Threather.9354

> @"manu.7539" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > > Yes we know the balance heavily favors the defender in fights, > > Well, isnt only logical? What do you want? No walls? A free ticket into lord room? I totally agree about the kdr farmers.. such a boring stuff sometimes. Stalled for an hour at the same spot.. really not what I'm looking for in this game. FIghting balance should be relatively equal outside positioning. All passive stats (claim buff at least) should be removed or nerfed to ground. Having free casters and siege on the walls while forcing enemy to push or going for superior stealth engages are good enough defender advantages. Of course defending needs corresponding buffs to siege as with introduction of claim buff, faster upgrade times and gliding, they soon nerfed siege damage and wall/gate health. They basically scrapped the perfect siege/objective/upgrade time balance they achieved over years after release just to market new stuff. You cannot outplay claim buff with better movement and counter siege, you can do so however with siege and positional advantages. So basically attacker has no option to just outthink enemy but also have to be much better players. Obviously it feels great beating much better players defending but losing to worse players that didn't outplay you in any way makes everyone feels terrible thus makes any competitive player shun objectives and open tags. Claim buff also causes the problem that if you barely defend your keep/castle/tower with 400 or 800 extra stats _even without siege or using positional advantages_, going to enemy objective and having good fight is nearly impossible because they will have those stats _and advantages_ instead. This leads to "defending only meta". Do note that claim buff isn't just inside objective walls but even taking 1 step on open field might lead to 800 stat difference. It is easy to see why dueling died as 10% extra damage and survivability for one player changes 50-50 winrates to more like 80-20. Also people adding in duels are 90% of the time in the server that owns the objective youre dueling near, and 20% worse players can succesfully interrupt duels and come out victorious.

AoE superspeed upkeep is too high. Either tune down the potency or duration. You can however keep it as it is for engineers themselves with like minor trait or something.

> @"Hesione.9412" said: > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > > @"Ubi.4136" said: > > > The balance has never favored defenders. > > > Instantly, people flock to a link to make a bunch of megalinks that rarely can lose a fight, because they know the enemy has 1/4th their numbers and the attacker has the advantage. > > > > have you ever tried to take a fully sieged structure with less then a zerg? its impossible. maybe a lot of those transfers are due to this fact. imo the game mode is dying cuz people would rather play siege wars then fight each other in pvp combat. both should be viable, but when you have to have a zerg to take anything, are they both really viable? > > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures. > > The problem with the game mode is the heavily out-balanced server numbers. Which then leads to back-capping objectives as the smaller number of people start havocing and trying to avoid the blobs. > > _This isn't directed at you:_ > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob? And fighting smaller numbers as a blob? Because, the few times I am in that situation, I find it 1. boring and 2. feel very sorry for the people on the other server. There's no skill involved, you can pretty much autoattack and it's all over for the other side. Even if you try, you can't get one rotation in. Whole point is to shift the balance so teams can have fights within objectives. As it is, if defender can't gather decent numbers defending (mostly due to walls being paper and attacking siege being overpowered so you don't have time), they can't provide you any content open field either. So overall objectives need to be good spots to have fights, so nerf passive defender stats and ability to glide fast meanwhile defenders need more time to match attacker numbers, buff wall/gate hp and siege vs siege damage. So go back closer to Pre-HoT objective balance, and believe me, it was much better back then: 1+ hour sieges against keeps because both sides were having fun and weren't feeling desperate because massive siege/stat advantages. Another reason to nerf claim buff is that even if you manage to wipe attacker with 800 extra stats, there is absolutely no way you can deal with the enemy objectives on the map, as they will have +400 or +800 stats there instead. So there will be like 20% damage and 30% survivability swing, which is ridiculously massive. So you're forced to just sit in your keeps. Most of pugs and guilds have already realised that and are 90% of the time in defense mode and don't take any risks going near enemy stuff.

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"Ubi.4136" said: > > The balance has never favored defenders. > > Instantly, people flock to a link to make a bunch of megalinks that rarely can lose a fight, because they know the enemy has 1/4th their numbers and the attacker has the advantage. > > have you ever tried to take a fully sieged structure with less then a zerg? its impossible. maybe a lot of those transfers are due to this fact. imo the game mode is dying cuz people would rather play siege wars then fight each other in pvp combat. both should be viable, but when you have to have a zerg to take anything, are they both really viable? Yea, that has been my point why people who stack aren't at fault, but the system itself! If you need 30+ people to do anything, defend or attack, it is kind of forced to stack on a server so you have at least something to do _so you can choose the timezone instead of the timezone choosing you_. Also as commander there are very little to do if you have small numbers so building up from small to large isn't viable, WvW people just don't log in unless they already see 20+ people on voice comms and know we can do something. If you could _at least buy decent amount of time_ with smaller group manning siege and whatever, at least you would feel like you have an impact. Maybe even separate your group into even smaller and have a couple of players drain their supply sources, flip stuff on their bl and whatever. But now large groups just walk in and take everything easily. And it is even more annoying for large groups as it is because defending is stat/numbers reliant that defenders don't even usually need commanders.

