Invasion mechanic

[Zexanima.7851]

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> Just wondering what are the thoughts of bringing a random invasion mechanic into wvw. For examples when a zerg clashes with each other there could be a branded invasion that spawn in the middle of the scuffle and attack everyone. You can even have it that its possible for them to even capture keeps and camps etc. Just a thought to spice up wvw.

 

Don't let people discourage you from presenting your ideas, that's how the game grows. You should ask yourself a couple questions when suggesting ideas though to help clean them up a bit;

 

What value would it add to the player experience? It has to be more than just an obstacle. Would killing the NPC's grant some kind of boost to those who do? Do they drop special loot?

 

How would it be balanced? If the NPC's are weak, then they will just get ignored and deleted in the chaos of the zerg v zerg. If the NPC's are too strong then they will get both zergs killed and that would feel like really bad gameplay for both zergs who got wiped. If they are balanced on the number of players present, then the zerg with more players will actually benefit from the spawn and it would help them snowball.

 

I disagree with people saying "PvE bad, PvP only!". I think it could work, but differently than you suggested. Special PvE events that grant bonuses to the team that completes them are not a bad idea. It wouldn't just be some isolated PvE encounter devoid of player on player, it would be a PvPvE encounter and would add more dimension to the game mode. Each team would have to strategize around fighting some kind of world boss _and_ fighting the other zerg. It would also promote MORE PvP since it would be an objective worth fighting over and no passive way to stall or avoid the situation.

 

[L A T I O N.8923]

> @"Zexanima.7851" said:

> > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > Just wondering what are the thoughts of bringing a random invasion mechanic into wvw. For examples when a zerg clashes with each other there could be a branded invasion that spawn in the middle of the scuffle and attack everyone. You can even have it that its possible for them to even capture keeps and camps etc. Just a thought to spice up wvw.

>

> Don't let people discourage you from presenting your ideas, that's how the game grows. You should ask yourself a couple questions when suggesting ideas though to help clean them up a bit;

>

> What value would it add to the player experience? It has to be more than just an obstacle. Would killing the NPC's grant some kind of boost to those who do? Do they drop special loot?

>

> How would it be balanced? If the NPC's are weak, then they will just get ignored and deleted in the chaos of the zerg v zerg. If the NPC's are too strong then they will get both zergs killed and that would feel like really bad gameplay for both zergs who got wiped. If they are balanced on the number of players present, then the zerg with more players will actually benefit from the spawn and it would help them snowball.

>

> I disagree with people saying "PvE bad, PvP only!". I think it could work, but differently than you suggested. Special PvE events that grant bonuses to the team that completes them are not a bad idea. It wouldn't just be some isolated PvE encounter devoid of player on player, it would be a PvPvE encounter and would add more dimension to the game mode. Each team would have to strategize around fighting some kind of world boss _and_ fighting the other zerg. It would also promote MORE PvP since it would be an objective worth fighting over and no passive way to stall or avoid the situation.

>

 

Like resetting bloodlust every skirmish, and not Being able to flip IT, once IT has a team who won IT. This would result in teams focussing this bloodlust and making at An important dimension

 

 

Yes the Idea is bad, and Will influence the gameplay. You need An optimist as pessimist and a sceptist to highlight whether an Idea is good

[Zexanima.7851]

> @"L A T I O N.8923" said:

> > @"Zexanima.7851" said:

> > > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > > Just wondering what are the thoughts of bringing a random invasion mechanic into wvw. For examples when a zerg clashes with each other there could be a branded invasion that spawn in the middle of the scuffle and attack everyone. You can even have it that its possible for them to even capture keeps and camps etc. Just a thought to spice up wvw.

> >

> > Don't let people discourage you from presenting your ideas, that's how the game grows. You should ask yourself a couple questions when suggesting ideas though to help clean them up a bit;

> >

> > What value would it add to the player experience? It has to be more than just an obstacle. Would killing the NPC's grant some kind of boost to those who do? Do they drop special loot?

