Israel.7056

> @"Baldrick.8967" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Baldrick.8967" said:

> > > > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > > > > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > >

> > > > > all those defensive 'gimmicks' as you name them actually make it more interesting. else you would have one fight and then the losing team will just logg off cause they cant even use the envoirement to even the match and make for more interesting fights.

> > > >

> > > > They don't make the game more interesting for the team that can't do anything to find a fight, they also dont make the game interesting for the team that is fighting 10 ACs 2 shields 2 catapults trying to PVD a door while the whole enemy blob is just sitting inside, i mean defending outnumbered is a thing but this all collapses when this defensive gimmicks are used by a team just as large as the atacking force is, defending should be done by man power honestly. If you dont have the mampower u should lose and u should lose baddy so you get matched up vs lower populated worlds (assuming matchmaking is fixed ofc). It makes no sense that a team that has 20 people online have 3 T3 keeps generating points while a team that has 120 has the same ammount generating the same points, in this case both teams are actually having a bad time here both getting bored. So unless the 20 man team can actually kill that 100 man team on a real fight there should be no reasson for this matchup to exist, low pop team should be loosing bad not scoring near the same points, in order for the matchmaking system to give them a more balanced enemy.

> > >

> > > For someone who claims to have so much experience you seem to have, you seem to be completely lacking in tactics or any sort of strategic thinking, other than 'rub face on door with 50 people' then moan when it doesn't work.

> > >

> > > If the whole enemy blob is sitting inside one target, attack several targets at once.

> > >

> > > Have a small havoc team set up siege to take out the defensive siege in other places while you draw all the enemy away to another tower/keep.

> > >

> > > Trebs from afar on a different objective whilst you keep the enemy tied up defending where you are, wiping out all their defences.

> > >

> > > Get 2/3 people to set up catapults at different targets- they might get discovered but in the meantime they might do 200-300 supplies of damage to the wall, or wipe several ac, etc.

> > >

> > > If they only have 20 people online they aren't going to come out and fight your entire zone blob- that would be just stupid. However, if you engaged your brain you'd quickly realise that the cannot defend everything at once, and that is your real advantage. Your disadvantage is that having trained a zerg of brain dead zombies to follow you and only do what you say (as it leads to most loot bags/easy p6 particiaption) is asking people to then think and split off to go and do something that might get them less rewards might be too much of a challenge- especially as if half the zerg is your guild, you'll probably ask the 'pugs' to go do it as it's beneath your guildies...

> > >

> > > Just because you struggle against well organised defence doesn't mean it should be removed from the game so you can press the 'i win' button.

> >

> > 1. If attackers can split up so can defenders and it only takes about 5-10 people to defend pretty much anything if they know what they're doing.

> > 2. No one can be bothered with this because it's boring.

> > 3. No one can be bothered with this because it's boring.

> > 4. No one can be bothered with this because it's boring.

> > 5. If they really only have 20 people online then they should lose all their stuff.

> > 6. Everyone struggles against "well organized defense" aka siege humping and it makes the game slower and less action oriented as a result.

>

> Clearly your very narrow minded in your thinking. For many servers they would love to have 20 people online a lot of the time!

>

> Your answer is basically 'we have more numbers we should auto-win'. You might think actually using some tactics is boring, but without them you are creating your own mess and then complaining about it.

>

> Clearly thinking or adopting tactics to suit the situation is beyond you. It's not boring to have to think of ways to win other than 'we have more players we should always win'.

>

> Cut out defence and you would have literally no one to fight. Put yourself in their shoes. Without defence, why would they bother trying to hold off your zone blob?

>

> If you can't stand not having enough people to fight, then move servers with 5 like minded people and look for easier fights.

First of all yes if one force is drastically outnumbered they should lose everything. The problem is that at present the larger force can then upgrade everything and then log off.

If they removed upgrades and toned down the siege then all it would take is for another group to log in and take everything back. That would be a lot more dynamic and fun.

Right now a skeleton crew can turtle upgraded objectives for hours and stall the game out. The pace of the game has become very slow and as a result it's a much less entertaining game than it used to be.

I believe this is one of the fundamental reasons why the game has lost so many players; it's too slow and you spend too much time dealing with siege rather than fighting players.

The defense is the reason why there are less people to fight. The more defense they add the fewer people there will be to fight.

> @"Baldrick.8967" said:

> > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> >

> > > all those defensive 'gimmicks' as you name them actually make it more interesting. else you would have one fight and then the losing team will just logg off cause they cant even use the envoirement to even the match and make for more interesting fights.

