[Sugg.] Make T3 Gates Reinforced Again

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > We already have ktrains. The only difference is they hide in T3 structures to preserve their KDR now.

>

> Boy.. I wonder what tier does that... XD

 

Don't disparage Mag....

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Jerry CCH.9816" said:

> 1. Remove Arrow Cart from WvW

> 2. Remove Arrow Cart from WvW

> 3. Remove Arrow Cart from WvW

> 4. WvW Great again

> ----------------------------------

> (Real lol)

> 1. Nerf Arrow Cart Damge or Remove Arrow Cart from WvW

> 2. Remove Iron Guards Tactics (Reducing incoming damge by 50%)

> 3. Remove Tower/Keep Auto upgrad ( player need pay money to NPC)

> 4. Buff Ram/Cata Siege Damge

>

 

I really like #3 there. I also think they need to remove all the damn CC that the guards do.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > We already have ktrains. The only difference is they hide in T3 structures to preserve their KDR now.

> >

> > Boy.. I wonder what tier does that... XD

>

> Don't disparage Mag....

 

Mag hasn't been in tier one for two weeks, keep up with the matchups.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > We already have ktrains. The only difference is they hide in T3 structures to preserve their KDR now.

> > >

> > > Boy.. I wonder what tier does that... XD

> >

> > Don't disparage Mag....

>

> Mag hasn't been in tier one for two weeks, keep up with the matchups.

 

ahhh.. but you didn't say which tier now did you? :lol:

 

Peace... Didn't want to start anything.. Was actually just joking..

[Kovu.7560]

A few things would need to happen to discourage ktrains while still encouraging people to assault upgraded structures. T0-1 Structures would need to take longer to break through and cap while undefended, however the ability to bunker behind any upgraded structure with nigh unhittable defensive siege would need to be nerfed as well. So basically the attackers would need to take more time to break through a structure regardless of its tier and how well its being defended, but should a structure be upgraded and have defenders those defenders shouldn't have as much of an insurmountable advantage. I would also reduce the amount of supply upgraded structures can hold. Diminishing returns for flipping the same stuff would also need to be added with a greater focus reward-wise put onto killing enemy players. Finally, attacking a structure should grant some sort of ongoing or built up reward so that people that are attacking a structure for a prolonged amount of time get something greater than something flipping the same structure that's undefended and paper somewhere else.

 

As far as I'm concerned, no attack should be completely stopped from within the walls with strictly siege and few defenders -- those defenders should be forced to call for help or _eventually_ lose the structure. (Again, the window for allowing teams to respond to callouts would be increased on paper structures.) The goal here being to generate fights. If you want to flip undefended paper stuff over and over again, go to EotM.

 

~ Kovu

[Sviel.7493]

This is largely a player problem. Some of the playerbase wants nothing except to bash their embarassingly large zerg into the enemy's zerg like some sort of cockfight. It's ok if you're into that--but it's not ok if the whole of the game mode is reduced to such contests.

 

It doesn't take 6 hours to siege a keep, and it shouldn't. At the same time, bashing your zerg against a healthy tier three keep should not often be successful on the first attempt. It must take multiple attempts or a drawn out campaign to weaken the keep before it flips. Otherwise, all that matters is the gargantuan sausagefest in the lord's room. When that's the case, the bigger blob always wins and the game is reduced to mere population.

 

The issue is that too many people want to wank their keyboards in a zerg and not enough have any interest in small-scale fights. This has been a slow evolution, but the condi meta, HoT and PoE really pushed it along. Small scale fights are pure bollocks and large fights can be fun if you're in a guild or in the bigger blob. So remaining players naturally tend to be the sort that prefer large-scale fights, but they want them to happen without all the small-scale fights that previously made them possible.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> It doesn't take 6 hours to siege a keep, and it shouldn't.

 

It takes about three hours, exceeding the average guild raid time.

[Sviel.7493]

The amount of time it takes varies wildly with both the assault strategy and the defensive strategy, not to mention the map. I can't see it taking 3 hours unless there is a defending blob that repeatedly wipes the attacking blob or unless the assault strategy makes no attempt to restrict supply **and** there's a defending blob that periodically shows up. However, your approach and your opponent's approach may be different from what I usually see.

 

How do you and your mates go about a siege?

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> I can't see it taking 3 hours unless there is a defending blob

 

Sounds like you just answered your own question.

 

Defense/offense for objectives is roughly balanced around needing twice the number of attackers as defenders to be successful in capturing an objective. When defenders are more than twice the number of attackers, yes, you'll be looking at three hours for the attrition game.

