Feedback:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps/RTS Structures in WvWvW

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Go here to see a list of my other GW2 suggestions and discussion contributions.


This suggestion goes hand-in-hand with my previous suggestion, Alternative Scoring in WvWvW. It is part of a series which explores ways in which the depth of play, strategy, and tactics can be increased in WvWvW.


RTS Structures in WvWvW[edit]

After contemplating ways in which the depth of play, strategy, and tactics can be increased in WvWvW, it occurred to me that WvWvW is playing very much like a Real Time Strategy (RTS) game. The difference being that instead of having an overhead, isometric perspective of the entire battlefield and all the units on that field, the players in GW2 are the units. It's RTS seen through the eyes of a single unit. Of course, I think that's the coolest thing since sliced bread!


RTS Elements in WvWvW[edit]

Consistent with that genre, we have:

  • Objectives to capture.
  • Resources to gather (supply).
  • Resource delivery units to protect (Dolyak Caravans).
  • The ability to use resources to upgrade existing structures.
  • The ability to use resources to build more powerful weapons (siege weapons).
  • Scoring mechanisms based on how many objectives have been captured.
  • Random, non-allied enemies populating the map.


The Missing Elements[edit]

It's evident that many of the elements found in RTS games are present in WvWvW. However, there are two that are missing. The first - more powerful units - I've partially addressed in my Summon a Champion in WvWvW feedback post. In RTS games there are usually a multitude of ever-more powerful units to which a team can upgrade. My Champion suggestion only allows for the construction of a new single unit (albeit, very powerful). In this case, I freely admit that more units may not necessarily be better as that would take too much of the focus away from the players. I'm content with allowing teams to summon a single powerful Champion rather than having a dozen new units to build.


As for the second missing element, what is it? Why, the ability to build our own structures, of course! In WvWvW the objectives teams capture are the already-existing resource camps, towers, and keeps; there is no provision for constructing their own buildings. Creating a mechanic to permit this is what this suggestion is about.


Unlike some RTS games in which the construction of certain structures directly contributes to a team's score, I'm not suggesting the same here (the one exception being the Build an Edifice in WvWvW mechanic I suggest in a previous post). Structures built by teams in WvWvW will be solely for utility rather than for scoring. This keeps the current scoring mechanism intact (capturing resource camps, towers, and keeps).


To further reduce the effort required to program this new mechanic, these structures are built using the existing WvWvW resource, "supply". There's no need to add some esoteric resource specific to structures. As an alternative or addition to the "supply" resource, perhaps some specialized structures will require specific materials gathered from various sources and nodes. Again, though, these materials already exist in the game. Furthermore, this would permit players more inclined to gathering to contribute to the construction of structures.


The Structures[edit]

As to the structures themselves, the ones I list are far from exhaustive. I present them as simply ideas to get the ball rolling in creating all sorts of inventive structures for teams to build in WvWvW.


  • Aid station.
This structure will have an Engineer's Healing Turret located inside and/or "X " Bandages that spawn at balanced intervals. Alternately, the Aid Station could start off with just the Bandages alone. Then, with a future upgrade, the Healing Turret will be added. Yet a third upgrade may apply a regeneration, protection, or retaliation boon for "X " seconds every "Y " seconds to players standing within a certain radius of the Aid Station. Wounded players can then retire to this structure to recover before returning to the fight.
Perhaps the Aid Station is staffed by a Healer NPC (alternately, corpsman, nurse, doctor, medicine man/woman, etc.) who tends to injured players, restocks the bandages, and maintains the healing turret. This NPC wouldn't necessarily engage in combat nor even have any healing skills; they're just there to further flesh out the Aid Station and give a plausible reason for why the bandages are kept restocked. Alternately, they could be given skills; it is they who cast the regeneration, protection, or retaliation boons on players once the third tier has been unlocked.


  • Artillery (or Siege) Battery.
This structure is reinforced palisade walls inside of which players can construct siege weapons. Siege weapons that normally can only be built inside the walls of a tower or keep can now be built out in the open by constructing the Artillery Battery. An upgrade will reinforce the walls and perhaps add a Mortar and/or Cannon or two. The siege weapons will not fire autonomously. Players must still construct them independant of the Artillery Battery as well as man the weapons to fire them. Perhaps the Artillery (Siege) Battery is staffed by a Siege Engineer NPC from whom players can purchase siege weapon blueprints.


  • Bunker.
Unlike a Command Post, there are no boons or NPC Defenders associated with this structure; however, it will be cheaper than a Command Post. It is simply a redoubt in which players can seek shelter from enemy fire while returning fire through murder holes cut into the walls. An upgrade may add a couple Engineer's offensive turrets.


  • Command Post.
This structure will be well-fortified, able to withstand a fair amount of damage before falling. Players seeking shelter inside will be able to fire at enemies through murder holes lining the walls of the Command Post. Players within a certain radius of this structure may periodically gain a boon of some sort; Might or Fury for example. Upgrading the structure will add NPC Defenders and possibly a second boon (e.g. maybe Might on initial construction and Fury on upgrade). It's reinforced roof, accessed by a ladder, will permit players to build a (limited) number of siege weapons on top (though not as many as an Artillery Battery). A third upgrade may automatically add some Engineer's offensive turrets or Mortars and/or Cannons to the roof while strengthening the walls and existing NPC Defenders.


Common Charateristics of Structures[edit]

  • Structures should be fairly expensive to build. If a single trebuchet costs 100 supply, a good starting point for the base structures may be 1,000 supply (that's 100 players contributing 10 supply, each). Upgrades will then cost additional supply.


  • Similar to siege weapons, it may require a blueprint to initiate construction of a specific structure.


  • Structures are of smaller scale than towers and keeps. None should be taller than one story. There are some that permit building siege weapons and other defenses on their roofs, but the physical structure itself will remain a single level.


  • Upgrading a structure will increase its "health"/strength of its walls; regardless of the type of structure it is.


  • Structures can be damaged by enemies through skills and/or siege weapons.


  • If an enemy destroys a structure, their team earns war score points for doing so. The more upgrades a structure has, the more points are scored.


  • Damaged structures can be repaired by players using supply.


  • The location of structures will be shown on the WvWvW map of the owning team; enemies will not see these structures on their maps (that is, until they capture them, of course; more on that below).


Limiters on Structures[edit]

  • Structures can not be built adjacent to one another. Every structure will have a radius around it in which no other structure can be built. This prevents griefers from building a string or circle of structures to block players from accessing a portal, for example.


  • Structures can not be built within a certain distance of Asura Gates, tower portals or gates, and keep portals or gates. They can not be built on bridges nor overlapping or adjacent to existing buildings (i.e. resource camps, towers, keeps, Stonemist Castle).


  • There may be a limit on the number of structures of a specific type that a team can build. This limit could be tied to the team's war score. The more war score they have, the more structures of that type they can build.


  • The structures available to a team may depend on a limiting factor; war score, perhaps. For example, a team initially can only build Bunkers. When their war score reaches 25,000, they can build Aid Stations. When it reaches 50,000, they can build Artillery Batteries. When it reaches 75,000, they can build Command Posts.


  • If a team has reached it's structure limit and now wants to build a new structure elsewhere on the map, they will have the option of demolishing a previously built structure to allow for the new one. Doing so may recover a certain percentage of the supply used to construct the original building. This one is tricky, though. What's to stop a griefer from demolishing a building if it's open to anyone on a team to do so? Perhaps limiting demolition to the player who purchased the original blueprint is the solution.


Of course, that presents a problem of its own; what happens if that player logs off from WvWvW? How does the team go about demolishing the structure? Instead of leaving this in the hands of a single player, the demolition of a building can be put to a player vote. A player initiates a call for vote and the other members of the team vote "yes" or "no". If there are more "yes" than "no" votes, the structure is demolished. Maybe the percentage of "yes" votes must be more than a simple majority of 50% + 1; 75% of the votes must be "yes", for example, to demolish a structure. Voting can only be called once every so many minutes (5, for example). This prevents a griefer, who wasn't satisfied with the outcome of the first vote, from constantly spamming vote calls in chat every second.


