Fights Inside Structures

[Svarty.8019]

Arenanet said, specifically Raymond Lukes said that he'd like to see fights inside structures, that's why he and his team made tier 2 and 3 walls super-super-weak.

 

How about this for a compromise that encourages fights INSIDE structures BUT retains the original notion of Keeps being some mighty bulwarks which are a CHALLENGE and give more of a sense of accomplishment to those who manage to capture them?

 

THE IDEA:

Inner walls and gates are much tougher than outer walls.

 

That's all - suddenly you get the fights you want inside structures and defenders have time to get to the Keeps to defend them.

[XenesisII.1540]

You can take down outer walls from range, so there's no point to this. Many of the boon ball zergs/guilds already do this, break in and then run their train track inside over anyone that stands in front of them like a deer in headlights.

 

Raymond thinks it would be more fun to have fights in the structures(don't remember if that was for lord room fights), but that already happens a lot in smc, more rarely for ebg keeps because they are heavily defended and easy for defenders to get back to, but for border keeps like the side ones, there's other factors which limit this like if there's no garri wp present, or no ewp ready, and usually it's a 1v1 situation unlike the 3 way for smc.

 

P.S fights in smc and keeps are fun, but it doesn't align because of population differences throughout the week other than reset night when all maps are usually full(so groups aren't jumping maps after one bad fight).

[Sovereign.1093]

I find no issue right now on these things as a mechanic. It's just that the number of players isn't the same for both sides all the time.

[Sviel.7493]

I wonder if that was really the only thing behind that change.

 

I mean, it's comforting to think that they have folks crunching numbers and considering the fallout of various changes and all that, but if such people exist, they are doing a very poor job (see: siege health)...so, maybe, they really are just making huge, half-baked changes based on some dude thinking it would be cool...

 

Anyway...if you want fights inside structures, a few things must be true:

* It must be possible to get inside structures.

* Once inside, both sides must have a reasonable chance at accomplishing some goal.

 

It has always been possible to get inside structures, so that's fine. Weakening walls didn't really help with this--walls don't prevent people from getting inside so much as delay them. The only time they effectively keep people out is if there is a fight directly outside of a structure. So unless fights directly inside are for some reason much better than fights directly outside, nothing is gained.

 

On the other hand, with less delay time, it is less likely that defenders will have enough people in that location to have a reasonable chance of winning a fight. This means fewer fights inside objectives and, ultimately, fewer fights overall.

 

As a (negative) bonus, making walls weaker makes it harder for defenders to buy time for their allies to arrive. It was already difficult and several other half-baked changes (see again: siege health, see: inadvertent offensive siege DPS buff) made it harder and harder. If defenders have less ability to stall, you end up with more uncontested caps and fewer fights.

 

If you want to incentivize fights inside structures, **the key is to make the structure especially valuable to multiple teams.** A sustained assault and a sustained defense makes for huge fights within structures. This is usually the result of walls being upgraded (so...not weaker), the keep being valuable to the defense because of invested time and valuable to the offense because of a huge point swing or a potential waypoint. If making walls weaker resulted in more fights, we would see more fights within T1 structures than within T3. This is not the case at all. Rather, if you hit a T3, the defense has time to organize and fight but likely can't repair all the siege damage which makes subsequent assaults inviting. There are several levers you can adjust to increase the likelihood and length of fights in these structures, but wall health is not one of them.

[Hannelore.8153]

Fights inside structures do happen, in Keeps and Castles. It just doesn't happen in Towers because they're worthless. If they offered a potential waypoint, or any other kind of benefit, you'd see people defending them more.

 

Plus, the Lord battles in Towers just aren't very good, its mostly single-target and there's no room to move around, all the Tower Lords should be moved to the ground level and replaced with a flag up top that players can interact with to capture.

 

Overall it has nothing to do with walls.

[Dawdler.8521]

People seems to have forgotten why the "super-super weak" walls exist.

 

It was because HoT and the guild hall changes buffing defenses to **COMPLETE INSANITY** and made objectives impregnable, grinding WvW to a complete halt. It was by **community request** that the cost of siege was reduced, their damage upped and the double-whammy armour on walls removed. Because we didnt want to siege like that. We wanted to go back to pre-HoT WvW. And its still not even close.

[Sviel.7493]

@"Dawdler.8521"

 

What relevant changes did HoT make in this area other than cratering WvW population while we all went to build guild halls?

