A World vs World of Ideas

Finally, we begin to analyze some of the finer details about World vs World (WvW) for GW2.  Earlier today Arenanet provided a blog post going over multiple features of large scale, three-way, PvP.  Most of the article restates information that many GW2 fans are familiar with:

  • Multiscale siege based combat
    • Siege weapons (trebuchets, golems, etc.)
    • Objectives of varying size (keeps, towers, resource camps)
  • WvW has point based competition – “War Score”
    • Used to maintain server rank and keep the system competitive
  • WvW is available to any level player
    • Players scale to level 80 stats
    • PvE acquired gear transfers with the player
      • New gear can be found/dropped in WvW
    • A level 80 player joining WvW will have obvious advantages over a level 1 player (after being scaled to level 80).
      • This is directly similar to the ORvR scaling in Warhammer Online

There are other specific details that I’m sure GW2 fans are aware of, but let’s continue.  The focus and overall goals of WvW is heading in the right direction.  They’re drawing from multiple resources to produce one of the best large-scale open PvP experiences.  I wish them the best in their endeavor.  However, this is where I can suggest some improvements.

Once you capture a keep, all gates and walls are repaired, so don’t hold back your assaults in fear of damaging the structure. Tear down whatever you must to get inside!

This feature plays against a main component available in WvW.  The inclusion of resource camps and “supply” pushes players and their allies to think about how they should interact with WvW.  Thinking about how to win?  A strange idea, right?

Arenanet infers the importance of “supply” in their post.  It acts as a single currency that influences all aspects of WvW; from upgrading keeps and NPCs to purchasing siege equipment.

  • Resource camps create a universal resource called “supply,” and will periodically send out dolyak caravans that deliver supply to nearby allied towers and keeps. Supply can be used to build siege weapons, repair damaged walls, or purchase various upgrades.
  • You can collect supply from that depot if you need some, but only if there is some available. If there is no supply in the depot, you’ll need to escort a caravan so it can deliver more supply to the depot, or get some from a resource camp…

Resource camps and “supply” are pivotal to a successful WvW server.  We can assume this much.  But, then why does Arenanet provide an automated response that removes an additional need for “supply”?  Wouldn’t we want to encourage players to assault/defend more than just the large objectives?

Strategically, if this automated system weren’t in place, it would proceed like so (in a general strategy):

Capture a resource camp > Assault a nearby tower > Repair tower if desired > Assault keep > Use supply from the camp to repair walls/doors/etc.

Sure, you have the “option” of proceeding like this with the current design, but the choice with the same outcome is to simply assault the keep.  Except, of course, you couldn’t “use supply from the camp to repair” anything, because it’s all automatically repaired.  Also, what is the strategy in knocking down anything and everything that stands in your way?  If there’s no benefit to not knocking down everything there exists no reason to think about how you siege a keep.  Simply attack a barrier, whatever barrier you want, and damn the consequences.  Because, it will all be repaired when it’s captured.

How about this?  The siege team focuses on a specific area and minimizes the damage where they can.  If they are successful at capturing the keep then their allies guarding the recently captured resource camp can begin sending in “supply” for speedy repairs.  The added risk of an enemy regathering to capture a weakened keep, or the third faction taking advantage of the situation, makes for much more dynamic PvP.

There needs to be more encouragement to claim resource camps and in turn acquire “supply”.  The simplest way to do so is removing the automatic repair function of keeps.

Large groups of players can only protect so many areas at one time, and since your world’s score is based on how many objectives you hold, running around in one huge group doesn’t help your world nearly as much as it would to break into a couple of smaller groups so you can cover more area.

Key word here is “nearly” as much.  Meaning it’s still a viable…ish strategy.  Perhaps I’m reading in between the lines here a bit, but that tells me I’m going to see a log of “zerging” in WvW.  The easiest tactic is often the most commonly used.

I might be worrying about nothing.  With the maps being as big as Anet described, large, roving, hordes of players may rarely exist.  This is mere speculation.

Next Post
Leave a comment


  1. Oh i think you’re spot on about large roving hordes, but hopefully there are enough people to see all sizes of groups all the time. Should be really interesting to see.

    • Yeah, I had almost given into the thought that zergs would be inevitable. But, I’m really hoping for the best with these ginormous maps. :)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: