WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Israel.7056]

Also Victory aren't you an EU player?

[babazhook.6805]

> @"Garrus.7403" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > Arrow carts don't seem much weaker to me. Seems like the crying over the nerf was an enormous overreaction.

> >

> > No that is not what it tells me. It tells me that the group that felt this would lead to more open field fights were exactly wrong. Arrow Carts ARE weaker when they manned by small groups against larger but there no real difference when there a much larger defending force that can use multiples of them. This pretty well exactly what the group opposed to the nerfs were stating.

>

> kitten you hit only 25 targets and less often how are acs not weaker? If you had 7 acs before patch on you and you have 7 acs on you now after the patch the pressure you get now is much weaker.

 

No. if you had seven arrow carts before and only 4 people to man them , they are weaker overall. if you have 10 ACS now and 15 men to man them you can build 5 more and man them all. The claim was made that groups of equal mumbers to those trying to take a keep would just sit on arrow carts. They still can. nerfing them to nothing will not create more fights.

[cobbah.3102]

Oh my this is still going , time to move on and get some fights in the game. Hmm no think I will sit on my AC and shoot blobs.

[Israel.7056]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> They still can. nerfing them to nothing will not create more fights.

 

It will largely remove the incentive to sit on arrow carts instead of trying to fight to defend things. So in other words if people want to defend things AND they believe their best chance of doing so is attempting to fight then the incentives are pointing players in the right direction which is fighting. Right now if players want to defend things **REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBERS THE BEST OPTION IS SIEGE TURTLING**. So ofcourse everyone builds siege to defend things instead of trying to fight. This is a perverse incentive because it highly discourages fighting and highly encourages siege turtling no matter the objective no matter the numbers. **SIEGE TURTLING IS ALWAYS THE OPTIMAL STRATEGY FOR DEFENSE REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS.** Humans respond to incentives. Change the incentives and you change the way humans will play the game.

[babazhook.6805]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > They still can. nerfing them to nothing will not create more fights.

>

> It will largely remove the incentive to sit on arrow carts instead of trying to fight to defend things. So in other words if people want to defend things AND they believe their best chance of doing so is attempting to fight then the incentives are pointing players in the right direction which is fighting. Right now if players want to defend things **REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBERS THE BEST OPTION IS SIEGE TURTLING**. So ofcourse everyone builds siege to defend things instead of trying to fight. This is a perverse incentive because it highly discourages fighting and highly encourages siege turtling no matter the objective no matter the numbers. **SIEGE TURTLING IS ALWAYS THE OPTIMAL STRATEGY FOR DEFENSE REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS.** Humans respond to incentives. Change the incentives and you change the way humans will play the game.

 

Well no it will not. I have seen no increase in the willingness to fight a given battle. If a group does nto want to fight 50 v 50 now they will not do so if there no arrow carts.

 

EOTM has little in the way of defense of structures and I do not see a lot of fights there either.

 

As to incentives, defending a structure it might have took hours to get to level 3 is an INCENTIVE. The most fights I see are still around defending those same structures and not out in the open. The fights occur either outside those Keep walls to drive an enemy away, or inside them once a wall falls and inner or the lord being worked on. The "I get bored fighting at a castle wall or trying to get to lords so quit crowd' do NOT want a fight . They want the structure to flip as quickly as possible.

[Israel.7056]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > > They still can. nerfing them to nothing will not create more fights.

> >

> > It will largely remove the incentive to sit on arrow carts instead of trying to fight to defend things. So in other words if people want to defend things AND they believe their best chance of doing so is attempting to fight then the incentives are pointing players in the right direction which is fighting. Right now if players want to defend things **REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBERS THE BEST OPTION IS SIEGE TURTLING**. So ofcourse everyone builds siege to defend things instead of trying to fight. This is a perverse incentive because it highly discourages fighting and highly encourages siege turtling no matter the objective no matter the numbers. **SIEGE TURTLING IS ALWAYS THE OPTIMAL STRATEGY FOR DEFENSE REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS.** Humans respond to incentives. Change the incentives and you change the way humans will play the game.

>

> Well no it will not. I have seen no increase in the willingness to fight a given battle. If a group does nto want to fight 50 v 50 now they will not do so if there no arrow carts.

>

> EOTM has little in the way of defense of structures and I do not see a lot of fights there either.

>

> As to incentives, defending a structure it might have took hours to get to level 3 is an INCENTIVE. The most fights I see are still around defending those same structures and not out in the open. The fights occur either outside those Keep walls to drive an enemy away, or inside them once a wall falls and inner or the lord being worked on. The "I get bored fighting at a castle wall or trying to get to lords so quit crowd' do NOT want a fight . They want the structure to flip as quickly as possible.

