Israel.7056

It just makes pirate ship that much more appealing.

> @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Your observation and mine (both anecdotal) are totally different. More often than not, when I play early afternoon in T2-T4 over the last few years, we've been the outnumbered (buff and all) group facing a blob at the gates. Hardly an infrequent occurrence.

> > >

> > > --------------------------

> > >

> > > Anything five or six of us venture out to take is either immediately overrun by the blob to defend it or they just mow the paper structure over. Our only way to engage them is via the siege on a fortified structure. No random group outnumbered 3 to 1 or more can stand toe to with the opposition.

> > >

> > > The blob sure isn't breaking apart for a more even 'fight' (and I don't blame them). Nobody should be out looking for 'fights' on outnumbered maps. Sadly, I see people in the forums say that's all they want but watch them blob up and mow down groups a fraction of their size. Heck, I've been in squads that have done that. I bet we all have. I guess I'm just tired of people using the false premise that removing siege or making it easier to break down walls will somehow lead to better 'fights'.

> > >

> >

> > Are you having fun sitting on siege?

>

> Yes. Its the only recourse when you're vastly outnumbered.

>

> I prefer to roam, but I'll go defend structures when they need the help.

>

I guess I just don't understand this attitude. I would rather lose an objective than have no option but to sit on siege to defend it.

We've asked for this before and unfortunately it doesn't look like we're ever going to get it.

If we could just get private tags that wouldn't be visible to the public I think that'd be great for guild groups who want to have all the utility of the tag without having to worry about attracting randoms.

> @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant.

> >

>

> Your observation and mine (both anecdotal) are totally different. More often than not, when I play early afternoon in T2-T4 over the last few years, we've been the outnumbered (buff and all) group facing a blob at the gates. Hardly an infrequent occurrence.

>

> --------------------------

>

> Anything five or six of us venture out to take is either immediately overrun by the blob to defend it or they just mow the paper structure over. Our only way to engage them is via the siege on a fortified structure. No random group outnumbered 3 to 1 or more can stand toe to with the opposition.

>

> The blob sure isn't breaking apart for a more even 'fight' (and I don't blame them). Nobody should be out looking for 'fights' on outnumbered maps. Sadly, I see people in the forums say that's all they want but watch them blob up and mow down groups a fraction of their size. Heck, I've been in squads that have done that. I bet we all have. I guess I'm just tired of people using the false premise that removing siege or making it easier to break down walls will somehow lead to better 'fights'.

>

Are you having fun sitting on siege?

The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant.

Far more often in my experience of the day to day reality of wvw in t1+t2 is that map qs will turtle upgraded keeps and towers with 6+ acs ballis, cannons, trebs and mortars, ewps, structural invuln and guild auras.

My basic rule of thumb for offensive attempts on upgraded keeps is as follows: if you're not through inner in 3 minutes you're probably not getting through inner. If you do get through inner and they're going to respond you are probably going to have to win two to three consecutive fights and kill the iron guards buffed lord without major reinforcements all while continually destroying siege. It does happen but offense is always at a massive disadvantage.

So if you want to take something you have to be either very sneaky or very fast or both and that is why the most effective offensive pins I've ever followed or played against (Seph Wing, Zudo, CF, DK, Xushin) have all utilized some form of the "blitzkrieg" to take things consistently.

One of the reasons that I think many pugmanders completely fail is because they try to replicate what their organized guild does with a bunch of pugs. So they tell people to get on firebrands, get on spellbreakers, get on scourges etc and that's great if people are going to actually get in ts and join squad etc etc but I've found that it's possible to beat organized guilds with no squads and no ts by just letting people play whatever they're going to play and then putting the fights in places where a bunch of backline pugs with no organization can easily beat a guild group. There are many places where this is easily achievable and in fact decentralization has a marked advantage over centralized command in almost any open field engagement and indeed many towers and keeps if people are willing to take risks independently.

So I think it's better for aspiring commanders to try to learn how to win with whatever they're given rather than to have some ideal comp going in. Learn to win against guild groups with soulbeasts and thieves and you can beat anyone.

Separate guilds by timezone they tend to be most active in and then put the OCX/SEA guilds in their own distinct servers so they no longer distort the results like they have since launch.

Restructuring doesn't matter if coverage is still the most important condition for overall victory.

1. Know your server

Know the players know what they tend to run plan accordingly. You should assume that the feedback you get in this thread is as much a reflection of the server they're playing on as the commander himself.