> >

> > How would it be balanced? If the NPC's are weak, then they will just get ignored and deleted in the chaos of the zerg v zerg. If the NPC's are too strong then they will get both zergs killed and that would feel like really bad gameplay for both zergs who got wiped. If they are balanced on the number of players present, then the zerg with more players will actually benefit from the spawn and it would help them snowball.

> >

> > I disagree with people saying "PvE bad, PvP only!". I think it could work, but differently than you suggested. Special PvE events that grant bonuses to the team that completes them are not a bad idea. It wouldn't just be some isolated PvE encounter devoid of player on player, it would be a PvPvE encounter and would add more dimension to the game mode. Each team would have to strategize around fighting some kind of world boss _and_ fighting the other zerg. It would also promote MORE PvP since it would be an objective worth fighting over and no passive way to stall or avoid the situation.

> >

>

> Like resetting bloodlust every skirmish, and not Being able to flip IT, once IT has a team who won IT. This would result in teams focussing this bloodlust and making at An important dimension

>

>

> Yes the Idea is bad, and Will influence the gameplay. You need An optimist as pessimist and a sceptist to highlight whether an Idea is good

 

Let me expand more on my suggestion(I had just meant it as an example). It would have to respawn on a frequent interval, some where between every 5-15 minutes. This would give each team an opportune chance to 'flip' the buff. Also since it respawns frequently it would add more to how you strategize about movement. Do you take a tower closer to the buff so you can rotate on it when it respawns? Do you ignore the buff in order to take another more important objective? Maybe it would even be worth splitting off a squad from the zerg to go and try and flip it. The buff would also have to be timed and not too over/under powered. Say the respawn interval is 15 minutes. Then the buff should last about 10 minutes, so there is always a point in time where both teams are unbuffed and when fighting over the buff neither team will have that buff. What the actual buff is could be a lot of things, here are a few ideas;

 

* Flat increase to boon duration or a decrease to condition duration

* Increased damage/defense to gates/walls/lords

* Flat increase to stats by a few percent

* Decrease in cost to build siege

 

It could even be a random buff from a pool of these.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

> @"anduriell.6280" said:

> I think is great idea! what about the mordrem invasions? It could be the same as in pve!!

> Imagine a **horde** of NPCs trampling over your hard earned T3 SM and reseting it!! that would be glorious!

>

> and also tactics! What about a banner that can spawn one of those invasions at your location? It could bring even a Shatterer!! it would be amazing for the 3 sodes of the conflict to join together to kill the Tequal spawned in the middle of the SM!!

>

 

This is what i had in mind. It can flip the outcome of a skirmish by simply spawning in the right place at the right time or wrong place at the wrong time depending on which side your on. It can be any horde of any race in game jacked up to lvl 90. Example we are about to take a tower, easy right, then, say, some centaurs pop up and fuck up your easy win. You would have to be pretty much be aware m with all the properties on map. Because just simply capping and moving on just wont do anymore. For me the way it is now its pretty much repetitive and boring especially in off peak hours.

[Whiteout.1975]

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World:

**Combat**

"WvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players."

 

WvW clearly prides itself in being a PvP game mode firstly.

I think if they add more PvE (mainly NPC's) the more it _can_ interfere with that PvP element. In turn, devaluing that PvP meaning along with the "pride" it carries for WvW.

 

If you @"Magnus Godrik.5841" or someone else could explain how the above wouldn't happen. Though, instead would **enrich** the PvP experience further; with PvE somehow. At that point, I think you will have established more solid ground behind **some** idea regarding PvE.

 

I would suggest looking for points where the "PvP" aspect of WvW would be considered "unhealthy". Then trying to justify how that would help the PvP experience.

- For example: The vast majority of people have issues being "outnumbered". Creating an "unhealthy" PvP experience overall during those times. Perhaps there is something to talk about there.

 

And BTW... I'm saying all this as someone finds the PvE content in this game very dull and boring. Yet I'll still entertain possibilities for improvement... Just need something convincing; as well as others.

[joneirikb.7506]

@Whiteout.1975

 

Just to point out from the same page.