 

NA Prime tends to be stuffed with enough people across every team in a match to create map queues vs. map queues and which is why teams typically seek another team's weak timezones in order to flip T3 objectives.

 

 

[Kovu.7560]

Eh. While I stand by my last post I don't feel attackers should be able to flip, or even do substantial damage to a defending structure if the defenders are _actually there to defend_ and equal to or outnumber the attackers. The defenders are already at a disadvantage of being in a potential 1v2 scenario where there's the potential for 2x the number of enemies on the map than them. That said, I feel that way because the defenders should be able to push out and fight the attackers with the potential advantage of defensive siege, not because they have the advantage of being able to turtle inside a structure (which as far as I'm concerned is cancerous gameplay -- unfun for either side).

 

And yeah, this isn't real life. Prolonged sieges are boring and not even rewarding. Commanders in this game don't enjoy having to break through inner of the same structures we've been looking at for over 5 years just to get the defenders to fight. They'd rather employ strategies revolving around finding ways to bait the defenders out of their hidey holes.

 

This isn't 2012.

 

~ Kovu

[Mysteriax.6049]

@"Sviel.7493" You said you wanted more smallscale fights. Currently it's near impossible for a small 5-10 man to break through a T3 objective. Allowing the gates to stay at reinforced when T3 will give havoc players and roamers more options of what to attack, thus helping to spread players out more. Sure you'll have your "karma train" blobs as well as havoc groups but how is that different than the Omniblobs needed to attack T3's right now?

[Sviel.7493]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Defense/offense for objectives is roughly balanced around needing twice the number of attackers as defenders to be successful in capturing an objective. When defenders are more than twice the number of attackers, yes, you'll be looking at three hours for the attrition game.

>

 

I said a defending blob that repeatedly wipes the assaulting blob. That means that there are several large scale fights over the course of the siege.

 

If you need twice the number of attackers to be successful, you are doing something terribly wrong. My guess is that you're rushing to a designated siege spot (point-blank), vomiting up a half-dozen catapults and slamming your faces against the wall in hopes the defenders don't have time to respond. Feel free to correct me. Anyway, if that's your plan, you will need overwhelming force to take the objective because it's a bit of a defensive force multiplier. Of course, if you're only interested in huge fights, I can understand why that must be frustrating for you.

 

On the other hand, if the blob splits up to cut supply and create multiple entry points, they can break in even if they're half the size of the defending blob. That shouldn't take more than 30 minutes to an hour. However, like I said before, there's very little appetite for small-scale combat now. It's possible to breach the walls without winning any small scale fights, but PvD is only so much fun. That means you have to run a condi-cheese build to have a shot in the small-scale meta and cheese is also only so much fun.

 

And then there's the maps. It's very difficult to harass an Alpine keep because everyone can see you and your siege from across the map. The keeps are also small and have so few assault points that defensive siege can far more easily cover everything. On the bright side, Alpine keeps are much faster to take when uncontested, but PvD is only so much fun.

 

@"Mysteriax.6049"

 

I break into keeps solo pretty much everytime I play--sometimes even T3. I knock the walls down, slap the yaks, flip the camps and then call out in team chat that the keep is vulnerable and let the zerg handle the rest. When I have a couple of people with me, cracking a T3 is rather simple. Flipping it is another matter, if it's defended, but that's not the role I set out to play anyway.

 

You don't need an omniblob unless you're trying to skip the foreplay.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > Defense/offense for objectives is roughly balanced around needing twice the number of attackers as defenders to be successful in capturing an objective. When defenders are more than twice the number of attackers, yes, you'll be looking at three hours for the attrition game.

> >

>

> I said a defending blob that repeatedly wipes the assaulting blob. That means that there are several large scale fights over the course of the siege.

>

>

>

> @"Mysteriax.6049"

>

> I break into keeps solo pretty much everytime I play--sometimes even T3. I knock the walls down, slap the yaks, flip the camps and then call out in team chat that the keep is vulnerable and let the zerg handle the rest. When I have a couple of people with me, cracking a T3 is rather simple. Flipping it is another matter, if it's defended, but that's not the role I set out to play anyway.

>

> You don't need an omniblob unless you're trying to skip the foreplay.

 

This^^

 

Three of us will put down 3 guild catas outside of watchtower range, and have the wall down before response. The blob isn't needed for that. If the enemy blob comes, ours opens another structure. If they don't come, we take the tower. Keeps are slightly more tricky.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > Defense/offense for objectives is roughly balanced around needing twice the number of attackers as defenders to be successful in capturing an objective. When defenders are more than twice the number of attackers, yes, you'll be looking at three hours for the attrition game.