2. Know yourself

Know what you're good at and what you're not good at. My focus is primarily on rotating into good fights. I try to put people in a position where winning is relatively easy first and foremost. Also I'm a more damage oriented commander, one of the few I know of. Most are sustain oriented. I don't know how to play that way so I don't even try to.

3. If you're on Maguuma, don't ever get in coms

The minute you get in coms you're going to be inundated with pointless conversation. People are going to want to be your friend. People are going to want your feedback on their build or whatever other dumb thing. But you're not their friend. You're not there to give people builds. Your job is to put your people in a place where they'll win fights, nothing more nothing less.

4. Keep Trying

Failure is inevitable but it's also the only way anyone ever learns anything. Accept that you will die and that sometimes you will get everyone killed. It's not a big deal just take responsibility and try again.

> @"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:

> I also don't like the suggestion that exclusionary guilds should be allowed/encouraged.

Well too bad excluding people is a big part of what guilds are for.

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Solo players deserve to get stomped if they refuse to join guilds. If things happen as you predict then these solo players will presumably try to join guilds so they stop getting stomped.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Or solo players could quit, and then guilds will have no new members and nobody to really fight against.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sounds like a lot of fun, conform to some guys made up rules or get trounced, exactly my point, not a very good update to wvw.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Or they could join a guild. Not everyone quits when things get tough.

> > > > >

> > > > > Either way solo players will now be at a huge disadvantage, as playing solo will now be penalized. Joining a guild isn't the answer as it defeats the purpose and agenda behind playing solo. Forcing solo players to group up in order to have some semblance of balance isn't a good idea.

> > > >

> > > > If they're too stubborn to join a guild then they get what they deserve. I don't actually think playing solo will be that bad tbh I think you're being overly dramatic as usual.

> > >

> > > Why are you equating playing solo as being stubborn and people in need of punishment and getting what they deserve?

> >

> > Because if, as you claim, it's not going to be possible to have a good time playing solo after the restructuring then people who continue to refuse to join a guild are either masochistic or just incredibly stubborn. In either case they get what they deserve.

>

> Wasn't aware that solo players needed to be punished lol. I think all guilds should be banned that would be my definition of getting what they deserve, why not make wvw 100% random with no guilds or alliance, failure to comply with that would be people being stubborn and if they are upset with that, then they are getting what they deserve.

So campaign to have guilds banned. Doesn't look like Anet is going in that direction though so I guess people will just have to join guilds if playing solo is terrible or quit the game if they're too stubborn to join a guild. End of thread.

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > Superior ac's doing 1k to 1.5k damage = OP

> >

> > One AC does that much to heavies it does more to lights and it's easy to build enough acs to have multiple overlapping fields of fire so it's more like 10-15k damage per round and they hit up to 50 targets at once and there are many build spots in almost every single major objective in the game where they're either very difficult to hit or impossible to hit from the outside. In theory shield gens counter them but it takes three shield gens rotating bubbles just to protect one spot and shield gens can be hit with splash damage which means that catas or mortars or trebs can still take them down.

>

> The thing is, at least how i think about this..

>

> Dont get in range, dont try to get proxy catas as if ther was nothing else??

>

> Treb and aoe the walls. siege gets cleared easilly?

>

> Players die in AC cause, they want to rush and are not tactifull enoutgh, just want to get isntant results with poor effort.

It really depends on what objective we're talking about here.

A general rule I've learned commanding is that the further back one builds offensive siege the more vulnerable one is to being stalled out with defensive shield gens or to being counterable with trebs and mortars and ballis.

There are some objectives, like WK, that can be heavily desieged with trebs from outer but there are also easy counters to those types of trebs.

The thing is that I think all this siege nonsense adds nothing fun to the game. It just slows everything down and turns the game into siege wars. This drives players and commanders away from the game. The fact that as a commander I spend more time learning siege placements and siege strats than anything else is boring. I don't want to spend all my time commanding worrying about siege but that's most of what commanding is now.

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Solo players deserve to get stomped if they refuse to join guilds. If things happen as you predict then these solo players will presumably try to join guilds so they stop getting stomped.

> > > > >

> > > > > Or solo players could quit, and then guilds will have no new members and nobody to really fight against.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sounds like a lot of fun, conform to some guys made up rules or get trounced, exactly my point, not a very good update to wvw.

> > > >

> > > > Or they could join a guild. Not everyone quits when things get tough.

> > >

> > > Either way solo players will now be at a huge disadvantage, as playing solo will now be penalized. Joining a guild isn't the answer as it defeats the purpose and agenda behind playing solo. Forcing solo players to group up in order to have some semblance of balance isn't a good idea.

