrades into buffs you have to apply constantly. You would still need to escort caravans to hoard upgrade points. Few examples:

 

* **Wall upgrades:** Adds a second health bar to walls, and changes their aesthetics. Can be applied twice for two tiers (wood, stone, metal). If any of the health bars is depleted, the upgrade is lost for that specific wall section, and it needs to be bought back. The upgrade is cheaper depending on how many walls it will be applied to. The upgrades have a timer as well, and after 1h they will start inevitably degrading, so you need to refresh the upgrades at least every hour. Camps can now be upgraded with a small palisade to make them harder to capture.

* **Guard upgrades:** Summons additional guards. Like the wall upgrades, you need to buy this upgrade again to respawn the dead guards and refresh their contracts.

* **Other upgrades:** Pretty much all the other structural upgrades would work like the two above. Most of the guild upgrades would become structural upgrades.

 

Additionally, guilds could have special customization options for buildings they've claimed, like custom guards and lords, with unique skins and abilities, and special upgrades, like a telescope to spy the positions of enemies across the whole map for 30 seconds, a supercannon to bombard faraway targets, a shipyard to call in air strikes, and other advanced options, that guilds would have to research, and then select in a new "WvW Guild Build" panel.

 

Finally, combat between the walls and the ground is really awful, and needs to be improved urgently. Change how visual obstacles work, increase range of weapons, let the players build siege ladders, or whatever, but something needs to be done.

 

---

 

**Siege and player roles**

 

WvW rank skills are now integrated into the mastery system, and they take less time to level up. They use their own exclusive WvW mastery points, so you still need to play WvW and complete various tasks and achievements to be able to buy each upgrade. WvW ranks work like PvP ranks now, and reward titles and siege skins (instead of finishers) every tier.

 

Supply and siege blueprints are gone. Now players have to choose a **WvW role** at their spawning point, activated as a bundle with the special action key. You don't need a role to use a siege weapon, but you need it to deploy it and enable the upgrades. Instead of supply, now siege is limited by cooldowns, so you can't have a single player spam everything himself. Siege takes longer to build, but every player can help build it no matter the role. Superior and guild quality siege weapons are gone, relegated to aesthetic skins. All roles have a repair hammer option, for walls, doors, and siege weapons. Since siege now has cooldowns, it's important to not let the enemy destroy it easily.

 

All roles are unlocked by default, and you unlock additional upgrades and skills through masteries. The WvW roles are as follows:

 

* **Scout:** The perfect role for the roamers. You can deploy supply removal and stealth disruptor traps, as well as use siege disabler tricks. You also have a few passive mobility advantages, and detection and deactivation options for enemy traps. You can place [sentry towers](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sentry_Turret) to spy on the enemy, lasting 15min each.

* **Defender:** For those defending fortifications. You get a stat boost by staying inside said fortifications, and you can use the upgraded skills of cannons, mortars, and burning cauldrons. Additional bonus speed for repairs.

* **Light Artillery:** Deployment and upgraded skills of arrow carts and ballistae.

* **Heavy Artillery:** Deployment and upgraded skills of catapults and trebuchets.

* **Technician:** Deployment and upgraded skills of siege golems and shield generators.

* **Infantry:** The default role for your common player wanting to fight face to face. Deployment and upgraded skills of flame rams. Additional bonus against enemy guards.

 

These would be the basic roles, with a mastery track each. Then squads would have some special roles as well, included in a single mastery track:

 

* **Commander:** This role is assigned by default to the commander of the squad, giving him a stat boost depending on the number of nearby squad members, and making him tougher and harder to kill. Additionally, the commander gives a small buff to all nearby squad members, making him an important figure beyond leadership. Losing the commander will now have very negative repercussions. The commander also gets a break bar, and can apply stances to the whole squad. The "March!" stance would apply a swiftness boost to the whole squad, and the "Hold!" stance would give squad members a "solid obstacle" effect, which wouldn't let enemies cross through your ranks, letting players barricade a bridge or a door with their own bodies.

