WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Marcel.1857]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Marcel.1857" said:

> > Tbh i like the patch that ac got a cd for hitting players but i dislike the dmg nerve for ac on siege weapons since ac´s are literally the only thing you can use for defense and since they do so less dmg on siege i give up on defending anything. it takes you 15min to kill a deam catapult kitten which wall would hold out that much??? And balista no sorry, the require a line of sight strait forward so you would need to build it on the edge of the wall and yeah you would get bombed out of life before hiting once. Same with oil and cannons they are on the edge and every commander does first take them down and build afterwards siege so there is no way to deffend except you got a blob on your side that can kill them.

>

> ac nerf was good for those who now use bunker stuff - with dwarf rev, healing fb. takes like atleast 3 acs to scare off a tanky group. ac is still strong but... ppl whine too much.

 

Well my problem is not rly that they reduced the dps on the ppl if it would be as i like, they would deal only dmg on siege but since the nerve they do literaly o dmg on siege i mean you can put down a superior flame ram and start opening the door the door will be open before you killed the flame ram with the ac.

 

[Garrus.7403]

> @"Marcel.1857" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > @"Marcel.1857" said:

> > > Tbh i like the patch that ac got a cd for hitting players but i dislike the dmg nerve for ac on siege weapons since ac´s are literally the only thing you can use for defense and since they do so less dmg on siege i give up on defending anything. it takes you 15min to kill a deam catapult kitten which wall would hold out that much??? And balista no sorry, the require a line of sight strait forward so you would need to build it on the edge of the wall and yeah you would get bombed out of life before hiting once. Same with oil and cannons they are on the edge and every commander does first take them down and build afterwards siege so there is no way to deffend except you got a blob on your side that can kill them.

> >

> > ac nerf was good for those who now use bunker stuff - with dwarf rev, healing fb. takes like atleast 3 acs to scare off a tanky group. ac is still strong but... ppl whine too much.

>

> Well my problem is not rly that they reduced the dps on the ppl if it would be as i like, they would deal only dmg on siege but since the nerve they do literaly o dmg on siege i mean you can put down a superior flame ram and start opening the door the door will be open before you killed the flame ram with the ac.

>

 

ac is anti player weapon not anti siege.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Garrus.7403" said:

> > @"Marcel.1857" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > @"Marcel.1857" said:

> > > > Tbh i like the patch that ac got a cd for hitting players but i dislike the dmg nerve for ac on siege weapons since ac´s are literally the only thing you can use for defense and since they do so less dmg on siege i give up on defending anything. it takes you 15min to kill a deam catapult kitten which wall would hold out that much??? And balista no sorry, the require a line of sight strait forward so you would need to build it on the edge of the wall and yeah you would get bombed out of life before hiting once. Same with oil and cannons they are on the edge and every commander does first take them down and build afterwards siege so there is no way to deffend except you got a blob on your side that can kill them.

> > >

> > > ac nerf was good for those who now use bunker stuff - with dwarf rev, healing fb. takes like atleast 3 acs to scare off a tanky group. ac is still strong but... ppl whine too much.

> >

> > Well my problem is not rly that they reduced the dps on the ppl if it would be as i like, they would deal only dmg on siege but since the nerve they do literaly o dmg on siege i mean you can put down a superior flame ram and start opening the door the door will be open before you killed the flame ram with the ac.

> >

>

> ac is anti player weapon not anti siege.

 

Yes it is. But currently, there is nothing to encourage people from using catas appropriately.. like building them away from the wall.

 

I wish they would have done the nerf to player damage like they did, increase the AC damage vs seige, but then allowed 'iron hide' to be more effective vs AC dmg.

 

This would keep the use of rams viable (unless they were dumb enough to leave oil), punish strategically dumb groups placing catas against walls, and allow pushes into structures without ACs being the deciding factor.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> also ac isnt op if players run bunkers. acs been nerfed. just dont stand in ac fire if your zerker and u will be fine.

 

^This, but sov Anet will make game easyer and carry players whenever they ask, we were holding alot the other day with minimal numbers of scourge and fb's (arround 3 of each), tanking about 4-6 sup ac's on smc.

Your group fully bunked the ac showe w/o any issues.... it actually felt like they were normal ac's :\ until they get destroyed due aoe advantage on wiping walls.