 

> World versus World (also known as WvW) is a combination Player versus Player/Player versus Environment game mode where players from three different worlds (which can involve 6+ servers), battle in the Mists.

 

> Combat

> WvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players.

 

I do agree that combat itself between servers should be mainly PvP based though, which is why I disagreed with the original idea for basically interrupting a large scale fight between two servers. But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

 

---

 

Some way of adding PvE aspects that could be beneficial for the game mode could be to use it to counter out some of the largest problems in the game mode. Population/Coverage is something that is flat out out of our hands as players to deal with, a single player can't change their entire day/sleep pattern around and game for 8 hours straight at night, and rather sleep from after work until the early night, and even if they did it isn't enough (in most situations) for a single person to do so.

 

So one way to make a change to that, could be to use PvE elements, for example have events that start when one server is dominating on a map, and sends hordes of npc's to take all the dominant servers camps and towers. This would force the dominant server (on that map at least) to consider defending, or lose a lot of objectives (this could scale). This would give outnumbered servers some respite and opportunities to do something back.

 

Obviously, while the teams are even, no such events would happen, so if two servers have each a group of 30 and some 10 roamers, no npc's would come and "mess up the fights", but if one server has 20 in a group and 5 roamers, while the two other servers have 10 roamers tops, this would trigger.

 

TLDR: Use PvE elements to keep a dominating server busy with things, and remove them when two or more servers have enough numbers to fight each others.

[Whiteout.1975]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> @Whiteout.1975

>

> Just to point out from the same page.

>

> > World versus World (also known as WvW) is a combination Player versus Player/Player versus Environment game mode where players from three different worlds (which can involve 6+ servers), battle in the Mists.

>

> > Combat

> > WvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players.

>

> I do agree that combat itself between servers should be mainly PvP based though, which is why I disagreed with the original idea for basically interrupting a large scale fight between two servers. But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

>

> ---

>

> Some way of adding PvE aspects that could be beneficial for the game mode could be to use it to counter out some of the largest problems in the game mode. Population/Coverage is something that is flat out out of our hands as players to deal with, a single player can't change their entire day/sleep pattern around and game for 8 hours straight at night, and rather sleep from after work until the early night, and even if they did it isn't enough (in most situations) for a single person to do so.

>

> So one way to make a change to that, could be to use PvE elements, for example have events that start when one server is dominating on a map, and sends hordes of npc's to take all the dominant servers camps and towers. This would force the dominant server (on that map at least) to consider defending, or lose a lot of objectives (this could scale). This would give outnumbered servers some respite and opportunities to do something back.

>

> Obviously, while the teams are even, no such events would happen, so if two servers have each a group of 30 and some 10 roamers, no npc's would come and "mess up the fights", but if one server has 20 in a group and 5 roamers, while the two other servers have 10 roamers tops, this would trigger.

>

> TLDR: Use PvE elements to keep a dominating server busy with things, and remove them when two or more servers have enough numbers to fight each others.

 

Yes, I realize there is some PvE involvement. That's in part why I put "firstly"... And I'm sure also in part why the wiki has "first and foremost". Not trying to be a douche, but just saying. Though, at least maybe it will be beneficial to those that don't care to read the wiki haha :)

 

This is interesting to me though...

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

 

What does the "first and foremost" mean to you that brings you to disagreement?

For me, it was the added "and foremost" part that gave me that vibe of pride. When they could have just stated "firstly" and then continued on with the rest. To pretty much make the same point. Just curious on your take though.

 

Interesting idea. Could be cool/nice maybe. IMO, If I were to implement anything beneficial regarding "outnumbered" I would make sure any help or advantage to be had would cease to exist immediately... From the side making use of that help. In the moment where "outnumbered" no longer holds true.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> @Whiteout.1975

>

> Just to point out from the same page.

>

> > World versus World (also known as WvW) is a combination Player versus Player/Player versus Environment game mode where players from three different worlds (which can involve 6+ servers), battle in the Mists.

>

> > Combat

> > WvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players.