* **Bannerman:** This role is assigned by the commander. It would focus on giving minor support to his squad allies, by carrying the guild emblem in a huge banner that would be seen clearly by his enemies. Centaur, Turtle, and Dragon Banner tactics would be removed as schematics, and be partially integrated into this new role. The bannerman can place the banner in the ground, where it keeps boosting allies, and then retake it later. Dying drops the banner.

* **Musician:** Another support role, the musician would charge into battle playing the guild's battle anthem, with a huge horn of battle, giving his squad comrades various small boosts.

 

I know these might sound crazy and chaotic at first, but I think they could turn WvW battles into very interesting situations, where strategy and planning matters more than mindless zerging. The squad roles encourage guild pride and competition too, now you will know who's your enemy by just looking at their banner and hearing their battle anthem playing.

 

Roles force infantry players to defend their teammates with the special roles too. A smart enemy commander could break a siege by just killing the siege masters, and leave the infantry stranded with nothing but rams to keep going on.

 

---

 

**Other things**

 

* The weekly league chest should be changed to a monthly version. Right now, unless you're really dedicated to WvW, you will be left out of the ticket rewards. Let people work their way up slowly over a month, instead of feeling forced to rush each week. Make the last chest repeatable for those who finish the track.

* NPC enemy waves can be interesting, since player activity is never guaranteed. Used wisely they can create defense situations in unexpected locations that don't see much action. For example, a band of bandits spawns and starts hunting caravans. The dead rise from the crypt of a keep, and start attacking the guards. A wyvern attacks a castle with too many resources, and if you don't stop him he burns all of them. Stuff like that, nothing game-changing, but enough to force action when there's nothing going on. These events could target high tier buildings, as a sort of handicap, to make them harder to hold even if the other teams aren't interested in attacking.

* WvW caters to way too many playstyles right now, and some of them outright contradict each other. It needs to go on a direction, and stick to it. That's why the game would really benefit from [a new PvP/WvW mode, battlegrounds](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/1601/pve-got-raids-time-for-pvp-to-get-battlegrounds), giving guilds a 10v10 mode where they can play competitively without queues and server problems.

 

---

 

Just way too many crazy ideas. I could write more but let's leave it there for now.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

 

> - Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

>

 

 

so much this please

 

[Kiroshima.8497]

While negative feedback loops are important to make things difficult for a leading team, it still doesn't solve the "optimal strategy" currently in WvW: Numbers.

 

Blobs destroy any sense of tactics or skill in terms of a battlefield matchup, as the maps are currently just too small (except EBG, which should remain small on purpose to be in an Eternal state of battle). This means the server with the most numbers will win the most benefits the majority of the time (not even including off hours shenanigans). As long as you scout out an opposing force, your own blob can respond within a minute, maybe two minutes with a long run from home spawn to side keeps (no way points). EWP kills smaller groups, since they don't have enough time to take out inner unless they aren't scouted. Watch Tower hurts small groups as proxy catas and rams (the fastest siege damage) are removed. So many things inhibit the small group, making blobbing the only way to win in a reasonable time frame.

 

Even the game engine reinforces this. All support skills affect 5 players, most offensive skills affect 3 unless they have a long cooldown. The stackening is natural to the game system (see Dungeons for a history).

 

Server stacking and unbalanced matchups will always occur as long as blobbing and numbers are the optimal strategy.

 

Possible Solutions:

First off, we need to move supply sources back to camps. It's way too easy for a large group to waypoint to home bl, then port out with 25 supply per player. Supply pickups should be camp focused, so roamers can contest them and reward their team. T3ing a camp should be a powerful supply point compared to a keep, that's why it's a supply camp.

 

Upgrades cost supply. T3ing your keep may be powerful, but at the cost of your supply storage. Instead of camping the keep, you need to hold all the camps.

 

More camps. Reduced supply per yak. You need to hold more camps in order to upgrade structures (which also cost supply to upgrade). Map is also larger, meaning more run time if roamers are contesting structures.