 

Getting people to defend an objective is not the problem, getting people to defend without just turtling inside and building siege for 4 hours is the problem. Why do people turtle objectives with siege? BECAUSE IT WORKS AND ANYONE CAN DO IT REGARDLESS OF SKILL LEVEL.

 

The optimal defense strategy regardless of the objective, regardless of numbers is to turtle inside and build siege for hours because the siege is extremely powerful and anyone can use it which means it takes absolutely no skill to operate any of it which means even total novices can be useful with it which means they never have to learn to actually fight other players. It is a crutch and it creates the perverse incentive that if you want to defend your stuff you are better off not fighting at all until you absolutely have to and building as much siege as possible every chance you get. If the siege was nerfed so hard that it was practically useless then people who were interested in defending objectives would have to actually fight other players to defend because sitting on siege would no longer be an option.

 

If you don't see why EOTM is not a valid comparison to real WvW I don't know how to help you.

[Ubi.4136]

They need to remove ALL siege except rams and oil.

Structures can only be damaged BY rams, and only the door can be damaged.

Make the walls slightly higher and limit rams on the door to 3.

Want to take something, walk your ass over to the door and get on a ram.

Problem solved.

[Sovereign.1093]

ac favors the user. =)

 

the counter, long range treb x burn guard or staff ele, with time invested, can kill it.

[Garrus.7403]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> They need to remove ALL siege except rams and oil.

> Structures can only be damaged BY rams, and only the door can be damaged.

> Make the walls slightly higher and limit rams on the door to 3.

> Want to take something, walk your kitten over to the door and get on a ram.

> Problem solved.

 

As long as you remove all defensive siege like trebs which you can build behind the gate I am fine with it.

[Etheri.5406]

Weaver is the counter for what; badly placed ACs?

You can build acs on : bay inner, hills inner, garri, fire keep, air keep, every inner SM gate, every EB keep, half the towers in the game which can't be hit by eles.

 

As if it's my fault defenders constantly go on walls to build acs there when you can have acs on third floor which can't be cleared without going through the lordsroom and 15 chokes; not even by trebbing when placed well.

 

And on those same keeps, virtually every inner gate can have defensive treb making rams next to useless. Oh wait no; i'm supposed to countertreb the siege on inner keeps casually ignoring how the changes to upgrading structures allow most structures to be T3 and full of supply in a matter of hours, when they used to take longer, require gold AND be empty of sups so you'd have to choose between siegespam and upgrades.

 

I see acs being used as an equalizer rather than a primary source of defense more and more often. I think this is a good change.

I've done some offenses against a PPT-heavy AC-loving server over the weekend. They tried their usual "lets build 20 acs and hope they don't get in" strats on desert bl and lost every single T3 keep there. They stacked 70+ players on top of 10-15 players on their EB keep. I got into lordsroom twice and eventually wiped to siege and respawns. Even with EB keep and veloka drained off sups, they can rebuild substantial amounts of siege during and between every fight by bringing it from EOTM / other maps. That said; they NEED players to fight alongside the siege spam.

 

Siege alone shouldn't stop players, and in many ways it doesn't at the moment. It just helps bad and small groups do better; allowing more even fights when they by default aren't; and that is OK.

 

Also about the "QQ zone blob; avoidant PPT with various small groups is still superior. If your defenders are actually as "skilled" as the blob, you win while defending supported by siege even with 2/3rd of their players. 35 vs 50 in your objective is a fairly even fight. Most defenders are just either far from as skilled as they like to believe, or unable to coordinate with others. Building ACs isn't coordination. Not even if you flash build them ;).

 

The change is good and healthy. Overall not much changed; it just punishes full-stacking ACs. Nobody said this would give more open fights. But I've definitely been getting more PPT-oriented fights inside structures between attackers and defenders where the fights are determined by players using their player skills. If siege alone doesn't stop me from getting into the lordsroom, players HAVE to come and defend and use their actual skills (aided by siege) giving them a good chance at winning even when they're weaker. Servers we reliably one-push in openfield can still provide a challenge the moment you poke their upgraded objectives; and the challenge isn't staying awake while you play siegewars for 5 hours.

 

Next discussion : When are we changing SM? SM, particularly auto-upgrading SM which typically also gets sieged into oblivion makes a stalemate out of the most populated and pug-heavy environment in the game. Upgraded SM is completely broken; and its current upgrading speed and ease is far too high compared to what it takes to flip it. Frankly; I don't even see why SM should upgrade anymore. The structure is so dominant on EBG that having it alone is a major advantage; without any upgrades. Perhaps just let it have tactics and stronger walls, but remove the insane amounts of cannons and mortars.

[Sovereign.1093]

=) a decent group knows how to take advantage of any opportunity and use it to win. only bad groups ignore the game mechanics.

 

on the side of the devs they can control the situation by buffing or nerfing how things go.