People just lack passion for the game. Playing the game all day just isn't fun anymore: balance is terrible, relinks are terrible, commanding is terrible, fighting meta is terrible. As a result, pugs are also terrible. You can't even siege/defend objectives and get lasting fights from it because it will always devolve into clouding.

> @"Spook.5847" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > **Following changes are necessary:** > > #Reduce passive defending: > > - Nerf claim buff to ground (especially movement speed), even replace whole claim buff with non-combat buffs like siege taking less supply to build and out of combat movement speed > > - Reduce gliding speed in combat or remove ability to glide in combat. Remove this toxic playstyle, there used to be massive negatives standing on the walls midcombat with pure caster builds like staff ele (and now dps guard). And now you could be fully wipe defenders that lose fight or escape on the wall, deservably. > > - Increase upgrade times of keeps and castles by 100% and 300% respectively while reducing incoming supply. No logic in every objective requiring same amount. > > - Fix packed dolyaks that they don't count towards 2 for the upgrade. But make them carry 4x supply to make up for the incoming supply nerfs. > > > > #Increase active defending: > > - Remove shield gens ability to block siege but instead make it pulse like 30% damage reduction that also affects siege > > - Increase siege damage to siege some because siege health got doubled vs siege for no reason in condi/crit change. > > - Increase health of upgraded walls/gates (was nerfed for no reason to make up for defensive powercreep by other things introduced with HoT) > > - Increase supply cost of guild golems to 80 > > > > So overall powershift in so that attackers take longer to breach outer and inner walls but if they manage to do, the fighting ground is somewhat equal outside defender having supreme stealth engages, ability to use keep portals and cloud in the lord room. You will maybe take the keep in 1 time out of 6, like in the past, not just get onepushed by equally strong group. And big nerf to clouding playstyle because reworking claim buff will mean one needs permaswift. > > > > And please, do not think these changes are unfair, they are for good of WvW and will affect enemy servers as well... > > This is exactly the opposite of what is needed. Making stuff actually hard to take is better - but add some bonuses too. Eliminate the horrifically vulnerable designs of the fortifications would be nice too (seriously - anyone who designs games like this should be required to study the history of true castle battles). Farms especially need some updates. No objectives should be soloable. Make siege immune to hand weapons, etc. Quit exposing cannons and other things to easy pickings - make them truly useful - and DEADLY. There needs to be a strong counters to blobs, and artillery fire should be one of them - just as it is IRL. Eliminating the ability to treb keeps from other keeps is also a must. Yes stuff will be harder to take with studier walls, shield gens not blocking all defensive siege and increased siege vs siege damage. I wonder if you even read the suggestions. Defending _won't be just outpowering enemy with combat advantages_ but you actually have to activate your braincells, organize a bit and build some siege to fend off stronger groups

**Following changes are necessary:** #Reduce passive defending: - Nerf claim buff to ground (especially movement speed), even replace whole claim buff with non-combat buffs like siege taking less supply to build and out of combat movement speed - Reduce gliding speed in combat or remove ability to glide in combat. Remove this toxic playstyle, there used to be massive negatives standing on the walls midcombat with pure caster builds like staff ele (and now dps guard). And now you could be fully wipe defenders that lose fight or escape on the wall, deservably. - Increase upgrade times of keeps and castles by 100% and 300% respectively while reducing incoming supply. No logic in every objective requiring same amount. - Fix packed dolyaks that they don't count towards 2 for the upgrade. But make them carry 4x supply to make up for the incoming supply nerfs. #Increase active defending: - Remove shield gens ability to block siege but instead make it pulse like 30% damage reduction that also affects siege - Increase siege damage to siege some because siege health got doubled vs siege for no reason in condi/crit change. - Increase health of upgraded walls/gates (was nerfed for no reason to make up for defensive powercreep by other things introduced with HoT) - Increase supply cost of guild golems to 80 So overall powershift in so that attackers take longer to breach outer and inner walls but if they manage to do, the fighting ground is somewhat equal outside defender having supreme stealth engages, ability to use keep portals and cloud in the lord room. You will maybe take the keep in 1 time out of 6, like in the past, not just get onepushed by equally strong group. And big nerf to clouding playstyle because reworking claim buff will mean one needs permaswift. And please, do not think these changes are unfair, they are for good of WvW and will affect enemy servers as well...