 

And we managed to take smc w/o issues even with the other group could had push us with similiar numbers.

 

 

I think Ac's have become way to easy to bunk and keep always your health above 70-90% isnt that hard, most players just QQ due how they want to afk tank under ac's on zerker gear,

Dont forget that most gw2 are awfully bad and casuals players, anything taht requires positioning is bad(wich atm isnt even needed to hold ac's damage....)

 

[Traveller.7496]

If anything the siege needs more of a nerf. "Fighting" against servers like Kodash or Baruch Bay is insanely boring since they will only fight when protected by their siege equipment, and even then only when they outnumber the enemy.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Traveller.7496" said:

> If anything the siege needs more of a nerf. "Fighting" against servers like Kodash or Baruch Bay is insanely boring since they will only fight when protected by their siege equipment, and even then only when they outnumber the enemy.

 

i feel ya. we dance in the ac field all day, with few a team members, but meh, the longer we try to break in, our superior siege gets ko'd by the ac users. and we need to resup to try again.

 

is fun though, by demonstration, it shows they need not worry of acs, but in the same light, having less nos. means less supplies, means, difficulty opening structures if the enemy does not want to play.

 

but i believe in the active approach, i will not whine if they will not fight outside the tower, it is therefore my job to get in their and force a fight.

[Aeolus.3615]

Increase AC damage to hurt and put it every skill on a 8sec CD(even ac auto), with this ac will spike when used with other siege, players can counter, and ac's users if know the right time to use it can kill some players who are not prepared to it.

 

Ill keep saying, the issue right now is how many players cant endure and are not ready to sustain the ac's spam, and not even want team play for that, Ac's are working like a condi tick, while u remain under it it will tick 400-1.5k deppends your damage reducers.

 

The spam needs ot be mass nerfed and damage increased.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> Increase AC damage to hurt and put it every skill on a 8sec CD(even ac auto), with this ac will spike when used with other siege, players can counter, and ac's users if know the right time to use it can kill some players who are not prepared to it.

>

> Ill keep saying, the issue right now is how many players cant endure and are not ready to sustain the ac's spam, and not even want team play for that, Ac's are working like a condi tick, while u remain under it it will tick 400-1.5k deppends your damage reducers.

>

> The spam needs ot be mass nerfed and damage increased.

 

they can make ac cc players and kill siege faster instead of ac for anti personnel hejehe

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > Increase AC damage to hurt and put it every skill on a 8sec CD(even ac auto), with this ac will spike when used with other siege, players can counter, and ac's users if know the right time to use it can kill some players who are not prepared to it.

> >

> > Ill keep saying, the issue right now is how many players cant endure and are not ready to sustain the ac's spam, and not even want team play for that, Ac's are working like a condi tick, while u remain under it it will tick 400-1.5k deppends your damage reducers.

> >

> > The spam needs ot be mass nerfed and damage increased.

>

> they can make ac cc players and kill siege faster instead of ac for anti personnel hejehe

 

I can imagine criple, players with resistance would be a counter :\ no issues on that and we can have 100% uptime of that as well, not hard.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > Increase AC damage to hurt and put it every skill on a 8sec CD(even ac auto), with this ac will spike when used with other siege, players can counter, and ac's users if know the right time to use it can kill some players who are not prepared to it.

> > >

> > > Ill keep saying, the issue right now is how many players cant endure and are not ready to sustain the ac's spam, and not even want team play for that, Ac's are working like a condi tick, while u remain under it it will tick 400-1.5k deppends your damage reducers.

> > >

> > > The spam needs ot be mass nerfed and damage increased.

> >

> > they can make ac cc players and kill siege faster instead of ac for anti personnel hejehe

>

> I can imagine criple, players with resistance would be a counter :\ no issues on that and we can have 100% uptime of that as well, not hard.

 

resistance can be corrupted and removed by warriors x necros x revs. they just need to get down from the tower. =p

 

i can imagine a coordinated rev, staff 5 3 4. back in

 

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

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

> > > > Increase AC damage to hurt and put it every skill on a 8sec CD(even ac auto), with this ac will spike when used with other siege, players can counter, and ac's users if know the right time to use it can kill some players who are not prepared to it.

> > > >

> > > > Ill keep saying, the issue right now is how many players cant endure and are not ready to sustain the ac's spam, and not even want team play for that, Ac's are working like a condi tick, while u remain under it it will tick 400-1.5k deppends your damage reducers.