 

just like lol or dota or cs

 

what we can do as players - give feedback. so they pay attention and do the change after doing their own research. right? you guys do your own testing!!!

 

as for ac... well, the players who know how to use it has an edge.

 

example... against all t4 to t1 situation we have been in. we have wiped with 20 to 30 a full q blob with our choke ac tactic. it worked 75% of the time. it is op. nerfing where it is placed will help balance things.

 

i s y n. the amount of bags the choke ac tactic gets. we stopped using it for the reason that devs will nerf the ac more. and suprise they did.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> =) a decent group knows how to take advantage of any opportunity and use it to win. only bad groups ignore the game mechanics.

>

> on the side of the devs they can control the situation by buffing or nerfing how things go.

>

> just like lol or dota or cs

 

If a decent group needs to rely on any advantage and opportunity it can to win; it'll be too busy producing non-losing stalemates to improve and continue winning.

The quicker a guild jumps to "using" advantages and opportunities to win, the more it relies on these advantages and struggles to improve on gameplay. This has been seen in the game time and time again. Players only improve as long as they're forced to. When given a bypass which allows immediate results they rather default to the bypass and avoid improving all together. Path of least resistance.

 

What's decent about building ACs, bunkering and holding chokes because you lose an openfield fight? Heavily outnumbered is one thing; but losing one or two fights followed by full-bunker gameplay just stops any improvement and ensures "decent" groups remain awful while keeping up their illusion of being decent. I remember a deso guild that was literally lootbags the moment you crossed them even numbers or anywhere openfield because they learned to rely on unfair advantages to have any chance at winning.

 

There's nothing "outplay" about sitting on a choke or a bunkered structure and waiting. Both sides are perfectly aware of the advantage the holding side has over the pushing side. It just forces a stalemate to avoid losing, but it doesn't improve you or your players if you win. I understand sometimes it's necessary; and that's ok. But most servers consider it necessary after losing once or twice; and as a result they need unfair advantages permanently. Because their pugs and often even experienced vets plain don't know anything else / better.

 

How can a decent group remain decent if they default to stagnating gameplay and "taking advantage of opportunities" by bunkering to avoid losing, which also makes them avoid improving. I don't think your movement becomes better from sitting inside objectives, shooting siege or waiting in front of a choke and yelling "bomb" the moment the enemies cross. Building ACs, holding chokes, bunkering inside objectives and pinsniping are just a bunch of excuses to avoid losing. It's not rocketscience. It doesn't mean you're "good" or "smart war commanders". It literally means you'll do whatever it takes to avoid... losing, even at the expense of the long-term strength of your group.

 

Using unfair advantages to make a fight more even is one thing. Using advantages to make up for clear lack of skill or unability to organise isn't decent. It's just enabling bad gameplay and deluding said players into thinking it's sufficient / good. The game promoted it for a far too long time with siege being absolutely broken; but in reality it has players relying on getting carried by siege and didn't improve. This only continues to make the skill difference between what I consider "decent" and what you consider "decent" bigger. What you call decent is... capable of getting bags one way or another. Hardly an achievement considering this game rewards you for participating, not for being decent at it.

 

I hear nightcapping all night makes you win PPT; which also makes you a winner in this game. Nightcappers are WvW gods, they singlehandedly carry matchups! Skillclicking is confirmed M E T A.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > =) a decent group knows how to take advantage of any opportunity and use it to win. only bad groups ignore the game mechanics.

> >

> > on the side of the devs they can control the situation by buffing or nerfing how things go.

> >

> > just like lol or dota or cs

>

> If a decent group needs to rely on any advantage and opportunity it can to win; it'll be too busy producing non-losing stalemates to improve and continue winning.

> The quicker a guild jumps to "using" advantages and opportunities to win, the more it relies on these advantages and struggles to improve on gameplay. This has been seen in the game time and time again. Players only improve as long as they're forced to. When given a bypass which allows immediate results they rather default to the bypass and avoid improving all together. Path of least resistance.

>

> What's decent about building ACs, bunkering and holding chokes because you lose an openfield fight? Heavily outnumbered is one thing; but losing one or two fights followed by full-bunker gameplay just stops any improvement and ensures "decent" groups remain awful while keeping up their illusion of being decent. I remember a deso guild that was literally lootbags the moment you crossed them even numbers or anywhere openfield because they learned to rely on unfair advantages to have any chance at winning.

>

> There's nothing "outplay" about sitting on a choke or a bunkered structure and waiting. Both sides are perfectly aware of the advantage the holding side has over the pushing side. It just forces a stalemate to avoid losing, but it doesn't improve you or your players if you win. I understand sometimes it's necessary; and that's ok. But most servers consider it necessary after losing once or twice; and as a result they need unfair advantages permanently. Because their pugs and often even experienced vets plain don't know anything else / better.

