WvW restructure will fail if you do not balance defensive power

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Rampage.7145" said:

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

> > > > All that being said, if shield gens were removed, we'd see more towers and keeps being opened. Regardless of how far along they upgraded.

> > >

> > > Shield gens help attacked and defenders alike, it is the only thing attackers can do to sustain AC fire too while hitting a door, in my opinion they work better offensive than defensive, usually defensive shield gens are very easy to take out

> >

> > Isn't that the truth lol. Hate shields gens...

> >

> > So.. Not trying to be a kitten... Why are people dropping catas within AC range or Ballista range? Catas Damage per second is just as high from range as it is close up.... making the only effective defensive seige on a tower or keep a mortar (easily bubbled by catas) catas on the wall of a structure, or trebs.. both of which can be nullified in most cases.

> >

> > It also forces them to come out to kill the seige.

>

> how do you assault inner SMC for example tho? with no shields u would never make it

 

Ahh.. sry., have no interest in SMC, but you are right. Trebs and cats would be worthless.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"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.

[Aeolus.3615]

IMO player still need more information on what Anet pretends to do with WvW, we just know they will change to alliances nothing more.

 

Anet dont want keeps to be defendable, even nowadays keeps arent 100% defendable that just means guild/server dont know the gimick to take it or they are lacking siege and numbers.

 

If 1 server is super stacked in one keep defending it is good, it means a small group can ktrain other structures while the main group forces the blob to burn supply, in wich after that is just a mater of time and return to cap a empty keep.

Some keeps can be trebbed iiner and outer from 1 spot, that help extremelly, gettind players on wall de defend, it is a self kill for the defenders as well.

Also it is possible to take t3 structures down under 1 minute arround 40seconds, wich is what will gona start happening, with the new WvW, 1 mega blob on each side.... drop 10-15 catas or 10 trebs.

 

The current map design and number of maps will have the need to be adressed as well sooner of later.

If not this changes wont do a thing.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> > > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > > Literally the only problem is Arrow Carts.

> > >

> > > Everything else is solved by their weakening or outright removal.

> > > -Doors become easier to assault.

> > > -Enemies actually have to leave the walls, or get up on them, to kill the catas.

> > > -Fighting inside a place like inner Bay stops becoming a meat grinder when there isn't a 1k+ death zone from a single cart that costs 30 supply.

> >

> > yes, this. I think the only thing that needs to be done is to tone down the # of targets.

> > trebs downing walls from halfway across the map isn't helpful either. I get that this is one of the few ways a smaller server can cap stuff but if the bigger server does it as well (which they do) then its more of a benefit for them imo. if youre the smaller server I think its wiser to just split up, which I know rarely happens. idk man. 1st world problems eh?

>

> Trebs give value to towers beyond simply being supply depots with walls.

>

> It really all just comes down to arrow carts still being ludicrously overpowered ever since they first buffed them years ago.

 

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

 

classes hitting above 10-15k to 20k... balanced...

 

 

Every one just want to ktrain, get carried with AOE spam and stacking, while QQ about if the stuctures Anet made kidna easy to cap need some effort... typical mentality of gw2 player.

[Israel.7056]

> @"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.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"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.

[Israel.7056]

> @"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.

[Tiawal.2351]

WvW restructure won't fail for any of these reasons. Many things needs changed, fixed, tweaked, improved, but restructure is about populations, not siege, maps, skill balance and so on.

[Baldrick.8967]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Rampage.7145" said:

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

> > > > All that being said, if shield gens were removed, we'd see more towers and keeps being opened. Regardless of how far along they upgraded.

> > >

> > > Shield gens help attacked and defenders alike, it is the only thing attackers can do to sustain AC fire too while hitting a door, in my opinion they work better offensive than defensive, usually defensive shield gens are very easy to take out

> >

> > Isn't that the truth lol. Hate shields gens...