  • Structures have no permanent ownership/team affiliation. There's nothing preventing blue team from overrunning a red team's Command Post, for example, and making it their own. Doing so will work much the same way as the existing capture-a-point mechanic. The enemy lingers near the structure long enough for the capture meter to fill; the structure is now their's. The difference with structures, however, are:


  • If the structure has NPC Defenders, all must be eliminated before an enemy can capture the structure. This is then considered "damage" to the structure (even if the physical walls of the building remain unharmed). The capturing players will then have to spend supply to "repair" the structure if they wish to re-garrison their own NPC Defenders.


  • If the structure has autonomous defenses such as cannons or Engineer's turrets, all must be destroyed before an enemy can capture the structure. This is then considered "damage" to the structure (even if the physical walls of the building remain unharmed). The capturing players will then have to spend supply to "repair" the structure if they wish to rebuild the cannons or turrets for their own use. This restriction does not apply to siege weapons built on or in a structure. The siege weapons are neutral and do not need to be destroyed to capture the building.


  • An enemy team can not capture a structure as long as there is one or more players from the owning team within a certain radius of the building. This applies even if the assault force outnumbers the defenders.


  • Capturing a structure may award war score points.


  • Structures have no gate like towers and keeps. It may have a door, but players - including enemy players - are free to enter and exit at will (though an enemy entering a structure owned by another team does not benefit from its boons and will be targeted by its autonomous defenses). Structures will require active defense on the part of the owning team if they wish to keep their structures out of enemy hands.


  • Structures can come under attack while being built. Their "health" will be a percentage of their full "health" based on how much construction has been completed to date. For example, let's assume a Command Post has 100,000 "health" when fully built and it is currently at 40% completion. It's "health" will be 40,000 points. If an enemy manages to deal this much damage to the build site, then the Command Post-to-be is destroyed and construction would have to begin anew. It's then open to debate whether the supply that went into the construction becomes a rubble pile (see "Update #2 - Squad Commanders Demolish Structures" below) which players can use to build a new structure or if the supply is lost.


Related Topics[edit]


Thank you for reading.

Guild Wars 3 perhaps 20:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


Update #1 - Squad Commanders Build Structures[edit]

On the discussion tab, Mcscamper correctly identified potential pitfalls of imposing limits on the number of structures players would be permitted to build in WvWvW. I was mindful of these shortcomings while creating the original post. I didn't address them at the time as I wanted to get my initial idea down in writing before it was lost. I now return to offer alternative methods of preventing random structure sprawl and unbalancing of WvWvW while still permitting players reasonable leeway building what they want, where they want.


One limiter I think we can all agree on is we can not permit the construction of an unlimited number of structures in WvWvW. All one need do is imagine a team building 500 Aid Stations all across the map and it very quickly becomes obvious how this would unbalance WvWvW to the point of making it not worth playing. So there have to be some limits to the number of structures. However, by it's very definition, such a limit means some players will get to build structures while others will not. How do we reconcile this disparity so players aren't feeling cheated of the opportunity to build in WvWvW while still maintaining a limit?


I think the answer, in part, lies in asking the question, "In building structures, what is the goal or the player's motivation?" Is it the act of making multiple runs back and forth between a supply depot and the build site just so a player can exclaim, "I BUILT THAT !", or is the goal/motivation the benefit conferred by the structure after it has been built? Though there are exceptions to every rule, I would argue the goal/motivation for the vast majority of players will be the latter; they aren't interested so much in building an Aid Station as they are in gaining the benefit of the Aid Station. The act of construction, in itself, is simply a means to that end. Besides, the structures serve very specific strategic and tactical purposes and were never conceived as simply a means to allow players to indulge their desire to build stuff. I'm not saying that isn't a legitimate need, but a different mechanic than the one I've proposed would have to be developed to address it; player customization of a house in a home instance, for example.


If we accept the premise that players' goal is the benefit received from structures more than the act of construction, then the next question we must ask is, "How important is it really that everyone in WvWvW be given the opportunity to choose a structure's build site?" I think the vast majority of players will be less interested in where a structure is versus that there is a structure they can benefit from in the first place. They certainly need to know where the structures are located in order to gain these benefits; but that's not the same as siting a construction zone. Besides, this need is addressed by placing them on the WvWvW map once built, as per the original suggestion. Players can then easily find the structures they want based on the benefit it confers.