>

> How can a decent group remain decent if they default to stagnating gameplay and "taking advantage of opportunities" by bunkering to avoid losing, which also makes them avoid improving. I don't think your movement becomes better from sitting inside objectives, shooting siege or waiting in front of a choke and yelling "bomb" the moment the enemies cross. Building ACs, holding chokes, bunkering inside objectives and pinsniping are just a bunch of excuses to avoid losing. It's not rocketscience. It doesn't mean you're "good" or "smart war commanders". It literally means you'll do whatever it takes to avoid... losing, even at the expense of the long-term strength of your group.

>

> Using unfair advantages to make a fight more even is one thing. Using advantages to make up for clear lack of skill or unability to organise isn't decent. It's just enabling bad gameplay and deluding said players into thinking it's sufficient / good. The game promoted it for a far too long time with siege being absolutely broken; but in reality it has players relying on getting carried by siege and didn't improve. This only continues to make the skill difference between what I consider "decent" and what you consider "decent" bigger. What you call decent is... capable of getting bags one way or another. Hardly an achievement considering this game rewards you for participating, not for being decent at it.

>

> I hear nightcapping all night makes you win PPT; which also makes you a winner in this game. Nightcappers are WvW gods, they singlehandedly carry matchups! Skillclicking is confirmed M E T A.

 

1. a decent guild sets the enemy to a checkmate. any decent team knows that, not only in gw2.

 

2. a decent guild who knows how to recognize what to do when to do it will execute it on queue. like i wrote in no.1, you either set it up or opportune use it. you are never too busy for this. this is the result of experience

 

3. if you read what i wrote, ac is op for those who know how to use it. thats just it. my team of 20 to 30 farms a map queue with it in a choke, which is one situation where it tips the balance. it works it raise morale. any good leader knows morale is everything.

 

4. you hold one perspective but for us it is the opposite. i see the players cheer, have fun, enjoy the blood and guts of the enemy. again knowing how to use morale makes the team join ts, and the next round the enemy pushes, they fight. this is what i have observed having lead in nsp for 1 year from t4 to t1 and down.

 

now these guys who have raided with me thick or thin know that they are in for a blast. a serious but enjoyable time.

 

and they get better, they take time to understand why we use fb, scourge, sb, chrono. they then replicate and do better. long term wise, we produce veterans who know what.to do when what situation comes.

 

5. cant talk about nightcapping since we rarely are in that situation. normally, we are the nightcapped. and we fight back with all we.have

 

would be nice to have a night capping team though. will make our raiding easy

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > =) a decent group knows how to take advantage of any opportunity and use it to win. only bad groups ignore the game mechanics.

> > >

> > > on the side of the devs they can control the situation by buffing or nerfing how things go.

> > >

> > > just like lol or dota or cs

> >

> > If a decent group needs to rely on any advantage and opportunity it can to win; it'll be too busy producing non-losing stalemates to improve and continue winning.

> > The quicker a guild jumps to "using" advantages and opportunities to win, the more it relies on these advantages and struggles to improve on gameplay. This has been seen in the game time and time again. Players only improve as long as they're forced to. When given a bypass which allows immediate results they rather default to the bypass and avoid improving all together. Path of least resistance.

> >

> > What's decent about building ACs, bunkering and holding chokes because you lose an openfield fight? Heavily outnumbered is one thing; but losing one or two fights followed by full-bunker gameplay just stops any improvement and ensures "decent" groups remain awful while keeping up their illusion of being decent. I remember a deso guild that was literally lootbags the moment you crossed them even numbers or anywhere openfield because they learned to rely on unfair advantages to have any chance at winning.

> >

> > There's nothing "outplay" about sitting on a choke or a bunkered structure and waiting. Both sides are perfectly aware of the advantage the holding side has over the pushing side. It just forces a stalemate to avoid losing, but it doesn't improve you or your players if you win. I understand sometimes it's necessary; and that's ok. But most servers consider it necessary after losing once or twice; and as a result they need unfair advantages permanently. Because their pugs and often even experienced vets plain don't know anything else / better.

> >

> > How can a decent group remain decent if they default to stagnating gameplay and "taking advantage of opportunities" by bunkering to avoid losing, which also makes them avoid improving. I don't think your movement becomes better from sitting inside objectives, shooting siege or waiting in front of a choke and yelling "bomb" the moment the enemies cross. Building ACs, holding chokes, bunkering inside objectives and pinsniping are just a bunch of excuses to avoid losing. It's not rocketscience. It doesn't mean you're "good" or "smart war commanders". It literally means you'll do whatever it takes to avoid... losing, even at the expense of the long-term strength of your group.