> >

>

> I said a defending blob that repeatedly wipes the assaulting blob. That means that there are several large scale fights over the course of the siege.

>

> If you need twice the number of attackers to be successful, you are doing something terribly wrong. My guess is that you're rushing to a designated siege spot (point-blank), vomiting up a half-dozen catapults and slamming your faces against the wall in hopes the defenders don't have time to respond. Feel free to correct me. Anyway, if that's your plan, you will need overwhelming force to take the objective because it's a bit of a defensive force multiplier. Of course, if you're only interested in huge fights, I can understand why that must be frustrating for you.

>

> On the other hand, if the blob splits up to cut supply and create multiple entry points, they can break in even if they're half the size of the defending blob. That shouldn't take more than 30 minutes to an hour. However, like I said before, there's very little appetite for small-scale combat now. It's possible to breach the walls without winning any small scale fights, but PvD is only so much fun. That means you have to run a condi-cheese build to have a shot in the small-scale meta and cheese is also only so much fun.

>

> And then there's the maps. It's very difficult to harass an Alpine keep because everyone can see you and your siege from across the map. The keeps are also small and have so few assault points that defensive siege can far more easily cover everything. On the bright side, Alpine keeps are much faster to take when uncontested, but PvD is only so much fun.

 

LOL OK. I know what you said. A defending blob repeatedly wiping the assaulting blob has to do with the so-called defender's advantage, which as I wrote is about 2:1. When the defending blob is larger than that, you get into an attrition game. You then go on to write about starting the attrition game early before getting an attacking blob to finish the job. The only thing you are doing there is tricking the opponent into an uncontested situation. You aren't changing the defender's advantage nor are you dealing with what the attacker's blob is supposed to be doing while waiting. If a guild rallies only two hours, you're asking them to have spent already an hour on doing basically nothing but attrition (like running over yaks and small roamers trying to get supply into the keep) before getting action, especially when the defending server either has no defending blob to come out to fight (which can be due to coverage or choice).

 

And that's the main point here. Offense/defense balance doesn't have anything to do with whatever siege strategy you employ. Changing T3 gates to reinforced, on the other hand, affects offense/defense balance.

 

 

[Sviel.7493]

Can you define this "so-called defender's advantage" for me? By that, do you mean defensive siege? Keep structure? How is it 2:1? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

Attrition is the name of the game when it comes to sieges, but I did not intend to imply that a zerg then rushes the keep before it can be defended. Rather, the attrition removes much of the defensive advantage by taking out 1-2 walls, draining supply and, sometimes, getting tactivators on CD. This makes it much easier for a zerg to take a keep in one push whether it's defended or not. If no one shows up to defend, I'm more likely to just call a few roamers in instead of bothering the whole zerg.

 

As for what what the guild does during this time, I imagine they'll be either defending or hitting some other, softer objective like a T3 tower--there are dozens of objectives in play at all times, after all. I dream about the guild that can split into small teams and kick the attrition phase into high-speed, but I realize that most existing guilds are pseudo-gvg groups that can only function as a single group. Or at least prefer to move that way.

 

Changing gates to T2 would make it easier to one push a keep, but I don't think that's a desirable outcome. This is likely the heart of our disagreement. When a blob can group up and reliably hammer down a defended tier 3 objective in one or two pushes, there ceases to be any point in trying to defend against them. There's also no point in anything other than blobbing up and running things over. This is great if you only care about blob V. blob, but that's a rather cheap knock-off of WvW. When a blob can be stymied by a stalwart defense, there's a reason to play even if you don't have a blob of your own. However, if it is possible to defend _ad infinitum_, that's also no fun. That's why I like balancing to a point where attrition is usually necessary, but also to where attrition is always possible.

[Blackarps.1974]

Literally nobody on NA touches T3 structures unless they are 100% unguarded for a significant amount of time. There is just no reason to. PPT is pointless and so is taking an upgraded structure. The amount of rams and/or trebs and catas you have to place to take down a T3 wall is insane. 6+ and then it still takes 20 minutes to capture. All while you stand under arrow carts and mash buttons to stay alive. Say you do cap it...then what? All that for what? Basically nothing because its going to be in that same state again the next time you login. 0 reward, 0 fun, nobody attacks T3 structures.