Now, this isn't to say the location of structures isn't important from a strategic and tactical standpoint. However, are global strategy decisions something the rank-and-file will be all that concerned about, or is their focus more likely which gate to knock down next? If this is true, then who among the players are concerned about such overarching choices? My vote would go to the Squad Commanders. It is this group of players who will be looking at the WvWvW match from a more global perspective and with an eye towards complex, long-term strategies. Consequently, I feel the siting and initiation of construction should be a privilege reserved to the Squad Commanders.


At first, this may appear unfair to the remaining non-commander player base. Is it really, though? If we accept my earlier argument that the goal of building a structure isn't the act of construction, but rather the benefit it confers, then this group of players isn't really being cheated out of anything. The structures will still get built and they will still benefit from them; they even get to participate in the construction if that is their motivation. The only restriction is they don't get to choose the specific site on which to build; only the Squad Commanders are accorded that right. Furthemore, the more democratically-minded Squad Commanders will, I'm sure, solicit their squad members' opinions on where best to build. Though the rank-and-file squad members don't get to push the button that initiates construction, they will - for all practical intents and purposes - have been involved in the construction process from start to finish.


Furthermore, I think this is completely appropriate. The Squad Commanders, ever-mindful of the "Big Picture", will be in a good position to best judge where and when to build specific structures to meet the needs of their squad/team. What's more, I think we need to throw the Squad Commanders a bone. Think about it; why was the Squad Commander mechanic built in the first place? It was implemented to help bring order to chaos in the WvWvW arena. In other words, Squad Commanders are filling a role to benefit other players. That's not a privilege, that's a responsibility.


Certainly there will be a sub-set of players for whom simply being able to brag, "I'M A SQUAD COMMANDER!", will be their sole motivation. Once that cachet has worn off (and it will wear off very quickly), such players will soon realize that being a Squad Commander is actually work; in short order, they will likely become Squad Commanders in name only. As it stands now, being a Squad Commander means shouldering a huge responsibility for your fellow players while being given what in return (other than the title)? The answer is...nothing; Squad Commanders currently have no special privileges accorded them by their title other than the ability to form squads (which - technically - isn't a privilege, it's a responsibility). Thus, I propose their privilege should be the option to choose and site which structures to build. If this privilege is so important to a player that it becomes their primary motivation for playing WvWvW, then all they have to do is earn enough gold to buy the tome that grants them Squad Commander status. No one is locked out from being able to build structures in WvWvW if that's what they really want; they just have to earn the coins to do it.


Now that I've established my reasons for proposing that only Squad Commanders be permitted to initiate construction of structures, here are the changes to my previously suggested mechanics and limiters:


  • Throw out all of my earlier limiters which dealt with restricting the number and type of structures based on war score.


  • Now, each Squad Commander will be permitted to build one of each type of structure. Currently, I've proposed four structures; but that can change if the devs implement this suggestion and come up with some more of their own.


  • Squad Commanders do not need to purchase a blueprint to build these structures; they are simply conferred as part of their status or - if you want to keep some in-game continuity - they were included as part of their Commander Compendium. Alternately, if it is felt there is still a need to place even greater restrictions on the number of structures built in WvWvW, Squad Commanders will be required to purchase a blueprint for the structure they wish to build. The idea being the cost of the blueprints will naturally inhibit rampant and poorly-planned construction.


  • A Squad Commander simply initiates the construction of a structure. Any allied player on that Squad Commander's team is free to contribute supply towards the completion of the structure; it is not limited to the Squad Commander alone or even just the Squad Commander's squad members.


  • The privilege of initiating construction is a Squad Commander's and a Squad Commander's alone. There will be no exceptions such as guild leaders paying guild influence to purchase the right to initiate construction or buying this privilege outright in the gem store, for example. If it's that important to a guild that they be able to do this, then simply have the guild leader or one of the guild members become a Squad Commander.


  • Squad Commanders may be given an option to fly a flag over their structures with their own custom emblem or the emblem of the guild they represent. Doing so is for bragging rights only; there will be no in-game advantage to doing so such as restricting the use of structures to only those players who are members of the Squad Commander's squad or guild. Any player on a team may use/enter/benefit from any structure built by any Squad Commander on the same team.


