Collaborative Development: Edge of the Mists

#1 - Feb. 24, 2014, 11:31 a.m.

Topic Goal:

The Edge of the Mists features numerous changes to the standard WvW mechanics.The most notable changes are: Scoring on capture of objectives, scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs, unique bosses at each objective, increased emphasis on verticality, more chokepoints, a much shorter match time, and destructible terrain. Of the changes included, which would you like to see implemented in the standard WvW maps?

Please feel free to mention anything not included in the above list, it is simply intended as a guide. The goal is to take some of the things that worked best in Edge of the Mists and discuss how they could be done in the other maps and what the positives and negatives would be of those changes.

Please see the below suggestion for formatting your proposals.

Suggested Proposal Format
Proposal Overview
<A short description of the proposal that is being put forward>

Goal of Proposal
<What problem are you trying to solve with your proposal>

Proposal Functionality
<How does your proposal work in regard in relation to the current design of GW2>

Associated Risks
<What risks or problems can you foresee with this proposal which you would like to have assistance on from other members of the CDI>

Please try to be as concise as feasible with your proposal. There is however no suggested word count for proposal posts.

Devon Carver

#2 - Feb. 24, 2014, 11:32 a.m.

And a quick reminder of the rules:

CDI Rules:

1: This initiative is all about discussion.
2: We will not be disclosing information pertaining to what is currently in development.
3: Anger and emotion will have less impact than intelligent discussion.
4: Together we will share and evolve design philosophies which will impact how we develop the game moving forward.
5: Aggression and disrespect to a fellow community member or developer will not be tolerated, and in the extreme could lead to the shutting down of the initiative.
6: The teams primary focus is work toward the development of GW2 and therefore posting of discussion and commentary may not be as frequent as you like. Please do understand that the initiative is taken very seriously by us all and that we will be reading the discussions and joining in as often as it is possible to do so.

Please note this is not a competition, either between yourselves or the developers in regard to one up man ship. The point of this Initiative is to work together to make the game better.

Note: We will disclose the ideas we do or don’t like as a group but we will not discuss schedules or timing around implementation. If there is still concern surrounding how seriously we take community collaboration then please do take the time to think about how much impact the community has had on the working of this game over the year.

#72 - Feb. 25, 2014, 11:55 a.m.

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

#147 - Feb. 26, 2014, 10:15 a.m.

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

#155 - Feb. 26, 2014, 10:59 a.m.

Interesting, I hadn’t considered using the 3 of 5 system there. Do you think that would really force groups to fight it out or would people just turtle up to prevent capture?

#159 - Feb. 26, 2014, 11:27 a.m.

A short recap of the first few pages of discussion.

There have been a number of interesting proposals of ways to take some of the things from EotM into the other maps. Scaling creatures have some supporters, verticality without it being excessive is a something that has also seen support. There is definite push and pull between people that feel like any changes from EotM would be counterproductive and people who think there are some good parts.

Probably the most contentious issue has been the talk of getting rid of world’s and replacing the system with just the three colors. I think there is some merit to the idea, although I believe the worlds have a lot of value. I’d be curious to know if the folks who argue against and world pride feel that way because of being on underperforming worlds or not. I also wonder if there isn’t some work that could be done to restore that world pride without completely overhauling the WvW system. Someone mentioned alliances, which I think would work fairly well. If the less populous worlds were grouped together, does that seem like something that could reinvigorate them?

From my perspective, the discussion around changes to the matchup length are interesting. I originally proposed 8 hour matches, but someone else suggested a version that I think would be really interesting which is basically that the weekend is one matchup and the weekdays are another. I’d be curious to hear what people think about that.

I also wanted to continue discussion about changes to Stonemist that might make it a more engaging place to fight over. I think a move to multiple capture points could make it a more difficult place to capture and add some variety to the way the fight plays out.

#160 - Feb. 26, 2014, 11:28 a.m.

