Adding More Waypoints to WvW - How To Potentially Increase Player Attention

[Twyn.7320]

It's kind of already stated in the title, but I'd like to propose a bit more detail before the community gets their fair share of: 'NO.' or 'YES.'

 

What I'm proposing is that WvW needs more Waypoints. What I'm not proposing is that all of the Waypoints are unlocked without a degree of incentive or 'challenge'.

 

The simple fact of the matter for a lot of 'average players' is that we walk into WvW, do a couple of team-fights, capture a camp, finish some dailies and disappear to other parts of the game. I'd love to have more of a reason to actually stay in the mode because I think the general foundation of WvW is actually quite impressive, but its potential isn't being utilised effectively. To explain my formula of 'thinking' for WvW: I log in > I do my activities > We lose a team fight > I log out and do other things because running back is 90% of WvW if you're on an outnumbered server, or your team is generally horrendous.

 

So, why not mitigate the fact that people like me hate spending 90% of their time running around a zone, literally doing nothing, with the chance of surviving long enough to POTENTIALLY do something useful? What if there's another way to actually help other areas of the mode?

 

And here it is: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

 

This provides an incentive to capture Keeps and Towers because you're not only gaining more places to quickly respawn at, you're also denying the other team a chance to quickly counter you in other areas. It makes supply caravans more worthwhile, as they're the tools that we'll use to upgrade the Keeps/Towers to forge these Waypoint links. Therefore, Camps become essential to provide the supply caravans, to begin with.

 

All of it trickles down, and for the benefit of convenience, it actually breathes life and incentives into the wider aspects of WvW. This also benefits people who love team-fights, because they'll happen more often if two teams own Keeps/Towers that are opposite or adjacent to each other, instead of having to run back for 5 minutes to the other side of the map. Honestly, for the benefit of this convenience, I think a large number of players would see an opportunity in playing WvW, even if it's something this minor that flips the balance.

 

Whilst I'm not expecting this to fix all of the issues, as it's only one fix, I think it's something that could work. I understand that the 'running back' concept could be deemed a sort of 'punishment' for defeat, but it just kills interest for the average player when there's nothing to reinforce the victories that you've had on the lead up to defeat. Looking at a green, red or blue icon that shows that you've captured something is great, but it loses impact unless it actually does something useful.

 

After a long spell of capturing locations, an average player can look at the map and see a string of Waypoints and be like: 'Mhm, I did something useful for everyone else today. I'll do this again tomorrow because I actually have a use outside of the team-fights!'

 

It makes small-group roaming more useful, as with multiple avenues for Keeps/Towers to be taken, the Commander Groups might become smaller. Instead of one, huge blob, you might have three, smaller blobs. With smaller blobs to follow, comes the greater risk of being out-roamed by the exceptionally talented roamers, meaning that their role also increases in value as they can delay the capture of a Keep/Tower long enough for another blob to arrive to reinforce it. Thus, it could potentially create instances of actual sieges. Obviously, this last point is hypothetical, but on the rare chance, it could happen.

 

So these are my ideas, and it all stems from a simple concept: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

 

Community, say your piece on the matter! DON'T BE TOO MEAN! :cold_sweat:

[Silinsar.6298]

You're underestimating the drawbacks of this. WPs in towers will make dominant servers more dominant (especially in hostile territory). Even downed state was / is controversial since it usually favors the bigger group, have fun doing anything outnumbered when your enemy's whole map blob can be nearly anywhere within a minute. Roaming will be more risky, you'll get back faster but you will have to deal with more enemies more often and they'll potentially come back sooner than you kill all of them. More likely to have endless laggy standoffs with zergs snowballing each other while people run back after dying. Winning fights will generally be less rewarding since you don't "disable" the enemies forces long enough to make much of a difference.

 

The running can get boring from time to time and WPs are too easily contested but I don't think tower WPs would be good for the game mode. What I could see as a QoL improvement would be a limited OOC speed buff - lasting until and no longer applied after you get in combat (or simply 30sec after leaving spawn area) - in parts of a server's corner of the map (no matter who's holding it). The way from the default spawn out to the actual combat zone is unnecessarily long.