> >

> > Using unfair advantages to make a fight more even is one thing. Using advantages to make up for clear lack of skill or unability to organise isn't decent. It's just enabling bad gameplay and deluding said players into thinking it's sufficient / good. The game promoted it for a far too long time with siege being absolutely broken; but in reality it has players relying on getting carried by siege and didn't improve. This only continues to make the skill difference between what I consider "decent" and what you consider "decent" bigger. What you call decent is... capable of getting bags one way or another. Hardly an achievement considering this game rewards you for participating, not for being decent at it.

> >

> > I hear nightcapping all night makes you win PPT; which also makes you a winner in this game. Nightcappers are WvW gods, they singlehandedly carry matchups! Skillclicking is confirmed M E T A.

>

> 1. a decent guild sets the enemy to a checkmate. any decent team knows that, not only in gw2.

>

> 2. a decent guild who knows how to recognize what to do when to do it will execute it on queue. like i wrote in no.1, you either set it up or opportune use it. you are never too busy for this. this is the result of experience

>

> 3. if you read what i wrote, ac is op for those who know how to use it. thats just it. my team of 20 to 30 farms a map queue with it in a choke, which is one situation where it tips the balance. it works it raise morale. any good leader knows morale is everything.

>

> 4. you hold one perspective but for us it is the opposite. i see the players cheer, have fun, enjoy the blood and guts of the enemy. again knowing how to use morale makes the team join ts, and the next round the enemy pushes, they fight. this is what i have observed having lead in nsp for 1 year from t4 to t1 and down.

>

> now these guys who have raided with me thick or thin know that they are in for a blast. a serious but enjoyable time.

>

> and they get better, they take time to understand why we use fb, scourge, sb, chrono. they then replicate and do better. long term wise, we produce veterans who know what.to do when what situation comes.

>

> 5. cant talk about nightcapping since we rarely are in that situation. normally, we are the nightcapped. and we fight back with all we.have

>

> would be nice to have a night capping team though. will make our raiding easy

 

As I'm saying, it deludes awful players into thinking they're smart when in reality; decent groups will continue to take the challenge not because they're "outsmarted" but because you give them only two options : outplay godawful players or not play / fight at all. And we see in many cases bad players will abuse this and expect this up to a point where many servers don't bother with them; at which point they are upset.

 

So tell me, which part of this checkmate makes you feel smart? The part where you give them the choice between not fighting - aka you not losing - and making them yolo push something impossible that was designed to give vastly weaker forces a chance which you'll happily abuse to make up for a lack of skill while claiming it makes you smart and better at the game? Interesting point of view.

 

It does one of two things : A) enemies do the same and you're in a full stalemate with neither of you actively playing the game other than finding an "opportune" moment. I've seen you try to do that and it's literally waiting for hours until either side logs off. Nice checkmate :open_mouth: or B) the enemies fight under major disadvantage and often still win because of the huge difference in skill produced by constantly abusing advantages rather than improving at the game.

 

I'm sure "decent" players cheer when they finally, magically win a fight or two... Yet they're still not improving through it. I'm sure they're having a blast; but again are they decent? I don't think so.

 

You talk about using FB's and proper builds and improvement yet I remember DH mains playing for months without ever adapting or improving at all. Racking up some sweet WVW xp and probably enjoying their time; no doubt. But not improving. Hell, even after months of being in a semi-hardcore WvW guild that raids frequently the gameplay was so awful I wouldn't want them in my public zergs.

 

You talk about decent leaders and decent groups but... I've literally seen you run from a T3 tower knowing you couldn't hold it and go straight to T3 garri building acs in that instead; giving up T3 sunny for free on a queue'd map. Obviously your group wasn't the strongest, yet half of it was your guild and even a T3 tower with siege wasn't "smart enough" to try. You just ran into garry and built siege. I decided I'd skip on garri for the day and instead we had no fights. I assume you consider that a victory; as you defended garri. Horray!

 

I agree morale is important; but morale is far from everything. You shouldn't baby players and their delusional expectations. If they play badly, you should be able to say it. Not yell it and flame them; but say it. If they can't handle being told they didn't play well and this ruins their morale; then they aren't capable of playing competitive / PvP style games. It's that simple. You can abuse siege, chokes and other "opportunities" to still occasionally get bags. I'm sure if it's a rare thing that's also "fun" and makes players very happy. But again; it teaches them their way to win is to abuse this rather than improving... Which eventually makes them completely unable to win anything except for abusing this.

 

You talk about beating mapblobs with advantages and I agree; opportunities and advantages can be used to make the fights more even. Yet; I distinctly remember you - not anyone else - losing fights you shouldn't lose by making mistakes in movement followed by you holding advantages you shouldn't need against smaller groups to avoid losing again. And from my perspective this happened a lot more than once.