> >

> > So.. Not trying to be a kitten... Why are people dropping catas within AC range or Ballista range? Catas Damage per second is just as high from range as it is close up.... making the only effective defensive seige on a tower or keep a mortar (easily bubbled by catas) catas on the wall of a structure, or trebs.. both of which can be nullified in most cases.

> >

> > It also forces them to come out to kill the seige.

>

> how do you assault inner SMC for example tho? with no shields u would never make it

 

Is that a serious question? You really have no clue how to open inner SMC? First off, take the time to wipe all outer siege, then wipe any cannons off second floor. Ignore a/cs up there, they won't affect you, or take them out too. Build a couple ballistas to discourage them doing the same- you can also kill most badly placed shields this way Then build catas where they cannot be hit but can hit the inner gate. If that's too hard for you, build trebs in certain locations and treb down the gates (see bit about ballistas to counter any counter trebs..), using cows to drain supplies from enemies and also wiping any siege they try and build to defend.

 

Hey presto, inner SM open. Worried about siege inside lord room? wipe it with a ballista or two. Or run upstairs and wipe it that way. Then it's a numbers game and your 'for the fights' group should win easily.

 

I'm guessing your the type of commander that will stand on a choke point with ten + WoD ready and a full 50 and then complain when the other side doesn't fall for that and instead builds a couple ballistas to force you into open space...it's a battleground, don't expect people to be dumb and not use tactics to defeat such an obvious ploy.

 

It is literally impossible to defend any structure with even vaguely similar numbers for any length of time because it takes a lot less supply to assault then it does to defend and repair walls. It's a matter of time and tactics.

 

Of course, if you just rush to the gate every time and build 6 sup rams and a couple shield gens then yes, I can see that you would have problems taking it.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Tiawal.2351" said:

> WvW restructure won't fail for any of these reasons. Many things needs changed, fixed, tweaked, improved, but restructure is about populations, not siege, maps, skill balance and so on.

 

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"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.

 

 

I kinda agree with you, but by the other hand siege could be fun if Anet knew how to make stuff fun, not the siege that Anet wants to work, the current one is all about gimmick and stack (lmao, sadly like evertthing built for lamers in this game....).

The strucutres design and placements are really stupid to start with this one IMO one of the reason WvW kinda fails, that needs to change as well before any change to siege, it is extremelly easy to melt a t3 walls 30-40 seconds are more than enough, if u want just the players on the offensive to have siege...

[Baldrick.8967]

quote; 'and at the very least 10 can forestall a blob for anywhere from several minutes'

 

OMG! They slowed down your k-train by 'several minutes'. OMG!

 

Clearly, you just want to k-train. I'm sorry we don't just open the doors and let your 50 man k-train runs straight in, grab your shinies and move to the next shiny.

 

Perhaps we should just make a map with shiny collection spots without any defences at all where you just run past and collect your shinies?

 

/obvious sarcasm^

 

I don't find AC damage OP- but then again, I don't randomly stand in it from 5+ AC either without using any skills or having our fields going to negate the damage and /laugh at the defenders. If your group is dying to multiple AC fire then it's a L2P issue. I wonder how many people realise a treb has a massive water field button, or just stop thinking about skill rotations and stand staring at the gate waiting for it to go down, or just 1111 the gate whilst moaning that AC damage is 'too stronk'.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Back to the topic at hand, there are many things that need to happen

1. Skill splits from PVE

2. Specific balance tweaks to WvW skills

3. Skill tweaks that continue to reward cooperative play

4. Monthly balance 'tweaks' to assist with consistent gameplay enhancements

5. Tweaks to siege power both defensive and offensive.

6. Decreasing either the hp pool of structures or adding tactics to assist offensive commanders

 

Just to name some of my annoyances.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Strider Pj.2193

 

Your point 4 will be impossible :), while on 6 Anet can deacrease t3 healh but make walls larger.

Taking stuff with a blob will be jus 20-30seconds max... lol (if theres no defenders ofc)

 

Main alliances garri should mainain some certain hardness to increase effort on taking it.

And IMO , a new 7 point needs to be added, re-design maps for better suiting the game mode changes.