 

There's a temporary invuln for walls, guild cata cost was increased...and that's it? I'm pretty sure break-in time ratios are shorter now than pre-HoT, though with half the siege placed it's ultimately slower in some cases.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> @"Dawdler.8521"

>

> What relevant changes did HoT make in this area other than cratering WvW population while we all went to build guild halls?

>

> There's a temporary invuln for walls, guild cata cost was increased...and that's it? I'm pretty sure break-in time ratios are shorter now than pre-HoT, though with half the siege placed it's ultimately slower in some cases.

>

... because that's when they completely revamped WvW and introduced the automatic objective upgrade system. Then they added guild hall buffs on top of that, which boosted defenses and boosted upgrade speeds (packed and speedy dollys for example).

 

TL;DR T3 everywhere.

[Sovereign.1093]

Good siege placement and dragon banner often deters invasion especially if those using it are positioning smart and tail killers..

 

You can only do so much with

 

1. Gens and Rams

 

2. Ppl not using invasion builds. Tankier than open field

 

3. Waters cleansing protection anti range and blasts for sustain . Although I understand since the old anti ac guard was really op.

 

So two equally strong teams will have a stale fight in a keep. Which is believe is how things ought to be. But you will miss fights.

 

If you want organized fights you have to respectfully ask the other team for at most 25v25 or atleast 10v10 to show fight skill.

 

I hope people understand that you can't force ppl who don't give consent to play your way. I mean at what point does it extent for one side to participate in another's way of playing?

 

I hope eotm becomes another wvw map, to be honest. And let there be a new eotm who's purpose is last man standing. You will see how toxic it'll be. :/

 

I used to play ran online where our way was spent killing players so they lose their legendaries so we can sell it. Oh you will be hated I tell you. Politics in game is hard as well as outside hehe.

 

Help your pugs with the fundamentals

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> People seems to have forgotten why the "super-super weak" walls exist.

>

> It was because HoT and the guild hall changes buffing defenses to **COMPLETE INSANITY** and made objectives impregnable, grinding WvW to a complete halt. It was by **community request** that the cost of siege was reduced, their damage upped and the double-whammy armour on walls removed. Because we didnt want to siege like that. We wanted to go back to pre-HoT WvW. And its still not even close.

 

I even asked the devs if we could have a "Banner the Lord" week and Cal said, "no". What a veritable cad!

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521"

> >

> > What relevant changes did HoT make in this area other than cratering WvW population while we all went to build guild halls?

> >

> > There's a temporary invuln for walls, guild cata cost was increased...and that's it? I'm pretty sure break-in time ratios are shorter now than pre-HoT, though with half the siege placed it's ultimately slower in some cases.

> >

> ... because that's when they completely revamped WvW and introduced the automatic objective upgrade system. Then they added guild hall buffs on top of that, which boosted defenses and boosted upgrade speeds (packed and speedy dollys for example).

>

> TL;DR T3 everywhere.

 

Whilst this is true, they also removed the 5(?) minute automatic waypoint-available-whilst-objective-contested so-called "bug" and replaced it with a 30 minute EWP waypoint that trolls/spies could trigger.

 

Meaning fewer fights inside objectives.

[Sovereign.1093]

Imo they should return that..down stat in combat res and banner Lord. Those were.fun days.

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

We have plenty of keep fights on Deso too, we had a 3 way fight on Tuesday night in Garrison which was intense, with skill lag included.

 

So keep fights aren't rare, it's just that attacking heavily sieged keeps is not that easy to sustain in, plus not every server will fight back or cloud and once there's a third server, the skill lag makes it unplayable.

[Threather.9354]

You can get quite easily rush through outer and even inner but defending is too easy rn. I don't mind if they make inner walls/gates sturdier if they reduce claim buff (more active time for defences over passive) and increase supply cost of guild golems and all shield generators.

 

Ideally theyd just shiel'd gen to not block siege fire except ACs and buff it otherwise (like make it give damage reduction buff which would help siege survive treb/mortar shots instead of completely negating them)

 

Right now defenders can ignore catapults and trebs with shield gens. Attacker can ignore any defensive siege with them.

 

Overall active defences are quite useless and reduced upgrade times, increased amount of defensive siege and claim buff all make it so that attacker is left with 2 strats: Stack server (boring) or Rush the objective (boring). There are no such thing as long-term sieges between equally strong groups right now.

 

Another note is that omegas shouldn't be stopped by player-induced reflects as they're the main way to take down ACs on hard-to-reach-spots and ignoring enemy trebs. You can't really take the gate, or acs, down against firebrands/tablet revs with them.

[Offair.2563]

> @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > @"Dawdler.8521"

> > >

> > > What relevant changes did HoT make in this area other than cratering WvW population while we all went to build guild halls?