>

> I do agree that combat itself between servers should be mainly PvP based though, which is why I disagreed with the original idea for basically interrupting a large scale fight between two servers. But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

>

> ---

>

> Some way of adding PvE aspects that could be beneficial for the game mode could be to use it to counter out some of the largest problems in the game mode. Population/Coverage is something that is flat out out of our hands as players to deal with, a single player can't change their entire day/sleep pattern around and game for 8 hours straight at night, and rather sleep from after work until the early night, and even if they did it isn't enough (in most situations) for a single person to do so.

>

> So one way to make a change to that, could be to use PvE elements, for example have events that start when one server is dominating on a map, and sends hordes of npc's to take all the dominant servers camps and towers. This would force the dominant server (on that map at least) to consider defending, or lose a lot of objectives (this could scale). This would give outnumbered servers some respite and opportunities to do something back.

>

> Obviously, while the teams are even, no such events would happen, so if two servers have each a group of 30 and some 10 roamers, no npc's would come and "mess up the fights", but if one server has 20 in a group and 5 roamers, while the two other servers have 10 roamers tops, this would trigger.

>

> TLDR: Use PvE elements to keep a dominating server busy with things, and remove them when two or more servers have enough numbers to fight each others.

 

The coverage is a problem and a large part of why WvW has such a problem with this is because its such a drawn out fight.

 

As much of an unpopular opinion as this may be, but I would honestly like to see objectives matter *more* during a specific day during the week or a specific time during each day ideally.

 

As an example, say that EBG becomes worth double the points for a period of 3 hours on a certain day at around peak hours (8 PM or 9 PM EST until 11 PM or 12 AM EST), the increased point gain is up for debate because you don't want this period to be the only one that matters, just to function as a means of either maintaining a lead or bringing your server back from its 3rd place position. It could help definitively shift the tide as it would give guilds a defined time period in which they can congregate and make an abundance of a difference and limit the importance of off-hour capping. They could put this on a rotation between all of the maps so that each map gets a slice of the increased activity, something like having each map designated for a different day. This could even be used in conjunction with the Alliance system being worked on right now as it would still put emphasis on guilds and their interaction and their importance in the matchup.

 

A lot of what can really dampen the competitive aspect of WvW, in my opinion, is the drawn out manner of the mode itself. Guilds can't run in bulk on a 24/7 basis, it just isn't feasible so adding something that guilds can plan around and still significantly contribute during, or even contribute the most during, could help to bolster the competitive nature of what is, no argument, a *PvP mode*. You don't go to WvW for PvE, it really doesn't need any more of it as the guards and other ambient life are already irritating enough. They serve no other purpose than to just...be there and thats it. Throw a blind on you while you're fighting *players* just to be annoying basically.

 

They could do other things to slow objective captures. The lords I'd say are fine, even a few guards *in the Lords room* and sure guards on Dolyaks...I guess? They really don't stop you from killing the Dolyak, they are irrelevant. But otherwise I feel defense should be left up to the players and not a handful of filler NPCs that are there to just...be there and nothing else. "Immersion" is not an excuse for something to be *annoying* or just *irrelevant*. Its also not good design...sorry. It was okay back in GW1 where the combat was *entirely different* and the NPCs in say Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood actually posed as an important piece of the objective in the game modes. Either having a protection monk layer buffs and heals onto those Elementalists that guarded the gates in FA so as to delay the enemy team from breaking through. This isn't GW1 though and you can't sustain NPCs in the same way and no game mode or objective in WvW even functions like Fort Aspenwood.

 

Anyway...this digressed from the topic. My point being, we don't need more PvE in a PvP mode. I don't care what was said during some interview back before HoT about "We find that if a player likes WvW they definitely like PvE" Nope, its just the only thing in the game that actually earns you decent money and rewards, WvW just does not. I really wish it did.

[joneirikb.7506]

> @"Whiteout.1975" said:

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @Whiteout.1975

> >

> > Just to point out from the same page.

> >

> > > World versus World (also known as WvW) is a combination Player versus Player/Player versus Environment game mode where players from three different worlds (which can involve 6+ servers), battle in the Mists.