 

Waypoint is no longer a part of upgrades, instead everything gets a waypoint 5 minutes after RI is up. Waypoints are contested only by killing NPCs fully. This buffs roamers and guild groups. If you control the camps/towers/keeps, you control your team's mobility on map. You can also contest your opponent by ganking enemy objectives (kill a camp NPC, waypoint contested). The other advantage is with more waypoints, an enemy who only blobs 1 objective at a time will find their enemies respawning quickly and very close by, promoting fights. Alternatively, both teams will send roamers to gank each other, splitting the blobs up.

 

More Offensive Tactics. There's only 1 offensive tactic in game: Charr Car. It's pretty neat, but with a 13 minute load time, and only a 15 minute duration, it is VERY limited in what it can do. Hit and Run makes 0 difference when structures have SOOOO much hp for a single charr car to handle. We need heavy siege (on a cooldown, limited location and usage), and persistent siege (passive, cheap damage but contant pressure), and Charr Car should be buffed to do more damage and have more uptime.

 

Killing players buffs the rewards of your next objective flip, and vice versa. We need a strong gameplay flow that can help dictate how/when players should act. Right now, fighting is a risk, but k-training structures is super rewarding. Instead, make it so you have a buff based reward system: Killing players gives you a bonus bag per player on your next tower within 30 minutes, 50% more bags for keep flips. Camp flips count as player kills. Taking a tower grants you 1 bonus bag per player kill in the next 30 minutes, taking a keep gives you the buff for the whole skirmish.

 

Reduce NPC power. Split up the zergs by getting players to take NPC roles. For example, a player can take over a Sentry, gaining a minor increase in stats, but they need to stay in their ring. They can mark enemies using the special action key. Killing a yak while a Sentry grants you extra rewards. Or when at the camp, speak to the Quartermaster to become a Supply Yak (transformation). You can't fight, but you can help speed up structure upgrades or get supply to better locations (players can interact with you to get supply, as a yak you carry 20 more than normal but can't spend it). Delivering supply to a keep grants you bonus rewards, but being killed drops 20 supply on the ground for enemies to use.

 

Honestly, we just need more things to do besides sit in a keep with arrow carts, or run around looking for blobs that aren't incentivized to fight.

[Caliburn.1845]

^I like the idea of breaking up the zergs. But I think you can take it a step further. Most castles in real world history fell to starvation or internal treachery and not full frontal assault. Make it so that if dolyaks do not make it regularly into a keep or tower it begins to degrade.

 

Something along the lines of:

No dolyak for 30 minutes the internal supply is drained.

No dolyak for 60 minutes the structure loses a level of upgrades(T3 to T2 for example).

No dolyak for 90 minutes all walls and gates degrade to 50% health.

No dolyak for 120 minutes, the objective flips to it's natural owner(this would be based on map geography).

[Kiroshima.8497]

Well, the thing is, we don't want it to be a chore (like refreshing siege is now). You want to reward players for playing well, instead of punish them for inaction. Or make things like trade offs that are a net positive (like transforming into a yak makes you weaker but speeds up supply to structures).

 

Also, lets avoid the "in real life" card as it usually ends up unfun to most people. Otherwise we'd have things like body blocking (oh god). Realism is usually a poor basis for design choices (barring sims and some niche things).

[cobbah.3102]

Hmmm just remove the ridiculous AOE drop the range keep the toxic stuff (we know it will not be fixed anyway) just drop the range when it covers the walls you get obliterated before you can even blink no-one has the response time to move you want to take out siege on walls use siege to do it not the AOE and delete the sheilds gens it seemed like a good idea at the time but it works against the defenders as the toxic blobs drop copious amounts on their siege and you have no hope of defending as it completely nullifies any defence. Also the PVD what the kitten is with that it should be stopped . Last but not least delete Stealth (another thing that will be denounced ) to be expected , but at the end of the day nothing will change .

[Junkpile.7439]

They should scrap this 24/7 kitten and copy game mode from some other game. :)

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"Grim West.3194" said:

> I hope the devs take a look and seriously consider some of these ideas.

>

> WvW needs some changes at a very basic level. The bandaids are not working.

 

The only problem is... that the devs and the publisher don't care enough, to even entertain the thought of making any changes. If you want better RvR action then the one currently setup in GW2. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER GAME, that supports your style of play.