[Etterwyn.5263]

I've donned 3 layers of asbestos. My body is ready.

 

For mobility pusposes, they should enable mounts in WVW. With restrictions!

 

They will be mobility enhancers, and have restrictions not necessary in PVE. Foremost, dismounting does NO damage, and has NO CC effect.

 

There should be a WXP mastery track for each mount (encourage rank increases)

 

1) basic access to the mount (can only be summoned in controlled areas)

 

2) dismounting provides a single mount-specific boon for a short time

 

3) enhanced mount movement unlocked (similar to PVE Mastery 3)

 

4) endurance recharges 25% faster while mounted

 

5) ability to summon mounts in non-controlled areas

 

 

I know there will be a lot of contention with #5, but just as Anet has painstakingly ensured mounts can't be used in Jumping Puzzles, they can disable mounts wherever it would break game continuity. (no jumping/flying into keeps)

 

People can get around faster, and Anet sells more mount skins... win-win! And maybe people wouldn't hate Desert BL so much anymore!

[Dawdler.8521]

TL;DR make winning servers win even easier.

 

The argument for more waypoints completely breaks down with the way tiered objectives currently work and how they grind all action to a halt at low populations. Making more waypoints would make it pointless to play. Because in addition to T3 theres always going to be people waiting on arrowcarts. Sure solo roamers looking for duels wouldnt be hurt by it but it would completely kill smallscale havocs.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

If anything, WvW needs LESS waypoints to encourage active defense/scouting.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

The OP raises interesting questions, I'm going to try and offer my opinion in bullet points, and hopefully it will be easy to tell which point I'm addressing:

 

* Based on the scenario you described, the reason new players are logging out of WvW isn't because of the long walk, but because they are dying too quickly. Adding waypoints will just enable you to quickly jump to another part of the map to die, and I don't see how that is less frustrating. The question should be: why are they dying so quickly, but that would be forum post on its own.

* Teams already have incentive to control towers/keeps, though it varies from player to player: warscore, server pride / desire to win, bait to bring enemy groups out so they can fight.

* Waypoints are so easily contested, most maps you're lucky to be able to port to your garrison. This would just entice even more afk Treb spamming, much like what you see against SMC 24/7

* Being able to port to towers would massively benefit the larger group, giving even more advantage to large squads over small packs. Roamers have means to traverse terrain quickly and undetected (to a point, harder after Marked mechanic) but that's part of the fun, or so I'm told.

* Waypoints in every tower would not reduce the size of blob, but result in the exact opposite. Blobs are formed mainly because of a shortage of commanders, but also because of a desire to be unstoppable. A 50 person squad is less likely to lose a fight than 2x 25 person squads. By adding the ability to quickly port around the map, you remove the one disadvantage there is of having large blobs, that being they can only be on one end of the map at a time, and so can't respond quickly to every tap. If the commander could quickly port from one corner to another, you might see more blobs, not less.

* Running back isn't a punishment, its just a part of the game mode. New players aren't getting frustrated from having to run back, they are frustrated from having died. In organized groups that didn't wipe, players get revived after the fight is over to minimize the travel back. Again the solution is to address why players are dying quickly, again for another forum post.

 

Running back to tag / last spot also has some built in advantages:

* Quick access to a vendor to empty bags. (don't dismiss this, it can be a big deal!)

* Chance to top off on supply

* On the journey back you can scout enemy movement or respond to threats near spawn / garrison

 

and...

 

* Running back to tag / last spot gives opportunities for enemy roamers to play a role beyond scouting when the blobs are out and about.

 

TLDR, adding additional waypoints would create more problems for the game mode, and give added support to the very 50 member blob meta that players complain about.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> TL;DR make winning servers win even easier.