 

I agree it's good to know about these tools and to use them when it's really necessary. I think you use them not when it's really necessary, but as soon as your group struggles or loses once or twice. I think this impairs your improvement and creates unrealistic expectations. What starts with one or two acs ends with needing 10 against everything, to then complain about how every half decent player has left. See : every PPT server left in this game.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

>

> Next discussion : When are we changing SM? SM, particularly auto-upgrading SM which typically also gets sieged into oblivion makes a stalemate out of the most populated and pug-heavy environment in the game. Upgraded SM is completely broken; and its current upgrading speed and ease is far too high compared to what it takes to flip it. Frankly; I don't even see why SM should upgrade anymore. The structure is so dominant on EBG that having it alone is a major advantage; without any upgrades. Perhaps just let it have tactics and stronger walls, but remove the insane amounts of cannons and mortars.

 

Considering the WP when T3 is never open as SMC is usually perma trebbed by farmers, I agree with getting rid of the upgrades. Tactics aren't dependent on upgrades at least, just the claim and the length of time so that wouldn't be a change at least.

 

Walls are kind of obsolete on SMC. They are rarely not broken. So whatever on that.

 

Gates... inner gates are hard to begin with. Maybe make them only upgrade to reinforced, or make stronger gates a tactic...,

 

But it would encourage more SMC fights.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> >

> > Next discussion : When are we changing SM? SM, particularly auto-upgrading SM which typically also gets sieged into oblivion makes a stalemate out of the most populated and pug-heavy environment in the game. Upgraded SM is completely broken; and its current upgrading speed and ease is far too high compared to what it takes to flip it. Frankly; I don't even see why SM should upgrade anymore. The structure is so dominant on EBG that having it alone is a major advantage; without any upgrades. Perhaps just let it have tactics and stronger walls, but remove the insane amounts of cannons and mortars.

>

> Considering the WP when T3 is never open as SMC is usually perma trebbed by farmers, I agree with getting rid of the upgrades. Tactics aren't dependent on upgrades at least, just the claim and the length of time so that wouldn't be a change at least.

>

> Walls are kind of obsolete on SMC. They are rarely not broken. So whatever on that.

>

> Gates... inner gates are hard to begin with. Maybe make them only upgrade to reinforced, or make stronger gates a tactic...,

>

> But it would encourage more SMC fights.

 

Outer SM reaches half the map, the amount of "fight spots" out of the reach of SM are pretty few.

Inner SM even with the walls down is insanely advantageous to defenders. Every gate has spots where you can build unhittable ACs. Taking down cannons and mortars takes a long time. You can only ram (or cata on gate LUL) the inner; and you can place trebs which can't be countered on every single gate.

 

The only thing that SM does is disturb balance. The amount of force required to take T2 or T3 sm - especially without doubleteaming - is far higher than that of an outer T3 tower. That means the moment T2 or T3 sm is flipped; often after hours of work, the map is instantly dead as all hope for the defenders is lost. Rather than natural progression (where you move on to more difficult objectives; which gives both attackers and defenders a reason to stick around when an objective flips) upgraded SM creates a stalemate; and when this stalemate is broken the result is generally a dead map.

 

The situational advantage of SM is massive. Defenders advantage in SM is massive. There's absolutely no reason for it to upgrade as much and as fast as it does right now. I say that as someone who enjoys SM fights a lot.

[Israel.7056]

Lol choke ac tactics god bless.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

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

> > > > =) a decent group knows how to take advantage of any opportunity and use it to win. only bad groups ignore the game mechanics.

> > > >

> > > > on the side of the devs they can control the situation by buffing or nerfing how things go.

> > > >

> > > > just like lol or dota or cs

> > >

> > > If a decent group needs to rely on any advantage and opportunity it can to win; it'll be too busy producing non-losing stalemates to improve and continue winning.

> > > The quicker a guild jumps to "using" advantages and opportunities to win, the more it relies on these advantages and struggles to improve on gameplay. This has been seen in the game time and time again. Players only improve as long as they're forced to. When given a bypass which allows immediate results they rather default to the bypass and avoid improving all together. Path of least resistance.

> > >

> > > What's decent about building ACs, bunkering and holding chokes because you lose an openfield fight? Heavily outnumbered is one thing; but losing one or two fights followed by full-bunker gameplay just stops any improvement and ensures "decent" groups remain awful while keeping up their illusion of being decent. I remember a deso guild that was literally lootbags the moment you crossed them even numbers or anywhere openfield because they learned to rely on unfair advantages to have any chance at winning.

> > >

> > > There's nothing "outplay" about sitting on a choke or a bunkered structure and waiting. Both sides are perfectly aware of the advantage the holding side has over the pushing side. It just forces a stalemate to avoid losing, but it doesn't improve you or your players if you win. I understand sometimes it's necessary; and that's ok. But most servers consider it necessary after losing once or twice; and as a result they need unfair advantages permanently. Because their pugs and often even experienced vets plain don't know anything else / better.