> >

> > If they're too stubborn to join a guild then they get what they deserve. I don't actually think playing solo will be that bad tbh I think you're being overly dramatic as usual.

>

> Why are you equating playing solo as being stubborn and people in need of punishment and getting what they deserve?

Because if, as you claim, it's not going to be possible to have a good time playing solo after the restructuring then people who continue to refuse to join a guild are either masochistic or just incredibly stubborn. In either case they get what they deserve.

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> Superior ac's doing 1k to 1.5k damage = OP

One AC does that much to heavies it does more to lights and it's easy to build enough acs to have multiple overlapping fields of fire so it's more like 10-15k damage per round and they hit up to 50 targets at once and there are many build spots in almost every single major objective in the game where they're either very difficult to hit or impossible to hit from the outside. In theory shield gens counter them but it takes three shield gens rotating bubbles just to protect one spot and shield gens can be hit with splash damage which means that catas or mortars or trebs can still take them down.

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

> >

> > Solo players deserve to get stomped if they refuse to join guilds. If things happen as you predict then these solo players will presumably try to join guilds so they stop getting stomped.

>

> Or solo players could quit, and then guilds will have no new members and nobody to really fight against.

>

> Sounds like a lot of fun, conform to some guys made up rules or get trounced, exactly my point, not a very good update to wvw.

Or they could join a guild. Not everyone quits when things get tough.

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> It's pretty straightforward, the new system is going to stack zergs of organized guilds vs single players who are solo. The matchups will become lopsided because the first thing they will do is figure out how to get all organized alliances on the same server/team color. The system caters to guilds and not solo players, as in there are mechanics which are going to reserve spots for alliance members on teams, but not solo players. Wvw will now be a slew of prideful guilds which stomp solo players who don't even have a server or any semblance of pride or identity. The experience will become hollow and I think it will ruin a lot of the motivation to play wvw.

Solo players deserve to get stomped if they refuse to join guilds. If things happen as you predict then these solo players will presumably try to join guilds so they stop getting stomped.

> @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> You can't build arrow carts in mid air. There're a few spot where they're safe, but not that much. Once again, walls are death traps, and whatever is on it is 99% useless for defensive purpose. Even if I stare hard at the wall, it won't defend it.

You're just completely wrong here. There are spots in every single tower and keep and SMC where ACs can be built and operated safely and hit every ingress point and the outside as well. It's true that some of them can be hit by Eles and Necros but you still shouldn't be dying on an ac. If you are then you're doing something wrong.

> Just as I said : because of the blob, you can't use walls and most sieges. And once the blob is in, defenders are laglocked, stunlocked, and condi spammed to their death. I'm talking about an outnumbered scenario of course. The "10ppl can hold a T3 keep against a blob" one.

Again you're just wrong here. 10 people should not ever be able to hold an objective against a blob but it is currently doable and at the very least 10 can forestall a blob for anywhere from several minutes to a few hours depending on the objective. Depending on the objective it is possible to build a ton of siege that is either untouchable for a blob or almost untouchable so this just seems like a l2p issue.

> That was no strawman, just me playing smart ;-) You're trying and twisting all that I'm saying just to have me agree with you, and in doing so, you're become such a caricature that you're almost saying that even the smallest defense should not exist.

You gave two scenarios where you've seen things get taken one was "Blitzkrieg" and the other was misdirection. Sneaky or fast. Both scenarios involve attacking lightly defended or non-defended objectives.

> I would be really greatful if you could prevent yourself from issuing statements about what I'm thinking. Especially when I'm thinking the exact opposite, and I stated it twice. It makes the reader think that you're reason-proof. Canons and mortars are death traps. Trebs can be useful. Tactivators are of various use (when they're not trolled). Guild objective auras are useful, yet not impactful in my opinion.

I can only go on what you present and it seemed from your previous posts that you were simply reiterating a canard that someone else had already expressed with your examples. Yes it's possible to die on certain cannons and mortars but in some objectives they're well protected and safe i.e the inner cannons at EK on the alpines or the third floor cannons in smc. Still cannons are so easy to rebuild that a blob can come kill them and then defenders can rebuild them so they're quickly usable again. I've seen this happen numerous times in WK for example on the alpines. The utility of trebs cannot be understated particularly on EBG where the keeps can be used as safe ground to fire trebs and mortars from the keeps to the surrounding towers. This is one of the reasons that the back towers are so much harder to take than the front towers. Tactivators can be game changing depending on how they're used but EWPs were already insanely strong and they just got buffed. Structural Invulnerability can easily double the time it takes to take any objective where it's present and it's particularly good at shutting down smaller forces. Guild Auras are insane they're +100 of every stat for defenders. I don't know how you don't think that's "impactful."