> @"Hannelore.8153" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > Everyone seems to be on easy mode. Sitting in objectives, only tagging up on primetime, avoiding enemy objectives. > > > > Yes we know the balance heavily favors the defender in fights, especially pug ones, but lets just have a good old smackdown, won't we? And commanders with experience, tag up if you see enemy blob! > > > > Kindly explain to me, what do you actually accomplish in winning such an easy fight? > > The game mode has never favored defenders and favors them even less now. The only defensive advantage a team has is small scale fights around objectives that can take advantage of the free stats and guards, but with blobs it doesn't matter. > > A proper zerg can flip a fully upgraded T3 objective like its nothing, without any chance of retaliation. > > When you see a successful defense, its because some of the players were smart and flipped the camps and put down supply traps so the enemy couldn't keep building siege, as that's what prevents objectives from being taken, and aids in them being retaken. > > The whole meta shifting towards blobs camping fully upgraded objectives like a safe zone has nothing to do with them actually being safe. Even a few PUGs can treb down a castle wall and attack the gate. But if the enemy has a number's advantage taking it will be impossible, and that's not defense--that's just playing the zerg game. It'd go just as well in open field as it would behind a fortification. > > You want them to come out and fight but you'd just end up getting steamrolled anyway. The game favors blobbing and has for a long time due to many nerfs to what small groups can do against any kind of offense, regardless of coordination. > > And if anything, attackers have the defensive advantage on enemy lands. An upgraded keep is alot more defensible when its your enemy's keep, because they can't mobilise an effective offense without a waypoint or supplies. > > Well they can, if they try really hard. But its far from easy. Your commanders win fights defending while easily losing fights attacking: The balance doesn't favor attackers, else youd see guilds trying to flip t3 stuff but they stay far from them if there is any enemy that can beat them on the map.

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > It also makes sure less players will quit because of the 200-600g transfer wall and that players who want to make new guilds do not have to climb the transfer wall first. It also makes sure that if you have IRL friends who wants to come play WvW with you, either of you do not have to immidiately climb the transfer wall (or that you will not have to give up your entire existing ingame circle of friends just to get your IRL friend aboard it). If friends can play that means box sales. That has to be a hell of alot more lucrative than milking a dwindling existing playerbase dry. To any sensible business, not being able to sell your product because you have yourself in a twist is a major prioritized red flag. Well there will still be a paywall if you come off a break and are stuck with randoms for average of ~a month. just a week would be enough for people to quit the game. Basically same as your current problem. I do agree that PvE guilds should be given platform to group on a WvW server considering we are lacking more casual guilds these days but maybe matchmaking based system would be more reasonable than separating all newbies and experienced players with 500+ people alliances. I do think that alliances would be more balanced if it was with for example 50 or 100 player cap per "alliance", do you not agree? But people would still quit the game because not having server to rally behind and experience bad/good times with gets repetitive quite fast, like any matchmaking based system.

They put so much work on revamping desert bl for nothing that no surprise they lost interest in WvW balancing. Imagine making a bad map for years, then fixing it for years, just for it to stay unpopular. Just existance of Desert map holds WvW back because all the effort put in it and lot of the HoT tactics, siege and upgrade times being designed around it. There is no way shield gen would exist unless Desert bl didn't have so many impossible-to-reach treb/AC spots. We also went from 5 maps to 3 (both eotm and red bl dead) I have some good moments on the map, for example fighting in massive canyons is always entertaining: even on alpine, but frankly HoT balancing was otherwise a mess.