[Decado.9304]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> - Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

 

No thanks, we need less PvE in WvW as a matter off principal and should never be adding more

 

> - Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.

 

Too harsh, takes a lot of work to upgrade to T3 to knock it back to paper. I would imagine maps would just become T1 flipping karmatrains too often. I could however see a -1 tier penalty (for all non-garrison structures) at the end of each skirmish as a way to encourage more fighting

 

> - Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

 

Okay with this, people should be checking on contested structures anyway

 

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > I hope the devs take a look and seriously consider some of these ideas.

> >

> > WvW needs some changes at a very basic level. The bandaids are not working.

>

> The only problem is... that the devs and the publisher don't care enough, to even entertain the thought of making any changes. If you want better RvR action then the one currently setup in GW2. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER GAME, that supports your style of play.

 

Disagree. Completely.

 

Now, it truly seems like your only purpose in this forum is to convince others to leave the game.

 

Please stop. Some of us enjoy it. If you find other games to be enjoyable, go play them. Maybe your time there will be constructive enough to draw people in.

 

Here, you are only being destructive. Not a good way to go through life.

[SugarCayne.3098]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> - Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

 

I think there's something to this. And certainly it would entice players into the game and help to make it more competitive. Vanguard MMO used to have a tool called "Diplomacy" where players would parley with various NPCs and affect global buffs. The opposing side, of course, could parley the NPCs and remove the buff -- it gave meaning to those who didn't raid (meaning their actions had global impact).

 

Your idea is broader with the score of WvW allowing access to a lucrative shiny. But you have to work for it. It won't play well with the pve crowd because they tend to want things instantly -- but it's fair; and that's what's more important.

 

However, you'd have to figure out how to prevent massive bandwagoning/destack servers before this was implemented -- or people would just flock to the top server to ensure they got access to the dungeon. (You'd also have to outline rules that if your server loses the dungeon and you're halfway through it, you don't get punted, etc..).

 

The other ideas, I am not fond of .. but this one, this one has potential.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > > @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > > I hope the devs take a look and seriously consider some of these ideas.

> > >

> > > WvW needs some changes at a very basic level. The bandaids are not working.

> >

> > The only problem is... that the devs and the publisher don't care enough, to even entertain the thought of making any changes. If you want better RvR action then the one currently setup in GW2. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER GAME, that supports your style of play.

>

> Disagree. Completely.

>

> Now, it truly seems like your only purpose in this forum is to convince others to leave the game.

>

> Please stop. Some of us enjoy it. If you find other games to be enjoyable, go play them. Maybe your time there will be constructive enough to draw people in.

>

> Here, you are only being destructive. Not a good way to go through life.

 

I respect the fact that you disagree with me.

 

However how is what I'm saying is wrong?

 

ANet has made little to no strides to entertain their PvP and WvW consumers.

 

ANet has started to fully balance the game around PvE with no care for the repercussions of the effects on PvP and WvW.

 

PvP and WvW balance fixes and updates are so minimal they don't ever fix the issues because of the effects they may have on PvE.

 

Oh and I'm just going to add the single group of PvE additive to WvW that completely turned it into a PvE K-Train land..... {Tactivators}

 

So after comparing other MMOs and how they handle PvP and RvR, again how am I wrong?

 

Also my intentions are not to get happy PvE players to leave GW2. My intentions are letting players know that if they are PvP or RvR oriented. That their are MMO companies out there that will actually support their playstyle. Nothing more and nothing less. Now if or not they leave. That's on ANet and themselves.

 

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > > > @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > > > I hope the devs take a look and seriously consider some of these ideas.

> > > >

> > > > WvW needs some changes at a very basic level. The bandaids are not working.

> > >

> > > The only problem is... that the devs and the publisher don't care enough, to even entertain the thought of making any changes. If you want better RvR action then the one currently setup in GW2. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER GAME, that supports your style of play.

> >

> > Disagree. Completely.

> >

> > Now, it truly seems like your only purpose in this forum is to convince others to leave the game.

> >

> > Please stop. Some of us enjoy it. If you find other games to be enjoyable, go play them. Maybe your time there will be constructive enough to draw people in.