> > >

> > > How can a decent group remain decent if they default to stagnating gameplay and "taking advantage of opportunities" by bunkering to avoid losing, which also makes them avoid improving. I don't think your movement becomes better from sitting inside objectives, shooting siege or waiting in front of a choke and yelling "bomb" the moment the enemies cross. Building ACs, holding chokes, bunkering inside objectives and pinsniping are just a bunch of excuses to avoid losing. It's not rocketscience. It doesn't mean you're "good" or "smart war commanders". It literally means you'll do whatever it takes to avoid... losing, even at the expense of the long-term strength of your group.

> > >

> > > Using unfair advantages to make a fight more even is one thing. Using advantages to make up for clear lack of skill or unability to organise isn't decent. It's just enabling bad gameplay and deluding said players into thinking it's sufficient / good. The game promoted it for a far too long time with siege being absolutely broken; but in reality it has players relying on getting carried by siege and didn't improve. This only continues to make the skill difference between what I consider "decent" and what you consider "decent" bigger. What you call decent is... capable of getting bags one way or another. Hardly an achievement considering this game rewards you for participating, not for being decent at it.

> > >

> > > I hear nightcapping all night makes you win PPT; which also makes you a winner in this game. Nightcappers are WvW gods, they singlehandedly carry matchups! Skillclicking is confirmed M E T A.

> >

> > 1. a decent guild sets the enemy to a checkmate. any decent team knows that, not only in gw2.

> >

> > 2. a decent guild who knows how to recognize what to do when to do it will execute it on queue. like i wrote in no.1, you either set it up or opportune use it. you are never too busy for this. this is the result of experience

> >

> > 3. if you read what i wrote, ac is op for those who know how to use it. thats just it. my team of 20 to 30 farms a map queue with it in a choke, which is one situation where it tips the balance. it works it raise morale. any good leader knows morale is everything.

> >

> > 4. you hold one perspective but for us it is the opposite. i see the players cheer, have fun, enjoy the blood and guts of the enemy. again knowing how to use morale makes the team join ts, and the next round the enemy pushes, they fight. this is what i have observed having lead in nsp for 1 year from t4 to t1 and down.

> >

> > now these guys who have raided with me thick or thin know that they are in for a blast. a serious but enjoyable time.

> >

> > and they get better, they take time to understand why we use fb, scourge, sb, chrono. they then replicate and do better. long term wise, we produce veterans who know what.to do when what situation comes.

> >

> > 5. cant talk about nightcapping since we rarely are in that situation. normally, we are the nightcapped. and we fight back with all we.have

> >

> > would be nice to have a night capping team though. will make our raiding easy

>

> As I'm saying, it deludes awful players into thinking they're smart when in reality; decent groups will continue to take the challenge not because they're "outsmarted" but because you give them only two options : outplay godawful players or not play / fight at all. And we see in many cases bad players will abuse this and expect this up to a point where many servers don't bother with them; at which point they are upset.

>

> So tell me, which part of this checkmate makes you feel smart? The part where you give them the choice between not fighting - aka you not losing - and making them yolo push something impossible that was designed to give vastly weaker forces a chance which you'll happily abuse to make up for a lack of skill while claiming it makes you smart and better at the game? Interesting point of view.

>

> It does one of two things : A) enemies do the same and you're in a full stalemate with neither of you actively playing the game other than finding an "opportune" moment. I've seen you try to do that and it's literally waiting for hours until either side logs off. Nice checkmate :open_mouth: or B) the enemies fight under major disadvantage and often still win because of the huge difference in skill produced by constantly abusing advantages rather than improving at the game.

>

> I'm sure "decent" players cheer when they finally, magically win a fight or two... Yet they're still not improving through it. I'm sure they're having a blast; but again are they decent? I don't think so.

>

> You talk about using FB's and proper builds and improvement yet I remember DH mains playing for months without ever adapting or improving at all. Racking up some sweet WVW xp and probably enjoying their time; no doubt. But not improving. Hell, even after months of being in a semi-hardcore WvW guild that raids frequently the gameplay was so awful I wouldn't want them in my public zergs.

>

> You talk about decent leaders and decent groups but... I've literally seen you run from a T3 tower knowing you couldn't hold it and go straight to T3 garri building acs in that instead; giving up T3 sunny for free on a queue'd map. Obviously your group wasn't the strongest, yet half of it was your guild and even a T3 tower with siege wasn't "smart enough" to try. You just ran into garry and built siege. I decided I'd skip on garri for the day and instead we had no fights. I assume you consider that a victory; as you defended garri. Horray!

