WvW restructure will fail if you do not balance defensive power

[Mysteriax.6049]

More fights. Less defensive siege. Put the success of a defense in the hands of a player directly rather than a player using siege.

[Defias.1892]

So much whining from unskilled players. I've only ever played on blob servers, and I think keeps are fine as they are. If you find yourself getting wiped by 10 people in a blob of 30-40, then that obviously means you should back the heck off or get a better Tag. No sensible tag or player will fight under a sieged encampment and common sense dictates that if you are getting wiped a small amount of players, that you need to have more situational awareness and not be bad.

[Drinks.2361]

I'm pretty sure the point of the thread is that defensive siege is so strong it's making maps stagnant.

 

 

The situation that comes up all the time in NA primetime anyway is that you have two roughly equal size forces, maybe more defenders since they typically have waypoint advantage. Rather than coming out for some pvp the defending group will just sit inside building more & more siege with little risk. There is very little reward to flipping a defended T3 keep & very little pvp involved. With shield generators once you're spotted it can be an enormous time sink.

 

 

The 10v50 defence thing is just a strawman argument thrown up by people who feel ACs make for skilled gameplay. When the bulk of WvW players are playing it's normally 30+ vs 30+ sitting in a keep.

[Drinks.2361]

I'd be all for a change where you couldn't use ACs after say rank 1000 if you don't have the outmanned buff.

[Bigsexy.8302]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> played WvW since beta, 10k rank 700k+ kills 10k hours in WvW alone, etc, etc 10k+ hours,

 

Nice, rank 10k, it takes nothing but ez mode karma train. And now you are upset because it's not so easy.

If anything walls need to higher because they are absolutely useless right now, it's amazing how you complain about siege when you can kill every siege on the walls using players skills. Rarely you need counter siege.

700k "kills". More like 700k tags.

Go back to pvd.

[Trajan.4953]

> @"Bigsexy.8302" said:

> > @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > played WvW since beta, 10k rank 700k+ kills 10k hours in WvW alone, etc, etc 10k+ hours,

>

> Nice, rank 10k, it takes nothing but ez mode karma train. And now you are upset because it's not so easy.

> If anything walls need to higher because they are absolutely useless right now, it's amazing how you complain about siege when you can kill every siege on the walls using players skills. Rarely you need counter siege.

> 700k "kills". More like 700k tags.

> Go back to pvd.

 

You must be new, you obviously don't know who the OP is. Trust me when I tell you he is earned every one of those kills and not through easy Karma train mode.

 

His Guild VR has systematically crapped on almost every other guild the game, including my guild. If anyone knows about PVP it's the o p.

[Vivilett.8509]

Why not just have 1 instance server to fill wvw , the way some are saying even having 20 online is a huge task

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Drinks.2361" said:

> I'm pretty sure the point of the thread is that defensive siege is so strong it's making maps stagnant.

>

>

> The situation that comes up all the time in NA primetime anyway is that you have two roughly equal size forces, maybe more defenders since they typically have waypoint advantage. Rather than coming out for some pvp the defending group will just sit inside building more & more siege with little risk. There is very little reward to flipping a defended T3 keep & very little pvp involved. With shield generators once you're spotted it can be an enormous time sink.

>

>

> The 10v50 defence thing is just a strawman argument thrown up by people who feel ACs make for skilled gameplay. When the bulk of WvW players are playing it's normally 30+ vs 30+ sitting in a keep.

Indeed that is the point. Would you rather fight in a flat field with nothing on it or in an actually interesting location such as a keep?

 

Many choose the former because its *fucking annoying* to spend literally hours getting in.

 

Though tbh, I still think they can mitigate the problem by massivly buffing the only thing that can punch through defenses and force enemies out - trebs. They should be cheaper to build (80/100), cheaper to buy, fire faster and do at least 3x damage against reinforced and fortified walls. A treb should be enough of a threat to T3 to require a response, instead of not being worth the time or effort (it take like 30 minutes of constant, uninterrupted firing to down T3 walls with the siege fucking *built for the job*)

[Drinks.2361]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> Indeed that is the point. Would you rather fight in a flat field with nothing on it or in an actually interesting location such as a keep?

 

That is exactly it, SM that is paper & full of holes has some of the best fights. Ruins on Alpine BL tries to kind of be like that, but is mostly empty because

1. it's not on a lane to get anywhere so there is rarely anyone passing though

2. Nobody likes having to swap to underwater weapons to cross a stream

 

Delete T3 upgrades & all the tactivators that make walls & gates stronger, change it to two lords at T3, one inner & one outer stick one on the 2nd floor of SM. You need to cap both before the structure flips, give us more PvP in the large scale pvp game mode.