> >

> > Here, you are only being destructive. Not a good way to go through life.

>

> I respect the fact that you disagree with me.

>

> However how is what I'm saying is wrong?

>

> ANet has made little to no strides to entertain their PvP and WvW consumers.

>

> ANet has started to fully balance the game around PvE with no care for the repercussions of the effects on PvP and WvW.

>

> PvP and WvW are so minimal they don't ever fix the issues because of the effects they may have on PvE.

>

> So again how am I wrong?

 

This is the most constructive post you have offered in 4 weeks.

 

The one I referenced is, unfortunately, only an attempt to get people to leave the game mode.

 

I know you don't care about an infraction or a temp ban.

 

Howevet, I can only surmise that you care about some aspect of this game, be it the game itself, the community, something, as you continue to come into the forums regularly.

 

If there is something about the game you believe in, then provide something constructive.

 

People will tune you out if all you ever say is; leave the game.

 

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > > > > @"Grim West.3194" said:

> > > > > I hope the devs take a look and seriously consider some of these ideas.

> > > > >

> > > > > WvW needs some changes at a very basic level. The bandaids are not working.

> > > >

> > > > The only problem is... that the devs and the publisher don't care enough, to even entertain the thought of making any changes. If you want better RvR action then the one currently setup in GW2. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER GAME, that supports your style of play.

> > >

> > > Disagree. Completely.

> > >

> > > Now, it truly seems like your only purpose in this forum is to convince others to leave the game.

> > >

> > > Please stop. Some of us enjoy it. If you find other games to be enjoyable, go play them. Maybe your time there will be constructive enough to draw people in.

> > >

> > > Here, you are only being destructive. Not a good way to go through life.

> >

> > I respect the fact that you disagree with me.

> >

> > However how is what I'm saying is wrong?

> >

> > ANet has made little to no strides to entertain their PvP and WvW consumers.

> >

> > ANet has started to fully balance the game around PvE with no care for the repercussions of the effects on PvP and WvW.

> >

> > PvP and WvW are so minimal they don't ever fix the issues because of the effects they may have on PvE.

> >

> > So again how am I wrong?

>

> This is the most constructive post you have offered in 4 weeks.

>

> The one I referenced is, unfortunately, only an attempt to get people to leave the game mode.

>

> I know you don't care about an infraction or a temp ban.

>

> Howevet, I can only surmise that you care about some aspect of this game, be it the game itself, the community, something, as you continue to come into the forums regularly.

>

> If there is something about the game you believe in, then provide something constructive.

>

> People will tune you out if all you ever say is; leave the game.

>

 

You are right I do care. I care about the two community worth of players who are being rejected at primal level by the devs. In Order to only care for easy to please casual PvEers. I mean I could go on. But you don't have to be a psychologist to understand or see through ANet's past and current actions. Which group of consumers they value and which group they don't, and may even hate.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Junkpile.7439" said:

> They should scrap this 24/7 kitten and copy game mode from some other game. :)

 

Hue hue hue.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Zaviel.1245" said:

> WvW fix: Remove the need for servers, change the WvW factions to named factions like Edge of the Mist. The only difference is that instead you can sign up to be on a chosen faction, which is how you will go in with friends.

>

> Have extra rewards to choose a random faction that sorts players into lower population factions so the population will be balanced. Factions end and reset at the end of a WvW season.

 

Also, give loyalty rewards so that you get more pips and other stuff the longer you stay in a faction, this would help mitigate bandwagoning.

In fact if they did this for home servers, retroactively and gave people the choice to go back to their server with the most play time, it'd probably revert a lot of the bandwagoning effects.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"Junkpile.7439" said:

> > **They should scrap this 24/7 kitten and copy game mode from some other game. :)**

>

 

 

how did i miss that comment lol..