> >

> > > Combat

> > > WvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players.

> >

> > I do agree that combat itself between servers should be mainly PvP based though, which is why I disagreed with the original idea for basically interrupting a large scale fight between two servers. But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

> >

> > ---

> >

> > Some way of adding PvE aspects that could be beneficial for the game mode could be to use it to counter out some of the largest problems in the game mode. Population/Coverage is something that is flat out out of our hands as players to deal with, a single player can't change their entire day/sleep pattern around and game for 8 hours straight at night, and rather sleep from after work until the early night, and even if they did it isn't enough (in most situations) for a single person to do so.

> >

> > So one way to make a change to that, could be to use PvE elements, for example have events that start when one server is dominating on a map, and sends hordes of npc's to take all the dominant servers camps and towers. This would force the dominant server (on that map at least) to consider defending, or lose a lot of objectives (this could scale). This would give outnumbered servers some respite and opportunities to do something back.

> >

> > Obviously, while the teams are even, no such events would happen, so if two servers have each a group of 30 and some 10 roamers, no npc's would come and "mess up the fights", but if one server has 20 in a group and 5 roamers, while the two other servers have 10 roamers tops, this would trigger.

> >

> > TLDR: Use PvE elements to keep a dominating server busy with things, and remove them when two or more servers have enough numbers to fight each others.

>

> Yes, I realize there is some PvE involvement. That's in part why I put "firstly"... And I'm sure also in part why the wiki has "first and foremost". Not trying to be a kitten, but just saying. Though, at least maybe it will be beneficial to those that don't care to read the wiki haha :)

>

> This is interesting to me though...

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

>

> What does the "first and foremost" mean to you that brings you to disagreement?

> For me, it was the added "and foremost" part that gave me that vibe of pride. When they could have just stated "firstly" and then continued on with the rest. To pretty much make the same point. Just curious on your take though.

>

> Interesting idea. Could be cool/nice maybe. IMO, If I were to implement anything beneficial regarding "outnumbered" I would make sure any help or advantage to be had would cease to exist immediately... From the side making use of that help. In the moment where "outnumbered" no longer holds true.

 

 

Hmm, probably just worded myself weirdly. But basically I think the game mode are about even on PvP and PvE elements.

 

I mean, the entire objectives (capture points, guards, walls, lords, siege, tactics) are all pve elements and the game mode wouldn't really work without them, it would have had to be something completely different. Just imagine how boring WvW would be with no guards/lords, players having to defend every tower by themselves, or people can just slap down the door and walk into the ring?

 

That would actually ruin the PvP aspect since most consider defending too boring, and not enough people would bother defending anything but garrison/smc if even that. And towers would fall too fast, and people wouldn't bother trying to run to save. So it would be even more of a karma train than what it is now.

 

So the game is about equal amounts PvP and PvE, and if the game mode goes too far in either direction (off balance), I honestly expect it to collapse in on itself.

 

That said, under no circumstance do I say/think that beating up npc's should win a match. WvW should try to balance PvP and PvE in a way so player actions decide the outcome. Which obviously means that PvP is what should decide the outcome.

 

(I really meant to keep this short, sorry.)

[Whiteout.1975]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"Whiteout.1975" said:

> > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > > @Whiteout.1975

> > >

> > > Just to point out from the same page.

> > >

> > > > World versus World (also known as WvW) is a combination Player versus Player/Player versus Environment game mode where players from three different worlds (which can involve 6+ servers), battle in the Mists.

> > >

> > > > Combat

> > > > WvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players.

> > >

> > > I do agree that combat itself between servers should be mainly PvP based though, which is why I disagreed with the original idea for basically interrupting a large scale fight between two servers. But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

> > >

> > > ---

> > >

> > > Some way of adding PvE aspects that could be beneficial for the game mode could be to use it to counter out some of the largest problems in the game mode. Population/Coverage is something that is flat out out of our hands as players to deal with, a single player can't change their entire day/sleep pattern around and game for 8 hours straight at night, and rather sleep from after work until the early night, and even if they did it isn't enough (in most situations) for a single person to do so.