> >

> > They don't make the game more interesting for the team that can't do anything to find a fight, they also dont make the game interesting for the team that is fighting 10 ACs 2 shields 2 catapults trying to PVD a door while the whole enemy blob is just sitting inside, i mean defending outnumbered is a thing but this all collapses when this defensive gimmicks are used by a team just as large as the atacking force is, defending should be done by man power honestly. If you dont have the mampower u should lose and u should lose baddy so you get matched up vs lower populated worlds (assuming matchmaking is fixed ofc). It makes no sense that a team that has 20 people online have 3 T3 keeps generating points while a team that has 120 has the same ammount generating the same points, in this case both teams are actually having a bad time here both getting bored. So unless the 20 man team can actually kill that 100 man team on a real fight there should be no reasson for this matchup to exist, low pop team should be loosing bad not scoring near the same points, in order for the matchmaking system to give them a more balanced enemy.

>

> For someone who claims to have so much experience you seem to have, you seem to be completely lacking in tactics or any sort of strategic thinking, other than 'rub face on door with 50 people' then moan when it doesn't work.

>

> If the whole enemy blob is sitting inside one target, attack several targets at once.

>

> Have a small havoc team set up siege to take out the defensive siege in other places while you draw all the enemy away to another tower/keep.

>

> Trebs from afar on a different objective whilst you keep the enemy tied up defending where you are, wiping out all their defences.

>

> Get 2/3 people to set up catapults at different targets- they might get discovered but in the meantime they might do 200-300 supplies of damage to the wall, or wipe several ac, etc.

>

> If they only have 20 people online they aren't going to come out and fight your entire zone blob- that would be just stupid. However, if you engaged your brain you'd quickly realise that the cannot defend everything at once, and that is your real advantage. Your disadvantage is that having trained a zerg of brain dead zombies to follow you and only do what you say (as it leads to most loot bags/easy p6 particiaption) is asking people to then think and split off to go and do something that might get them less rewards might be too much of a challenge- especially as if half the zerg is your guild, you'll probably ask the 'pugs' to go do it as it's beneath your guildies...

>

> Just because you struggle against well organised defence doesn't mean it should be removed from the game so you can press the 'i win' button.

1. If attackers can split up so can defenders and it only takes about 5-10 people to defend pretty much anything if they know what they're doing.

2. No one can be bothered with this because it's boring.

3. No one can be bothered with this because it's boring.

4. No one can be bothered with this because it's boring.

5. If they really only have 20 people online then they should lose all their stuff.

6. Everyone struggles against "well organized defense" aka siege humping and it makes the game slower and less action oriented as a result.

Agree with Bloodie 100% and as a pugmander this is probably the most annoying thing about the game for me right now but it's particularly annoying while commanding.

He's not lying about the time it takes to crack a t3 objective and how miserable it is to do so. Trebs, Mortars, Cannons, Arrow Carts, Ballistas all being fired on your entire force for the entire time you're even near the objective. Most of an attempted assault is surviving siege and then every objective has Structural Invulnerability and an Emergency Waypoint which means they get a free minute to full repair and 40s!!! now to zone in if they're too slow responding or if they happen to die during the fighting. It's absolutely the most absurd thing in WvW right now.

The thing he doesn't mention is that servers with OCX/SEA get to upgrade all their structures mostly unopposed every single night while their enemy has to spend EU/NA rebuilding and simultaneously trying to crack multiple t3 objectives just to have everything reset the next day. **THE INSANE GIMMICKY DEFENSIVE NONSENSE EXACERBATES THE EFFECTS OF COVERAGE DISPARITIES.**

If you can't win a fight you shouldn't be able to keep your keep or your tower or whatever. In my opinion they should remove arrow carts from the game entirely and remove the ability to upgrade any objective. At the very least they should remove structural invulnerability and Emergency Waypoints. If defenders die they should be out of the fight for entire time it takes them to run back. The game should be centered around fighting to keep as much stuff as you can while you're online not upgrading every objective during OCX/SEA and then turtling EU/NA.

> @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> When was there ever incentive to defend?

This

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Korea isn't EU just saying

>

> Go open up the Region tab on the world select screen.... tell use what Regions you see and how many. All players except most Chinese players fall into one of two regions NA or EU.

The point was that there's nothing distinctly EU about Koreans. This guy seems to think that the Koreans he's playing with now won't be able to play with him in the future but that makes no sense.