[Sviel.7493]

@"Blackarps.1974"

 

Well, two days ago I saw 3 T3 keeps flip just in the hour and a half that I played. There may have been others that I wasn't involved in. In the 3 cases I note, there was a robust defense each time. Granted, 3 is an unusually high number for so short a time, but it does call into question whether 'literally nobody' or 'nobody attacks T3 structures.'

 

Perhaps you don't do it, but that's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

[Blackarps.1974]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> @"Blackarps.1974"

>

> Well, two days ago I saw 3 T3 keeps flip just in the hour and a half that I played. There may have been others that I wasn't involved in. In the 3 cases I note, there was a robust defense each time. Granted, 3 is an unusually high number for so short a time, but it does call into question whether 'literally nobody' or 'nobody attacks T3 structures.'

>

> Perhaps you don't do it, but that's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

 

You're missing what I'm saying and worrying too much about the semantics of it all. T3 health needs to be lowered. I'm watching multiple guild groups across entire tiers avoiding T3 keeps and towers. Its just too much of a pain to bother with. There is no point in doing it because you get nothing out of it. PPT means nothing and there is no reward, so the incentive is basically 0.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Blackarps.1974" said:

> PPT means nothing and there is no reward, so the incentive is basically 0.

 

The incentive is more like -50 because every pointless minute you spend at a T3 keep could be one doing something else.

 

Either way the point here is that its so *easy* for Anet to improve on it.

 

Another way and something that rivals the ease of simply lowering hp would be to do repairs just like the armor of fortified/reinforced -

increase cost for each tier. Currently 1 supply repair 1750 hp at all 3 levels (only the increased hp raise the total cost). Make it so that 1 supply repair 1375 hp on reinforced and 1 supply repair 1000 hp on fortified.

 

That way T2/T3 would still be strong, but more expensive to maintain and more easily nibbled on by smaller forces for good effect.

[FogLeg.9354]

Another problem is that with automatic upgrades servers with heavy night- or morningcrews will get always T3 keeps for the prime time. So, getting points for fighting no enemies, and capturing objectives without anyone defending AND also getting rewarded with highest tier and well defendable objectives for the time when there is actually enemies around. Once in the prime time, everyone will look at the maps, ignore those T3 objectives, and go for other server who is unlucky enough to have their stuff taken during the night, and has to recap everything during the day.

 

Once you start to increase objective defences, you make it more difficult for smaller groups capture anything. It simply takes too long, so everyone starts to run around in huge blob just so they can throw down 16 catas and 4 magic bubble generators. If you have group of 5, you can build 1-2 catas only, and then wait for 30 minutes very slowly eating up the wall until some enemy pops in, and starts to shoot with AC at your catas. Or enemy blob flies by and wipes you off.

 

Since it takes forever to capture anything, even when enemy zerg decides to attack objective, your own blobs in other maps have plenty of time to finish whatever they doing there, change maps, run from other side of the map, and still arrive in time before even outer wall gets low. It simply mean everyone runs in blobs instead of splitting into smaller groups to attack and defend. And that is awful. Blobs are boring and stupid, and yet, all these upgrades only make blobs bigger and punish smaller groups.

 

Yes, without upgrades objectives would be captured faster. But same time, if one server runs around in 50 man monoblob and other server has 5 groups of 10 player each, then the blobbers would lose the match because they can still only attack and capture 1 objective while same time while enemy can take 5 (even if they take each of these slightly slower). And that is what we want - something to happen, stuff to defend and capture, one fight in one side of the map and another near other objective.

 

Only interesting spots left for now are 2 towers near enemy spawns. These are pretty much only objectives taken fast enough, and changing hands quick enough so they usually fail to upgrade. They also close to enemy spawn which means there are enemies around them.

[joneirikb.7506]

Sounds like the upgrade system causes more problems than benefits. But I honestly can't see any good alternative to fix it, for the simple reason of 'Players'. As long as players can try to capture a structure 1 or 100 players at the same time, I don't think any kind of upgrade system would actually do any kind of a good job.

 

I could suggest a more Cascading upgrade system, where nearby structures "link" and empower each others. So a keep would be very very difficult to take before you take out the 2 nearby towers first. And those would be harder to take before you took out the 2 nearby camps etc. But it would still run into the same problems in the end, just hide it slightly better.

 

In general I find the structures to be poorly executed, which is weird considering they're the objectives this entire game mode is centered around. And probably would need a complete re-thinking and overhaul. Which is likely way too much work and would take years to get up on the priority list (as we have plenty of other problems that needs attention first).

[Mysteriax.6049]

Please keep the topic on point - to encourage ANet to make a relatively small change that will positively impact the gamemode. If you think keeping T3 gates at reinforced is a good idea, please post and explain why. If you think it's a bad idea, please let us know.