>

> The argument for more waypoints completely breaks down with the way tiered objectives currently work and how they grind all action to a halt at low populations. Making more waypoints would make it pointless to play. Because in addition to T3 theres always going to be people waiting on arrowcarts. Sure solo roamers looking for duels wouldnt be hurt by it but it would completely kill smallscale havocs.

 

HoT killed havoc, this would just be a small pile of garbage lit ablaze on the corpse. After all, ewp is already a thing.

 

 

OP, why not advocate point placement wherever you please? Just open the map at spawn and BOOP! there you are safely tucked into the Zerg and ready for action?

[XenesisII.1540]

What happens when they eventually put mounts in wvw?

You can place emergency waypoints in t3 towers, so it's partly already there.

The importance of keeps in the game is to hold it for the waypoint.

The importance of towers in the game is to use it for offensive purposes, either as a place to keep your troops safe, or use long range siege on the next objective, and defending it obviously to cut this off.

Let's not forget you can also be ressed out in the field, so you don't always have to make a trip.

 

ESO kinda uses the same method that you can teleport to any building with a lattice system, as long as you own the previous building connections to it and the 3 objectives around it(if I remember that right). But they have a huge map and buildings don't upgrade like wvw(again if I remember that right) to compensate for this, it's really punishing not to have forward ports even with mounts.

 

For wvw, the maps are much smaller and it really doesn't take that long to transverse it. The garrison keeps are usually under your control and waypointed, the towers don't make that much difference in travel(certain exceptions like desert towers, which the south towers were the original spots for the waypoints) and with the way the waypoints lock now under combat forcing ewp instead, it's not going to matter that much.

 

The change would also be highly advantageous to defenders as attackers don't usually stick around long enough to baby sit structures to t3, not when it takes a 2 hour period to upgrade which will probably be lost as soon as they leave the map. If it was built like ESO it would make more sense spending time babysitting structures to keep the waypoint while your zerg is on the map. EBG has a hard time even trying to keep the outer towers, nevermind trying to keep an offensive tower to t3 when battle lines change all the time in there. ABL north towers won't ever switch when they get radar active with waypoint, the keeps only ever get waypointed if held from reset. DBL is the only real benefit here since the towers are so far away from other objectives and the map more convoluted with garbage to make traveling harder.

 

At the end of the day making movement easier around the map isn't going to make it that much more convenient for a player, if they're still dying easily out in the field. The greatest frustration for a player is dying, having to run back is a minor punishment to push you to get better, but dying to players and potentially broken op specs makes it worse. Players need to play better and smarter to last longer out in the field. Lastly I'm sorry but coming to wvw the the priority of doing dailies and then maybe take a battle on if it's conveniently close to you doesn't exactly sound like a dedicated wvw, I highly doubt these same players will be sticking around for hours to upgrade towers for waypoints.

 

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Twyn.7320" said:

> It's kind of already stated in the title, but I'd like to propose a bit more detail before the community gets their fair share of: 'NO.' or 'YES.'

>

> What I'm proposing is that WvW needs more Waypoints. What I'm not proposing is that all of the Waypoints are unlocked without a degree of incentive or 'challenge'.

>

> The simple fact of the matter for a lot of 'average players' is that we walk into WvW, do a couple of team-fights, capture a camp, finish some dailies and disappear to other parts of the game. I'd love to have more of a reason to actually stay in the mode because I think the general foundation of WvW is actually quite impressive, but its potential isn't being utilised effectively. To explain my formula of 'thinking' for WvW: I log in > I do my activities > We lose a team fight > I log out and do other things because running back is 90% of WvW if you're on an outnumbered server, or your team is generally horrendous.

>

> So, why not mitigate the fact that people like me hate spending 90% of their time running around a zone, literally doing nothing, with the chance of surviving long enough to POTENTIALLY do something useful? What if there's another way to actually help other areas of the mode?

>

> And here it is: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

>

> This provides an incentive to capture Keeps and Towers because you're not only gaining more places to quickly respawn at, you're also denying the other team a chance to quickly counter you in other areas. It makes supply caravans more worthwhile, as they're the tools that we'll use to upgrade the Keeps/Towers to forge these Waypoint links. Therefore, Camps become essential to provide the supply caravans, to begin with.