 

[Hackuuna.4085]

> @"Baldrick.8967" said:

> quote; 'and at the very least 10 can forestall a blob for anywhere from several minutes'

>

> OMG! They slowed down your k-train by 'several minutes'. OMG!

>

> Clearly, you just want to k-train. I'm sorry we don't just open the doors and let your 50 man k-train runs straight in, grab your shinies and move to the next shiny.

>

> Perhaps we should just make a map with shiny collection spots without any defences at all where you just run past and collect your shinies?

>

> /obvious sarcasm^

>

> I don't find AC damage OP- but then again, I don't randomly stand in it from 5+ AC either without using any skills or having our fields going to negate the damage and /laugh at the defenders. If your group is dying to multiple AC fire then it's a L2P issue. I wonder how many people realise a treb has a massive water field button, or just stop thinking about skill rotations and stand staring at the gate waiting for it to go down, or just 1111 the gate whilst moaning that AC damage is 'too stronk'.

 

A giant water field is not going to mitigate the 2.6k dps that a single AC is firing. A treb that is shooting a water field instead of shooting the ACs is a complete failure of a trebber.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Hackuuna.4085 if u are glass to get that much of a damage.... dodge and get out of AC range....

 

in that case the treb should be aoe hitting the siege and no players should be under AC's shower, in case of siege and top wall being covered with SG, trebs aoe splash can hit both shield then and wall just trick the guy in the SG with the treb range.

[OhHellzNo.1268]

IMO it comes down to this, aggressors should be rewarded in WVW. Because they are the ones that drive activity. The combination of

 

1. Automatic Upgrades

2. Dead time zones where automatic upgrades create a lot of T3 structures

3. Power of siege

 

make it so defenders are rewarded. Don't promote passive gameplay.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"OhHellzNo.1268" said:

> IMO it comes down to this, aggressors should be rewarded in WVW. Because they are the ones that drive activity. The combination of

>

> 1. Automatic Upgrades

> 2. Dead time zones where automatic upgrades create a lot of T3 structures

> 3. Power of siege

>

> make it so defenders are rewarded. Don't promote passive gameplay.

 

Number 2. Should be minimized with the upcoming changes.

[Optimator.3589]

I agree with the OP 100% here. Fighting enemy players for objectives is fun. Fighting 3000 ACs while battering through a T3 door, dealing with SI, siege disablers, etc is just tedious and annoying. The amount of time it takes to break through T3 fortifications is insane, and it gives the enemy far too large of a time window to get a giant blob in position. They can then man all the siege and wipe the attrition-depleted attacking force as they finally break through inner.

 

Defending should give some tactical advantage. It shouldn't make gameplay annoying AF. I guess where you fall on this issue depends on whether you're a fighter or a PPT lord.

[Drinks.2361]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"OhHellzNo.1268" said:

> > IMO it comes down to this, aggressors should be rewarded in WVW. Because they are the ones that drive activity. The combination of

> >

> > 1. Automatic Upgrades

> > 2. Dead time zones where automatic upgrades create a lot of T3 structures

> > 3. Power of siege

> >

> > make it so defenders are rewarded. Don't promote passive gameplay.

>

> Number 2. Should be minimized with the upcoming changes.

 

We hope, but I'm not sure there is even enough players during dead times to spread out across all match ups & make them populated. Anet might just end up having to do the best they can for the off hour player's enjoyment & stack them all into one or two matchups leaving the other matches with true dead time zones.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"OhHellzNo.1268" said:

> > > IMO it comes down to this, aggressors should be rewarded in WVW. Because they are the ones that drive activity. The combination of

> > >

> > > 1. Automatic Upgrades

> > > 2. Dead time zones where automatic upgrades create a lot of T3 structures

> > > 3. Power of siege

> > >

> > > make it so defenders are rewarded. Don't promote passive gameplay.

> >

> > Number 2. Should be minimized with the upcoming changes.