> > >

> > > So one way to make a change to that, could be to use PvE elements, for example have events that start when one server is dominating on a map, and sends hordes of npc's to take all the dominant servers camps and towers. This would force the dominant server (on that map at least) to consider defending, or lose a lot of objectives (this could scale). This would give outnumbered servers some respite and opportunities to do something back.

> > >

> > > Obviously, while the teams are even, no such events would happen, so if two servers have each a group of 30 and some 10 roamers, no npc's would come and "mess up the fights", but if one server has 20 in a group and 5 roamers, while the two other servers have 10 roamers tops, this would trigger.

> > >

> > > TLDR: Use PvE elements to keep a dominating server busy with things, and remove them when two or more servers have enough numbers to fight each others.

> >

> > Yes, I realize there is some PvE involvement. That's in part why I put "firstly"... And I'm sure also in part why the wiki has "first and foremost". Not trying to be a kitten, but just saying. Though, at least maybe it will be beneficial to those that don't care to read the wiki haha :)

> >

> > This is interesting to me though...

> > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > > But I don't agree that the game mode prides itself on being pvp firstly.

> >

> > What does the "first and foremost" mean to you that brings you to disagreement?

> > For me, it was the added "and foremost" part that gave me that vibe of pride. When they could have just stated "firstly" and then continued on with the rest. To pretty much make the same point. Just curious on your take though.

> >

> > Interesting idea. Could be cool/nice maybe. IMO, If I were to implement anything beneficial regarding "outnumbered" I would make sure any help or advantage to be had would cease to exist immediately... From the side making use of that help. In the moment where "outnumbered" no longer holds true.

>

>

> Hmm, probably just worded myself weirdly. But basically I think the game mode are about even on PvP and PvE elements.

>

> I mean, the entire objectives (capture points, guards, walls, lords, siege, tactics) are all pve elements and the game mode wouldn't really work without them, it would have had to be something completely different. Just imagine how boring WvW would be with no guards/lords, players having to defend every tower by themselves, or people can just slap down the door and walk into the ring?

>

> That would actually ruin the PvP aspect since most consider defending too boring, and not enough people would bother defending anything but garrison/smc if even that. And towers would fall too fast, and people wouldn't bother trying to run to save. So it would be even more of a karma train than what it is now.

>

> So the game is about equal amounts PvP and PvE, and if the game mode goes too far in either direction (off balance), I honestly expect it to collapse in on itself.

>

> That said, under no circumstance do I say/think that beating up npc's should win a match. WvW should try to balance PvP and PvE in a way so player actions decide the outcome. Which obviously means that PvP is what should decide the outcome.

>

> (I really meant to keep this short, sorry.)

 

Yea, I agree with this. I'm also basically saying that PvP should be kept the main point as well. Also, that PvP needs to stand out enough from PvE to keep that the main point.

I honestly think the PvE aspect only needs exist to the point it helps the "PvP" aspect do it's job or do it's job better.

[joneirikb.7506]

@KryTiKaL.3125

Difficult to respond to you as you got points pretty much randomly placed around your post, difficult to organize answers.

 

---

 

Regarding increased points in specific maps/days/times to counter coverage issues:

 

* The skirmish system does counter this somewhat already.

* I can see the point both for and against regarding invalidating/validating the play time/actions of people in both prime/off-prime. And I don't think there exist a good solution, the Skirmish system is probably the best compromise we'll get.

* Remember how much protest there was to the extra note in the Skirmish system plan when they said they *might* add a comeback system with increased points last day.

* With a 24/7 system, I don't think we will ever get away from this problem, it is inherent.

* PPT (Points) inherently comes from Objectives, thus you "win" the game with PvE.

* Kill-Points (points) was added to the game, so a busy prime time can compare to, or exceed, the points gained from PPT.

 

All over I agree that the drawn out manner of the 24/7 mode is what makes WvW inherently non-competitive. But I don't think removing the PvE aspect would help on that, likely it would just make the mode feel even more desolate.

