Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > 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. > 8 weeks..... it's not forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botinhas.2018 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > 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. > > > > 8 weeks..... it's not forever. Assuming after those 8 weeks you don't get replaced with the same or an even worse one... 2 months is enough to make people stop playing the game. I play cause i have fun playing, if i am forced to endure something that gives me no fun for 8 weeks, then why play at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > > 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. > > > > > > > 8 weeks..... it's not forever. > > Assuming after those 8 weeks you don't get replaced with the same or an even worse one... 2 months is enough to make people stop playing the game. I play cause i have fun playing, if i am forced to endure something that gives me no fun for 8 weeks, then why play at all? That risk exists now with links. And transfers.... Given your feelings about siege and the mode, is this the right one for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botinhas.2018 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 8 weeks..... it's not forever. > > > > Assuming after those 8 weeks you don't get replaced with the same or an even worse one... 2 months is enough to make people stop playing the game. I play cause i have fun playing, if i am forced to endure something that gives me no fun for 8 weeks, then why play at all? > > That risk exists now with links. And transfers.... > > Given your feelings about siege and the mode, is this the right one for you? It doesn't, host servers have their own "comunity mentality" and any1 on a link server disliking it, can always hop to a server that shares similiriaties with You seem to have issues reading or interpreting my posts above if you have to ask that question or even "understanding" my feelings. I'll let you have your lollypop and end this useless debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euryon.9248 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"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.. When push comes to shove, I wonder if serious alliances are really going to waste precious alliance spots on 'buying' off-time guilds. Servers certainly can afford to do that now. Alliances...I have my doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Botinhas.2018" said: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8 weeks..... it's not forever. > > > > > > Assuming after those 8 weeks you don't get replaced with the same or an even worse one... 2 months is enough to make people stop playing the game. I play cause i have fun playing, if i am forced to endure something that gives me no fun for 8 weeks, then why play at all? > > > > That risk exists now with links. And transfers.... > > > > Given your feelings about siege and the mode, is this the right one for you? > > It doesn't, host servers have their own "comunity mentality" and any1 on a link server disliking it, can always hop to a server that shares similiriaties with > > You seem to have issues reading or interpreting my posts above if you have to ask that question or even "understanding" my feelings. I'll let you have your lollypop and end this useless debate. Thank you for the lollipop. I'll pass it along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurnshadow.3678 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 If you're such a veteran, then you should remember what GW2 was like when there was a much larger population. At that time, it was more rare for keeps to be T3. Why? Because it was hard to upgrade. That's because camps were constantly being flipped, dolyaks were always being killed, and if people saw that a keep was going to upgrade to T3, then it would get focused before that happens. Conversely, if defenders were able to upgrade their keep to T3 by harrassing their enemies to draw them away, try to encourage a 2v1 by hitting an enemy's tower or weakening their keep on the third servers side, protecting camps and yaks, then they should be rewarded for it. For the last few years, population has been so low that off hour capping is standard even in T1. And off hours are throughout the day, not just one dead time zone. So we're constantly being faced with T3 structures. That's unhealthy. I think this change that Anet is proposing will bring population levels back to level of the first few years if they increase the current population cap, which is way lower than it used to be. This will provide a lot more action across all time zones making those T3 structures more rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Spurnshadow.3678" said: > If you're such a veteran, then you should remember what GW2 was like when there was a much larger population. At that time, it was more rare for keeps to be T3. Why? Because it was hard to upgrade. That's because camps were constantly being flipped, dolyaks were always being killed, and if people saw that a keep was going to upgrade to