  • If even after implementing these new mechanics, it is still felt there is a need to further limit the number of structures being built, then I propose the following:


  • For each named region of the WvWvW map (Largos Waters, Astralholme, Etheron Hills, etc.), only one of each type of structure can be built there. There's no restriction against multiple Squad Commanders building in the same region, however. In Largos Waters, one could build an Aid Station while another builds a Command Post, for example. However, they couldn't both build an Aid Station in the same region. Only one or the other could build an Aid Station in Largos Waters. It would then be up to the Squad Commander who hadn't built the Aid Station to find a region in which one doesn't exist.


  • This restriction exists in tandem with the previous limiter; Squad Commanders are only permitted to build one of each type of structure, regardless of the region(s) in which they build. A Squad Commander could build all four structures in a single region, for example (provided no other Squad Commanders have built there). Alternately, they could build an Aid Station in Largos Waters, a Command Post in Astralholme, a Bunker in Etheron Hills, etc. What they can not do is build an Aid Station in Largos Waters, an Aid Station in Atralholme, an Aid Station in Etheron Hills, etc.


  • A Squad Commander can not initiate construction of a new structure until the one currently being built is completed. In other words, a Squad Commander can't lay down the build sites for all four of their structures (or whatever the number may be) at the same time. This prevents a single Squad Commander from "claiming" a region, effectively locking out any other Squad Commanders from building in the same region. It also slows the pace of construction, preventing a too-early build up of structures in a WvWvW match.
The construction zones can not be queued, either. That is to say, a Squad Commander can't initiate four build sites all at the same time, with the construction of each subsequent site beginning as soon as the previous one is complete. It will be a "one-at-a-time" scenario; construction is initiated and no further structures can be sited, built, nor queued until the first structure is completed. However, there is no restriction against two or more Squad Commanders simultaneously initiating construction of separate structures in the same region (provided they are different structure types as previously outlined).


These restrictions will actually foster communication, coordination, and cooperation among Squad Commanders. They will have to work together to decide which structures will provide the best cost:benefit or furthering of strategic goals in a region. They then divide up the labor of putting this plan into action rather than the onus of building all of the structures in a single region falling onto the shoulders of a lone Squad Commander. This is especially important given the considerable cost involved in building structures. Even if the gold cost is eliminated by dispensing with the blueprint mechanic, there is still the not-inconsequential cost in supply and time that each structure represents.


Thank you for reading.

Guild Wars 3 perhaps 03:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


Update #2 - Squad Commanders Demolish Structures[edit]

Squad Commanders may demolish structures they initiated. Doing so frees them to build that same type of structure somewhere else on the map. If we will permit a refund of some portion of the supply that went into the original construction, I suggest the structure - on demolition - becomes a pile of rubble from which players (of any team, by the way) can gather supply. This avoids the weird programming and mechanics that would be required if we were to refund the supply directly back into the hands of the players who contributed it in the first place. What if they're already carrying the maximum supply of 10? What if they've logged off from WvWvW? See what I mean?


By turning the structure into a rubble pile, it's makes intuitive sense that it becomes the source of supply for building a new structure. It also offers some new strategic depth. It's not enough that a Squad Commander demolishes a structure and then simply moves on. If the team that built the structure wants to salvage its supply, they will have to guard the rubble until they've removed enough of it to their satisfaction. Otherwise, they risk this free supply falling into the hands of their enemies.


Despite giving Squad Commanders the right to demolish their own structures, I want to keep the vote-for-demolition mechanic intact, as well. Primarily to address the need of a team to adapt to a changing theatre of war. For example, a Squad Commander builds an Aid Station in the Eternal Battlegrounds near their team's current frontline. A little later, after the Squad Commander has logged off, the tide of battle has turned and the team is being pushed out of the Eternal Battlegrounds back to their Borderlands. They don't want the Aid Station to fall into the hands of their enemies. Unfortunately, the Squad Commander who built the Aid Station is not online to unilaterally demolish it. What's the team to do? Thus, there is utility in maintaining the vote-for-demoliton mechanic for the good of the team as a whole.