> > > >

> > > > The spam needs ot be mass nerfed and damage increased.

> > >

> > > they can make ac cc players and kill siege faster instead of ac for anti personnel hejehe

> >

> > I can imagine criple, players with resistance would be a counter :\ no issues on that and we can have 100% uptime of that as well, not hard.

>

> resistance can be corrupted and removed by warriors x necros x revs. they just need to get down from the tower. =p

>

 

exactly counter with counter with counter :X

[Israel.7056]

I dunno still plenty of people siege turtling last time I played seems the playstyle is alive and well. Ac nerf didn't change much if anything at all.

[cobbah.3102]

I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

 

Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

>

> Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

 

Not taking sides here: unless you jump on the actual ledge, you can't use player skills below, where as the attackers can reach no less than halfway accross the wall.

 

I think that is where the disparity is. It should work both ways is all. Maybe we might see (though I truly doubt it) more player skill usage from the wall, and less AC usage.

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

>

> Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

 

Sounds fair :expressionless:

[steki.1478]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

> >

> > Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

>

> Not taking sides here: unless you jump on the actual ledge, you can't use player skills below, where as the attackers can reach no less than halfway accross the wall.

>

> I think that is where the disparity is. It should work both ways is all. Maybe we might see (though I truly doubt it) more player skill usage from the wall, and less AC usage.

 

Aoes on the wall will only kill people who get pulled because nobody is stupid enough to stay permanently on the edge. In best situation you'll kill off good amount of people the first time you reach the wall, since walls would be loaded with players.

 

Aoes on the attackers = around half of the group taking damage from skills (full group from ACs). And it takes only few eles and/or scourges in total to spread aoes on whole group.

 

Attackers can't permanently bomb every part of the wall, but defenders can spread around, watch for the temporary safe spots and unleash their aoes. After all, it takes like 2-3 seconds to do that (even less on ele because you can flash into safety) so the risk is always worth it. Meanwhile attackers can only hope that pulled enemies dont stun break/mist form out of the bomb.

 

On top of that there's safe siege spot factor, and we all know that ACs hit behind the walls. As well as stealth and siege disables for shields.

 

There's enough tools for both sides, but defenders still got a big advantage over attackers. As an ele main I know how easy it is to drop MS from the wall and get away quickly, as well as how rng can fk you over when you're trying to destroy siege on the wall.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

> > >

> > > Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

> >

> > Not taking sides here: unless you jump on the actual ledge, you can't use player skills below, where as the attackers can reach no less than halfway accross the wall.

> >

> > I think that is where the disparity is. It should work both ways is all. Maybe we might see (though I truly doubt it) more player skill usage from the wall, and less AC usage.

>

> Aoes on the wall will only kill people who get pulled because nobody is stupid enough to stay permanently on the edge.

 

Arguable. They're definitely smart enough to do that. It's more the part where they die which is why nobody is actually standing there.

 

>

> Aoes on the attackers = around half of the group taking damage from skills (full group from ACs). And it takes only few eles and/or scourges in total to spread aoes on whole group.

>

> Attackers can't permanently bomb every part of the wall, but defenders can spread around, watch for the temporary safe spots and unleash their aoes. After all, it takes like 2-3 seconds to do that (even less on ele because you can flash into safety) so the risk is always worth it. Meanwhile attackers can only hope that pulled enemies dont stun break/mist form out of the bomb.

 

Eles can fire 4 combo into anything on the wall with some good aim and fast clicking skills. It's absolutely broken as a few eles can kill most siege, most pug-based zergs and literally not get countered other than (very) well timed pulls at the start and end of their animation. Assuming they don't get stab.

 

>

> On top of that there's safe siege spot factor, and we all know that ACs hit behind the walls. As well as stealth and siege disables for shields.

>

> There's enough tools for both sides, but defenders still got a big advantage over attackers. As an ele main I know how easy it is to drop MS from the wall and get away quickly, as well as how rng can kitten you over when you're trying to destroy siege on the wall.

 

I find it funny people say you wouldn't need ACs if you could cast from the walls... No shit. Howmuch ACs worth of damage would you say you can do when freecasting on weaver? 5 or 6? In my experience most 30 man pug blobs can't even tank a single good weaver freecasting on them...

