Curse

Zuranthium · Feb 14, 2007, 05:35 AM // 05:35

What makes GvG the most interesting part of Guild Wars, for me, is coordinating with an entire team across an open map.

At the moment, splitting basically consists of sending some team members to the stand and others to either the opposing enemy base or your own base. A 3-way split is currently something that really just doesn't happen. There aren't many times when you need to be defending your own base, and trying to control the flagstand, AND trying to gank the opposing base.

However, the Isle of Wurms presents an important new game mechanic to GvG. Now there are two different spots on the map which give a concrete benefit, which leads to a 3-way split possibly being enticing. Sending 6 people to the flagstand, 1 person to the health shrine, and 1 person to gank spreads out the team in a new way.

I hope every new guild hall in the future expansion(s) builds upon this idea. I believe that forcing teams to split up more and creating more skirmishes, rather than flat out 8v8 fights, makes GvG way more interesting.

~Z

Wasteland Squidget · Feb 14, 2007, 05:43 AM // 05:43

In my experience, the health shrine doesn't have the effect you're talking about in most matches. Usually it just ensures that the match will be won by whichever team has the stronger gank force.

The health shrine is right in the middle of the back path to the base, which means both teams will be sending out forces to take the shrine when the gates open. The two gank teams meet at the shrine and whichever one wins continues on to gank the enemy base while their flagstand team has a permanent health boost. The losing team then has to pull guys off the stand (since their DPed gankers obviously aren't strong enough to beat the other team), and at that point it becomes a losing battle because the enemy stand team can push hard on both fronts.

Sure, you might be able to send a split to the health shrine while a gank AND a flagstand battle are going on, but that's usually a losing proposition. It lets the enemy push hard on whichever side you drained the man from, and losing your gank or your NPCs or the flagstand isn't worth getting the health shrine.

Holding the health shrine is a critical part of Isle of Wurms, but I don't think it creates a lot of 3-way splits in the way you state.

Neo-LD · Feb 14, 2007, 06:13 AM // 06:13

Isle of Wurms is one of my least favorite maps to play, but this might just be because of my usual position (monk) during gvg. What typically happens is as Squidget described, above. Both teams send gank teams, and the stronger gank wins, and controls the shrine. For the rest of the match, it is almost impossible for the team losing the intial split encounter to do anything effective on the split, since not only are they dp-ed, the enemy has uncontested control of the shrine.

Thus the only solution is to reduce the number of players at stand to prop up the sinking ship with inefficient characters not really meant to split but being pushed into duty out of necessity. What results is usually, the team losing the initial shrine battle has either retreated completely into base or is maintaining only a token force at the stand. I have almost never seen a comeback on this map. Its just too difficult to overcome both dp and the health shrine (you'll also likely be facing infinite morale boosts as well).

I agree that multiple-objective maps would add a great element to gvg, but I dont like the way that this specific map has been implemented. The new objective warps gameplay for the worse. As I alluded to earlier in this post, playing monk on this map is utterly frustrating. The enemy will come to your main team with a reduced force (since theyre splitting) which has no chance of killing you. Theres not much you can contribute. Someone will win the split battle. Not much you can do to influence the outcome. If you lost, soon you will retreat into base. Nothing much you can do about that either. If you won, you push in, you get a bit of work but never feel threatened because you have morale + shrine. You will win or lose, but which one occurs is pretty much out of your hands, if you're the monk on this map. Everything important will happen outside of your compass range.

I think that both

1. The winner on this map is decided by only a few players on each team (the splitters)

and

2. The winner on this map is almost always decided within the first 2 minutes of the game.

are bad for general guild wars gameplay.

Zuranthium · Feb 14, 2007, 06:15 AM // 06:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

In my experience, the health shrine doesn't have the effect you're talking about in most matches.

I know.

I'm just talking about the idea in general. I hope ANET builds upon it in the future; I want to see some very dynamic maps. The ideal playing situation for me would be where your team HAS to split up right at the start and remain in at least 2, hopefully 3 (or perhaps even 4 when you count the flagrunner going off to grab the flag and maybe being headed off), separate groups for the majority of the game.

I think it would be deadly fun to see games where evenly matched teams would basically only be in an 8v8 fight at VoD, since they are forced to constantly break up to control the different points of the map. It makes players have more individual accountability.

I'm not entirely sure how you can force the players into it, though. With the health shrine, for example, both teams can choose to simply ignore it.

~Z

Wasteland Squidget · Feb 14, 2007, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

I'm not entirely sure how you can force the players into it, though. With the health shrine, for example, both teams can choose to simply ignore it.

You can ignore the health shrine on Isle of Wurms. You can also ignore the flagstand, the enemy team, or the buttons on your keyboard. However, doing any of these things will cause you to lose the match.

The problem on Isle of Wurms isn't teams that choose to fight 8v8. I've never seen a team fight 8v8 the entire time on Wurms and still win the match.