>

> All of it trickles down, and for the benefit of convenience, it actually breathes life and incentives into the wider aspects of WvW. This also benefits people who love team-fights, because they'll happen more often if two teams own Keeps/Towers that are opposite or adjacent to each other, instead of having to run back for 5 minutes to the other side of the map. Honestly, for the benefit of this convenience, I think a large number of players would see an opportunity in playing WvW, even if it's something this minor that flips the balance.

>

> Whilst I'm not expecting this to fix all of the issues, as it's only one fix, I think it's something that could work. I understand that the 'running back' concept could be deemed a sort of 'punishment' for defeat, but it just kills interest for the average player when there's nothing to reinforce the victories that you've had on the lead up to defeat. Looking at a green, red or blue icon that shows that you've captured something is great, but it loses impact unless it actually does something useful.

>

> After a long spell of capturing locations, an average player can look at the map and see a string of Waypoints and be like: 'Mhm, I did something useful for everyone else today. I'll do this again tomorrow because I actually have a use outside of the team-fights!'

>

> It makes small-group roaming more useful, as with multiple avenues for Keeps/Towers to be taken, the Commander Groups might become smaller. Instead of one, huge blob, you might have three, smaller blobs. With smaller blobs to follow, comes the greater risk of being out-roamed by the exceptionally talented roamers, meaning that their role also increases in value as they can delay the capture of a Keep/Tower long enough for another blob to arrive to reinforce it. Thus, it could potentially create instances of actual sieges. Obviously, this last point is hypothetical, but on the rare chance, it could happen.

>

> So these are my ideas, and it all stems from a simple concept: 'Put Waypoints in every Keep/Tower, but they only unlock at T2/T3 upgrades. If the Keep/Tower is contested, they deactivate until the siege has been repelled.'

>

> Community, say your piece on the matter! DON'T BE TOO MEAN! :cold_sweat:

 

They need to add mounts to wvw.

[starhunter.6015]

> @"Etterwyn.5263" said:

> I've donned 3 layers of asbestos. My body is ready.

>

> For mobility pusposes, they should enable mounts in WVW. With restrictions!

>

> They will be mobility enhancers, and have restrictions not necessary in PVE. Foremost, dismounting does NO damage, and has NO CC effect.

>

> There should be a WXP mastery track for each mount (encourage rank increases)

>

> 1) basic access to the mount (can only be summoned in controlled areas)

>

> 2) dismounting provides a single mount-specific boon for a short time

>

> 3) enhanced mount movement unlocked (similar to PVE Mastery 3)

>

> 4) endurance recharges 25% faster while mounted

>

> 5) ability to summon mounts in non-controlled areas

>

>

> I know there will be a lot of contention with #5, but just as Anet has painstakingly ensured mounts can't be used in Jumping Puzzles, they can disable mounts wherever it would break game continuity. (no jumping/flying into keeps)

>

> People can get around faster, and Anet sells more mount skins... win-win! And maybe people wouldn't hate Desert BL so much anymore!

 

1) only mount up from MAIN starting area for your map.

2) No extra boons, even glider in WvW does not give any bonus boons.

3)No standard mount speed ,

4)No, again glider got no bonus recharge why should mounts.

5) BIG KITTEN NO, this is one of the main reasons I feel that dev's don't want mounts in WvW. They could easily break some of the maps. As in breaking into enemy keeps etc.

 

[Whiteout.1975]

If it only worked while under the outmanned buff maybe, all things considered. Due to the more dominating server's typically controlling more tower/objectives anyways. And the smaller being able to maintain such tiers on average. Would have to test it tbh. Not gonna pretend like I know exactly what would happen.

 

If fight's are actually good. I could see _some_ incentive here. Though, that's debatable to some degree among each individual (because balance mainly). Thus, is Risky in terms of whether or not fight's will actually be considerably good or not.