 

 

edit: ruins in front of Blue keep in EBG would be really good too if it wasn't continually pelted by siege

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Drinks.2361" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > Indeed that is the point. Would you rather fight in a flat field with nothing on it or in an actually interesting location such as a keep?

>

> That is exactly it, SM that is paper & full of holes has some of the best fights. Ruins on Alpine BL tries to kind of be like that, but is mostly empty because

> 1. it's not on a lane to get anywhere so there is rarely anyone passing though

> 2. Nobody likes having to swap to underwater weapons to cross a stream

>

> Delete T3 upgrades & all the tactivators that make walls & gates stronger, change it to two lords at T3, one inner & one outer stick one on the 2nd floor of SM. You need to cap both before the structure flips, give us more PvP in the large scale pvp game mode.

>

>

> edit: ruins in front of Blue keep in EBG would be really good too if it wasn't continually pelted by siege

 

That means that u only have built a few trebs and open holes, blobs take 10+ catas and take t3 wals down under 1 minute so, sometimes when swords pop up they are already breeching inner wall.

 

Keep t3 but make t3 weaker, ive seeen a t1 gate melting in seconds due a scourge zerg. and all that zerg spam... it was stupid cause it was dammn fast... and with the new alliance system will be zerg's everywhere more than it is now.. the issue with strucutres is that they are ment to be capped and recaped not defended.

Make all walls larger so they dont become farming spots for the ofensive team, some classes can hit on players close on top of the stairs from autter wall to inner...

Limit the siege that can be buit closer to each one (or in a aoe area arround siege elelements nothing more can be built), it is possible to pile up lots of siege in one place, wich is the problem with siege...

 

TDLR: make walls larger and limit the ssiege build, so the defense is not being made by hunping tons of siege but made by player with some siege build in defensive places, some hills where u can build siege and hit inner and outter or place where u can siege keeps with keep having no LoS to siege need to go to as well, it need to happen in open field, the lamerwars gimmicks need to go, maybe maps need to be more plain and large soe guidl can set upt a siege in front of keep with minimal defenses to them as well.

The current map design is complete trash and does nor promote good gameplay, just gimmicks.

[Celsith.2753]

I'd like to see siege damage to players GREATLY reduced and a huge buff to siege damage to other siege. This would enable small groups to hold off a larger zerg til help arrives and if there's no help to come maybe hold them off long enough for them to get bored and go elsewhere.

No one has defended more objectives than me. I understand the need for small groups that are outnumbered to feel like they have a chance. That is a population balance issue though i'm afraid.

 

In the meantime the sheer oppressive power of siege and the amount used is completely ruining the game for people that would like a fight to be won or lost on the battlefield instead of by how much siege a server can cram in something.

 

Oh and maybe get rid of shield gens completely :astonished:

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> I'd like to see siege damage to players GREATLY reduced and a huge buff to siege damage to other siege. This would enable small groups to hold off a larger zerg til help arrives and if there's no help to come maybe hold them off long enough for them to get bored and go elsewhere.

> No one has defended more objectives than me. I understand the need for small groups that are outnumbered to feel like they have a chance. That is a population balance issue though i'm afraid.

>

> In the meantime the sheer oppressive power of siege and the amount used is completely ruining the game for people that would like a fight to be won or lost on the battlefield instead of by how much siege a server can cram in something.

>

> Oh and maybe get rid of shield gens completely :astonished:

 

Hmm. Maybe I am wrong but from what I read the OP feels polar opposite to this.

 

It is good to hear that people have different perspectives on this.

[Hexinx.1872]

As the years past, the amount of defensive buffs has drastically crept in this game. Shield gens, tactivators to make invuln walls, invulnerable yaks - none of this needs to be in the game mode.

[Pinko.2076]

Totally agree that defense is too strong. T3 walls removed, AC's to their old form, remove gens, remove siege immune tacts.

This isn't about ktraining, it's about forcing action. It's kind of comical people think this is from a k-train perspective and are ignorant of the accounts advocating for this. The slow march towards more and more defense over 5 years has made it impossible to force servers to action. The only structure worth holding because it forces action is SMC because of location.

 

Know the #1 reason people log out of GW2 WvW? The reason guilds raid less, and people check what's going on then log off? There's no action. 5 dedicated randoms can either completely halt 20+ people from forcing an issue or make them waste 30 minutes then waypoint out when they're done. No sane people give a shit about winning anymore; people log on for action, and the slowly overpowering defense is a large reason for that becoming less common.