Goodluck getting into any structures if you just have 10 full-dps range players hitting you freely as soon as you come near.

 

For the record, I'm with steki and hitting players from the walls without retaliation is absurd. Yes, standing on the walls is a disadvantage. Yet defenders have a MASSIVE advantage over attackers regardless, even without ANY siege.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

> >

> > Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

>

> Not taking sides here: unless you jump on the actual ledge, you can't use player skills below, where as the attackers can reach no less than halfway accross the wall.

>

> I think that is where the disparity is. It should work both ways is all. Maybe we might see (though I truly doubt it) more player skill usage from the wall, and less AC usage.

 

The disparity lies in that defenders can hit EVERYONE in range (aka if you have equal range, everyone who can hit you) who is attacking. And even after taking the gate or wall down, they have to get to the lord and kill you a few more times while surviving there and flipping it.

 

Meanwhile, as long as the wall is up, a single dodge to the other edge of the wall puts the defender into safety. Literally a necro with transfusion can prevent 99% of players from dying as they can pull them to safety and freely res. This can already be abused without any issues by "good" range players. You can start channels or drop AoE's from within LoS while casting them from "safety". Even with the disparity you just described.

 

If this disparty didn't exist, I'm certain good eles or necros like steki or many others will be freely casting on their enemies nearly 24/7 without ever being in the slightest danger. After all, you can chain quite a few casts including MS on ele after a dodge, where you use the LOS from before dodging. You can literally send a "cast command" within LoS, dodge out and have the cast go off the moment you're safely LOS'ing. This means NO counterplay.

 

And sorry but full dps specs being able to freely cast destroy 9/10 pug groups. Even now if you have capable DPS players, defending your own objectives is absurdly strong. So what's the problem? Right - players asking the game to somehow solve their L2P issues. Something the game can NEVER do. Because better players still use these new strats better.

 

Yeah, attackers can cover the walls so you can't safely shoot back from them. But defenders can constantly bomb the lordsroom from ANY position while attackers are killing it or standing inside it too. And defenders can, if they'll get bombed on a wall, just jump back or down and be ressed / healed safely, only to do 1 step forwards and continue pressuring.

 

But that's all casually ignored.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> I dunno still plenty of people siege turtling last time I played seems the playstyle is alive and well. Ac nerf didn't change much if anything at all.

 

Against heavy bunker servers, it changed a LOT for me tbh.

 

Ofcourse they're still sitting inside any T3 objective with 5-15 acs and 50 players going "OH NO QUICK LE BUS PLZ COME DEFEND !!! MAN EVERYTHING BOIS !!!".

 

But in the past, tanking 15 acs was plain impossible on its own. 40 players pushing out on top of that? Goodluck.

Nowadays I'm only actually tanking 4-5 acs at best, the rest hits ICD even if they still build 10+. If people stack tight and the enemies are bad (they always are); then you wipe them. This makes it remotely possible of getting inside... often still requiring us to PVD T3 buffed gates but whatever. Once you get in, you just have to get through 50 players and a few chokes to kill all the siege, make all the enemy players magically dissapear, kill them a few times on respawn while killing the lord and any new siege they build. But frankly, as long as they can't just go inside with a zoneblob and build 10 acs to ensure I can't get through their walls to actually get to them I'm happy.

 

The only difference it makes is toning down 15 acs to like... 4-5. Outside of that not much difference but I'd much, much rather tank 5 acs than 15+.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

> > >

> > > Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

> >

> > Not taking sides here: unless you jump on the actual ledge, you can't use player skills below, where as the attackers can reach no less than halfway accross the wall.

> >

> > I think that is where the disparity is. It should work both ways is all. Maybe we might see (though I truly doubt it) more player skill usage from the wall, and less AC usage.

>

> The disparity lies in that defenders can hit EVERYONE in range (aka if you have equal range, everyone who can hit you) who is attacking. And even after taking the gate or wall down, they have to get to the lord and kill you a few more times while surviving there and flipping it.

>

> Meanwhile, as long as the wall is up, a single dodge to the other edge of the wall puts the defender into safety. Literally a necro with transfusion can prevent 99% of players from dying as they can pull them to safety and freely res. This can already be abused without any issues by "good" range players. You can start channels or drop AoE's from within LoS while casting them from "safety". Even with the disparity you just described.