T3, then it would get focused before that happens. > > Conversely, if defenders were able to upgrade their keep to T3 by harrassing their enemies to draw them away, try to encourage a 2v1 by hitting an enemy's tower or weakening their keep on the third servers side, protecting camps and yaks, then they should be rewarded for it. > > For the last few years, population has been so low that off hour capping is standard even in T1. And off hours are throughout the day, not just one dead time zone. So we're constantly being faced with T3 structures. That's unhealthy. I think this change that Anet is proposing will bring population levels back to level of the first few years if they increase the current population cap, which is way lower than it used to be. This will provide a lot more action across all time zones making those T3 structures more rare. Population is a problem for sure, yet this is why i made this post, this stupid ammount of defensive addons made many commanders quit over the years and that progresivelly made WvW the mess we all know today. The whole post just wants to point out that this will inevitably happen again (even after worlds change), hence why the name of the post. The whole post is about how to prevent this from happening, from an experienced commander perspective, commanders are the heart of WvW, zergs are the blood sure a body needs many other things to work (scouts, guilds, defenders, havok, etc) but with no blood and something keeping it flowing, a body just cannot work. In my opinion if they just change the matchmaking sure WvW will feel more alive but the core issues that made dozens of commanders and guilds quit over the years will not be fixed, and inevitably the game mode will die, this post just wants to correct that so instead if bleeding players left and right we actually get new/returning players from other games and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukish.5784 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Choose A or B. A. Take additional months to fix such issues to release new WvW. B.Wait till Arena Net Developpers realize and fix over tuned of defensive tools atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blockhead Magee.3092 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Optimator.3589" said: > 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. Having a roughly even fight over a structure is a lot of fun. However, its rarely even numbers. That small 10 man group wants to hold onto a T3 structure that they spent time holding camps and escorting dollys for. That 50 man blob claims to only want fights - well guess what; there is no fight between 10 and 50. The 10 are only bags in waiting. Their only recourse is to use defensive siege to hold what they worked for. If you want fights - you're not going to get them by reducing defensive siege and ppting faster. Until the time zones have fairly even numbers, it'll always be a cat and mouse game between the PPT horde and the few defenders trying to hold on to what little they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Substance E.4852 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Aeolus.3615" said: > > @"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. 1.5k PER TICK on 2700 armor. Multiply that by the amount of carts hitting you. If you're tacking 10k in a single hit you need armor. Ya, it is too much. Play the "I'm a tough cool guy who likes trebbing walls for hours" card all you want but no one who doesn't turtle with siege actually likes carts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said: > If you want fights - you're not going to get them by reducing defensive siege and ppting faster. Until the time zones have fairly even numbers, it'll always be a cat and mouse game between the PPT horde and the few defenders trying to hold on to what little they have. uh I think you've got that backwards, or at least they're both guilty of ppt centricity, cuz why else would they defend? for teh glory of teh realm? lol no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeolus.3615 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 > @"Substance E.4852" said: > > @"Aeolus.3615" said: > > > @"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. > > 1.5k PER TICK on 2700 armor. Multiply that by the amount of carts hitting you. > > If you're tacking 10k in a single hit you need armor. > > Ya, it is too much. > > Play the "I'm a tough cool guy who likes trebbing walls for hours" card all you want but no one who doesn't turtle with siege actually likes carts. no..actually i need damage to kill targets before they kill me, and it is extremelly rare to get damage over 8k since i play bunker guard, i think the highest damage i get is from eles/weavers and maul from ranger with the opening atack, that did 16k on bunker stats :). on topic The issue is the amount of ac's on a single zone but that means siege needs to be limited and Anet have stated on the old forum they are not to cut freedom from players, when i sugested to add places on walls where siege can be built, more than 3-4 sup ac's is when u need to bail out or be more clever. When