Warclaw Gate Chain Pull

[Delita Silverburg.8632]

It is my opinion that the chain skill for pulling on gates while mounted on a Warclaw is very imbalanced with flow of game play. I believe this skill should not require any supply to use. Here is some math to back up my argument. A single chain pull does 0.5% of door health. This translated to 200 pulls to bring a door down. With the restriction of only letting 3 warclaws latch onto the door at once, that means you need a total of 67 "group pulls" from a group of 3 people at a minimum to take a door down. Each door pull without alacrity takes 5 seconds, and thus at 67 pulls, it would take 333 seconds to bring a door down off this mechanic alone in an optimal setting. (Or 290s with alacrity being spammed by a 4th person.) Now that's just the time part of the calculation. Add in the current supply cost of 200 for the total number of pulls it would take. That's still almost 5 whole minutes just to get a door down not counting the 4-5 supply runs for the 3 people IF they have max supply trained; vs dropping a catapult/flame ram, which takes 7.5 seconds per shot and can bring a wall down in 20 shots. (150 seconds for 40-50 supply.)

 

It's just too imbalanced to me. With the current Warclaw gate setup, it makes much more sense to make a flame ram and just put all your supply into that since it's significantly faster to get the door down that way, meaning less time for the enemy to react. This then has the two other people in our example just kinda standing around waiting for the door to come down because they're out of supply and can't contribute anymore in a meaningful way other than keeping a look out for incoming enemy forces. But, if the Warclaw didn't have a supply cost associated with the chain pull, they could still feel useful pulling on the chain while 1 player is still using the ram. I get that not having a supply cost means that door will always come down faster in zergs, but I just don't see how an extra 1.5% per 5 seconds in a zerg can make or break the experience for that play style, while for roaming parties of 5 or less people, every supply point matters at taking on targets larger than a camp and this could help to liven up that play style for those types of players.

 

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my comment, and feel free to share your thoughts on this below!

[Cyninja.2954]

You are only considering supply loss versus an undefended target. That ram which is so efficient, it gets burned to toast real fast when the attackers are forced off (or oil is not dealt with).

 

The same applies to small scale settings. In a small scale setting it is a lot easier to force off 2-3 people using a ram as a single defender, than it is to force off attackers that repeatedly can disengage the gate and reengage as they see fit. Dropping a ram places those supplies in a spot. The supplies on players remain mobile at all times.

 

The idea for the Warclaw Pull is not to replace or even compete with rams. That would be insanely overpowered. It's a nice additional effect on top. Currently each pulling Warclaw on top of rams is an additional 5% - 12.5% (10 - 25 supply) of door damage, usually less since the door will be down faster.

 

Changing the Warclaw to be more efficient would mean insane harass and mobility for anti gate abilities. One could argue this would be better, but I have yet to see proper arguments be made for that.

[Yasai.3549]

Imo this skill shouldn't even exist as it is.

It's pretty much a waste of supply.

 

If they really wanted to make Warclaw a mobility mount with some Siege potential, I think it would be better if they made it cost 10 supply to suicide their mount onto the gate, which will lock it under a 30s cooldown.

 

The suicide attack will deal considerable damage to gates and walls, which will be reduced if the gates and walls are reinforced.

 

Will this be OP?

I think not.

 

If the enemy Zerg can muster enough players to each kamikaze a gate or wall down one of two things may happen :

1. The defending Zerg, if reacting fast enough, can catch and kill many players who now have their mount locked out.

2. If the defending side is grossly outnumbered, it wouldn't matter if the enemy Zerg just bashes their way through defenses through using Mount or Siege, the objective is gonna be lost either way.

 

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Yasai.3549" said:

> Will this be OP?

> I think not.

>

It would be. Take a minute to do some math and tell me at which values a 50+ blob wouldn't get immediately into a T3 objective this way.

 

I'm serious. Please take a minute and do some math and figure out how much damage each suicide warclaw would be allowed to do.

[Delita Silverburg.8632]

Cyninja, you are correct that I am focusing on undefended targets. The reason for this is because that's how roaming parties work. They find targets that have no one home and try to get it taken before anyone shows up. The zerg side of the equation is a whole different beast. Zergs always have plenty of supply to spend and still more by the time it's all said and done. they make 5+ catas or 3 rams on every entry point no problem. The warclaw skill does very little for them. The warclaw skill could have been the difference for roaming groups to be able to take on better targets than just flipping camps back and forth all day. My overall point I guess is that the skill in it's current design is pretty useless and I think needs a rework.

