WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Sovereign.1093]

=) if we were in the same server, i'd simply block you.

 

if were in a ts, i'd do the same. if you own the ts or discord and ban me, i'd just use my own.

 

there'd be players who will play with me and there will be those who will not. and that is fine.

 

you see, there are players like me who will use everything available and do my way of wvw and take advantage of the enemy weakness. and there will be those who will do your way. and since the play pen is wvw, you've got to deal with it.

 

dont like it? tough.

 

p.s. as not to derail this thread. ac is op. =p

 

p.s.s. peer presure etc. deso tried that tactic on me. didnt work. only made me tag more and longer.

 

but so you can use something, maybe in the future and if really think your low enough. if you want me off the server. be a fake friend, support me all the way, and then back stab me. that will get to me. thats the only way for me to leave a server. besides reuniting with irl buddies in a server they are on. or where there is a server that plays on my time.

 

 

 

[Rysdude.3824]

This attempt at macho smack talk in the forums of a video game is hilarious, yet sad, at the same time lol

 

Oh, arrow carts are fine as is.

[Sovereign.1093]

i agree. it is sad. :/

[Aeolus.3615]

TdLR:

Ac's needs to hurt bad groups, killing damage and allow to be spammed is the wrong way to go..... that would make every one ignore it.... and would force more ac's to be built, so reduce damage and keep spam is not the solution...

Ac's need to get players to at least fire the siege with more skill and timings required, or wait for better opportunities, if defender want to build 10 ac's only way to get the massive spike damage woudl be with a coodinated spike, and then would enter in 8-10sec CD /recharge.

Players could sustain, block, dodge, vulnerabilities to protect against that spike.

Ac's is to easy to stack and pressure zones, while players dont use AC's has counter gameplay nor delay other group but stack alot of ac's to counter playersn and use it like a solution, this is the current issue.

Ac's need to counter players w/o being to much when ac's overstacked in 1 place, more like spike and enter in CD than actually how they work, spam spam spam ......

So, ll repeat myself make Ac skill 1 with a 8 sec CD) (reduced damage by toughness)and give proper sound and delay for players move if they have atention to the sound, maybe 1-2 seconds is enought, atm is instant spam...wich is why people overstack them and dont go fight when on equal numbers.

 

 

Major issues:

Zerglings/blobers dont want to figh players nor ac's they want easy caps.. they will complain no matter what.

Paper toons and zerkers want to sustain ac's easilly.

Defenders dont want to fight and overstack siege in hope they resolve the issue.

Large servers deploying several ac's to figh smaller servers to help them, rather than use their manpower.

[Sovereign.1093]

wvw is so much like a moba, maybe edit abit of what we have now and simplify?

[Israel.7056]

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> This attempt at macho smack talk in the forums of a video game is hilarious, yet sad, at the same time lol

>

> Oh, arrow carts are fine as is.

 

Not about being "macho" just expressing my utter disgust at the viewpoint being presented.

 

But then you don't seem to think ethics and morality have any place in video games for some reason. Luckily most people are not nihilists.

 

No acs are not fine.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> wvw is so much like a moba, maybe edit abit of what we have now and simplify?

 

Simplification for Anet means more spam more damage... carefull with what u ask there lol...

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > wvw is so much like a moba, maybe edit abit of what we have now and simplify?

>

> Simplification for Anet means more spam more damage... carefull with what u ask there lol...

 

hehe, well it is a war x resource simulator this wvw is.

 

ae is simply the option to deal with nos. i mean maybe the limit of the engine?

[Israel.7056]

What is truly sad and unfortunate to see is how common this viewpoint seems to be within the gw2 community.

 

I'm glad to see that not everyone takes the low road though.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > wvw is so much like a moba, maybe edit abit of what we have now and simplify?

> >

> > Simplification for Anet means more spam more damage... carefull with what u ask there lol...

>

> hehe, well it is a war x resource simulator this wvw is.

>

> ae is simply the option to deal with nos. i mean maybe the limit of the engine?

 

The less spam the more they can add later.... imagine MS hittin 20 players with big rocks falling from the sky hiting 5 players heach, :dizzy: that would be a true meteor storm... and not a rock on your head skill xD.

 

Spam = casuals feeling good, Anet is top at managing placebos, reason they prefer to keep with the Ac's spam rather than make players learn how and when to use it.

 

@Israel.7056, i think it is good, i feel everyone knows how ac's can reach very lame levels , but they dont have much option, some are from small servers that fight big groups + siege so they are forced to use siege as well, that's how WvW is designed to work.

Others dont care, they still find skill by overpowering with tons of siege smaller groups, its a cause and effect thing..

[Sovereign.1093]

if they make a map objective based, but may be a bit too hard, like the old guild quests in pve, where a team has to coordinately do something together to accomplish something.