> @"X T D.6458" said:

>You are not playing for your server, community, or anything so why care? Since these types of playstyles are not rewarding, blobbing up and ktraining will be the only thing that people will do and we will have 24/7 pvd.

I already don't care much about those things. I log on to fight people and read mag team chat so the success or failure of the new system from my perspective will be measured by how many people there are to fight and whether or not team chat is still hilarious or not.

I imagine you'll say something like "well why fight if there's no community you're fighting for or some objective to defend?" And the answer to that is: because fighting is fun.

Korea isn't EU just saying

> @"Xtc Soul Dragon.2067" said:

> I never wanted to post on these forums. After 7 years of playing Guild Wars 1, I know all too well the arrogance and vitriol and lies that get splattered around textboards. But after hearing about this thread in WvW tonight, coincidentally enough, I had to come here and share my opinion, for once.

>

> Arena Net, this is the single most destructive decision you could do to the WvW community, and it doesn't even fix the issue that you're trying to resolve. You're going to delete 5 years of WvW history to cater to casuals and haters of a gamemode they don't understand or appreciate, for the sake of temporarily changing the line-up that will quickly result in the same complaints that you're having now. The players that only put in an hour of WvW gameplay a week will always complain about not being included, always ignoring their own lack of self-inclusion and refusing to acknowledge their own contribution while demanding the same rewards.

>

> In your initial post you blatantly display whom your ire and dscrimination is aimed at, and that is my home server, since prerelease, of Blackgate. It's a running gag here in my server about how much Anet hates Blackgate, and we wear it as a badge of honor because we are STILL successful by our hardwork and dedication despite fighting, at some times, up to 6 servers at once. Your idea to dissolve servers for the sake of shifting WvW power about guilds instead of server populations will end in the exact same situation we're in now, and that is an alliance with mostly Blackgate members dominating the WvW field, and you'll have effectively achieved nothing but taking our name away from us.

>

> You also introduce the worst element of all into the WvW environment, something that is protected right now by an account's home server location, and that is the human element. If only alliances with guilds can participate in high tiered WvW matches, then the decision on who gets to play in high tier WvW will come down to those few leaders of said guilds. Imperfect, biased, self-interested, prejudicial, human players. They will, without a doubt, hold their alliance's status over their individual players' heads as a cudgel (an ever-increasingly popular term these days) to force submission from their numbers in order to continue playing in a tier that they may have already spent YEARS working to achieve. Favoritism will determine who is tier 1, not skill or dedication or hours or sacrifice. It'll come down to kissing the right butt, and continue kissing that butt until this new system too fails to change the demographic you're so eager to create waves in.

>

> I am not opposed to trying this idea, but I am fanatically opposed to having it forced onto me and my server with no recourse. Go ahead and replace the failed Edge of the Mists experiment; the lacklust rewards of that gamemode will not be missed. Do not delete 5 years of WvW rivalry and identity for shallow and foresight-lacking purposes, you as the developer do not write the history of your game, the players do. You make changes and introduce new ideas into the game world, but WE the players are the ones that experience the game, WE write the game's history, and WE decide what works, what's fun, what's exploitable, and what has got to go. WvW has been server-based since the beta weekends in 2012 (that we the masses were allowed to initially experience), and the moment you expunge that from the game is the moment that WvW ceases to have a reason to exist in a lot of our hearts and minds. Give your players choice, we've earned that. Do not take away something that gives us the pride, and some of us the reason, to log onto your servers each night and spend hours of our time holding a banner that is much more than a simple server name. It is a history that we the players have created on our own, for we have earned the right to keep our identity after over half a decade of dedication.

>

> I am Blackgate. We are Blackgate.

> ~Xtc Soul Dragon

Overly dramatic. If you're right then BG keeps winning so if you're so worried about losing the name just make the "Blackgate Alliance" so everyone knows they're still fighting Blackgate. Simple solution.

> @"Klipso.8653" said:

>

> Take a good look at that link and tell me again how our community hasn't endured 3 years of a kitten lock

So what? If your players are the best then make an alliance and beat everyone. I don't see what the problem is.