The sort of gameplay you're talking about does exist in Guild Wars though, in Alliance Battles. The best strategy in ABs is a lot of 2 and 3-man splits running around the map capping points and killing stragglers. You almost never see a fight devolve into pure 12v12, because if one team tries to fight head-on the other team can just run them around and cap points at their leisure. Unfortunately, ABs are marred by randomized teams, lack of communication, and a low level of player skill. It's a shame, because as a serious gametype, individual player skill and versatile character building would be more important in ABs than any other arena in Guild Wars.

The basic difference between ABs and Isle of Wurms stems from two things - death penalties (in the form of DP and res sigs) and the importance of the control points. Giving up your position at the flagstand gives the enemy team infinite morale boosts and allows them to push as hard as they want without much risk. Giving up your base means losing the match when the enemy team kills your guild lord.

Because of death penalties, after you've lost the initial skirmish you're going to be much harder pressed to defend the two objectives that are really important. You have to pull guys off the stand to defend your base, and you certainly can't spare anyone to go take the health shrine. This creates a 'slippery slope' situation where the enemy wins the initial skirmish, then they have full control of the health shrine and a big advantage with their offense on both fronts.

In conclusion, if you want a gametype where teams can split around freely to deal with 4 or 5 objectives, you need to massively reduce the penalties for death and ensure that no one control point is absolutely critical to winning the match. Personally, I think it would be much easier for Anet to take ABs and allow us to enter with full teams from our alliance. Either way, I don't like the Isle of Wurms for similar reasons to Neo, and I hope they won't create similar maps without considering the effects Wurms had on GvG.

Thom Bangalter · Feb 14, 2007, 06:58 AM // 06:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Personally, I think it would be much easier for Anet to take ABs and allow us to enter with full teams from our alliance.

Win. Win Win Win. I honestly wouldn't play any other gametype if this was introduced.

Zuranthium · Feb 14, 2007, 06:58 AM // 06:58

I've seen some really great matches on Isle of Wurms, Neo. But those were good team vs. good team. Obviously in good team vs. average team, the map is simply going to speed up the time it takes for "good team" to win because they are going to be better at gaining control of the resources. Then the situation you describe arises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

As I alluded to earlier in this post, playing monk on this map is utterly frustrating. The enemy will come to your main team with a reduced force (since theyre splitting) which has no chance of killing you.

Perhaps you should split 5/3? If their build is based around having 2 people that gank really well together and your build doesn't, but can hold up in a 5 v 6 matchup at the stand, that should even things out more.

But I agree the Wurms map is not a great implementation of the idea. It's a start, though, and the direction I really want to see GvG head towards. Imagine a map with 3 separate paths to each guild hall. One path has the flagstand in the middle, one path has some shrine or altar, and one path has nothing (ganking path). Anyone else think that would be quite fun?

~Z

Zuranthium · Feb 14, 2007, 07:13 AM // 07:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

In conclusion, if you want a gametype where teams can split around freely to deal with 4 or 5 objectives, you need to massively reduce the penalties for death and ensure that no one control point is absolutely critical to winning the match.

Oh yes, and I was going to mention that resurrection times would probably have to be dropped to once per minute rather than one per two minutes.

The AB thing you propose would be a great change for that arena but not really the same as what I'd have hoped for. It's less intense because the risks and rewards aren't as high as in GvG. What you mentioned about individual player skill and versatile character building is something that I was definitely hoping to push more into GvG with the theoretical maps I was thinking of.

~Z

Stixxx · Feb 15, 2007, 10:40 AM // 10:40

Isle of wurms is imo one of the most fun maps to play on, with lots of possibilities in playstyle and strategy. But you are right, whoever caps the shrine and can hold it you're almost certain you will win the game. Some builds even will get useless, like Eurospike. Try spiking someone when your opponent has +120hp from the shrine AND a morale boost.

I personally never have seen the 3-way gank, but i seriously doubt if it works. When you have only 5 at the stand vs a 6 or 7 man team that plays a hard pressure build, or even a spike you will have a very hard time staying alive.

My 2 cents

Ensign · Feb 15, 2007, 11:50 AM // 11:50

You see 3-way splits most often on Druid's Isle, actually - when both teams come in with an aggressive gank plan, immediately repair the vine bridge and go in. Hilarity ensues.

Peace,
-CxE

Zuranthium · Feb 15, 2007, 05:32 PM // 17:32

Lol, YES, Druid's Isle is awesome. I think that kind of situation has only happened once or twice for me, though.

Does anyone have some good ideas of certain elements that could be added to GvG to encourage wide-ranged splitting. Somehow I should draw a map of what I'm picturing in my mind. I think it would end up looking really terrible, though. :/

Aside from the excitement of smaller battles, which lets individual players stand out more, I really do believe that having the kind of diversified maps I talked about would lead to more well-rounded builds that would create a better (RE: more fun, diverse) competitive environment.