Malchior.5042:

Nike.2631:

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points?
…
Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

It’s almost there.

What I would do is continue to have one critical point – the Lord’s Room. That location solely determines the outcome of the attack. But then I would add two (possibly 3) substantial defenses to the lord’s room. First, a Legendary creature that helps in the defense of the room. The second, a bunch of fixed, player-operable high quality siege equipment.

For each of these defenses you add another control point elsewhere in the castle. Seizing them removes the matching defenses from the room.

The point will always be to cotrol the Lord’s room, and an assaulting realm can choose to go directly for the throat. But doing so means eating a bunch of siege in the face and having to deal with something on the scale of a Giant, or maybe a High Priest of the Mists with an annoying tendency to rez the Lord up to once a minute until the Priest is wiped off the field.

Or the assaulting group can go contest these points and remove the additional obstacles for as long as they hold them. Hold the Chapel and the Priest de-spawns. Hold the Armory and the Seige Weapons become inert.

With the Priest/Giant/What-have-you being an NPC, it will present a challenge even if no defenders are present. While the siege weapons specifically require the defending server be present to use them.

Nike’s got the right idea!

Having different defenses in the Lord Room (or perhaps throughout all of Stonemist) that can be disabled by controlling the Armory, or controlling the Barracks, etc…

These kinds of elements introduce choice and conflict into the battle, so commanders can adapt the battle plan dynamically to accomplish the final goal of capturing Stonemist.

Also…as a sort of balancing factor to these extra objectives…what if they costed supply to build/maintain within SM? Now, the castle is more vulnerable when it’s a 2000+ supply depository that can treb any adjacent tower.

There are a number of ways to approach the issue, but I definitely feel Nike’s design of linking defenses to a key objective (similar to EotM defenses) is a good start for mixing up the battles inside Stonemist (heck, perhaps inside any keep).

What if, instead of NPC defenders, you couldn’t put siege down in Stonemist, but there were specific defensive siege pieces in critical areas that the defending team could build? Would that serve the same purpose?

#247 - Feb. 27, 2014, 1:35 p.m.

I think there has been good discussion around the concepts of world pride and how the changes in EotM affect that. Let’s pivot to a different concept from EotM and how it could apply to WvW.

I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?

For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.

#249 - Feb. 27, 2014, 2:04 p.m.

As an aside, I just wanted to call out the posts from Matipzieu KyA, which are incredibly detailed and well-thought out. We really appreciate the passion and dedication that it takes to go to those lengths. We are reading them and looking closely at the things contained within.

#323 - Feb. 28, 2014, 5:01 p.m.

I wanted to pop back in to say I think it’s been really valuable to hear the input from you all about all these topics. We want to do what is best for WvW and that means hearing what you all have to say about a variety of things.

The discussion around community, world identity, etc. has been very enlightening. I also wanted to call out everyone who approached the discussion with an open mind. Whether you like Edge of the Mists or not, its valuable to discuss some of the concepts there and see if they are applicable to the other WvW maps. Please continue to discuss some of the topics we’ve broached here, but before the week ends I just wanted to say that I think it has been a good discussion and valuable for us.

#399 - March 8, 2014, 7:26 p.m.

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

#441 - March 11, 2014, 9:37 a.m.

titanlectro.5029:

Devon,

I’d be really interested to get your feedback on the following:
1) any proposals that stick out to you, and what you do or do not like about them
2) our answers to your questions

I realize that you are getting useful feedback from us, but it would be nice for us to get some more feedback from you also.

Let me take some time to organize my thoughts about that, but yes, that is a good point.

#443 - March 11, 2014, 11:37 a.m.

There have been far too many proposals here for me to directly comment on each of them, so I’m going to try and take a broader stab at things.

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

The discussion point, proposal, whatever you want to call it, that I think is the most useful in terms of designing WvW maps and gameplay is the talk about how to build objectives that feel like they make tactical sense. I think that it is something that could definitely be improved in a new map or with a major rework to the current maps. Having logical and tactical objectives, like a tower guarding a canyon, is something that I think would greatly improve WvW in terms of moment to moment gameplay and longer term tactical gameplay.