[Shining One.1635]

> @"Pinko.2076" said:

> This isn't about ktraining, it's about forcing action. It's kind of comical people think this is from a k-train perspective and are ignorant of the accounts advocating for this. The slow march towards more and more defense over 5 years has made it impossible to force servers to action.

You can't force action. Action requires willing participants on both sides.

> @"Pinko.2076" said:

> 5 dedicated randoms can either completely halt 20+ people from forcing an issue or make them waste 30 minutes then waypoint out when they're done.

If you weaken defenses, then those 5 dedicated randoms will halt 20+ people for only 10 minutes and still waypoint out. I fail to see how this encourages action.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

 

> If you weaken defenses, then those 5 dedicated randoms will halt 20+ people for only 10 minutes and still waypoint out. I fail to see how this encourages action.

 

Its not about wanting to blob those 5 people. It's about when even or greater numbers are using all the defensive rubbish to hide in a t3 something, then waypoint out.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"Shining One.1635" said:

>

> > If you weaken defenses, then those 5 dedicated randoms will halt 20+ people for only 10 minutes and still waypoint out. I fail to see how this encourages action.

>

> Its not about wanting to blob those 5 people. It's about when even or greater numbers are using all the defensive rubbish to hide in a t3 something, then waypoint out.

 

Lol... again, what makes you think, if they waypoint out after a t-3 falls, even numbers or not, that with the change they'll stay and fight suddenly?

 

I don't care if it's 5 holding off 20, 20 holding off 50, or map queue holding off map queue. If they are gonna WP out after you crack it open, it doesn't matter how fast it pops.

 

If that truly is the argument I just fail to see the logic of making them WP faster....

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Lol... again, what makes you think, if they waypoint out after a t-3 falls, even numbers or not, that with the change they'll stay and fight suddenly?

 

> If that truly is the argument I just fail to see the logic of making them WP faster....

 

Because they will have to. At the moment they defend their ppt by using all the siege etc. A lot of the time it works, because who wants to spend hours fighting siege? So when a team DOES persevere they can afford to abandon ship. And even if they stay and fight by the way, like Bloodie pointed out when he made the thread, several hours versus siege/tactics/buffs for a 10 minute fight just isn't worth it.

[Shining One.1635]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> Because they will have to. At the moment they defend their ppt by using all the siege etc. A lot of the time it works, because who wants to spend hours fighting siege? So when a team DOES persevere they can afford to abandon ship. And even if they stay and fight by the way, like Bloodie pointed out when he made the thread, several hours versus siege/tactics/buffs for a 10 minute fight just isn't worth it.

They don't have to stay and fight. They have no reason to. If they are doing it for the points as you indicate, why would they give the enemy team some PPK points on top of the PPT points they get for flipping the structure? It would be in their best interest to go somewhere else and then flip the structure back after the enemy has moved along.

 

If you want fights, Anet needs to incentivize fighting, not discourage defending. You need to give people a reason to get out and fight. Weakening defenses does not accomplish that.

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > @"Pinko.2076" said:

> > This isn't about ktraining, it's about forcing action. It's kind of comical people think this is from a k-train perspective and are ignorant of the accounts advocating for this. The slow march towards more and more defense over 5 years has made it impossible to force servers to action.

> You can't force action. Action requires willing participants on both sides.

> > @"Pinko.2076" said:

> > 5 dedicated randoms can either completely halt 20+ people from forcing an issue or make them waste 30 minutes then waypoint out when they're done.

> If you weaken defenses, then those 5 dedicated randoms will halt 20+ people for only 10 minutes and still waypoint out. I fail to see how this encourages action.

Its what follows that encourages action. As in literally, you need to take action. When an objective is lost, you got a new order - take the objective. This is what keeps WvW running, not "fights". Those 5 dedicated randoms come back to retake it. Will it be defended by the same 20+? Who knows. Maybe. Then call for reinforcements. Tag up. Lets take that objective. Did we fail? Try again. Maybe we got sups drained, maybe the walls are still broken. Indeed you cannot force action. Objectives is what makes it come naturally. But when objectives are so strong even 10 man groups think "meh just 1 guy on an arrowcart, they have 1100 supplies and will rep everything for an hour anyway, we can forget about it, lets go cap a camp and then call the raid off"... well, you know.