[QuickRain.4735]

i think this would add more strat to the PPT department, also it would make Supply Yaks/Speedy Yaks far more important. I also love the idea that keep/tower/sm revert every 2 hrs. Although i would think that the 2hrs should be increased to 3-4? based on the current upgrade speed of keeps/sm or lower the requirements of them. I also agree with the revealing "winning perma reveal" "losing no reveal"

 

On a side note im not sure where im on the whole DAoC thing

[Klipso.8653]

Make winning matter again, they don't want to give us tournaments but they can at least add meaning to score

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"Klipso.8653" said:

> Make winning matter again, they don't want to give us tournaments but they can at least add meaning to score

 

In order for that to happen. They would have to do what ESO had done to Cyrodiil. And make simply having more coverage, bodies on field, and nightcapping not equal instant win.

 

They would have to refix the whole supply mechanics.

 

They would have to revamp their whole view of monetizing on Servers of the Month and server transfers.

 

They would have to look into removing the Tactivators they put in with HoT.

 

They would have to add some WvW skills that all professions can use. That would give groups that are dealing with outumbered situations a fighting chance.

 

They would have to make the game more skill based and less spam based.

 

They would have to start treating WvW and PvE differently.

 

They would ultimately have to completely do what other relevant RvR ish MMOs have done and release a completely revamped version of the system.

 

If they can't do this can winning or losing will continue to be pointless. Because game mechanics or players abusing game mechanics with the Devs blessing decides who wins or lose. Rendering competition absolutely worthless in WvW. More so when you have locks on servers so that they can never compete with a server or two or three who balatently abused certain game mechanics to get such a unfair advantage in the first, with the blessings of the devs no less.

 

GO AHEAD ANET SILENCE ME AGAIN! However remember by doing so you are more or less admitting to those who still believe in you. That you can completely care less about their preferred game modes, and are not interesting in fixing them.

[Ben K.6238]

> @"Lonami.2987" said:

>! > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

>! > > I came upon this article the other day which made a point that perfectly describes what is wrong with WvW.

>! > >

>! > > https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals

>! > >

>! > > "One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone."

>! > >

>! > > WvW is designed as a positive feedback game instead of one of negative feedback. I'm not going to go through detailing every little thing that feeds into making it a positive feedback game. I feel that many of you reading this already inherently understand how life in game gets easier when you have upgraded objectives and higher numbers than an opponent. I'm only going to offer some ideas for introducing negative feedback and I encourage others to do the same in this thread.

>! > >

>! > > - Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

>! > > - Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.

>! > > - (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.

>! > > - Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

>! > >

>! > > Edit: Additional suggestions from other posters.

>! > > - Yaks from camps not in your starting zone deliver less supply. Yaks from camps not in your starting zone are slower. (Swamurabi)

>! > > - Controlling SMC drains supply from other structures in EBG. Controlling other keeps drains supply from other structures. (Swamurabi)

>! > >

>! > > Edit: So far most responses center around using supply as a negative feedback mechanism.

>! >

>! > Completely agree with the negative feedback approach. There's more to it than that, but it's a good start. Very interesting article too, good to see stuff like that posted here.

>! >

>! > Anyway, how I would improve World vs World. Note that I'm going wild, almost redesigning half of it:

>! >

>! > ---

>! >

>! > **Buildings and upgrades**

>! >

>! > Buildings are one of the major problems of WvW. They just don't work well. Let's stat with a few basic changes:

>! >

>! > * Capturing and upgrading objectives does not reset damaged walls and doors.

>! > * Some buildings require a minimum number of people to be captured. Towers could be 3, keeps 5, and castles 10. This forces you to group and survive. Lonely roamers don't become that big of a menace now, and you can focus on the bigger threats. A single player can still decapture any building, turning it neutral with no guards, so you can still hurt the other factions even if you don't have the numbers to steal their buildings. The original owners will need to walk in and recapture it if they want it back.

>! > * Castles now have a third door before the lord. The garrison of each borderland is now considered a castle.

>! > * Keeps can now be claimed by two guilds at once, each taking care of a side, and have two lords at the capture point. Castles can be claimed by three guilds at once, and have three lords at the capture point. All lords need to be killed to enable capture.

>! > * Lords have two phases with two health bars. Once you finish the first phase, all the guards run towards the lord's capture point. The lord becomes invulnerable until you kill all the guards. This makes guards useful and worth killing during the siege.