> > >

> > > There's a temporary invuln for walls, guild cata cost was increased...and that's it? I'm pretty sure break-in time ratios are shorter now than pre-HoT, though with half the siege placed it's ultimately slower in some cases.

> > >

> > ... because that's when they completely revamped WvW and introduced the automatic objective upgrade system. Then they added guild hall buffs on top of that, which boosted defenses and boosted upgrade speeds (packed and speedy dollys for example).

> >

> > TL;DR T3 everywhere.

>

> Whilst this is true, they also removed the 5(?) minute automatic waypoint-available-whilst-objective-contested so-called "bug" and replaced it with a 30 minute EWP waypoint that trolls/spies could trigger.

>

> Meaning fewer fights inside objectives.

 

3 min it was, on the repel attackers event. Waypoint opened for 2-3 seconds inbetween them.

[jul.7602]

The reason why you don't get many inside structure fights is because

 

1)Besieging an upgraded tower or keep is based almost entirely on logistics rather than skill of the attackers vs skill of the defenders, and the logistical requirement of attacking is monumentally more difficult for the attackers, and that is doubled for inner towers near keeps, and triple for keeps adjacent to spawn. Against a remotely competent defending force, the supply requirements alone for breaching a tower (outside of ninja tactics which are obsolete nowadays due to watch tower) easily excludes any sub 15 man group without a commander. Too illustrate, read below for a selection of the "typical" assault strategies for breaching towers, not necessarily ordered by success probability. Here I assume the average player holds 15 supply (and no, trust me, most pugs do not have max supply mastery+full keep resupply even when ordered to do by commander), perfect execution and that no siege has to be rebuilt, no supply draining from trebs or traps.

 

Minimal/non existent siege levels= Either no siege prebuilt, or at most two arrow carts.

Moderate siege level= At least two arrow carts, likely some form of backdoor cata or treb.

High levels of siege= Multiple Arrows carts in unreachable locations, Guaranteed at least 1 door treb/cata and likely treb/mortar fire support from keep, likely one person trying to disable siege.

 

 

 

Non inner, T0/T1 towers in ebg with minimal or non-existent levels of siege

-2 superior flame rams (100 supply): 6.66 players required: 4 people defending siege

-3 superior catas (150 supply): minimum 10 players required: 7 people defending siege

 

Non inner T2 towers in EBG with moderate levels of siege

-At least 3 superior flame rams+ 1 shield generator (200+ supply): 13 required players: 9 players defending siege

-At least 4 superior catas, + 1 shield generator. (200+ supply): 13 required players: 9 players defending siege

 

Non inner t3 towers in EBG with high levels of siege

-At least 4 superior flames + 2 shield gens (300 supply): 20 required players: 14 players defending siege

-at least 5 superior catas + 2 shield gens (350 supply): 23 required players: 16 players defending siege

 

Inner towers of EBG, T3, with high levels of siege

-At least 4 flame rams+3 shield gens (350 supply) 23 required players: 16 players defending siege

-At least 6 superior catas with 2 shield gens (400 supply) 26 required players: 20 players defending siege

 

T2/T3 keeps with high levels of siege

-8 guild golems+2 shield generators: (500 supply): 33 players : 22 players defending siege

-8 superior flame rams+4 shield gens (600 supply): 40 players: 28 players defending siege

! Minimal opportunities to resupply, difficult to reinforce as players will quickly reseal gate.

 

These are very rough estimates with perfect execution. It is likely that some siege will need to be replaced during the assault, or that pugs will not immediately build requiring even more supply, supply trap/poison trebs reducing attacking supply and making logistics more difficult. T0/T1 are reasonable enough to take, but often people don't care enough to defend them anyway, so even if you do breach the tower you're probably not getting a fight there anyway. T2 towers are substantially more difficult to take, and are exponentially more likely to be defended, and rarely taken without some form of commander. Inner T2 towers are noticeably more difficult due to keep siege fire and almost certainly require 2 shield gens to prevent your siege from being destroyed. T3 towers are almost always have tactics, relatively impossible to ninja or speed blitz, and require a more drawn out siege than T2 towers, especially for inner towers. Presence of multiple ACS make it frustrating to build and operate siege, and necessitate several shield generates. Failure to build shield gens, or to protect them disables leaves the rams highly vunlerable to disables or backdoor trebs which will quickly decimate them. Replacing the siege set up is generally not possible and requires the attackers to leave, allowing the defenders to quickly repair everything with keep imported supply. Future attacks are generally off the table as the defenders are on high alert.