 

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

> They don't have to stay and fight. They have no reason to. If they are doing it for the points as you indicate, why would they give the enemy team some PPK points on top of the PPT points they get for flipping the structure? It would be in their best interest to go somewhere else and then flip the structure back after the enemy has moved along.

>

> If you want fights, Anet needs to incentivize fighting, not discourage defending. You need to give people a reason to get out and fight. Weakening defenses does not accomplish that.

>

>

If they go somewhere else and are facing a server that wants to fight, then that server will respond to their own stuff and fights.. happen.

You cannot abandon every structure that gets attacked and just go flip something else if you want to win. We are talking about servers and people that will use offhours coverage to t3 their side/homebl by walking yaks etc with 50 people, then spend NA with a map queue just sitting in those t3 structures. T3 gives more points than paper per tick if i recall correctly. They're currently encouraged to turtle in it. Do you play in T1? If so you know exactly the behaviour. And to some extent T2 depending on which servers are there that week.

 

[Blackarps.1974]

If tactivators stay, decrease their effectiveness and costs (for guilds to make). In addition, the aura buffs that apply when a guild has claimed an objective are way too big in range. You can get halfway to the next structure before it goes away. It really should only be inside the actual structure if anything. Personally, I'd like to see it removed or at least the stats lowered. +100 on every stat is too much. Its like putting an extra celestial trinket for every player in the area.

 

T3 has to go and T2 health of walls and gates needs to be lowered (reduce yak upgrade count to compensate). Way too much HP on walls and gates makes a sieged up tower one of the most mundane tasks in WvW. Commanders and zergs are skipping over them entirely now which says a lot. People just want to kill each other, not attack a tower that got to T3 while they were sleeping.

 

Once WvW gets some kind of balance in terms of being competitive, which we might see with alliances, then maybe finally we can see a reason to actually play and win each week.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

. Objectives is what makes it come naturally. But when objectives are so strong even 10 man groups think "meh just 1 guy on an arrowcart, they have 1100 supplies and will rep everything for an hour anyway, we can forget about it, lets go cap a camp and then call the raid off"... well, you know.

>

 

So much this. I used to run havok every single day. Mostly 5 people or less. We loved the fights we would get at towers or keeps. Actually taking it was rarely our goal, we wanted the fights. HoT hit with its guild changes, tactivators, new keep upgrades and our experience was suddenly awful. Instead of fights we got people sitting in upgraded stuff with siege. Often twice our number on ac's or trebs. And they would just sit there until their blob turned up. Can't even take the wall down and fight them in there for it because you can hold off small numbers for hours. Completely ruined it for me so now people get to complain i'm blobbing in ebg instead.

 

Edit: I'm tired and messed up quoting and can't figure out how to fix it :/

[Euryon.9248]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"Shining One.1635" said:

>

> > If you weaken defenses, then those 5 dedicated randoms will halt 20+ people for only 10 minutes and still waypoint out. I fail to see how this encourages action.

>

> Its not about wanting to blob those 5 people. It's about when even or greater numbers are using all the defensive rubbish to hide in a t3 something, then waypoint out.

 

I think the point is that currently, there is no incentive for 30 people defending a T3 to come out and fight the 20 attacking it when they can sit on siege absolutely risk-free and hold the objective. I've seen this many times, a *larger* defensive group sitting behind walls on tons of ACs refusing to come out and fight our smaller fight guild because why risk even a single death when defense is so strong you don't have to? If they come out at all, it's only after we've decided to move on (since they won't fight and we obviously have zero chance of getting in), after we've lost a few already and are reatreating, THEN they'll drop on us (still under friendly siege fire, mind you) and try to wipe us.

 

Weaken defenses to the point where it is easier and more efficient for that 30-man group to take on the equal or smaller attacking group instead of siege camping. That won't *force* them to come out if they are hyperphobic about dying, but it will *encourage* them to come out and have some actual fun on the field.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Euryon.9248" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> >

> > > If you weaken defenses, then those 5 dedicated randoms will halt 20+ people for only 10 minutes and still waypoint out. I fail to see how this encourages action.

> >

> > Its not about wanting to blob those 5 people. It's about when even or greater numbers are using all the defensive rubbish to hide in a t3 something, then waypoint out.

>

>

>

> That won't *force* them to come out if they are hyperphobic about dying, but it will *encourage* them to come out and have some _actual fun_ on the field.

 

There is part of the problem. What you, me and many in this thread find *fun* is likely not what they find fun.

 

I have no problem decreasing walls to no higher HP than current reinforced. With a subsequent drop of each lower tiers HP on walls and gate.

 

I truly fear it will only lead to more k-training than fights.