my/group surviability is at risk, it is a good moment to fall back from distance. I dont mind sup ac's damage being cutted, seriously i would not mind at all... Maybe armor can reduce damage from ac's better :X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threather.9354 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 My suggestion is: **Half the claim buff** (id prefer removing it completely but since it was pretty expensive to upgrade, it isnt an option). Getting in can be easy but fighting enemy with 800 extra stats that has siege built up holding choke and constant respawn + ewp isn't exactly balanced. I know people underestimate the difference between ascended and exotic stats but when you add in the presence of the keep, it becomes difference between ascended and rare gear.... And I agree fortified wall and gate health needs a nerf. Like 30% would be enough. Otherwise trebbing/cataing it even with 5 siege will take ages with all the shield gen bubbles etc.. The reasoning behind halfing/removing the claim buff is that: If the defending team manages to defend without too much extra stats, they can actually feel like they are better than the enemy... **So Defending will be more rewarding because the players will be more balanced, siege war will still be up to commanders/scouts** Overall people should be happy with the HoT changes for defending: **Cheaper siege, less supply requiring siege**, **way easier to upgrade**, **keep never empty of supply**, **tactics**, **shield gens** making trebs/catas/omegas useless, **Fortified Gates**, **stronger lords** and **Extra stats**. Now what did attackers get? Shield gens? Yay.. so balanced... **Remove the extra stats** and you can actually go in enemy keep just to **have statwise balanced fights under enemy siege**, 1 mortar wont ruin the fight at certain locations, but 800 extra stats will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odinens.5920 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Sorry, I would rather WvW not be ruined like WoW did to AV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 > @"Threather.9354" said: > My suggestion is: **Half the claim buff** (id prefer removing it completely but since it was pretty expensive to upgrade, it isnt an option). Getting in can be easy but fighting enemy with 800 extra stats that has siege built up holding choke and constant respawn + ewp isn't exactly balanced. > > I know people underestimate the difference between ascended and exotic stats but when you add in the presence of the keep, it becomes difference between ascended and rare gear.... > > And I agree fortified wall and gate health needs a nerf. Like 30% would be enough. Otherwise trebbing/cataing it even with 5 siege will take ages with all the shield gen bubbles etc.. > > The reasoning behind halfing/removing the claim buff is that: If the defending team manages to defend without too much extra stats, they can actually feel like they are better than the enemy... **So Defending will be more rewarding because the players will be more balanced, siege war will still be up to commanders/scouts** > > Overall people should be happy with the HoT changes for defending: **Cheaper siege, less supply requiring siege**, **way easier to upgrade**, **keep never empty of supply**, **tactics**, **shield gens** making trebs/catas/omegas useless, **Fortified Gates**, **stronger lords** and **Extra stats**. > > Now what did attackers get? Shield gens? Yay.. so balanced... > > **Remove the extra stats** and you can actually go in enemy keep just to **have statwise balanced fights under enemy siege**, 1 mortar wont ruin the fight at certain locations, but 800 extra stats will > I disagree i would fight blob vs blob with 800 less stats anyday over fighting arrowcarts that i cant even hit back, i mean defender have a ton of natural advantages with positioning (waypoint proximity advantage) extra stats, chokes and whatnot. And that is part of defending, game already benefits defenders a ton without the siege, and that is ok capturing a structure with a blob defending should be tough, but when u add the siege on top of that it just gets pretty boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant. Far more often in my experience of the day to day reality of wvw in t1+t2 is that map qs will turtle upgraded keeps and towers with 6+ acs ballis, cannons, trebs and mortars, ewps, structural invuln and guild auras. My basic rule of thumb for offensive attempts on upgraded keeps is as follows: if you're not through inner in 3 minutes you're probably not getting through inner. If you do get through inner and they're going to respond you are probably going to have to win two to three consecutive fights and kill the iron guards buffed lord without major reinforcements all while continually destroying siege. It does happen but offense is always at a massive disadvantage. So if you want to take something you have to be either very sneaky or very fast or both and that is why the most effective offensive pins I've ever followed or played against (Seph Wing, Zudo, CF, DK, Xushin) have all utilized some form of the "blitzkrieg" to take