> @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > @"getalifeturd.8139" said: > > >@"diamondgirl.6315" said: > > > >@"XenesisII.1540" said: > > > >BG will hit 3rd because they want to keep SoS with them, about the only server these days that doesn't mind hanging out with them. > > > > >While I am kind of charmed by the idea of being frenemies with a great server (you are only really as good as your rivals, and wvw is pointless without great rivals), I really would like other servers to come mix it up with us. Mag, JQ, whoever wants to come up and start smashing BG's toys with us, I think stiffer (gigglegiggle) competition will only help absolutely all of us have more fun in the mode. Including BG. > > > I'm gonna guess you misedited that post with my one line and diamond's reply to it. > > > @"getalifeturd.8139" said: > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26790/wvw-restructure-will-fail-if-you-do-not-balance-defensive-power#latest > > > > Especially this thread where the OP believes removing the defence of the structures of an outnumbered force would lead to better fights. The original poster of this thread is from Magumma and like many on his server is a GvGer (Guild vs Guild). He claims that if Arenanet do not nerf defence like siege and guild upgrades on structures then the WvWvW megaserver restructuring will fail. I believe the opposite and I will go into detail why. > > > > Funny thing, the op in that thread runs a guild that's heavily boon ball, they could sit under multiple ac and treb fire for 10-20 mins and not get a scratch, but they wanted defense nerfed. Well siege and structures did get nerfed, did it get any better? did we get more fights than usual? or was it the same ole same ole. Even as of last week I've seen t3 structures fall over because the defenders even their guilds, couldn't be bothered to fight a boon ball zerg in the lords, some t3 places couldn't rally a defense because players couldn't give a beep and rather afk camp in smc. > > You can take out all the defense you want, but if the enemy doesn't have the numbers you won't get a fight anyways, especially against organized boon abusing ones. You still get coms trying to bring a map blob to camp a structure to grind out rando pugs. They talk so much about defense killing fights, but they never talk about how much their overwhelming numbers and boon balling can also kill an entire side during their time. Issues arised when defender passive buffs: Claim buffs, gliding, supply balance, upgrade times got all changed up to point where equal groups cant match up near objectives but rather play this mental pingpong of " who gets bored first and suicides at the enemy." Siege itself being nerfed was completely different entity as it could already be played around before. So it was active defense that you could remove with ballistas, omegas, trebs etc. Same doesnt apply to claim buff. So theyre distinctly different and yes they should buff siege defending where it can buy more time to drain supplies and gather numbers _in return_ for nerfing the defending passive buffs they introduced. It isnt about offense or defense being overpowered but rather the strengths of them having weird distribution. For example lets say keep lords had 500% more HP but walls would be 40% weaker? Defending _could_ be as easy as it is now but it would feel bad to play. What Anet did to Wvw balancing was akin to that. They introduced billion buffs to defending but nerfed siege, that wasnt buffed, in return. So buff siege defending and wall/gate hp and nerf tactics/claim buff/upgrade times so there is more brain and player-to-player interaction involved. The stupidest change they did so far was when they made siege vulnerable to conditions and crits doubling The health but forgot about siege vs siege damage. So trebs and acs still do half damage to trebs, rams and catas. Massive nerf to small groups defending outnumbered as they need twice as many people manning siege or as much time.

> @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > it is better to have 0.7 KDR with challenge assaulting enemy objectives with minimal downtime on "doing nothing" than 2.0 kdr with ez mode camping your objectives completely reliant on opponents coming at you. > > You're just drinking the koolaid with that one bud. > Look on WvWstats, highest amount of kills and deaths in any matchup... All that activity isn't happening from the walls of SMC. I said objectives, not SMC. This includes towers and keeps as well. I also think claim buff is problematic. And I was just talking about mentality you should have when playing the game.. I wasnt even talking about anything concrete in what you quoted

Competitive scene is kinda dead with claim buffs: even if you try to be the best guild around, quite a bit worse guild can beat you easily at their keep. Open field GvGs are too repetitive for guilds to do it more than 5 hours a week. If some guilds tries more than that they will soon take a long break from the game due to burnout. Stealth meta is quite annoying too with 75%+ of the guilds and blobs doing stealth engages from 3000 range away. Which is fine on open field but when you go near objectives, it becomes kind of pain in the ass never being able to chill even if you get used to it. This leads to objectives being purely farming or PPT spots, not ones for epic battles. Did you consider timezones already, you know NA guilds raid like 3-5 am european time? It isn't easy being up around that time. I do not agree with some people here. You should always aim to win fights, it is only thing you have really in common with your server/guild mates. But you shouldn't sacrifice your fun in doing so. For example it is better to have 0.7 KDR with challenge assaulting enemy objectives with minimal downtime on "doing nothing" than 2.0 kdr with ez mode camping your objectives completely reliant on opponents coming at you. I do not know which Sherlock at anet made KDR visible but it does seem like it was a bad change considering most people seem to find it their lifes purpose.

Adding the claim buff gave randoms the power the beat worse players. And adding watchtower and sentry marking system allowed unaware players to find fights where they can outnumber enemies. It is not all bad but it definitely promoted bunkering, blobbing and outnumbering gameplay while destroying things like fair dueling and roaming freedom completely.

People, if it takes all day to upgrade SM, not only it requires organization but it also comes with glory. Obviously SM that takes 4 times longer to upgrade is _spends also several times longer unupgraded_ as it is also easier to lose. So instead of T3 SM existing every day, it might only exist every 4 days. Much better situation, I really fail to see your guys logic that "it does little to nothing". Yes upgraded SM will always be troublematic because claim buff giving +25% movement speed allowing roamers like DPS guardian to not get ran down. Also +6% damage and +10% defense from the claim buff is nothing to scoff at either considering SM wasn't easy to take pre-HoT either. Yes Claim buff is very troublematic existance considering it hasn't been balanced since its release, but the overly reduced upgrade times are very important issue to fix as well. But _increasing upgrade times of keeps and castles_ **will** make the map state much more fun.