>

> If this disparty didn't exist, I'm certain good eles or necros like steki or many others will be freely casting on their enemies nearly 24/7 without ever being in the slightest danger. After all, you can chain quite a few casts including MS on ele after a dodge, where you use the LOS from before dodging. You can literally send a "cast command" within LoS, dodge out and have the cast go off the moment you're safely LOS'ing. This means NO counterplay.

>

> And sorry but full dps specs being able to freely cast destroy 9/10 pug groups. Even now if you have capable DPS players, defending your own objectives is absurdly strong. So what's the problem? Right - players asking the game to somehow solve their L2P issues. Something the game can NEVER do. Because better players still use these new strats better.

>

> Yeah, attackers can cover the walls so you can't safely shoot back from them. But defenders can constantly bomb the lordsroom from ANY position while attackers are killing it or standing inside it too. And defenders can, if they'll get bombed on a wall, just jump back or down and be ressed / healed safely, only to do 1 step forwards and continue pressuring.

>

> But that's all casually ignored.

 

Looking at the full defense is a great way to look at it. Thank you for pointing out the remaining aspects of the defense which, honestly, some of us that are involved will take for granted.

 

We tend to look at the initial encounter which, as you noted, is a fraction of the process.

 

And added to all of the other defensive advantages makes taking those structures to encourage the enemy Zerg to come defend, difficult.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > > > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

> > > >

> > > > Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

> > >

> > > Not taking sides here: unless you jump on the actual ledge, you can't use player skills below, where as the attackers can reach no less than halfway accross the wall.

> > >

> > > I think that is where the disparity is. It should work both ways is all. Maybe we might see (though I truly doubt it) more player skill usage from the wall, and less AC usage.

> >

> > The disparity lies in that defenders can hit EVERYONE in range (aka if you have equal range, everyone who can hit you) who is attacking. And even after taking the gate or wall down, they have to get to the lord and kill you a few more times while surviving there and flipping it.

> >

> > Meanwhile, as long as the wall is up, a single dodge to the other edge of the wall puts the defender into safety. Literally a necro with transfusion can prevent 99% of players from dying as they can pull them to safety and freely res. This can already be abused without any issues by "good" range players. You can start channels or drop AoE's from within LoS while casting them from "safety". Even with the disparity you just described.

> >

> > If this disparty didn't exist, I'm certain good eles or necros like steki or many others will be freely casting on their enemies nearly 24/7 without ever being in the slightest danger. After all, you can chain quite a few casts including MS on ele after a dodge, where you use the LOS from before dodging. You can literally send a "cast command" within LoS, dodge out and have the cast go off the moment you're safely LOS'ing. This means NO counterplay.

> >

> > And sorry but full dps specs being able to freely cast destroy 9/10 pug groups. Even now if you have capable DPS players, defending your own objectives is absurdly strong. So what's the problem? Right - players asking the game to somehow solve their L2P issues. Something the game can NEVER do. Because better players still use these new strats better.

> >

> > Yeah, attackers can cover the walls so you can't safely shoot back from them. But defenders can constantly bomb the lordsroom from ANY position while attackers are killing it or standing inside it too. And defenders can, if they'll get bombed on a wall, just jump back or down and be ressed / healed safely, only to do 1 step forwards and continue pressuring.

> >

> > But that's all casually ignored.

>

> Looking at the full defense is a great way to look at it. Thank you for pointing out the remaining aspects of the defense which, honestly, some of us that are involved will take for granted.

>

> We tend to look at the initial encounter which, as you noted, is a fraction of the process.

>

> And added to all of the other defensive advantages makes taking those structures to encourage the enemy Zerg to come defend, difficult.

 

What attack / defending needs is progression through the map to promote healthy interaction between both. I consider a "fight" (usually over an OBJECTIVE - not strictly open field fights!) which** both sides can win** as healthy interaction. This is the only kind of fight that feels good for both sides; as both sides can meaningfully win.

 

Lets try to "express" relative strength. The attacking group is always at 100% strength, and the defending group is (usually) at a lower %.

 

Imagine the defending group is 80% as strong as the attackers. Definitely stronger in openfield, but at 80% strength you'll never lose a keep or even a tower close to your spawn. You have too much advantage for that. It's very important that there are sufficient "easy" objectives to hit, to ensure that these groups with similar strength can have fair interaction. When these objectives flip, they move the map towards the enemy spawn and naturally need to fight for more difficult ones. That's how maps in wvw used to promote healthy interactions.

