Kapax.3801 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Currently the WP are easy to block, you just have to approach a guard to alert everyone and block the WP. The castle, for example, spends the most time attacked, but also blocks the fortress guards only by attacking them. My idea is that the WP will be blocked if they manage to lower it 5% to a wall or internal door. Otherwise then remove it and add another reward for getting a fortress or castle to T3, since it has no strategy to have a WP that is easy to block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 I wonder if you might want to rephrase the question. Aren't you objecting to how easy it is to put swords on a keep, rather than the waypoints themselves? The waypoints are useful in all sorts of ways independent of defending the keep itself, including getting troops to other areas, making it easier for roamers to roam, and providing quick supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyra.4709 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Fairly neutral regarding this topic but I see it pop up now and again... players have debated in the past that the following would be suitable options regarding _contested_ objective WP's: The WP only becomes contested (inaccessible) if (no particular order, _any one_ option(s) applicable): * Damage is done to the wall/gate (starting at ~3-7%) * Damage is done to objects such as cannons/mortars/oil (starting at ~5-10%) * Use of _siege damage_ on any attackable NPC/object/gate/wall etc * Killing a _player_ within the objective's event radius As it currently stands, merely _tagging_ an NPC/gate etc to proc the contested WP's is a valid tactic; roamers in particular utilise it to cut off enemy forces from approaching sooner than expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @Zephyra.4709 said: > Fairly neutral regarding this topic but I see it pop up now and again... players have debated in the past that the following would be suitable options regarding _contested_ objective WP's: > > The WP only becomes contested (inaccessible) if (no particular order, _any one_ option(s) applicable): > > * Damage is done to the wall/gate (starting at ~3-7%) > * Damage is done to objects such as cannons/mortars/oil (starting at ~5-10%) > * Use of _siege damage_ on any attackable NPC/object/gate/wall etc > * Killing a _player_ within the objective's event radius > > As it currently stands, merely _tagging_ an NPC/gate etc to proc the contested WP's is a valid tactic; roamers in particular utilise it to cut off enemy forces from approaching sooner than expected. You only have to aggro the npcs in order to contst it. I feel like the only thing that should contest a keep is siege damage to walls & gates edit: also to OP you might wanna change your poll options to more neutral alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapax.3801 Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 The problem is that it is not necessary to kill the guards, just by attacking them without killing them or attracting them is enough to block the WP. So there I see an error and it goes against the "nature" of WvW. What they should do is block it when there is a real attack, not a false alarm ... Another idea would be to decrease the blocking time and if the guards are constantly attacked or attack the walls but without destroying it, the WP ingore attacks for 10 min or more and only blocks when they are already inside the fort or castle. I mean, do not take advantage of this either and use this method of attacking the outer guards just to block the WP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbon.9086 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 what is "WP"? this acronym just sounds like waypoint to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunter.3795 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Posting only two answer options limits objectivity when they are not just yes/no. A "yes, they're fine" and a "no, they're not needed" would have been fine or if you wanted more input you could have included 2 more possible answers with yes/no and "but I have an idea". Like it is now, the poll is biased. Personally the way they currently operate is fine with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X T D.6458 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said: > > @Zephyra.4709 said: > > Fairly neutral regarding this topic but I see it pop up now and again... players have debated in the past that the following would be suitable options regarding _contested_ objective WP's: > > > > The WP only becomes contested (inaccessible) if (no particular order, _any one_ option(s) applicable): > > > > * Damage is done to the wall/gate (starting at ~3-7%) > > * Damage is done to objects such as cannons/mortars/oil (starting at ~5-10%) > > * Use of _siege damage_ on any attackable NPC/object/gate/wall etc > > * Killing a _player_ within the objective's event radius > > > > As it currently stands, merely _tagging_ an NPC/gate etc to proc the contested WP's is a valid tactic; roamers in particular utilise it to cut off enemy forces from approaching sooner than expected. > > You only have to aggro the npcs in order to contst it. > > I feel like the only thing that should contest a keep is siege damage to walls & gates > > edit: > also to OP you might wanna change your poll options to more neutral alternatives. This would not be helpful, because if a group under 25 has already broken inside and is fighting the lord swords would not be reapplied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapax.3801 Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @Bunter.3795 said: > Posting only two answer options limits objectivity when they are not just yes/no. A "yes, they're fine" and a "no, they're not needed" would have been fine or if you wanted more input you could have included 2 more possible answers with yes/no and "but I have an idea". Like it is now, the poll is biased. > > Personally the way they currently operate is fine with me. That is a yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPanda.1872 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @Dawdler.8521 said: > Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option? This isn't even an option. It is the one and only truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodOfDeath.5247 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @ThunderPanda.1872 said: > > @Dawdler.8521 said: > > Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option? > > This isn't even an option. It is the one and only truth. I don't know...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapax.3801 Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 life is easier if you just have to choose yes or no. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerby.1069 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 this thread makes no sense. you have a very clear title and poll here but then you have ur own opinion piece about an idea......so it could be interpretted, as written, as being either ur new idea or no waypoint at all. In other words the results here could mean just about anything.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 > @Dawdler.8521 said: > Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option? More like why did they even change it in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 for now, it is good as it is. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now