 

you still get fights but you have to split. or out a timer and required no. of players to pull off?

 

like the guild missions atleast 3 to cap this and hold whereas team 2 attacks and hold x area, and then team 3 moves in to perma open something then 3 targets need to be caped at the same time so players will have to spli and fight for it and a timer if players refuse to play the mechanic, they get moved to the spawn.

 

would be fun, but not zergy, and difficult. squads be max of 10 to 15 etc. maybe another.game. though.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > wvw is so much like a moba, maybe edit abit of what we have now and simplify?

> > >

> > > Simplification for Anet means more spam more damage... carefull with what u ask there lol...

> >

> > hehe, well it is a war x resource simulator this wvw is.

> >

> > ae is simply the option to deal with nos. i mean maybe the limit of the engine?

>

> The less spam the more they can add later.... imagine MS hittin 20 players with big rocks falling from the sky hiting 5 players heach, :dizzy: that would be a true meteor storm... and not a rock on your head skill xD.

>

> Spam = casuals feeling good, Anet is top at managing placebos, reason they prefer to keep with the Ac's spam rather than make players learn how and when to use it.

>

> @Israel.7056, i think it is good, i feel everyone knows how ac's can reach very lame levels , but they dont have much option, some are from small servers that fight big groups + siege so they are forced to use siege as well, that's how WvW is designed to work.

 

I play on a relatively small na server too. No one is ever forced to do anything using siege is always always a choice. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. To me it's obvious that using siege to try to win fights is wrong and disgraceful and it makes terrible players in the long run. Better to try the fight legit and lose the fight and the objective than disgrace yourself I say. Unfortunately there are people on my server who will defend things with acs but I try to yell at them as much as possible whenever I see it.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > wvw is so much like a moba, maybe edit abit of what we have now and simplify?

> > > >

> > > > Simplification for Anet means more spam more damage... carefull with what u ask there lol...

> > >

> > > hehe, well it is a war x resource simulator this wvw is.

> > >

> > > ae is simply the option to deal with nos. i mean maybe the limit of the engine?

> >

> > The less spam the more they can add later.... imagine MS hittin 20 players with big rocks falling from the sky hiting 5 players heach, :dizzy: that would be a true meteor storm... and not a rock on your head skill xD.

> >

> > Spam = casuals feeling good, Anet is top at managing placebos, reason they prefer to keep with the Ac's spam rather than make players learn how and when to use it.

> >

> > @Israel.7056, i think it is good, i feel everyone knows how ac's can reach very lame levels , but they dont have much option, some are from small servers that fight big groups + siege so they are forced to use siege as well, that's how WvW is designed to work.

>

> I play on a relatively small na server too. No one is ever forced to do anything using siege is always always a choice. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. To me it's obvious that using siege to try to win fights is wrong and disgraceful and it makes terrible players in the long run. Better to try the fight legit and lose the fight and the objective than disgrace yourself I say. Unfortunately there are people on my server who will defend things with acs but I try to yell at them as much as possible whenever I see it.

 

Hard to fight legit 10-15 vs 40+ sometimes 60 plus (some times.. if not most of them, the amount of scourges on the other side is the number of players on my side and ts) another 30-40 of another servers trying to leech behind, where both servers are avoiding to colide...

One could go to another map, but the momment we start taking stuffm the server would stack as much they can with siege and players or we would be ending figthing a empty map, lucky players on my side dont like much to fight emptry structures at least we get that good most fo us kinda hate ktrain vs emptyness.... soooo only way is to keep on same map and give a little help against such numbers, note that theres siege on field by the larger groups as well, sometimes they have even trebs, catapults, and mortars from smc or nearby strucutre., that momment we bail back and laugh on TS.

 

I think issue is a "hardcoded mentality" that Anet gave to most players due how mehcanicless game is mostly towards powercreep faster than your target can.

 

 

I play on a server of rangers and druids, when 15-20 on tag and we have 1-2 scourges and 2 or 3 Fb's, sometimes no FB at all xD

[Israel.7056]

Believe me I know the feeling. My server has been a complete disaster lately almost no one running proper builds very few people getting in coms etc etc. And yeah 15v40 is a tough fight for anyone. I've got over 11k hrs in this game and I've been in god only knows how many fights and I still lose those all the time. But it's better to try the fight and lose with honor than build a bunch of siege and maybe win. Also sometimes I win when massively outnumbered and that's a great feeling when it happens.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

Nope, AC's are not fine. They need a buff.