>! > * Damaged walls and doors of captured buildings get repaired slowly, up to 80%, thanks to repair NPCs. Walls and doors over 80% health lose it slowly, back to 80%. Undefended buildings will be more vulnerable, and defending players have a constant maintenance job.

>! >

>! > With that in mind, let's start with the structural upgrades. The whole system is flawed, because the upgrades are permanent. That's the major problem. So instead, we'll turn the upgrades into buffs you have to apply constantly. You would still need to escort caravans to hoard upgrade points. Few examples:

>! >

>! > * **Wall upgrades:** Adds a second health bar to walls, and changes their aesthetics. Can be applied twice for two tiers (wood, stone, metal). If any of the health bars is depleted, the upgrade is lost for that specific wall section, and it needs to be bought back. The upgrade is cheaper depending on how many walls it will be applied to. The upgrades have a timer as well, and after 1h they will start inevitably degrading, so you need to refresh the upgrades at least every hour. Camps can now be upgraded with a small palisade to make them harder to capture.

>! > * **Guard upgrades:** Summons additional guards. Like the wall upgrades, you need to buy this upgrade again to respawn the dead guards and refresh their contracts.

>! > * **Other upgrades:** Pretty much all the other structural upgrades would work like the two above. Most of the guild upgrades would become structural upgrades.

>! >

>! > Additionally, guilds could have special customization options for buildings they've claimed, like custom guards and lords, with unique skins and abilities, and special upgrades, like a telescope to spy the positions of enemies across the whole map for 30 seconds, a supercannon to bombard faraway targets, a shipyard to call in air strikes, and other advanced options, that guilds would have to research, and then select in a new "WvW Guild Build" panel.

>! >

>! > Finally, combat between the walls and the ground is really awful, and needs to be improved urgently. Change how visual obstacles work, increase range of weapons, let the players build siege ladders, or whatever, but something needs to be done.

>! >

>! > ---

>! >

>! > **Siege and player roles**

>! >

>! > WvW rank skills are now integrated into the mastery system, and they take less time to level up. They use their own exclusive WvW mastery points, so you still need to play WvW and complete various tasks and achievements to be able to buy each upgrade. WvW ranks work like PvP ranks now, and reward titles and siege skins (instead of finishers) every tier.

>! >

>! > Supply and siege blueprints are gone. Now players have to choose a **WvW role** at their spawning point, activated as a bundle with the special action key. You don't need a role to use a siege weapon, but you need it to deploy it and enable the upgrades. Instead of supply, now siege is limited by cooldowns, so you can't have a single player spam everything himself. Siege takes longer to build, but every player can help build it no matter the role. Superior and guild quality siege weapons are gone, relegated to aesthetic skins. All roles have a repair hammer option, for walls, doors, and siege weapons. Since siege now has cooldowns, it's important to not let the enemy destroy it easily.

>! >

>! > All roles are unlocked by default, and you unlock additional upgrades and skills through masteries. The WvW roles are as follows:

>! >

>! > * **Scout:** The perfect role for the roamers. You can deploy supply removal and stealth disruptor traps, as well as use siege disabler tricks. You also have a few passive mobility advantages, and detection and deactivation options for enemy traps. You can place [sentry towers](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sentry_Turret) to spy on the enemy, lasting 15min each.

>! > * **Defender:** For those defending fortifications. You get a stat boost by staying inside said fortifications, and you can use the upgraded skills of cannons, mortars, and burning cauldrons. Additional bonus speed for repairs.

>! > * **Light Artillery:** Deployment and upgraded skills of arrow carts and ballistae.

>! > * **Heavy Artillery:** Deployment and upgraded skills of catapults and trebuchets.

>! > * **Technician:** Deployment and upgraded skills of siege golems and shield generators.

>! > * **Infantry:** The default role for your common player wanting to fight face to face. Deployment and upgraded skills of flame rams. Additional bonus against enemy guards.