Even if a Squad Commander is online, a successful team vote will override the Squad Commander's prerogative; a team could vote to demolish a structure that the Squad Commander would prefer not destroy. This recognizes the fact that structures are there to benefit the team. If the team deams it in their best interests to demolish a structure over the objections of the Squad Commander, then so be it (though this would likely be a very, very rare occurrence).


It's important to note that in all instances of demolition - whether initiated by the Squad Commander or the team - this only applies to structures currently under the control of a team. For example, in the scenario presented above, let's assume the Aid Station is overrun by the enemy before the team that built it manages to demolish it. It is now too late; the Aid Station changes hands and the original owning team can no longer demolish the structure by vote or Squad Commander unilateral action. They must either recapture the Aid Station (regaining ownership status over it) or physically destroy it through damage-dealing if they want to remove it from the map.


Of course, this presents an interesting dilemna. In the situation above, the Aid Station has been captured by the enemy; where does that leave the Squad Commander with regard to their build limit? Does that free the Squad Commander to build a new Aid Station? Technically, the Squad Commander no longer has an Aid Station in that region since ownership transfers to the capturing enemy team. If that's the case and the Squad Commander engages in repeated cycles of build-capture-build-capture, we could wind up with a lot of Aid Stations on the map. This, in turn, could lead to severe imbalances in WvWvW.


To avoid this mushrooming effect, a captured structure - though now owned by the opposing team - still counts against the Squad Commander's build limit. Though this may seem unfair to the individual Squad Commander, it actually benefits his or her team and WvWvW as a whole. Resetting a Squad Commander's build limit whenever one of their structures fall into enemy hands would just spiral out of control as potentially dozens of copies of the same structure are built in a region. To avoid this scenario and maintain game balance, a Squad Commander can only build one of each type of structure; even if a particular structure is later captured. To reinstate the Squad Commander's ability to build that same structure again, the captured version has to be destroyed or the enemy has to voluntarily demolish it. The other option, of course, is to simply recapture the structure.


By implementing this limitation, it gives Squad Commanders greater incentive to defend their structures rather than simply build them and, potentially, abandon them to the enemy. Lastly, we must not forget that losing a structure to an enemy capture now frees a different Squad Commander to build the same structure in a region to replace the one that was lost. For example:


  • Squad Commander A from red team builds an Aid Station in Largos Waters.


  • Blue team comes along and captures Squad Commander A's Aid Station.


  • Squad Commander A can no longer build an Aid Station anywhere on the map so long as their original Aid Station remains in existence; it being in the hands of the enemy notwithstanding.


  • Squad Commander B, also from red team, enters the Largos Waters region.


  • Since Squad Commander A's Aid Station was captured, this means red team has no Aid Station in Largos Waters.


  • Squad Commander B is free to build their own Aid Station in Largos Waters.


  • Later, the tide of battle turns in red's favor and they manage to recapture Squad Commander A's original Aid Station.


  • Despite being a recapture, this Aid Station is still tied to Squad Commander A. As such, he or she can not build another Aid Station until the current one is either demolished or destroyed.


  • Red team now has two Aid Stations in Largos Waters. However, since Squad Commander A's Aid Station now falls under the heading of a "captured/recaptured" structure, it doesn't count against Squad Commander B's "constructed" Aid Station. Both structures are permitted to stand as an exception to the prohibition against "building" more than one type of structure per region.


  • No further Aid Stations can be built in Largos Waters by red team, though, while these two structures remain under red team's control. If both are destroyed and/or demolished (but not captured), then a new Aid Station can be built in Largos Waters by any Squad Commander who hasn't used up their Aid Station slot. This would apply equally to Squad Commanders A and B as well as any other qualifying Squad Commander from red team.


If, on the other hand, both Squad Commander A's and B's Aid Stations were captured by the enemy, then a different Squad Commander from red team could build a new Aid Station in Largos Waters. In this scenario, Squad Commanders A and B would not be permitted to do so as their original Aid Stations are still intact (albeit in enemy hands) and counting against their build limit.


As for the team that captured the Aid Station, if they had already built one of their own in the same region, they now have two Aid Stations in this area. Similar to the scenario presented for Squad Commander A and B, this is not considered a violation of my previous limiter prohibiting construction of more than one type of structure per region. Since the Aid Station in question was captured rather than built, both are allowed to stand. However, the enemy team can no longer build Aid Stations in this region until the current two (one built, one captured) are either demolished, destroyed, or captured.