 

---

 

General about Guards:

 

Guards serve many purposes:

* Like you pointed out they're there to slow enemies

* The function as a warning system

* They can also make it difficult to siege alone

* Random blind+imob can be annoying, and thus an strategical advantage to defender, they can try to drag fight into guards.

 

If you're going to remove guards you're going to have to replace those with something else. Some random (mostly bad) examples I came up with:

 

* Double hit-points on walls/gates ? (groan)

* More sentry/watchtower mechanics ?

* small auto turrets that does small damage on all siege nearby ?

* built in objective auras with stat boosts instead ?

 

Guards could be improved upon a lot, including smarter placement/movement, better builds that can scale with more targets instead of single target skill spam. But removing them would probably cause more problems than it would solve.

 

I like your GW1 example, and think ANet could benefit from looking back and take a few tips from their own old game. Focus guards more around defending the walls with ranged/aoe, support npc's to make them harder to take down, body guards for lord, make builds that work better against multiple players instead of shutting down single players, and buffs/helps other nearby npc's, and some better scaling for that.

 

---

 

About players defending if no Guards:

 

I really can't imagine players bothering to defend objectives if they had no guards, they barely do it with guards. I can actually see this reducing the amount of PvP over objectives, simply because people will in general be less inclined to go look at a tower under attack or defend it.

 

I think trying to make players to play defenders is going to fail.

 

To make something like this work, it would need additional mechanics which would change how maps works. For example a system where objectives are invulnerable if you control all the adjacent objectives, so as to create "frontlines" where you know the action will be.

 

Example: if you control Bay, NWT and SWT then Bay will be invulnerable, no one can hurt gates/walls/Lord on RI. But if enemy server takes SWT, then bay will be vulnerable, so you'll defend SWT, because it's the only place the enemies can start attacking you.

 

This means there would likely be 2 different objectives to defend at any given time, and so most players on the map would consentrate more around those objectives, thus also defending.

 

That is a very large change to how a map works, it also means that if one server dominates and parks a good size group in SWT then the enemy likely can't break out.

 

---

 

Completely off-topic but pointing out:

* If you want a competitive mode, as I've said in the past, ANet would be better off making a 20vs20 pvp-like arena with smaller versions of the WvW maps. Set Match time for 30, 60, 120, 180 min. and 5, 10, 15, 20 players.

* If you want a more active PvP in WvW, then embrace the PvE and change so the only way to get participation/rewards is to in some way directly oppose enemy players, by using the attack/defend events on objectives. Attack a tower with no enemy-players, the "event" doesn't give you much or anything at all, if an enemy player defends the rewards goes up, even if they die/lose.

 

---

 

To weave all this back into the topic somehow (pulls forth magic wand):

 

A good way/principle to wave in PvE(NPC) elements into WvW without destroying the PvP aspects, would be to use more PvE elements when there is little PvP anyways, but lessen the PvE elements when there is much PvP activity.

 

So if Green team has 100% control over their HomeBL map, has several defenders and outnumber the handful of roamers from enemy servers. There isn't that much PvP going on anyways. So if the map started some "Invasion Events" and sent forth Centaur, Skritt, and even Quaggan groups of NPC's to start attacking camps and towers (especially NWC, NWT, NET, NEC, possibly even NC, SET, SEC, SWT, SWC, SC. Undecided on keeps).

 

* This will force the Green team to split up and defend

* Give them something to do other than sit bored staring at siege timers

* Get them some participation

* Hold the group on the map so they can't join zergs on other maps

* Increase chances for roamers/havocs to accomplish something on map

* Increase chances for roamers to find defenders in smaller numbers than 10 so you can fight them.

 

---

 

TLDR: I agree with you on some points and not others.

* I think removing more PvE aspects would also lessen the PvP side.

* I think that many/most PvE aspects could be worked on to work better (especially guards).

* I think the Skirmish system is the best compromise we will get on Coverage.

 

And this post took me way too long, I gotta sleep...