That somewhat feeds into a larger issue that is outside the bounds of this particular topic which is defending objectives. It is absolutely the case that we have a hard time correctly tracking defense and rewarding players for it. It is something that we’d like to address on a system level and something that we hope to have a solution for across the board before we do any piecemeal changes. It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

Both of the above things are ways to substantially change the necessity of tactics in the game and to make WvW more about well-organized groups. That’s something we still aim for when we make changes to the game.

One final note about the CDI generally, I’ve said it before and will say it again, the purpose of these threads is to discuss design not to create a work order. What we discuss here is not a promise but an avenue for us to discuss our views on aspects of the game with you all. That means we challenge each others assumptions and hopefully come to a better understanding of what will make GW2 better. Some times that manifests in things we talk about being made and sometimes it manifests in us having a better vision for other things we are working on. I hope that correctly sets expectations about things here. Thanks for contributing as it makes us better designers and hopefully means GW2 will be better off in the long run.

#491 - March 12, 2014, 10:45 a.m.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

DevonCarver.5370:

It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

This statement is confusing. At launch, an “Escort the Dolyak” event existed which rewarded karma on successful completion. That reward/event was removed from the game because bots were scripted to farm the event by following the yaks. The bots received the reward without having to engage in combat.

It was great fun while it lasted because real players could farm the farmers who either didn’t fight back or fought poorly. Was hilarious to watch 12 bots slowly walking along beside a yak only to be mowed down by real players.

Of course, this had to be removed from the game. However, historically, it appears the game is capable of tracking who is escorting a dolyak.

I think if you examine more closely what you just said, you can see the problem. The progress was being given to anyone standing around near the dolyak when it ended its path. That is hardly accurately tracking who helped it out. Without a good way to know who actually helped, we can’t provide adequate rewards.

#515 - March 13, 2014, 4:58 p.m.

While I appreciate the discussion around the dolyak issue, it wasn’t my intention to refocus the discussion there so much as provide an example of a point.

To pivot from that discussion, however, would WvW be better or worse off if we removed dolyaks entirely and went with the setup we use in EotM or something similar?

I think there are good reasons to keep dolyaks, but I wonder if we might be able to solve many of the problems we’ve discussed here by eliminating that sense of the supply chain of battle? It might just have the effect of making supply far less limiting.

Would it instead work to go with a combination of the two and have a guaranteed minimum amount of supply from holding a camp and have dolyaks carrying the extra? I’m curious what you all think.

As for the discussion around how to more closely involve guilds it’s definitely something we think about and I think there are intriguing ideas in here.

#537 - March 14, 2014, 10:55 a.m.

Shriketalon.1937:

DevonCarver.5370:

While I appreciate the discussion around the dolyak issue, it wasn’t my intention to refocus the discussion there so much as provide an example of a point.

To pivot from that discussion, however, would WvW be better or worse off if we removed dolyaks entirely and went with the setup we use in EotM or something similar?

What about a lattice system, similar to that used in Planetside??

Combine the Sentry Points and the Ruins mechanic into a series of small zones of control that dot the entire map. When someone captures a Supply Camp, it will automatically provide supplies to nearby structures if they are connected by a series of small zones of control, which use the current Ruins mechanic. In order to cut off a Keep and lay siege, an attacker must literally sever its supply chains by surrounding the keep and blockading its territory.

This opens up a lot more room for small scale skirmishes around a major objective and for defenders to help in small ways by breaking the siege and establishing a supply chain. Likewise, a zerg attacking a heavily defended area will actually need to establish a major foothold rather than relying on a single havoc squad performing the current supply chain dance. This change would mix very well with more Zones of Control (such as towers with additional gates blocking access to valleys, etc), and more elaborate keep mechanics.