[Yasai.3549]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> It would be. Take a minute to do some math and tell me at which values a 50+ blob wouldn't get immediately into a T3 objective this way.

>

> I'm serious. Please take a minute and do some math and figure out how much damage each suicide warclaw would be allowed to do.

 

There is no math to be done because I didn't put any numbers down.

 

But no it wouldn't be op.

 

Towers get flipped easily all the time, so having a Zerg instant rush a tower isn't what I'm looking at.

(Besides, T3 towers have Invul which can prevent such a rush, and people who don't stop themselves in time now has no mount and loses 10 supply)

 

And if yu are calling for a zerg to bum rush a Keep and suicide over 10 x 50~ supply onto a single wall, that's just a waste of sup because surprise surprise there is an inner wall.

 

 

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Delita Silverburg.8632" said:

> Cyninja, you are correct that I am focusing on undefended targets. The reason for this is because that's how roaming parties work. They find targets that have no one home and try to get it taken before anyone shows up. The zerg side of the equation is a whole different beast. Zergs always have plenty of supply to spend and still more by the time it's all said and done. they make 5+ catas or 3 rams on every entry point no problem. The warclaw skill does very little for them. The warclaw skill could have been the difference for roaming groups to be able to take on better targets than just flipping camps back and forth all day. My overall point I guess is that the skill in it's current design is pretty useless and I think needs a rework.

 

That's the issue I see. Chain Pull serves no function in any group larger than 5-10 people. Drop 2 Guild Rams and be done..some might stay mounted to lance defenders, but otherwise everyone else is afk or hazing the wall.

 

But for solo roamers or small groups of 3-4 players? That is where this ability would shine, if they removed the supply-per-use cost. Thing is, does ANET want to make it easier for solo roamers to break into towers? Technically the mount already does this, as it speeds the player back to camp for more supply, but it's such a pain. But that is the real question: does ANET want solo/duo players to have an easier time breaking into towers and keeps, and was that the original point of the ability?

 

If it was, it needs a rework, as it doesn't meet that goal. If it wasn't, it needs a rework, as it serves no purpose.

 

Either way you slice it, Chain Pull is a meme.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Delita Silverburg.8632" said:

> Cyninja, you are correct that I am focusing on undefended targets. The reason for this is because that's how roaming parties work. They find targets that have no one home and try to get it taken before anyone shows up. The zerg side of the equation is a whole different beast. Zergs always have plenty of supply to spend and still more by the time it's all said and done. they make 5+ catas or 3 rams on every entry point no problem. The warclaw skill does very little for them. The warclaw skill could have been the difference for roaming groups to be able to take on better targets than just flipping camps back and forth all day. My overall point I guess is that the skill in it's current design is pretty useless and I think needs a rework.

 

I thought as much. Yes, the skill is under-performing as replacement for a ram. I personally think that's by design.

 

Would I love to see it redesigned? Sure, put something interesting on there. We have a sniff, how about a longer cooldown version which detects stealth as to not make perma stealth a thing in larger structures? (again a band-aid suggestion to fix an underlying problem of in structure anti stealth gameplay, though I would prefer a different solution to this issue).

 

Another idea would be to chain another enemy Warclaw, slowing both while chained. Maybe make it so both players get stunned if the chain is broken. This would remove the mobility element from the door skill. I don;t know, maybe give this skill a dual function, if chained to an allied Warclaw you both get a speed increase for riding as a pack (though I'd be afraid of all the chains in a full squad bringing performance down).

 

The issue here is: undefended structures are already freebees. Not sure balancing the Warclaw pull is needed here. It causes to many issues.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Yasai.3549" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > It would be. Take a minute to do some math and tell me at which values a 50+ blob wouldn't get immediately into a T3 objective this way.

> >

> > I'm serious. Please take a minute and do some math and figure out how much damage each suicide warclaw would be allowed to do.

>

> There is no math to be done because I didn't put any numbers down.

>

> But no it wouldn't be op.

>

> Towers get flipped easily all the time, so having a Zerg instant rush a tower isn't what I'm looking at.