 

Keep assaults, especially home keeps are at least twice as difficult logistically, are more prone to tactical errors, and are rarely taken by surprise. Reinforcements with supply and manpower are easily cut off by 2 random defenders resealing the breach, necessitating another mini game of besieging except incoming reinforcements are unlikely to be coordinated by a tag and often just sit mindlessly outside the fortifications. In the unlikely event that the attackers actually breached the inner defenses, they will now have the privilege of fighting the enemy zerg with a 200+ all stat bonus (which is another tier above ascended), likely underneath more siege scattered about the interior of the keep. Provided that they wipe the majority of the defenders, they will now have spend at least 5 standing together in a ball doing a DPS benchmark on a lord with PvE World Boss levels worth of health. In this time, the defenders have resealed all breaches, making it virtually impossible to reinforce, and have rallied the entire server onto the map. This force is most likely even larger than one you fought before, and you're missing at least 20% of your force due to earlier casualties, half of which refuse to respawn and the other respawned half and mindlessly staring at the outer walls that have been fully repaired to 60%.

 

At this point, forum readers could say that a "fight" is now imminent between attackers and defenders. Instead 60+ people magically appear out of nowhere using the gate teleport, bumrush your zerg, of which a quarter are instant wiped because they were focusing on the nigh immortal lord, and the rest of the players quickly cut down. I hope the 40 minutes you spent sieging the keep was worth 3 minutes of fighting.If you somehow survive this push, the fight will drag out even longer with enemy defenders zombieing from the nearby waypoint, clouding your zerg and building arrow carts on walls, while your still trying to kill the lord whose healthbar reads "70%", and another zerg regrouping outside to push you again.

 

Long story short, for there to be fights within the structures, people have to be able to break through the structures in the first place, and have a reasonable chance of winning the fight in the lords room. I've never seen an era in this game where assaulting a keep is this cancerous. They may have made walls/gates weaker, but overall things are just as hard if not more difficult due to the stupidly high amount of lord HP scaling which is basically another "3rd gate".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Svarty.8019]

> @"CrimsonNeonite.1048" said:

> We have plenty of keep fights on Deso too, we had a 3 way fight on Tuesday night in Garrison which was intense, with skill lag included.

>

ONE FIGHT? On Tuesday?! That's nearly a week ago!

[XenesisII.1540]

Meanwhile in t4...

 


 

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

> @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > @"CrimsonNeonite.1048" said:

> > We have plenty of keep fights on Deso too, we had a 3 way fight on Tuesday night in Garrison which was intense, with skill lag included.

> >

> ONE FIGHT? On Tuesday?! That's nearly a week ago!

 

We've also fought DL, which you've also run into previously and tried attacking their keeps and towers, which are usually heavily sieged.

 

They have the numbers to defend and push, but sometimes it's an easy flip or long futile siege, until we call it a night, as you cannot sustain under well sieged keeps, unless all the siege is reachable.

[Ubi.4136]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> People seems to have forgotten why the "super-super weak" walls exist.

>

> It was because HoT and the guild hall changes buffing defenses to **COMPLETE INSANITY** and made objectives impregnable, grinding WvW to a complete halt. It was by **community request** that the cost of siege was reduced, their damage upped and the double-whammy armour on walls removed. Because we didnt want to siege like that. We wanted to go back to pre-HoT WvW. And its still not even close.

 

It was a small, vocal minority that requested the wall change. To take a T3 tower, was 45 seconds from siege drop to lord dead BEFORE the nerf. The ktrain (gem buying, bandwagon) crowd said that was too long to take things so it got nerfed. Now, a T3 tower can be flipped in 25 seconds from siege drop to lord dead, and that is just ridiculous. Not to mention the walls are designed in such a way that the attacker can use every skill, but the defender can respawn. Bandwagon blobs fight doors/walls and groups half their size. This is what we are left with.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> Meanwhile in t4...

>

> 

>

 

Yeah, I logged into that tonight, tried to run with [HELL] like I do on Saturday nights, and made it maybe 40 minutes before I apologized and noped back out to another crap chapter in the crap saga of Ryland the Baby with Abandonment Issues and his boss, Bangar the Delusional.

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > People seems to have forgotten why the "super-super weak" walls exist.

> >

> > It was because HoT and the guild hall changes buffing defenses to **COMPLETE INSANITY** and made objectives impregnable, grinding WvW to a complete halt. It was by **community request** that the cost of siege was reduced, their damage upped and the double-whammy armour on walls removed. Because we didnt want to siege like that. We wanted to go back to pre-HoT WvW. And its still not even close.