>! >

>! > These would be the basic roles, with a mastery track each. Then squads would have some special roles as well, included in a single mastery track:

>! >

>! > * **Commander:** This role is assigned by default to the commander of the squad, giving him a stat boost depending on the number of nearby squad members, and making him tougher and harder to kill. Additionally, the commander gives a small buff to all nearby squad members, making him an important figure beyond leadership. Losing the commander will now have very negative repercussions. The commander also gets a break bar, and can apply stances to the whole squad. The "March!" stance would apply a swiftness boost to the whole squad, and the "Hold!" stance would give squad members a "solid obstacle" effect, which wouldn't let enemies cross through your ranks, letting players barricade a bridge or a door with their own bodies.

>! > * **Bannerman:** This role is assigned by the commander. It would focus on giving minor support to his squad allies, by carrying the guild emblem in a huge banner that would be seen clearly by his enemies. Centaur, Turtle, and Dragon Banner tactics would be removed as schematics, and be partially integrated into this new role. The bannerman can place the banner in the ground, where it keeps boosting allies, and then retake it later. Dying drops the banner.

>! > * **Musician:** Another support role, the musician would charge into battle playing the guild's battle anthem, with a huge horn of battle, giving his squad comrades various small boosts.

>! >

>! > I know these might sound crazy and chaotic at first, but I think they could turn WvW battles into very interesting situations, where strategy and planning matters more than mindless zerging. The squad roles encourage guild pride and competition too, now you will know who's your enemy by just looking at their banner and hearing their battle anthem playing.

>! >

>! > Roles force infantry players to defend their teammates with the special roles too. A smart enemy commander could break a siege by just killing the siege masters, and leave the infantry stranded with nothing but rams to keep going on.

>! >

>! > ---

>! >

>! > **Other things**

>! >

>! > * The weekly league chest should be changed to a monthly version. Right now, unless you're really dedicated to WvW, you will be left out of the ticket rewards. Let people work their way up slowly over a month, instead of feeling forced to rush each week. Make the last chest repeatable for those who finish the track.

>! > * NPC enemy waves can be interesting, since player activity is never guaranteed. Used wisely they can create defense situations in unexpected locations that don't see much action. For example, a band of bandits spawns and starts hunting caravans. The dead rise from the crypt of a keep, and start attacking the guards. A wyvern attacks a castle with too many resources, and if you don't stop him he burns all of them. Stuff like that, nothing game-changing, but enough to force action when there's nothing going on. These events could target high tier buildings, as a sort of handicap, to make them harder to hold even if the other teams aren't interested in attacking.

>! > * WvW caters to way too many playstyles right now, and some of them outright contradict each other. It needs to go on a direction, and stick to it. That's why the game would really benefit from [a new PvP/WvW mode, battlegrounds](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/1601/pve-got-raids-time-for-pvp-to-get-battlegrounds), giving guilds a 10v10 mode where they can play competitively without queues and server problems.

>! >

>! > ---

>! >

>! > Just way too many crazy ideas. I could write more but let's leave it there for now.

 

Long post but some really neat ideas. I've always thought it's a bit strange that walls magically reappear once you've captured an asset, and having to rebuild what you knock down only makes sense. I'd actually skip the repair NPC bit, as it makes things easier for the server that just won the fight - they don't need the help!

 

I'm not so keen on the development of different WvW roles - I feel players are already playing what they want to, and I'm not getting how pigeonholing is going to address the positive feedback loop problem. Personally, I'd prefer to have a pool of configurable NPCs available at spawn that can follow you around when you're outnumbered, which progressively time out if your server gains more people. It's a way to level the playing field a little using resources that are versatile but not quite as good as having another human player.

 

This is something similar to the NPC enemy waves you mentioned, but I believe all such things should be player-led. If we're going to have wyvern or zombie raids, they should be led by a player. They may be fortified by the NPCs around them, but as the linchpin of the operation it fails if they die. If this potentially puts them over the walls, they should be unable to cap anything during the raid, and be aborted/teleported back to spawn if a wall or gate is breached.

 

I also feel that WvW doesn't cater to _enough_ play styles, but ironically agree with the 'battleground' concept for a different reason - I'd like to see it supported on peripheral maps where it affects the WvW ecosystem but allows players a space for more structured battles within that context.