 

So is this a **reliable** incentive to have for everyone (at least those that actually like to fight and not hide in towers)? Most likely not, on average (Especially considering balance issues primarily since HoT IMO). Though, does it have potential? Possibly. Just **is** an overall unreliable source, for a consistent enough incentive to exist IMO. Interesting Post though @"Twyn.7320" :) . That said, I wouldn't mind trying in out in light of what I said and as long as it didn't get too much in the way of other more important things in the usually more interesting... view? of @Anet

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Whiteout.1975" said:

> If it only worked while under the outmanned buff maybe, all things considered. Due to the more dominating server's typically controlling more tower/objectives anyways. And the smaller being able to maintain such tiers on average. Would have to test it tbh. Not gonna pretend like I know exactly what would happen.

>

> If fight's are actually good. I could see _some_ incentive here. Though, that's debatable to some degree among each individual (because balance mainly). Thus, is Risky in terms of whether or not fight's will actually be considerably good or not.

>

> So is this a **reliable** incentive to have for everyone (at least those that actually like to fight and not hide in towers)? Most likely not, on average (Especially considering balance issues primarily since HoT IMO). Though, does it have potential? Possibly. Just **is** an overall unreliable source, for a consistent enough incentive to exist IMO. Interesting Post though @"Twyn.7320" :) . That said, I wouldn't mind trying in out in light of what I said and as long as it didn't get too much in the way of other more important things in the usually more interesting... view? of @Anet

 

Good points. With EMergency Way Points being an option later in the upgrade process (well, actually in the ‘time claimed’ process) we know that WPs are programmed for all towers.

 

Maybe this could be a WvW event week to trial it.

 

I don’t like the idea personally, but wouldn’t be opposed to an event week, which, IIRC the devs noted event weeks would be things that wouldn’t require significant new coding.

 

 

[Whiteout.1975]

@"Strider Pj.2193" Yea I agree. A week event wouldn't be a bad idea IMO ether. If it's reasonable enough.

[Kiroshima.8497]

Personally, waypoints removed from keeps and placed into Camps would be more ideal. Preferably with a supply cost related to the camp's level (Level 0: 10, Level 1: 5, Level 2: 3, Level 3: 1). Camps should be the main staging areas for offense AND defense, as there are more of them, they aren't directly on/in objectives, and they relatively easy to contest, although I would adjust the waypoint to only contest while the camp Ring is up (lets you actually defend the waypoint). The waypoint would be disabled while RI is active of course.

[Justine.6351]

Do whatever you like to desert borderlands.

[Tammuz.7361]

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> If anything, WvW needs LESS waypoints to encourage active defense/scouting.

 

defense and scouting is boring, and makes people want to quit the game.

 

pvp is supposed to be about just that, players vs players... not player standing on a wall admiring the scenery.

 

note: not arguing for or against waypoints.

[Tammuz.7361]

> @"Justine.6351" said:

> Do whatever you like to desert borderlands.

 

 

lol, so true... cant make it any worse... probably not anyhow... i hope

[coro.3176]

I wouldn't mind a one-way teleporter at each desert spawn that placed you at one of several random spots in the ruins - maybe with a 5s cooldown between uses or something so you can't just wp an entire zerg halfway across the map.

 

It might encourage roaming in the middle/north of the map.

[rng.1024]

Would be an interesting mechanic as a tactic (1 each map), where you become a siege engine like the charr bike, but slow moving and with a big symbol over your head. The 5 skill ejects you and destroys it, creating an EWP. However it should only work in territory you own, so that when you push the blob out of air keep you better capture both camps fast to deny them the ease of teleportation. Could also be used by a roamer who's opened both walls in order to bring the blob over.