>

> It was a small, vocal minority that requested the wall change. To take a T3 tower, was 45 seconds from siege drop to lord dead BEFORE the nerf. The ktrain (gem buying, bandwagon) crowd said that was too long to take things so it got nerfed. Now, a T3 tower can be flipped in 25 seconds from siege drop to lord dead, and that is just ridiculous. Not to mention the walls are designed in such a way that the attacker can use every skill, but the defender can respawn. Bandwagon blobs fight doors/walls and groups half their size. This is what we are left with.

 

Small groups can't do anything, that's why you get this blobbing up, lag and the rest of it. To counter the blobs, other Worlds have to get the entire mappop on the tag and people wonder why server performance disappears down a black hole. The developers engineered a situation where giant zergs carrying oodles of supply benefit most because they can drop infinite siege AND shield generators (omg remove them PLEASE).

 

The whole game has been inadvertently focused on giganticism and the outcome is that people won't care as much about objectives because the best way to defend is to roll over the attackers with a zerg. This means why bother building defences at all? Just leave it all tier one and focus on steamrolling enemy zergs. It's the best way to play the game especially when Arenanet incentivised it via PPK reward, and if the enemy zerg is dead, it can't stop your stuff automatically upgrading to Tier 3.

 

So WvW's best tactic is 1. form giant robot, 2. have scouts looking for enemy zerg, 3. roll over it with voltron. Repeat until ragequit, PvE what's left. Leave scouts around ganking ppl. Log off until the enemy reappears.

 

It's a shambles, and won't fix itself. It REQUIRES developer intervention. :( Which will never happen.

 

[300 years later]

" .... and that's why WvW died."

[Ubi.4136]

> @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > @"Ubi.4136" said:

> > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > People seems to have forgotten why the "super-super weak" walls exist.

> > >

> > > It was because HoT and the guild hall changes buffing defenses to **COMPLETE INSANITY** and made objectives impregnable, grinding WvW to a complete halt. It was by **community request** that the cost of siege was reduced, their damage upped and the double-whammy armour on walls removed. Because we didnt want to siege like that. We wanted to go back to pre-HoT WvW. And its still not even close.

> >

> > It was a small, vocal minority that requested the wall change. To take a T3 tower, was 45 seconds from siege drop to lord dead BEFORE the nerf. The ktrain (gem buying, bandwagon) crowd said that was too long to take things so it got nerfed. Now, a T3 tower can be flipped in 25 seconds from siege drop to lord dead, and that is just ridiculous. Not to mention the walls are designed in such a way that the attacker can use every skill, but the defender can respawn. Bandwagon blobs fight doors/walls and groups half their size. This is what we are left with.

>

> Small groups can't do anything, that's why you get this blobbing up, lag and the rest of it. To counter the blobs, other Worlds have to get the entire mappop on the tag and people wonder why server performance disappears down a black hole. The developers engineered a situation where giant zergs carrying oodles of supply benefit most because they can drop infinite siege AND shield generators (omg remove them PLEASE).

>

> The whole game has been inadvertently focused on giganticism and the outcome is that people won't care as much about objectives because the best way to defend is to roll over the attackers with a zerg. This means why bother building defences at all? Just leave it all tier one and focus on steamrolling enemy zergs. It's the best way to play the game especially when Arenanet incentivised it via PPK reward, and if the enemy zerg is dead, it can't stop your stuff automatically upgrading to Tier 3.

>

> So WvW's best tactic is 1. form giant robot, 2. have scouts looking for enemy zerg, 3. roll over it with voltron. Repeat until ragequit, PvE what's left. Leave scouts around ganking ppl. Log off until the enemy reappears.

>

> It's a shambles, and won't fix itself. It REQUIRES developer intervention. :( Which will never happen.

>

> [300 years later]

> " .... and that's why WvW died."

 

Yep, that describes it all right.

[XenesisII.1540]

Think I'm gonna need a little more convincing as to why we should weaken walls and upgrades more...

 


 

 

 

 

[Svarty.8019]

That's> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> Think I'm gonna need a little more convincing as to why we should weaken walls and upgrades more...

 

With all due respect, that's not the topic. The topic is;

 

**Inner walls and gates should be made much tougher than outer walls.**

 

You can infer all of the appropriate information that I am implying here. Look, it doesn't affect towers, so small scale guys can still ninja stuff, but with tough inner walls, there can be more interesting fights INSIDE structures with potential defenders actually being able to (at least) arrive at the keep/castle before it is captured, for once.