>

> We hope, but I'm not sure there is even enough players during dead times to spread out across all match ups & make them populated. Anet might just end up having to do the best they can for the off hour player's enjoyment & stack them all into one or two matchups leaving the other matches with true dead time zones.

 

Which leads to an inherent problem: buying guilds to cover time zones for your alliance. But... that exists now so..

[Botinhas.2018]

The biggest problem isn't even smaller groups being able to defend vs bigger groups attacking. It's when the defending group is twice the size of the attacking group and have more siege on the walls than the attackers have numbers... That is the biggest issue with WvW design as it is, and that's the reason more and more people and guilds leave the game. There was a time where you would fight 30v60 for hours on end, but now, if those 60 lose 1 fight, they will find confort behind big walls with dozens of siege and a smaller in size group no matter how skilled won't be able to take it if the defenders have the bare minimum knowledge of siege placement

Mentality in WvW is changing and with our without alliances, in the end, siege will always win

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Botinhas.2018" said:

> The biggest problem isn't even smaller groups being able to defend vs bigger groups attacking. It's when the defending group is twice the size of the attacking group and have more siege on the walls than the attackers have numbers... That is the biggest issue with WvW design as it is, and that's the reason more and more people and guilds leave the game. There was a time where you would fight 30v60 for hours on end, but now, if those 60 lose 1 fight, they will find confort behind big walls with dozens of siege and a smaller in size group no matter how skilled won't be able to take it if the defenders have the bare minimum knowledge of siege placement

> Mentality in WvW is changing and with our without alliances, in the end, siege will always win

>

 

Whiiichh. Is why the upcoming change so numbers will be closer.

 

Here is an idea: create an offensive tactic that launches any and all defenders behind a wall over said wall into the nearest open field. Fall damage included.

 

Otherwise, if 60 won't come to it to fight 30, breaking won't mean crap. They are going to WP to spawn or another map once you are in.

[Botinhas.2018]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

>

> Whiiichh. Is why the upcoming change so numbers will be closer.

>

> Here is an idea: create an offensive tactic that launches any and all defenders behind a wall over said wall into the nearest open field. Fall damage included.

>

> Otherwise, if 60 won't come to it to fight 30, breaking won't mean crap. They are going to WP to spawn or another map once you are in.

 

Numbers of what? One server having 100 ppl online at said time wont mean other will have also 100. It's all about if guild raiding or not, if commander online or not. The upcoming changes won't fix anything regarding matchmaking or population, since we all know a lot of ppl like to just "have wvw active time" to get dailies/pips and no algorithm is gona fix that. It's just a more fancy way and cheap way of link servers.

No offensive tactic can force a defensive force to come fight an offensive force, everything is countarable, and with the shield gens, everything can be even "prevented" Use gens+ac's+trebs and the defender will stay confortably inside

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Botinhas.2018" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> >

> > Whiiichh. Is why the upcoming change so numbers will be closer.

> >

> > Here is an idea: create an offensive tactic that launches any and all defenders behind a wall over said wall into the nearest open field. Fall damage included.

> >

> > Otherwise, if 60 won't come to it to fight 30, breaking won't mean crap. They are going to WP to spawn or another map once you are in.

>

> Numbers of what? One server having 100 ppl online at said time wont mean other will have also 100. It's all about if guild raiding or not, if commander online or not. The upcoming changes won't fix anything regarding matchmaking or population, since we all know a lot of ppl like to just "have wvw active time" to get dailies/pips and no algorithm is gona fix that. It's just a more fancy way and cheap way of link servers.

> No offensive tactic can force a defensive force to come fight an offensive force, everything is countarable, and with the shield gens, everything can be even "prevented" Use gens+ac's+trebs and the defender will stay confortably inside

>

 

Yep. Agreed.

 

And? What then?

[Botinhas.2018]

No matter what alliance you are part of, you can be placed in a World which you might have no similiarities with. Which pretty much can make it straight up worse than as it is now, since at least now, you already shaped up or got used to the server the past 5y, or you can transfer away in extreme cases. With new system you will have to endure a whole season since you won't be able to transfer alliances/guilds over.