things consistently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blockhead Magee.3092 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant. > Your observation and mine (both anecdotal) are totally different. More often than not, when I play early afternoon in T2-T4 over the last few years, we've been the outnumbered (buff and all) group facing a blob at the gates. Hardly an infrequent occurrence. -------------------------- Anything five or six of us venture out to take is either immediately overrun by the blob to defend it or they just mow the paper structure over. Our only way to engage them is via the siege on a fortified structure. No random group outnumbered 3 to 1 or more can stand toe to with the opposition. The blob sure isn't breaking apart for a more even 'fight' (and I don't blame them). Nobody should be out looking for 'fights' on outnumbered maps. Sadly, I see people in the forums say that's all they want but watch them blob up and mow down groups a fraction of their size. Heck, I've been in squads that have done that. I bet we all have. I guess I'm just tired of people using the false premise that removing siege or making it easier to break down walls will somehow lead to better 'fights'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubi.4136 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant. > > > > Your observation and mine (both anecdotal) are totally different. More often than not, when I play early afternoon in T2-T4 over the last few years, we've been the outnumbered (buff and all) group facing a blob at the gates. Hardly an infrequent occurrence. > > -------------------------- > > Anything five or six of us venture out to take is either immediately overrun by the blob to defend it or they just mow the paper structure over. Our only way to engage them is via the siege on a fortified structure. No random group outnumbered 3 to 1 or more can stand toe to with the opposition. > > The blob sure isn't breaking apart for a more even 'fight' (and I don't blame them). Nobody should be out looking for 'fights' on outnumbered maps. Sadly, I see people in the forums say that's all they want but watch them blob up and mow down groups a fraction of their size. Heck, I've been in squads that have done that. I bet we all have. I guess I'm just tired of people using the false premise that removing siege or making it easier to break down walls will somehow lead to better 'fights'. > I'd have to agree with this. From T2-T4, daily you see blobs facing 3-20 defenders. I see people saying they want good fights, then I see them only choosing to fight with 3 to 1 odds, and stuff they can take in under 5 minutes. It's because people want free, easy loot and guaranteed wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threather.9354 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 > @"Rampage.7145" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > My suggestion is: **Half the claim buff** (id prefer removing it completely but since it was pretty expensive to upgrade, it isnt an option). Getting in can be easy but fighting enemy with 800 extra stats that has siege built up holding choke and constant respawn + ewp isn't exactly balanced. > > > > I know people underestimate the difference between ascended and exotic stats but when you add in the presence of the keep, it becomes difference between ascended and rare gear.... > > > > And I agree fortified wall and gate health needs a nerf. Like 30% would be enough. Otherwise trebbing/cataing it even with 5 siege will take ages with all the shield gen bubbles etc.. > > > > The reasoning behind halfing/removing the claim buff is that: If the defending team manages to defend without too much extra stats, they can actually feel like they are better than the enemy... **So Defending will be more rewarding because the players will be more balanced, siege war will still be up to commanders/scouts** > > > > Overall people should be happy with the HoT changes for defending: **Cheaper siege, less supply requiring siege**, **way easier to upgrade**, **keep never empty of supply**, **tactics**, **shield gens** making trebs/catas/omegas useless, **Fortified Gates**, **stronger lords** and **Extra stats**. > > > > Now what did attackers get? Shield gens? Yay.. so balanced... > > > > **Remove the extra stats** and you can actually go in enemy keep just to **have statwise balanced fights under enemy siege**, 1 mortar wont ruin the fight at certain locations, but 800 extra stats will > > > > I disagree i would fight blob vs blob with 800 less stats anyday over fighting arrowcarts that i cant even hit back, i mean defender have a ton of natural advantages with positioning (waypoint proximity advantage) extra stats, chokes and whatnot. And that is part of defending, game already benefits defenders a ton without the siege, and that is ok capturing a structure with a blob defending should be tough, but when u add the siege on top of that it just gets pretty boring. youre underestimating the 800 stats. .as i said it is difference between rare and ascended gear. It is too strong. HoT buffed defending in so many ways but the claim