The simple solution to all of the above is we no longer allow structures to be captured by an enemy. An owning team can demolish a structure (through vote or Squad Commander "demolish" command) or an enemy team can destroy a structure; but there will be no changing of ownership via capture. Though this avoids the problem of multiple copies of the same type of structure in a region and the convoluted alternative solution above, it also eliminates the strategic and tactical depth that fighting for ownership of these structures would bring to WvWvW. Though not in favor of this option, I present it in the interest of covering as many solutions that I can think of.


Thank you for reading.

Guild Wars 3 perhaps 08:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


Update #3 - Adding "Flavor" to the Structures[edit]

Rather than all of the structures following the same middle-ages-European influenced stone and wooden post-and-beam architectural motiff, some variety along racial lines could be added to the structures.

  • Asura - Almost exclusively gravity-defying "living", levitating stonework befitting the masters of geomancy.
  • Charr - More steampunk/Industrial Revolution design elements along with the sharp points and baroque detail characteristic of the Charr. A lot more metal than any of the other races.
  • Human - This will be the standard middle-ages-European style already referenced.
  • Norn - A lot more wood in evidence, but on a grand scale. Strong, clean lines in conjunction with their sweeping roof curvatures and bold relief.
  • Sylvari - Emblematic of the Children of the Pale Tree, these "structures" would be organic in nature; trees, vines, plants intertwining to form "walls".


These different architectural influences would be cosmetic only; each structure would be functionally identical to every other structure of the same type. For example, all Aid Stations provide the same amount of healing when using their "Bandages", have the same hitpoints for their walls, enclose the same square footage, etc. They just look different, is all. This cosmetic variety could even extend to the specific functions of each structure. Returning to the Aid Station example:

  • Asura - A glowing stone sphere slowly charges up and revitalizes players who interact with it. The Asura Doctor NPC engages in some technobabble explaining the functioning of the stone while the players wait for a recharge.
  • Charr - A military Corpsman NPC gets to work quickly, efficiently, and mercilessly resetting bones and suturing wounds; all without anesthesia. If the corpsman's "recharge" hasn't been reached yet, the NPC may state, "I'll be with you in a moment. I just need to resharpen this." as the Charr hunches over a grinding wheel holding a bone saw that looks like it was forged in Hell.
  • Human - Bandages will be found here; take what you need.
  • Norn - Perhaps their medicine man/woman offers a healing salve. A hearty "GOOD AS NEW! Now get back out there and fight." is exclaimed as the medicine man/woman slaps the player on the back, pushing them towards the door.
  • Sylvari - A medicinal herb is offered by their Healer NPC. If the healing boon provided by the structure is still recharging, the Healer Sylvari may inform the injured player they are simply waiting for the medicinal herb to bloom again.


In all cases though, the amount and frequency of healing from these sources is the same; none have an advantage over any other. The same design philosophy would carry over to any other structures which provide a boon or other benefit to the players. How the boon or other benefit is applied may vary cosmetically from variety to variety of a structure, but what boon or other benefit is applied will be identical.


When Squad Commanders initiate construction, they will be presented a dialog window to choose which structure they wish to build. Once they've chosen the type of structure (an Aid Station, for example), a sub-menu will present them a list from which they choose the racially-influenced architectural design for their structure. There could be a small preview window of the structure's model, even.


This would permit Squad Commanders to build structures that have some variety as well as continuity with the race they are playing. A player who chose Charr as their race may choose to build Charr-influenced structures in WvWvW. They don't have to; they could just go with the default (which, under this proposal, now becomes the Human racial architecture) or even another race's architecture if they want. It's just one more option for allowing a little cosmetic customization, personalization, and increased immersion.


Thank you for reading.

Guild Wars 3 perhaps 21:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


Update #4 - Refining Voting for Structure Demolition[edit]

Above, I had recommended giving a team the ability to vote for demolition of structures. This could serve various purposes; preventing a structure from falling into enemy hands, relocating structures as strategic goals change, etc. As voting to demolish a structure should not be taken lightly, here are some details and limiters for this mechanic:


  • Once every "X " minutes (5, perhaps) a vote-to-demolish can be initiated by any player on a team. This would be accomplished via a specific command typed into chat and/or a button on the WvWvW status dialog window. Any attempt to call a premature vote before the time limit has expired will be ignored and the player informed of this fact by a message telling them the vote can't be called for another "X " minutes.