[Twyn.7320]

From the replies, I've mainly gathered 2 things:

 

1: People are viewing this from a lens of 'team-fighting = WvW'. If that's all there is to do in WvW, why not just beg for a flat field and three spawns to repeatedly team-fight until you get bored? The reality = It'd get boring very quickly. Additionally, I don't see how it makes dominant servers more dominant. If anything, it makes it easier to counter dominant servers, if outnumbered teams play smartly. If outnumbered teams cap multiple objectives, they can prevent the dominant server from hopping around and dominating. It's a risk-reward, and overall, it's a fundamental fact that some servers will always dominate so it's best to put those servers against each other. If a completely dominant, mass population server is fighting two servers with literally no population, that's a problem for WvW in general, which would need to be rectified for this to become a possibility.

 

2: Unfortunately, you're not looking at pulling 'dedicated veterans' into WvW at this point. You're looking to pull the 'average player' into WvW, and the average player adores convenience. Death can be annoying at times, but it's less annoying if there's less challenge in the way of getting back to the action. If you have to run across a map for 10 minutes after dying, that can be a massive turn-off for some people. In the past, Anet's added PvE rewards to artificially inflate the populations of both PvP and WvW. This isn't the answer, as people take up slots that can be used by actual players, just to AFK farm in a base. So, essentially, if you want to hit two birds with one stone:

 

ANet could remove the tick counter for reward tracks and the match track, and base it solely on objective capture instead. Like capturing a camp gives 1 pip, capturing a tower gives 2 pips, capturing a keep gives 3. And then, you have the additional pips for rank, additional for outnumbered etc etc.

 

The change in my original post can't work in isolation, it has to work with other things in conjunction. If ANet implemented the WP thing in match-ups where one team dominated two others, it'd be absolutely broken and unfair. However, if they implemented it to match-ups that were MORE OR LESS fair, it could help to alleviate some of the issues for the 'average player who adores convenience' and give more incentives to existing players.

[Kolisch.4691]

I think waypoints should be available for sentries, towers (not emergency waypoints). And ambient creatures can be upgraded to provide waypoints so enemies must be forced to deal with it. #empowerbunnies2019lonelycharrsstandingalonesilly

 

this would make it possible for a group of 10 who lost to two overpowered roamers obviously on troll/cancer builds to contest the ring before a sentry/tower gets taken over by throwing their lives over and over because they'd get back in action in less than 15 seconds (1 second if you are a thief/Mesmer). this certainly puts a setback on roaming but it would please more people who still are handicapped by less time practicing dodging and jumping puzzle moves required in small scale fights.

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Twyn.7320" said:

> The change in my original post can't work in isolation, it has to work with other things in conjunction. If ANet implemented the WP thing in match-ups where one team dominated two others, it'd be absolutely broken and unfair. However, if they implemented it to match-ups that were MORE OR LESS fair, it could help to alleviate some of the issues for the 'average player who adores convenience' and give more incentives to existing players.

Except that the change would **make it unfair** and **help the domination**. It wouldnt matter if everyone came into the matchup all balanced because objective tiers - and thus wp inside - unbalance it. The "fights" doesnt matter. It just helps T3. Once you get that T3, it will be prohibitivly pointless to attack it. Scout balloon + free wp? Hahaha... you can literally just sit in a keep and wait for dots to appear before tp. People really wont bother attacking that.

 

To take an example in a microcosmos, yesterday I was roaming early prime. It was DBL. Both enemies had small groups (3-4 peeps) and some randoms, while we only had a few randoms. Got ganked by their groups multiple times and they could run around at will. They could cap our camps with 2 peeps even when I fought them 1v2 twice and had time to call it out in chat.

 

But guess what? We're ticking 300. Every objective except their spawntower is ours and T3.

 

Do you think *they* would have liked it if our poor, defenseless home border that cant even protect a camp also have waypoints **everywhere**? Balance isnt determined by fights.

[Twyn.7320]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> Except that the change would **make it unfair** and **help the domination**. It wouldnt matter if everyone came into the matchup all balanced because objective tiers - and thus wp inside - unbalance it. The "fights" doesnt matter. It just helps T3. Once you get that T3, it will be prohibitivly pointless to attack it. Scout balloon + free wp? Hahaha... you can literally just sit in a keep and wait for dots to appear before tp. People really wont bother attacking that.