> You may think it's not a valid argument, and I'm not so far to agree with you. Yet, you also have to concede that defenders won't always play the game you're expecting them to, which is why one should adapt.

It wasn't a valid argument because it simply repeated the same erroneous point that had already been stated earlier in the thread. No one is saying that it's not possible to quickly rush an objective or attack something when no one's looking. Defenders play the game exactly as I expect them to which is to say they use they use all the tools at their disposal and it makes attacking things much more difficult than I believe it should be.

> @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> I've got no control on what happens in your brain but I'd like to underline that I also put a big emphasis on the fact that defense is mostly useless (I bolded that part in the quote) when it comes to a blob because of the unability to use walls and whatever stands on it. I can't figure how you jumped from this to me telling "defense is too strong".

>

> Also, I can't figure what's wrong with _"You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast"_. I mean... Are you conceding the fundamental point that "you just want to flip an empty objective and keep participation up" ? ;-)

You don't need to stand on the walls and freecast you just have to build arrow carts.

How is defense "mostly useless" if the best way to take stuff is to "blitzkrieg" things? The whole point of the blitzkrieg is to take stuff before the defenders can make use of their defenses.

"You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast" is a more artful way of saying "it's still possible to take undefended or lightly defended objectives" which was never in question. It's all part of the larger strawman which you restated as "you just want to flip an empty objective and keep participation up." No I think defense is too strong and clearly you do too otherwise you'd just argue that arrow carts and ballis and cannons and mortars and trebs are not strong or that the tactivators aren't that strong or that the guild objective auras aren't that strong. But no one has argued that stuff they've simply said "well you can always sneak around the map or be really fast." That's not a valid argument.

> @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> Interesting discussion we have here...

>

> Here're my two cents on the overall topic of "defended T3 keeps". Take it for what it's worth : another opinion on that. No more and no less valuable than anyone else's, and I won't show my skritt, even if you're asking it nicely.

>

> Usually, when a blob comes and attack a T3 keep in my BL, here's what happens 90% of the time :

> 1. They drop 5 superior catas and 3 shield generators (and sometimes AC or ballistas too). **Oddly enough, those sieges aren't such an issue in that context**.

> 2. Drops are _instantly_ built.

> 3. The fortified T3 wall falls down in usually less than 1 minute

> 4. The only counter a defender can use is shield generators. Impossible to go on walls because they're all painted red from scourge or eles AoE, and you get pulled to your doom by CC. Impossible to use canons or oil (who does anyway ?). Very hard to use AC's unless you're standing on the single pixel that's not a death trap. Only a few of them can be dropped in odd places.

> 5. Rince and repeat at 2nd wall.

> 6. If you try to fight the classical way, you're laglocked and condi bombed to death.

>

> I call that **the Blitzkrieg**. It's usually very effective, because they can reach lord in less than 2:30 (the event timer). Unless you're in a very reactive server, and are able to pull the tactivator, your own zerg usually doesn't have the time to come if it's in another map. Now, from my personal point of view, I don't think blob playing Blitzkrieg are looking for fights (as in "against another blob") because of how fast they're doing everything, and how laggy and bomby everything is.

>

> For something more positive, my most recent good memory of attacking a T3 keep. We were around 15 ppl, with roughly the same amount of defenders. Frontal assault was useless. 5 ppl amongst me set 2 catas to NE wall to get the attention, and the 10 others did their job southern gate. Killed their lord under their very nose. I had a lot of fun.

>

> I sincerly think everyone should be able to enjoy the game in their own way, and in WvW, it can cover lots of playstyles which have to be respected. Then, I must confess, as someone that spends more time defending than attacking, I usually note that defending against a blob is suicide, because of engine (LoS, can't shoot at the bottom of wall etc.) and walls are death traps...

I dunno if you realize it or not but you essentially concede the fundamental point that "defense is too strong" here twice.

The primary purpose of a "blitzkrieg" play is to bypass the enemy's defenses by utilizing speed and the element of surprise and in the second example you give you used misdirection to again bypass the enemy's defenses.

"You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast." This is the most common response of everyone defending the current strength levels of defense in this game.

But that response concedes the primary point of contention here; that defense is too strong. It's too strong if the only way to deal with it is to go around it.

EDIT: An analogy to this line of reasoning is an argument where one player proposes that class x is too strong and someone else responds "well you can always choose not to fight them or you can zerg them down." It tacitly concedes the primary proposition and instead argues that the imbalance is justified because a workaround is possible.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > > > Sure, on underpopulated worlds, with gaps in coverage T3s flip all the time. It is easy to take a T3 when they have only a handful of people defending it.