> @"Klipso.8653" said:

> > @"Zephyr.8015" said:

> > Quite honestly I am upset, especially because you name Blackgate as a problem server when its not. It is not BG's problem that servers don't want to participate in WvW, it is also not our problem that other servers aren't putting in time and effort into WvW in comparison to others. Looking at this site: https://wvwstats.com/timezones BG does not have the WvW population people think it does. I am so kitten glad to hear that anet has listened to the massive amount of haters of BG that carry around giant amounts of salt from Season 1 and 2. Because its BG's fault they don't put in effort, its BG's fault they get rolled over, its BG's fault that they don't play the game type as well. Anyone on SoS can tell you they have been doing well these past two weeks against us, by putting in effort and playing the game type. All this alliance thing will do is require more guild politics/map politics and cause drama. I am sure BG isn't alone in the fact that we have members of guilds who are in multiple WvW guilds, forcing them to choose 1 guild for an 8 week period or just in general to WvW with isn't cool. But I guess that's an exclusive issue on closed servers having to recruit from a limited pool of players, while other servers can recruit a lot more. This boils down to effort, the fact that you'd rather break apart servers who do WvW well to make it fair to those who don't want to put in effort.

>

> This is a hard fact that will be ignored by the ignorant

If BG players are in fact simply better at playing the game than anyone else then they'll continue to win. It might not be possible to implement BG's current nightcap/ daytime turtle strat as effectively but that shouldn't matter right?

> @"AlyoshaCephas.5473" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > What timezone does PRX play in?

>

> We are primarily NA.

If it's PST NA then that could be valuable to just about any server as PST NA is pretty hard to come by these days and it's one the reasons BG is so strong.

This would basically turn WvW into something like the old pvp hotjoin games. They were fun but there's something to be said for the more permanent server identities and the sense of belonging that individual, distinct and persistent servers offer as well. Having different servers with different vibes and 'personalities' allows for players to self select and self organize based on their own individual priorities and values. So for me the best server is Maguuma but for others it might be Henge of Denravi. Having three different teams would just make everything feel homogeneous and that's boring. Fights are fun but fights when you feel like you're fighting for something that you actually care about are better in my experience.

The thing about t1 is that it matters most how many competent Asians and Australians you have. So unless PRX is a OCX or SEA guild it will matter little for any server that doesn't have those two timezones covered.

What timezone does PRX play in?

Yes it's simply too strong particularly in close quarters fights.

It's kind of hard to not take a cynical view of the sentiments being expressed in the thread by some of the players on BG considering SOS is getting farmed hard week after week.

Keep up the good work SOS you've become the official most enthusiastic bottoms of NA.

What Mag did right at first was to beat or at least match BG's multiple guild groups or float pin mode in every timezone and then k train EU like crazy which is where BG has always been most vulnerable.

BG has three main modes:

1. Multiple large guild groups covering multiple maps (this is BG's full court press mode and it's usually late NA/early OCX)

2. One big "float" pin that rotates to defend and attack major objectives and one or more smaller "rotation" pins who simultaneously and often in tandem with the float pin attack lightly/non-defended objectives (this is their most common setup and it can be seen in any timezone but most often in EU early NA late OCX and SEA)

3. Multiple "rotation" pins that just try to flip as much stuff as possible while avoiding direct engagement with larger forces they cannot realistically defeat. (this can happen at any time where there are coverage gaps but it's most often seen during EU)

So at first Mag was actually able to overpower 1 and 2 and then nullify 3 during EU by going full court press during that timezone which eroded the morale of the smaller groups who were suddenly unable to defend or take anything. This resulted in not just winning the PPT but winning PPT, KDR and total kills.

After Mag lost most of its big coverage on week 8 or 9 of the win streak modes 1 and 2 became harder and harder to deal with and the EU k train stopped because Zudo transferred to EU.

At a glance SOS looks to be almost able to deal with modes 1 and 2 but I'm not sure about SOS' EU.

What utter nonsense. You get credit for kills. The game cannot distinguish between an organized duel and a random encounter in a camp nor should it need to imo. You didn't kill the opposing player you get no participation for the attempt.

Yeah Winds of Disenchantment is incredibly overpowered.

No they've repeatedly demonstrated a clear lack of either understanding of the faults of their game or an unwillingness to address them in anything resembling what I would consider a timely manner or both.

They often make what appear to me to be bizarre balance changes to classes with little to no explanation or leave clearly problematic things untouched for far too long.

They're fundamentally inconsistent which makes trust nigh impossible.

> @MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

> The risk of JQ becoming another BG and blasting up to tier 1 is largely blown out of perspective by you all, however I can not blame you giving the history and past of things like this.

Wouldn't that ultimately be a good thing if it did happen?

No I don't think the rationale for this makes any kind of logical sense. If you can't take reading angry whispers consider avoiding online games.

Presumably this isn't just about getting orphaned guildmates onto JQ but also opening the possibility for new transfers as well. Makes sense to me it just sucks that it'll take weeks to see if it works.

I go play something else.

Just link Mag and JQ