buff was unnecessary. At least presence of the keep should be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant. > > > > Your observation and mine (both anecdotal) are totally different. More often than not, when I play early afternoon in T2-T4 over the last few years, we've been the outnumbered (buff and all) group facing a blob at the gates. Hardly an infrequent occurrence. > > -------------------------- > > Anything five or six of us venture out to take is either immediately overrun by the blob to defend it or they just mow the paper structure over. Our only way to engage them is via the siege on a fortified structure. No random group outnumbered 3 to 1 or more can stand toe to with the opposition. > > The blob sure isn't breaking apart for a more even 'fight' (and I don't blame them). Nobody should be out looking for 'fights' on outnumbered maps. Sadly, I see people in the forums say that's all they want but watch them blob up and mow down groups a fraction of their size. Heck, I've been in squads that have done that. I bet we all have. I guess I'm just tired of people using the false premise that removing siege or making it easier to break down walls will somehow lead to better 'fights'. > Are you having fun sitting on siege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blockhead Magee.3092 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant. > > > > > > > Your observation and mine (both anecdotal) are totally different. More often than not, when I play early afternoon in T2-T4 over the last few years, we've been the outnumbered (buff and all) group facing a blob at the gates. Hardly an infrequent occurrence. > > > > -------------------------- > > > > Anything five or six of us venture out to take is either immediately overrun by the blob to defend it or they just mow the paper structure over. Our only way to engage them is via the siege on a fortified structure. No random group outnumbered 3 to 1 or more can stand toe to with the opposition. > > > > The blob sure isn't breaking apart for a more even 'fight' (and I don't blame them). Nobody should be out looking for 'fights' on outnumbered maps. Sadly, I see people in the forums say that's all they want but watch them blob up and mow down groups a fraction of their size. Heck, I've been in squads that have done that. I bet we all have. I guess I'm just tired of people using the false premise that removing siege or making it easier to break down walls will somehow lead to better 'fights'. > > > > Are you having fun sitting on siege? Yes. Its the only recourse when you're vastly outnumbered. I prefer to roam, but I'll go defend structures when they need the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trajan.4953 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Siege is way to OP and does nothing but create barriers to fun. Needs to be toned down and the culture of the siege monkey to be put out to pasture along with servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 If the new population method is balanced, then the 10 vs 50 situations should be reduced. If it isn't, then gameplay is broken anyways and whatever you do doesn't matter. You obviously should design a game assuming things work. If you balance around broken situations, then what you will get is gameplay that is always broken. It's completely worthless. They don't balance combat skills around people fighting 1v5 but it certainly does happen. It's just not something to base ideal gameplay around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > The "10 v 50" thing is such an infrequent occurrence as to be irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > Your observation and mine (both anecdotal) are totally different. More often than not, when I play early afternoon in T2-T4 over the last few years, we've been the outnumbered (buff and all) group facing a blob at the gates. Hardly an infrequent occurrence. > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > Anything five or six of us venture out to take is either immediately overrun by the blob to defend it or they just mow the paper structure over. Our only way to engage them is via the siege on a fortified structure. No random group outnumbered 3 to 1 or more can stand toe to with the opposition. > > > > > > The blob sure isn't breaking apart for a more even 'fight' (and I don't blame them). Nobody should be out looking for 'fights' on outnumbered maps. Sadly, I see people in the forums say that's all they want but watch them blob up and mow down groups a fraction of their size. Heck, I've been in squads that have done that. I bet we all have. I guess I'm just tired of people using the false premise that removing siege or making it easier to break down walls will somehow lead to better 'fights'. > > > > > > > Are you having fun sitting on siege? > > Yes. Its the only recourse when you're vastly outnumbered. > > I prefer to roam, but I'll go defend structures when they need the help. > I guess I just don't understand this attitude. I would rather lose an objective than have no option but to sit on siege to defend it. 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