> (Besides, T3 towers have Invul which can prevent such a rush, and people who don't stop themselves in time now has no mount and loses 10 supply)

>

> And if yu are calling for a zerg to bum rush a Keep and suicide over 10 x 50~ supply onto a single wall, that's just a waste of sup because surprise surprise there is an inner wall.

>

>

 

True you didn't give any numbers. You simply removed a scaled ability (the Warclaw pull is limited to 3 Warclaws) and replaced it with a player scaling idea. I intentionally asked for a 50 player blob. It makes the math rather easy. Even at "only" 2% per player per Warclaw, you'd immediately be inside an objective. That's insane.

 

You seem to not understand how multi layered siege works. Getting into the OUTER of a keep is insanely valuable. Or would you just ignore all the deployed siege? Clearing siege is a central aspect of reducing defender supplies.

 

Towers getting flipped when no one responds is no excuse to allow no defense at all. Your server might not do so, but more active WvW servers defend their T3 towers if possible. Times are already short enough as is and Invulnerable Fortifications are a must. Letting an enemy blob in without any ability to respond is not fun.

 

I'll repeat what the main issue with your idea is:

Your idea scales with players. It's never a good idea to implement something like this in the wrong place. Even the developers realized this ages ago. Hence the limit on siege and the Warclaw pulls (they could have easily allowed 5 or 10 or even 50 Warclaws to latch on. I guess they figured letting a blob in within seconds is not a good idea).

[Yasai.3549]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> True you didn't give any numbers. You simply removed a scaled ability (the Warclaw pull is limited to 3 Warclaws) and replaced it with a player scaling idea. I intentionally asked for a 50 player blob. It makes the math rather easy. Even at "only" 2% per player per Warclaw, you'd immediately be inside an objective. That's insane.

>

> You seem to not understand how multi layered siege works. Getting into the OUTER of a keep is insanely valuable. Or would you just ignore all the deployed siege? Clearing siege is a central aspect of reducing defender supplies.

>

> Towers getting flipped when no one responds is no excuse to allow no defense at all. Your server might not do so, but more active WvW servers defend their T3 towers if possible. Times are already short enough as is and Invulnerable Fortifications are a must. Letting an enemy blob in without any ability to respond is not fun.

>

> I'll repeat what the main issue with your idea is:

> Your idea scales with players. It's never a good idea to implement something like this in the wrong place. Even the developers realized this ages ago. Hence the limit on siege and the Warclaw pulls (they could have easily allowed 5 or 10 Warclaws to latch on).

 

Meh, what's balance anyway.

Anet can't even give us even matchings yet promises to do so every 6 months.

 

My idea is to just let huge zergs just steam roll a map faster and save everyone some time.

 

 

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Yasai.3549" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > True you didn't give any numbers. You simply removed a scaled ability (the Warclaw pull is limited to 3 Warclaws) and replaced it with a player scaling idea. I intentionally asked for a 50 player blob. It makes the math rather easy. Even at "only" 2% per player per Warclaw, you'd immediately be inside an objective. That's insane.

> >

> > You seem to not understand how multi layered siege works. Getting into the OUTER of a keep is insanely valuable. Or would you just ignore all the deployed siege? Clearing siege is a central aspect of reducing defender supplies.

> >

> > Towers getting flipped when no one responds is no excuse to allow no defense at all. Your server might not do so, but more active WvW servers defend their T3 towers if possible. Times are already short enough as is and Invulnerable Fortifications are a must. Letting an enemy blob in without any ability to respond is not fun.

> >

> > I'll repeat what the main issue with your idea is:

> > Your idea scales with players. It's never a good idea to implement something like this in the wrong place. Even the developers realized this ages ago. Hence the limit on siege and the Warclaw pulls (they could have easily allowed 5 or 10 Warclaws to latch on).

>

> Meh, what's balance anyway.

> Anet can't even give us even matchings yet promises to do so every 6 months.

>

> My idea is to just let huge zergs just steam roll a map faster and save everyone some time.

>

 

 

Yeah, I did like the idea, let's be honest, it sounds cool to go RRRRAAAAWWWRRR into a gate. Unfortunately I immediately realized you forgot to put some scaling in place (which would defeat the purpose of the ability seeming more powerful than now. Imagine suiciding your mount into a gate and the gate loses 1% of its life).