~Z

Ensign · Feb 15, 2007, 09:07 PM // 21:07

The amount of splitting is directly proportional to the number of different locations at which critical objectives are achieved. Raise that number and people split more. However there are some soft limits to how much builds can actually split, so I don't think that more than 3-way (and one of the 3 prongs in that fight is always a token 1v1 or 2v1) is realistic...you only have 8 players afterall.

Peace,
-CxE

Zuranthium · Feb 16, 2007, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

I don't think that more than 3-way (and one of the 3 prongs in that fight is always a token 1v1 or 2v1) is realistic...you only have 8 players afterall.

I agree that more than 3 separate units within the team wouldn't (and couldn't) happen that much. Just as right now there are rarely more than 2 separate groups within the team at any given time. 4 would be the absolute most...flagstand, xxx Shrine, enemy base, your base.

The bottom line is that I just want to see and experience many MORE 3-ways.

~Z

Zeldawind · Feb 16, 2007, 07:57 AM // 07:57

Never seen a comeback, well yesterday my guild had a GvG on isle of wurms. The enemy capped the shrine because we didn't care about it till VoD. We just prevented them from killing in the base and keeping a high pressure up on their main team.

At VoD we had them under high pressure but just not yet on the point of breaking, What we did was cap the health shrine right before VoD so that their health drops by 120 points and then the VoD shout came to reduce their health by 25% again. GG old school fertile bomb ftw

.

But the point is that it doesn't have to be decided in the first 2 minutes. Because we seemed to be at a disadvantage. But really weren't because of simple usage of the VoD mechanic.

But if you want 3 way splits then you do some aggressive splits on druid's isle often enough you can force the enemy team to split up in the same way.
We once had a GvG whit 1 team in our base 1 flagger running around 1 team in their base and then a straggler of our own picking on their flag runner or anyone who retreated out of our base or for when our team in their base couldn't handle it anymore.
Close to VoD they were just so confused by the straggler on the map that they didn't knew what to do anymore, so we just picked of the people running around like headless chicken and won the match quit simple.

This was great fun. But hard to force into a battle and can bring some risks because the enemy team may decide to keep a strong main force to roll over your base defending team.

Clinically Proven · Feb 16, 2007, 09:06 AM // 09:06

Z is on the money, the more strategic options you are presented with in GvG the more dynamic the gameplay potential is. The ability to force a 3 way split presents a myriad of tactical and strategic options for a guild and can only help to enhance the experience for the participants.

hopes advocate · Mar 03, 2007, 02:55 AM // 02:55

someone may have mentioned this but what about isle of meditation? you can gank the guild lord, hold the flagstand and last but not least the obelisk thing. this would be an other place that three way ganks are possible.

Wasteland Squidget · Mar 03, 2007, 01:57 PM // 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopes advocate

someone may have mentioned this but what about isle of meditation? you can gank the guild lord, hold the flagstand and last but not least the obelisk thing. this would be an other place that three way ganks are possible.

Outside of VoD flagstand slugfests, the obelisk never really does enough damage to look attractive. You're better off letting the enemy hold it and just crushing them on another front. Losing the obelisk loses you nothing, while winning the flagstand or base can win you the game. There's some decent play around it just before VOD though.

JR · Mar 03, 2007, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Outside of VoD flagstand slugfests, the obelisk never really does enough damage to look attractive. You're better off letting the enemy hold it and just crushing them on another front. Losing the obelisk loses you nothing, while winning the flagstand or base can win you the game. There's some decent play around it just before VOD though.

I disagree.

Playing against some kind of defensive spike build not having the obelisk really isn't going to be a big deal, at all. They aren't pressuring you enough for it to become and issue, and you having it isn't going to make a major difference to them. Playing against more offensive builds there is a lot to be said for the free DPS you get from the Fireball turrets. When you rely on crushing your opponent before they can take advantage of a fragile backline these things start looking a little more scary.

It's difficult to say 'in X scenario running X build vs X build you want to controll the obelisk, and in Y example you don't', it really is very situational. I would definately say there are times where you will want that obelisk under your control early in the game though.

If Meditation is your home map, chances are you have character(s) who can effectively split to cap the obelisk when you need it, giving you the edge against teams that might not. A stronger split allows you to kill anyone they send to cap it, or at least hold them off, giving you the DPS advantage.

wren e · Mar 03, 2007, 02:51 PM // 14:51

An idea that I've had that would add more splitting and tactics to GvG is to have three seperate paths to the opposing teams base. On one path would be the morale flagstand, another path will lead to a DP flagstand which after controling it for two minutes would give the other team -10% DP, and the other path would be another flagstand like the top one from isle of meditation but have fireball turrets at all three flagstands and raise the damage from the fireballs just a little more to ensure that you cannot ignore it.

Having this type of set-up would add a lot more options but maybe too many options for a 8 man team though, it would make for some interesting matches though.

Zuranthium · Mar 03, 2007, 04:12 PM // 16:12

3 flagstands is probably too much. WHOAH at that negative DP flagstand idea, though. That's really interesting.

~Z