>

> I agree morale is important; but morale is far from everything. You shouldn't baby players and their delusional expectations. If they play badly, you should be able to say it. Not yell it and flame them; but say it. If they can't handle being told they didn't play well and this ruins their morale; then they aren't capable of playing competitive / PvP style games. It's that simple. You can abuse siege, chokes and other "opportunities" to still occasionally get bags. I'm sure if it's a rare thing that's also "fun" and makes players very happy. But again; it teaches them their way to win is to abuse this rather than improving... Which eventually makes them completely unable to win anything except for abusing this.

>

> You talk about beating mapblobs with advantages and I agree; opportunities and advantages can be used to make the fights more even. Yet; I distinctly remember you - not anyone else - losing fights you shouldn't lose by making mistakes in movement followed by you holding advantages you shouldn't need against smaller groups to avoid losing again. And from my perspective this happened a lot more than once.

>

> I agree it's good to know about these tools and to use them when it's really necessary. I think you use them not when it's really necessary, but as soon as your group struggles or loses once or twice. I think this impairs your improvement and creates unrealistic expectations. What starts with one or two acs ends with needing 10 against everything, to then complain about how every half decent player has left. See : every PPT server left in this game.

 

1. Let me correct you. There is no delusion here. Use what is available to counter the enemy's weak point. If they don't learn or try something to counter what wipes them, that's on them. Keeping it simple is simple practical. Now the thought that the only option is to do open field, especially in my case, where the enemy is, most of the time 2x our numbers, is deluded. Deluded in the sense that if you fight them and wipe, you repeatedly do it and get your team's morale down. A smart commander will think of another solution. In our raid the only thing we don't do is cheat.

 

2. Based on your reply on checkmate, shows you are not familiar with chess. This is has nothing to do with being smart or feeling smart. If you get the enemy in a situation where they show you a weakness, you take advantage. That is simply how it works. Now, I wonder where do you get all these ideas.

 

3. There is no stalemate in an uneven fight. You either tuck your tail or fight. We do risk 10% in trying in these cases, else we boycot. Fighting a blob, for my team of 7 to 12 is not fun. Now if we do face an even mach, the thing we do is fight. Our only metric is simple, if we are less than 15, and they outnumber us, our time is better spent looking for something else.

 

4. We disagree in terms of morale. For us, it is everything. People who enjoy come back. People who find the game not fun for them, don't return.,

 

5. I don't know when you followed me nor I don't remember who you are though. I don't think you've followed and played with us here in NS. And I don't remember you in deso or sfr.

 

6. The way we play is pretty simple. 1. if fights are fair we engage. 2. If fights are not fair whereby the enemy is 1/3 more than us and we are more than 15, we engage. 3. If fights are not fair and we are not atleast 15 and the enemy is 3x +1 our numbers, we bail. We use siege only in cases of gari defense/eb keep defense. So, for you to generalize how I play is simply speculating. In any case, the only players who I still interact or have a decent relationship in eu - asura, tompe martines, and uncle.

 

anyhow, I will not return to eu. I believe eu is better off with other players.

 

Now please stop bringing up things about me in threads. Instead - focus on the issue of ac. :bleep_bloop:

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> Lol choke ac tactics god bless.

 

>,< hehe it's the only thing that works if the enemy is extremely many. i think i have a few videos of it in the channel.

 

if the enemy is map que

 

1. at least 25 players

2. 3-5 s acs

3. 3 sbs to rotate bubble

4. 4 scourge to fear and keep them from going in

5. eles to rain death

6. the rest grinding the downs.

 

counter

 

long range siege to kill the acs.

portal in

2 groups working together to bait us.

[Israel.7056]

If the enemy is a map queue try to fight it anyways don't use acs that's lame dude.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> If the enemy is a map queue try to fight it anyways don't use acs that's lame dude.

 

Game is actually about lame XD,as much i hate it i end sometimes doing very lame stuff ._."

[shiri.4257]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

>Players only improve as long as they're forced to. When given a bypass which allows immediate results they rather default to the bypass and avoid improving all together. Path of least resistance.

The Bypass is to stack. Much Skill Much wow. AC fire at least requires proper positioning.

 

[iKeostuKen.2738]

Seems like the people opposed to this are those who rely on the blob stacking playstyle to gain results. There many ways to counter ACs, especially when you already outnumber the enemy team. Theres been plenty of times where all I see are orange/yellow numbers on my screen, the ac barely makes a dent in smart teams that know to keep protection and barrier spam up. AC doesnt need to be nerfed because it does its only purpose well.

[Ubi.4136]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> If the enemy is a map queue try to fight it anyways don't use acs that's lame dude.

 

The same can be said about all the overstacking servers that only fight when they have 50+ and only engage when the enemy has less than 30.

[Sovereign.1093]

 

here's like a sample raid of what we do. it's 2x speed and 4 panels. it will not show a smooth gameplay but it's fun. in the end, the thing that wiped our team was that guy on the tower hitting us with ac. in a way if he did not do it, we'd be farming all day.

 

siege works. people got to use what's available.