[Sviel.7493]

It's not enough just to say that you think removing T3 gates is a good idea or a bad idea. Your personal feelings only matter as far as you do. Instead, we have to explain why we think it's a good or bad idea. We can then compare these reasons and make more objective judgements based on a well-fleshed out, realistic view of the problem. That doesn't mean we'll all agree, but it does provide much more useful feedback on the feature.

 

That said, I do tend to go down rabbit holes. Sorry about that.

 

> I'd like to see Tier 3 objectives have reinforced gates again. Doing so will encourage havoc groups hitting multiple T3 objectives, golem rushes, large battles in and around >T3 keeps, and generally more excitement in WvW. Currently a T3 objective is pretty much a no-go zone unless you attack during off-hours. Let's make T3 gates Reinforced >again.

 

Here's what I get from this statement:

-Havoc groups will attack T3 objectives at the gate and ultimately flip them.

-Golems will be used to run over defenses with unstoppable force.

-Large battles will become the only way to delay or prevent the flip of a T3 keep.

 

None of those are things that I want to see happen. Here's why:

 

-Havoc groups have excellent ability to wreak havoc in other ways. Taking a T3 objective should be on the table, but it shouldn't be a done deal. Flipping a T3 as a havoc group before anyone responds should only happen because your enemies made a mistake or it was made vulnerable by earlier attacks--not because the gate dropped super fast. I find it problematic that you seem to suggest that havoc groups are only successful when they can easily flip multiple T3 objectives. Hours of defensive upgrades should require more than a few minutes to negate.

 

-Golems are not very interesting. Much like the shield gen meta, they just reduce interaction between players to near trivial amounts. They're also insanely difficult to bring down when they're in a blob but pretty much a non-factor if you have an equal blob to defend with. That means that golems only shine when they're stomping a server that lacks population in that moment. That's not something I want to make easier.

 

-Large battles are fun, especially when they're fought over objectives. WvW would not be the same without them. However, it also wouldn't be the same without everything else. If blobs can easily run up and bust gates down with impunity, then there's no hope whatsoever to hold them off unless you can field a counter-blob. This leads to extreme turtle strats or just a surrendering of all objectives in the face of a blob. It's one thing if you're outmanned and are then consequentially outmaneuvered. In that situation, you can potentially do skillful things and reduce the size of your disadvantage. However, if you're outmanned and that's just the end of it, there's nothing you can do at all.

 

Thus, I think removing T3 gates is a bad idea. We need changes to be made on both the offensive and defensive ends of sieges, but we don't need to stack broken mechanics on top of each other as alternating band-aids for poor design. It would be best to first define what a siege should look like (something Anet has steadfastly refused to do) and then let players come up with their own variations of doing it. We need to be sure that this definition provides incentives to both attack structures and to defend them. Right now, some players don't care about winning matches and thus lack incentive to attack things other than for large-scale fights. However, if the game is designed around that then it will ultimately become a team-deathmatch. It would be fine to have a team-deathmatch/gvg mode, but WvW is not that mode. Instead, Anet must find a way to make players care about winning matches. I think, perhaps foolishly, that they will eventually pull it off.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"FogLeg.9354" said:

> Another problem is that with automatic upgrades servers with heavy night- or morningcrews will get always T3 keeps for the prime time. So, getting points for fighting no enemies, and capturing objectives without anyone defending AND also getting rewarded with highest tier and well defendable objectives for the time when there is actually enemies around. Once in the prime time, everyone will look at the maps, ignore those T3 objectives, and go for other server who is unlucky enough to have their stuff taken during the night, and has to recap everything during the day.

 

That impact might lessen with the alliance system which is suppose to help even out the population for all time zones. With that attackers may also get more numbers to help control the other conditions to level a keep such as taking camps and killing yaks.

 

I do also think maybe some changes to siege is needed, such as lowering the range of arrow carts and lessen the amount of siege that can be placed in areas for everything but rams, and maybe as someone else suggested to raise the supply cost of defensive siege.

 

 

[Threather.9354]

You cant fight in/near T3 enemy/keep tower anymore with all the tactics, siege, gliding and claim buff. Also you cant take the wall down from far away cuz shield gens can block treb and cata fire. You cant even treb/meteor the shield gens down cuz they have too much health and range.

 

If you could get in fast enough and clear the siege... Maybe.. Otherwise claim buff and tactics ought to be nerfed. HARD NERFED, offensive side should be equal to defending outside siege + faster respawn.