I’ve included a crude example of a lattice below, though it uses an outdated map.

That’s a really interesting idea. I like the change it makes from the dolyaks to control of an area while still maintaining the feel of supply lines.

#538 - March 14, 2014, 10:59 a.m.

Yoh.8469:

Personally I would prefer their removal, I don’t think they promote engaging gameplay, either attacking this defenseless critter or babysitting them.

I kind of like the idea that The Elder Scrolls Online has with their version of WvW, where outside key buildings there will be a number of smaller resource camps of three different types, each conveying a boon to the key structure.
Lumber Mills improve doors, walls, and overall hp of the structure.
Farms improve NPC’s I think.
And Mines, idk, improve siege I would guess.

I’d like to see something similar in GW2, where you had different types of camps, each could give supply passively like the Generators in EOTM, but also conveyed buffs to their respective towers and keeps, and when upgraded could make taking them exceedingly difficult.

Say if you owned an upgraded Lumber Mill, doors and walls of nearby towers and keeps auto repair, and if they were also reinforced, it would take a massive war effort in order to break them down.
This way if it is lost the impact is immediate and relatable.

This, too, is really interesting and could be a fun change to the system. Would it feel like the addition of an excessive amount of PvE if that was the upgrade system in each map?

#539 - March 14, 2014, 11:04 a.m.

Twinny.9304:

Seen a lot here about removing dolyaks, i don’t understand this at all it gives smaller parties/individuals a job to do we need more of the small things like this not less of. Yes it could be redesigned a “little” better, but not removed.

By removing the small scale stuff your effectively making less for the roamers to do and forcing them to join the karma train which is increasing in size not decreasing it. We need more small scale stuff not less of it, to allow more people to break away from that train.

That is a good point. I think it is more important to think of if there is a better way to do both of those things. Right now, killing dolyaks is the way you disrupt supply and something you can do as a single player. What if we replaced the dolyaks with some other mechanic that didn’t have the problems dolyaks have, specifically the escorting issues, that still allowed small groups of players to disrupt supply? I think the key is maintaining that play while improving the mechanics.

#545 - March 14, 2014, 1:57 p.m.

Hey all,

I’m going to close down the thread, but I wanted to chime in with some general thoughts and just say how great the discussion of a lot of points has been.

1) I think there has been a general consensus that the Edge of the Mists is an interesting part of WvW, but that it is missing a number of the things that people most like from WvW.
2) Perhaps the largest of those things is the fact that the lack of world identity is a negative for a lot of folks.
3) We talked a bit about the idea of chokepoints and how they can be a useful tool if they are well integrated into the design and layout of the map and how they can easily be overused. People like some aspects of the bridges in EotM, but feel like they are too numerous and cause other problems. The concept of a tower guarding a canyon was more favorably received than the bridges.
4) There is a wide variety of opinion about waypoints. There seems to be a consensus that the amount of running in EotM isn’t great but that there might be some middle ground to be found.
5) There was a very wide ranging discussion about match times. I think we came to the consensus that there isn’t a consensus, see what I did there?, about if shorter matches would be good. I think there is some room to experiment, but it does seem like people feel there is value to the length that WvW currently runs.
6) Matipzieu KyA, ManaCraft, Kraag Deadsoul, Heezdedjim, and Yoh were some of the most prolific posters who also, in my opinion, put a great deal of thought into their responses and had a real solid back and forth. Thanks to all of you as well as everyone else who participated.
7) We bandied about some thoughts for changes to Stonemist and I think there are some interesting ideas, but several people raised the very real concern that we not make Stonemist impossible for smaller groups to capture.

Generally I think there was a lot of good discussion here. I think we talked a great deal about some very core issues that some of the proposals had as well as some things we could do to improve WvW overall.

I look forward to future CDIs and to hearing more of your thoughts about another topic. Thanks again for all of your thoughts and input. We really believe it helps us to make a better game for you all to enjoy.

Devon Carver