  • A passing vote requires more than a 50% + 1 majority. Given the gravity of the vote, a higher percentage should be used; 75% perhaps.


  • In conjunction with the higher percentage of "yes-es" required to pass a vote-for-demolition, the total number of votes cast must be a fairly high percentage of the players currently in a WvWvW round. Perhaps 25% would be a good starting point. To illustrate how this would work, here are some examples:
  • Player A calls a vote-for-demolition.
  • There are 100 players on Player A's team.
  • Fifteen of those players cast a vote.
  • Regardless of the number of "yes" and "no" votes received, the vote does not pass because the total number of voters failed to meet the minimum amount required (which in this case would have been 25 players if we use my suggestion of 25% from above).
  • Five minutes elapse after the close of the previous vote and Player A calls another vote-for-demolition.
  • This time, 30 players cast votes; 20 are "yes", while 10 are "no".
  • The vote-for-demolition fails because - though enough players voted this time to meet the minimum number requirement - the "yes" votes only amounted to 66%; this falls short of the needed 75%.
  • Player A, undeterred, calls for yet another vote 5 minutes later.
  • This time, 50 players cast votes; 40 are "yes", while 10 are "no".
  • The vote-for-demolition passes. It met the minimum total-number-of-voters requirement (50 players voted; exceeding the minimum of 25) and the "yes" votes equalled 80%.
  • The structure is now demolished.


  • The call-for-vote timer resets after the current vote closes. In other words, the ability to call a vote is not every 5 minutes; it's every 5 minutes after the current voting period ends. If a voting period lasts 2 minutes, for example, then 7 minutes would have elapsed between the time the current vote opens and when the next vote can be called. Of course, if no player calls for a vote in the current time limit, then the option to call the next vote will occur in 5 minutes.


  • Demolition of a condemned structure is immediate; there's no NPC demolition crew that comes along and slowly tears the structure down, for example. If it is decided to reduce a demolished structure to rubble from which supply can be salvaged (per my previous suggestion), then demolition may trigger the structure's destruction animation. The dust settles and in its place is the rubble pile, ready to be salvaged.


  • A Squad Commander's vote may be weighted more heavily when a vote-for-demolition is called. For example, their vote may count as five votes. This recognizes the fact that it was the Squad Commander who initiated construction in the first place and who may have had very good reasons for siting the building where he or she did. Consequently, they may have a better sense of the overall strategic picture than the player calling the vote for demolition. This isn't to say a lone Squad Commander should be given the ability to overrule the vote of their entire team; but some allowance should be made for their greater WvWvW experience, their contribution of the structure for the benefit of their team, and their keener awareness of the "Big Picture".


  • If a team who has captured a structure votes for demolition, they follow the same voting requirements and restrictions as the team which built it. The exception is that the Squad Commander who built the captured structure does not get to participate in their enemy's vote-for-demolition.


  • When a vote is called, some mechanism needs to be put into place to inform players that the vote is open. At the same time, though, it needs to be kept unobtrusive so as not to detract from a player's gaming experience if they have no interest in casting a vote. For example, a little voting window should not automatically pop-up on the player's screen. Instead, an icon in the upper left corner where the other menu icons reside may blink or glow to let a player know that voting is open. It's up to the player to then click that icon if they want to cast a vote. Otherwise, they can simply ignore it and go on playing the game.


  • Voting should be open for a reasonable amount of time to permit players a chance to notice their voting icon blinking or glowing and time to actually cast their vote. One or two minutes would probably be sufficient.


  • Once voting closes, the result will be sent to team chat (e.g. "The vote has passed. The Aid Station in Largos Waters will be demolished." or "The vote to demolish the Aid Station in Largos Waters has failed.") as well as posted on the voting screen accessible by the voting icon mentioned previously.


Thank you for reading.

Guild Wars 3 perhaps 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Feedback:User/Guild_Wars_3_perhaps/RTS_Structures_in_WvWvW&oldid=2512529"