[cobbah.3102]

Hmm I believe the title of post was "AC nerf" not about morality or justice. Would love to see the post carry on as it was intended to be about . I for one condone the use of AC to balance the field of play , and also condone the use of jumping into the fray which I have done numerous times , I enjoy my style of play and shock horror I play Minstrel Druid , frontline healer appeals to me running through a blob is appealing ,enjoying the game is appealing, the use of comms not so much but I guess I put that down to the fact of being deaf hinders me in that way. And yes I have commanded back in the day before comms became a thing and I will use AC where and when I see fit. So kindly lets get back on subject and forget the lecture on inane subject matter, I thank you.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> Hmm I believe the title of post was "AC nerf" not about morality or justice. Would love to see the post carry on as it was intended to be about . I for one condone the use of AC to balance the field of play , and also condone the use of jumping into the fray which I have done numerous times , I enjoy my style of play and shock horror I play Minstrel Druid , frontline healer appeals to me running through a blob is appealing ,enjoying the game is appealing, the use of comms not so much but I guess I put that down to the fact of being deaf hinders me in that way. And yes I have commanded back in the day before comms became a thing and I will use AC where and when I see fit. So kindly lets get back on subject and forget the lecture on inane subject matter, I thank you.

 

The so-called "defenders advantage" as a whole is supposed to balance the field of play. If players were relying upon AC for balance, that's a signal that it was too strong and needed nerfing. It is no different from the past over-reliance on omega golems for attacking which were also properly nerfed.

 

Proper balancing between offense and defense mechanics should be done for times of high activity between servers, like during a prime time between servers of roughly equal activity. I'd argue that during times of low activity, like where one server has way more population playing than the other servers, that's a problem of night-capping/coverage and gets conflated with the offense/defense balance of sieging. There can be no reasonable balance achieved through fight/siege mechanics during those times of poor coverage, which is probably why a past discussion on scoring introduced the concept of a score multiplier based on activity levels for balance.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> Hmm I believe the title of post was "AC nerf" not about morality or justice. Would love to see the post carry on as it was intended to be about . I for one condone the use of AC to balance the field of play , and also condone the use of jumping into the fray which I have done numerous times

 

Uhu

 

> I enjoy my style of play and shock horror I play Minstrel Druid , frontline healer appeals to me running through a blob is appealing ,enjoying the game is appealing, the use of comms not so much

 

That explains so much.

 

ACs are not a tool to avoid good gameplay. ACs are not there to avoid coordination.

 

Minstrel druid isn't a frontliner; at least not a viable one. FB and scrapper are so much better it's not even funny. Hell, even tempest which I don't consider viable is better than druid for frontlining. It can't reliably heal, maintain defensive buffs or condi clear.

 

What you need is class balance so frontline druid can be a thing. Not AC's being overpowered enough to avoid player combat all together.... which seems to be the common theme here. On another note; players are still building ACs on just about every structure they try to defend. These acs still have fairly high pressure on the attacking group, giving the defenders further bonusses. Since acs and defensive siege are still being spam built and appears to be effective, I'd say defending and defensive siege is still a thing.

 

It's just not as insanely broken as it used to be. Could probably use further siege rebalancing looking towards bringing GOLEMS in line. Additionally balancing upgrading speed between alpine and desert bl.

 

@"Chaba.5410" is correct; the map itself produces a defenders advantage. Current acs do so as well. Rather than demanding ACs be strong enough to instantly stop any assault; current system lets the "easier" outer objectives (often less upgraded too) flip when both sides have a big difference in strength. This moves the fight to a further defensive advantage, avoiding the stalemate and promoting more "even" fights equalized by the defenders advantage.

 

This natural progression is much healthier; as it promotes creating environments wherein a stronger group pushes objectives as far as they can rather than stalling for 2-4 hours in WW1 trench-style siege warfare; and actual PPT / resetting T3 only happening when forces are so heavily mismatched a fight isn't possible.

 

We've also noticed a shift from AC and PPT heavy servers to active defending. Of course they still don't come fight me open field; but servers which would previously "defend" with 10+ acs while their other groups backcap other stuff are now forced to send most of their players to defend. That makes it a fight with 50+ players, T3 structures near respawn, tacticators and defenders advantage... But somehow these fights are still more fun than being stalled by siege / acs for 1-2 hours after which defenders jump out.

The issue wasn't servers lacking players; but rather not needing to organise players to defend as ACs were usually sufficient. For organised groups with high coordination and sustain; the situation now is very manageable. For pugs, ACs are still a deathtrap and most pug zergs aren't able to force upgraded structures (as pugs lack the coordination) even against far weaker, less coordinated defenders.