 

The big issue, and that's in part the reason why Delita Silverburg.8632 made this thread: the mount ability seem underwhelming, is everything implemented has to work within all settings of the game. It has to not be op for 1 player, 5 players or even a full zone. Even my fun idea with mount linking would probably put a lot of extra strain on server performance having to track all of that (not to mention the amount of roamers who might hate the idea :# ).

 

Personally yes, something more "fun" would be nice on that slot. We'll have to wait and see.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Yasai.3549" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > True you didn't give any numbers. You simply removed a scaled ability (the Warclaw pull is limited to 3 Warclaws) and replaced it with a player scaling idea. I intentionally asked for a 50 player blob. It makes the math rather easy. Even at "only" 2% per player per Warclaw, you'd immediately be inside an objective. That's insane.

> >

> > You seem to not understand how multi layered siege works. Getting into the OUTER of a keep is insanely valuable. Or would you just ignore all the deployed siege? Clearing siege is a central aspect of reducing defender supplies.

> >

> > Towers getting flipped when no one responds is no excuse to allow no defense at all. Your server might not do so, but more active WvW servers defend their T3 towers if possible. Times are already short enough as is and Invulnerable Fortifications are a must. Letting an enemy blob in without any ability to respond is not fun.

> >

> > I'll repeat what the main issue with your idea is:

> > Your idea scales with players. It's never a good idea to implement something like this in the wrong place. Even the developers realized this ages ago. Hence the limit on siege and the Warclaw pulls (they could have easily allowed 5 or 10 Warclaws to latch on).

>

> Meh, what's balance anyway.

> Anet can't even give us even matchings yet promises to do so every 6 months.

>

 

I might argue a little here. I am sure that the ‘numbers’ (Play hours) of the servers that are paired up during re linking are fairly even. Then players do their thing.......

 

Reality is, it will never be balanced for population. Alliances could help, but isn’t a fix.

 

 

[Virdo.1540]

Triple the door damage or remove the supply-waste. Both would probably make it still not op, nor "good"

[Delita Silverburg.8632]

I still think the power level and player restriction (3 pullers) is fine. The supply restriction is my main issue. It just feels really mopey to be in a roaming party of 3-4 people, build 1 flame ram, then have to supply run or just kinda stand there twiddling your thumbs as one person uses said ram. At the current power level, pulling on a chain alone will never be enough to take a door down quickly, which is a good thing. (1.5%/5 seconds, or 5.5 minutes uninterrupted)

 

I had hoped that Anet's plan with the Warclaw was to make things more interesting in the game mode and not just to try and monetize more skins out of that part of the community... (This is just my perspective on what we have from Warclaw anyway.)

[Delita Silverburg.8632]

> @"Virdo.1540" said:

> Triple the door damage or remove the supply-waste. Both would probably make it still not op, nor "good"

 

I'd actually be ok with this. It would still take a team of 3 a full two minutes to bring the door down (4.5%/5 sec, or 112 sec.) AND they need to have 67 supply collectively also. This method uses supply more fairly in comparison to other siege costs and still leaves time for counterplay from defenders.

 

I remember Anet saying that the issue with Warclaws when they first came out is that it made it too easy for people to defend targets, which is why they nerved their mobility a ton. Something like this would increase the attacker speed which could help with the balance part.

[Teratus.2859]

It's not supposed to replace Rams it's supposed to help get the gates down a little faster.

 

It maybe more beneficial to have 4 rams over 2 and 3 Warclaws but depending on the target, number of defenders and enemy population in a lot of cases putting down more than 2 rams is just a waste of blueprints and supply.

Few people on Warclaws dropping 1 sup every few seconds to help the door down faster is far better and more efficient.

Specially when they can often resup at the target once they take it.

 

Take away the sup cost and you'll probably end up seeing 2/3 Warclaws harassing keeps and towers constantly yanking on the gates without any rams.

Partly to contest the locations and partly because some people, specially less experienced WvW players or those just after their daily tower etc just wont care if it takes them a several minutes to wittle a gate down without seige.

Not to mention without the sup cost 3 Warclaws easily can deplete a tower or keeps supply if someone inside is constantly repairing the gate and the Warclaws never need to resupply.