> > > >

> > > > What we're talking about is taking T3s in the face an active opposition force of say at least 75% of the attacking force. If you want to argue that attacking is as easy as defending...there is no point in really arguing with you, you've obviously never led a large force against a competent enemy.

> > > >

> > > > As to hitting other targets. The response time from spawn to anywhere is generally 90 seconds or less. Unless you're fighting incompetent rabble who are defending, or you have an active third server(all too rare nowadays), your attempt to hit another target will see the same defenders above you on the wall.

> > >

> > > Again, a three man group consistently is able to take towers as t-2 to 3 on a T1 world during NA prime... please.

> > >

> > > Your doing it wrong.

> >

> > Proof of claim?

>

> It's done nightly Israel. I don't video. Take it for what it's worth.

>

> Rampage thinks I'm full of kitten anyway. It's all good.

You seem to be suggesting that 2-3 people are taking well defended t2-t3 objectives. Is that in fact your claim or are you simply saying that 2-3 people can take an undefended objective given enough time?

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > Sure, on underpopulated worlds, with gaps in coverage T3s flip all the time. It is easy to take a T3 when they have only a handful of people defending it.

> >

> > What we're talking about is taking T3s in the face an active opposition force of say at least 75% of the attacking force. If you want to argue that attacking is as easy as defending...there is no point in really arguing with you, you've obviously never led a large force against a competent enemy.

> >

> > As to hitting other targets. The response time from spawn to anywhere is generally 90 seconds or less. Unless you're fighting incompetent rabble who are defending, or you have an active third server(all too rare nowadays), your attempt to hit another target will see the same defenders above you on the wall.

>

> Again, a three man group consistently is able to take towers as t-2 to 3 on a T1 world during NA prime... please.

>

> Your doing it wrong.

Proof of claim?

Good offensive tools would be like a tactivator that would allow you to destroy all siege in an objective at once or a piece of siege that could break a wall in one shot or a tool that would make it so that enemies wouldn't see OJs or white swords or a way to disable emergency waypoints things like that.

Maybe give us FOBs and let us upgrade those so an offensive commander could set one up and then upgrade it so an offensive attempt would be much much easier. Perhaps let those have EWPs too.

Maybe just give us a nuclear option to completely reset one objective of our choice on a map if certain conditions are met. Put it in the middle of the map like the old orb stuff so there's a reason for people to learn how to fight without siege.

Anything to speed up the pace of the game and make it more action oriented and combat focused and less tedious and siege oriented.

Also remove Iron Guards and Hardened Siege

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Yeah no... That only serves to screw over defenders, it doesn’t address the real issues with this game and game mode.

Yes it does the real issue with this game mode is that it's become incredibly slow and boring and you spend more time having to worry about obnoxious gimmicks, upgraded objectives and siege rather than fighting players.

BTW it only screws over defenders who defend by building endless siege and turtling it wouldn't prevent anyone from actually fighting in order to defend something.

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> > When was there ever incentive to defend?

>

> If server pride / server community was never your thing (and that is perfectly fine) then none. But that is exactly the problem. We only relied on server/community attachment to care ever since the beginning. People always have soft spots for dedicated players who roams, maintains and call out attacks; and others always love guilds who appriciate and respond to them.

>

> If you're one of the people who insults people for calling out attacks on map chat, then you are just a toxic individual that is part of the problem

>

> You might think all server attachments are long gone, maybe it is on your server, but I can guarantee you that there are still many servers that love and fight in the name of their server (both identifying themselves as a guild on the server fighting in the name of the server, or a committed individual player of the server)

>

> But I'm not here to talk about server identity, I am here to talk about incentive to defend and care for your world, and unfortunately server identity was that only reason to care. I couldn't care less about the traditional server identity if we're given incentives to care about defending, structures and points. I like WvW as the whole package. Fighting all day in the middle of SM farming their kdr ignoring everything else gets old and boring fast.

No you're talking about extrinsic incentives versus intrinsic incentives. Your basic premise is that the new system will remove what you believe to be the intrinsic incentive and thus necessitate an extrinsic incentive to get players to do the things they're already doing.

Fighting all day in the middle of SMC ignoring everything else never gets old or boring to me. I hope that's what this new system is like; a 24/7 bag farm.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> All you ideas do is make it easier for attackers to take structures, and that certainly won’t make wvw “fun and engaging again”.

Yes it will.