 

Oh also; when are trebs are trebs being changed from being "defensive" siege as the #1 ram counter? ;)

[cobbah.3102]

A stronger group? by that you mean large zergs just wanting easy ingress to an objective and not have "their"style of play interrupted by people who play the game as it was designed. You used a lot of words in relation to a simple AC nerf thread and inserted your idea of what the game should be to suit the "fight" guild elitists I am sorry but the game is all inclusive even for "US" pugs as you so quaintly put the term. And who decides when druid frontline heal is or is not viable I have no problem with it. Anyone can run a "meta" build but I prefer to not be a lemming. why should I run what the zerg runs when the zerg around me is dying from ac fire because they are not built to stand near the walls that impacts on the attackers , or what others deem acceptable for my style of gameplay I am not tied into one form of the game of WvW . You do not know me so you only assume druid is not viable I guess it is just a reflection of the impression of druid and rangers as far as the zerg ethos goes . And then you throw a treb comment in hmm sort of strange reference but to be expected.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> A stronger group? by that you mean large zergs just wanting easy ingress to an objective and not have "their"style of play interrupted by people who play the game as it was designed.

 

Yes, every group you can't beat is larger and wants easy objectives. Clearly I'm stating acs should be deleted from the game and not arguing in favor of map progression and overall balance between attack and defense... It's almost as if you selectively ignored all those things in each post while claiming players just want to freely karmatrain everything you own. Except none of us EVER stated that.

 

>You used a lot of words in relation to a simple AC nerf thread and inserted your idea of what the game should be to suit the "fight" guild elitists I am sorry but the game is all inclusive even for "US" pugs as you so quaintly put the term.

 

I lead for pugs. I'm sorry but even "pugs" can try to win. I just lead for pugs willing to coordinate and play meta. You know, inclusive of EVERYONE who's willing to listen to my basic rules of getting a build and listening on discord.

 

>And who decides when druid frontline heal is or is not viable I have no problem with it. Anyone can run a "meta" build but I prefer to not be a lemming.

 

The meta is decided by anet's balancing team ;)

 

>why should I run what the zerg runs when the zerg around me is dying from ac fire because they are not built to stand near the walls that impacts on the attackers , or what others deem acceptable for my style of gameplay I am not tied into one form of the game of WvW . You do not know me so you only assume druid is not viable I guess it is just a reflection of the impression of druid and rangers as far as the zerg ethos goes .

 

I thought the group was a massive zerg that just wanted easy karma and acs weren't strong enough to stop them...

 

I do assume minstrel druid is not a viable frontliner. Because of me giving you several examples of classes which perform significantly better. It has nothing to do with "you" as a person.

 

>And then you throw a treb comment in hmm sort of strange reference but to be expected.

 

Only the start of the post was directed at you. You might have noticed from me referring to other players and talking about different things.

 

I just find it hilarious that its always rangers xD

[cobbah.3102]

Ahh there we go the assumption that its not viable you havent played it and yet you assume its not viable such a blinkered view ,anyways back to the topic AC is fine as it is just learn to deal with it nobody forces anyone to stand under them to die I know I do not choose to but if required I can heal under them so I have no problem with them. And I do put it on a par with my firebrand in that regard. And if you are going to throw a quote in there please put the whole thing regards to comms you missed the important bit in regards to it like the fact of deafness but then its fine I can read minds :expressionless:

[Sovereign.1093]

If you dedicate a burn guard, that ac is toast. in a 2x guard per team, one could be a burn guard. just probably 3 or 4 burn guards. but, i think not many decide to run a certain composition anymore.

 

p.s. thanks for the acs. you know who you are. also, proof or didn't happen as per claim. hehe

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> Nope, AC's are not fine. They need a buff.

 

They need a buff and a nerf at same time :D, it is possible.

 

Ill keep my crusade of make every AC's skils a 8 sec CD and good sound+1-2 sec of arrow flytime with a decent shooting sound, players would have to risk to stay there and get pulled or aoed.

 

Issue is the infinite spam when theres several ac's stacked, players would have to learn to sync voleys and then push on the ground even if theres 10 Ac's voley should have the need to be sync by all players (if they really wanted to do a very decent spike aoe) but then, thos e10 ac's would enter in a 8sec CD.

Players can only have 3 max hit from the ac's, but they would kinda hurt, and damage would be greadually reduced by toughness, this woul dalso make players learn who can stay closer to the hot fight zone as well.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> If you dedicate a burn guard, that ac is toast. in a 2x guard per team, one could be a burn guard. just probably 3 or 4 burn guards. but, i think not many decide to run a certain composition anymore.

 

Those people "pugging" defense on their non-group comp build are also the same people who are not running a burn guard to counter ACs when they follow a pug tag. And then people start threads wondering where all the commanders went....

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > If you dedicate a burn guard, that ac is toast. in a 2x guard per team, one could be a burn guard. just probably 3 or 4 burn guards. but, i think not many decide to run a certain composition anymore.

>

> Those people "pugging" defense on their non-group comp build are also the same people who are not running a burn guard to counter ACs when they follow a pug tag. And then people start threads wondering where all the commanders went....

 

is the burn guard really a rare thing now? i know they nerfed but they kill acs so effectively. :/

 

in my raids, most of the guys are guildies so they know what i want since we've raided for almost a year now.

 

dont alliances try to setup comp suggestions?