 

So perhaps the solution is to make people choose between the Scout Balloon and the WP? Add some tactical incentive behind it, so that people can't just have everything at once?

 

Also, attacking a T3 should be quite difficult. It shouldn't be easy, but there needs to be more reason to actually attack one. Unless you REALLY care about server pride, the point system in WvW is irrelevant. From my experience, WvW = Team-fights and roam-the-map capping objectives for WXP. I rarely ever look at 'who's winning the match', because it means nothing, aside from getting 1 extra pip on a reward track.

 

Essentially, the things that you do in WvW mean nothing, they have no lasting effect unless you invent something to take pride in. This is just a potential solution to create more of a lasting effect, so people pop back to actually care about the point system and winning matches. Giving substantial rewards, could be a good fix, if they aren't PvE-related. But I just feel that the issues are largely due to problems with the overall mechanics of the mode, rather than needing to artificially inflate population with rewards.

 

 

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Twyn.7320" said:

> 1: People are viewing this from a lens of 'team-fighting = WvW'. If that's all there is to do in WvW, why not just beg for a flat field and three spawns to repeatedly team-

> fight until you get bored? The reality = It'd get boring very quickly. Additionally, I don't see how it makes dominant servers more dominant. If anything, it makes it easier > to counter dominant servers, if outnumbered teams play smartly. If outnumbered teams cap multiple objectives,

 

And by increasing map mobility you make it easier for the enemy team to respond to attacks on objectives they control, making it easier for the larger team to then stomp on the outnumbered team.

 

> @"Twyn.7320" said:

> 2: Unfortunately, you're not looking at pulling 'dedicated veterans' into WvW at this point. You're looking to pull the 'average player' into WvW, and the average player

> adores convenience. Death can be annoying at times, but it's less annoying if there's less challenge in the way of getting back to the action. If you have to run across a map > for 10 minutes after dying, that can be a massive turn-off for some people. In the past, Anet's added PvE rewards to artificially inflate the populations of both PvP and

> WvW. This isn't the answer, as people take up slots that can be used by actual players, just to AFK farm in a base. So, essentially, if you want to hit two birds with one

> stone:

 

I'm an average player with an account less than a year old. When I first started WvW, I too was frustrated by the long walk from the respawn. But I learned about the WvW game mode, created a character with a meta build, learned how to operate in a squad run by a commander, and learned how to not die while in said squad. 75% of the time if I die it's because the squad was wiped. (clearly I still have room for improvement)

 

I no longer find the run back from respawn frustrating, and I enjoy the game mode immensely.

 

> @"Twyn.7320" said:

> ANet could remove the tick counter for reward tracks and the match track, and base it solely on objective capture instead. Like capturing a camp gives 1 pip, capturing a > tower gives 2 pips, capturing a keep gives 3. And then, you have the additional pips for rank, additional for outnumbered etc etc.

 

Now you're just trying to shoehorn your idea into the game. If such sweeping changes are required for your vision to be implemented, perhaps that means your vision isn't a good fit for the game?

 

> @"Twyn.7320" said:

> The change in my original post can't work in isolation, it has to work with other things in conjunction. If ANet implemented the WP thing in match-ups where one team > dominated two others, it'd be absolutely broken and unfair. However, if they implemented it to match-ups that were MORE OR LESS fair, it could help to alleviate some > of the issues for the 'average player who adores convenience' and give more incentives to existing players.

 

You will never find "fair" in GW2 WvW. If you listen to the players, some want a game mode where only WvW Guilds can queue up to fight against others GvG, with no "pug" players allowed, while others want a game mode where nobody will form groups large than 5/10 because they hate blobs. Still others want 50 vs 50 Conquest style maps, or as you even described, just flat terrain with no NPCs or objectives, where players can focus on just killing each other.

 

It's impossible to create a single game mode that everyone will enjoy equally because of a difference in preferences and expectations.

 

 

[hunkamania.7561]

When you look at the most successful night RESET NIGHT it has 0 waypoints and 0 upgraded structures.