 

Imagine you buff defence a LOT. Upgrading, siege, all of it. Looks great in theory if you enjoy defending, right? But what happens is that even if defenders who are 50% as strong as their attackers (at 100% by definition) can still defend even outer objectives without any problem... This scenario is standard between for example fire keep and garri at T3, or SM T3 vs towers, ...The stronger group is stronger, so much stronger open field is no contest, but not strong enough to attack ANYTHING that will lead to an even fight. The defenders can't jump out without dying. The attackers can't attack without dying. So both sides choose not to fight until this stalemate changes. The attackers are stronger so get to choose, and they'll almost always choose to ktrain something from the third server or something that the defenders can't defend but only because they CANNOT create an even scenario if they wanted to. They can only suicide into the defenders siege to give them bags. There's no way to create an even scenario, because the bonus defenders get is absolutely huge.

 

It's no suprise that most players will ktrain, grow their zerg, and only attack once they can break through the defenders siege. Yet by the moment they're capable of that, they're SO MUCH STRONGER than the defenders that the defenders feel its hopeless and nope out. By buffing defence, it more and more relies on being able to keep enemies out rather than fighting eachother over an objective. And it forces attackers to not bother unless defenders don't stand a chance the moment they get in.

 

All of this is promoted by defense being as strong as it is. Yet if you enjoy defending, actualyl defending against players... It's much healthier if the map moves depending on who has the strongest group and naturally lands in a place where both sides have a pretty good shot at coming out happy. That's what players want.

 

Yet this constant buffing off defense? And the stalemates that follow, where both sides don't fight because neither side can engage a fight that isn't suicide? That's EXACTLY what happened with WvW. We had massive buffs to defence over the years, yet it only makes the zergs and disparity between attackers and defenders bigger. Because no attacker is going to suicide his zerg 10 times over; especially not in WvW where you don't even get rewards for winning. They're just going to let you sit in your heavily defended structure until there's nobody left there to defend.

 

Never ever let players who don't grasp balance and game design rule the design of your game. It looks great for casual players to buff defense so it feels "fair" to fight that evil massive horde... But buffing defense is what forces attackers to only attack when they have a massive evil horde. Buffing siege and defense didn't make the monoblobs go away... It just pushes players more towards them because it's the only thing capable of flipping a well-defended objective.

 

Oh wait no I'm an evil fight elitist that would rather all objectives were removed from the game... Jk, if all objectives were removed from the game we'd have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as when defense is completely overpowered. Unless you magically "fix" two groups to have a strength equal enough to have fights both sides can win you'd just have the losing side afk in spawn waiting for more players. At least right now we can ktrain while we wait for more players ;)

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

> Oh wait no I'm an evil fight elitist that would rather all objectives were removed from the game... Jk, if all objectives were removed from the game we'd have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as when defense is completely overpowered. Unless you magically "fix" two groups to have a strength equal enough to have fights both sides can win you'd just have the losing side afk in spawn waiting for more players. At least right now we can ktrain while we wait for more players ;)

 

Now now now.. :smile: I am NOT one who has called you nor suggested you were.

 

I guess my hope with alliances is a spreading out of people who like to PPT and those who like to fight within each alliance so both groups can find more healthy gameplay.

 

When the guild I ran with pre HoT was Zerg busting, there were guilds that were focused on PPT more. There was mutual respect for what each did. They would call our group in if one of the more skilled groups was hitting them, and we would go and hit that group while the main group peeled off. (And yes, occasional AKs happened)

 

I wish that would return. I see the toxicity you mention though some times it's much less open and more subtle.

 

Having an alliance that has both types of focused groups in it would make the mode more enjoyable in my opinion.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > > > > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Oh wait no I'm an evil fight elitist that would rather all objectives were removed from the game... Jk, if all objectives were removed from the game we'd have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as when defense is completely overpowered. Unless you magically "fix" two groups to have a strength equal enough to have fights both sides can win you'd just have the losing side afk in spawn waiting for more players. At least right now we can ktrain while we wait for more players ;)

>

> Now now now.. :smile: I am NOT one who has called you nor suggested you were.

>

> I guess my hope with alliances is a spreading out of people who like to PPT and those who like to fight within each alliance so both groups can find more healthy gameplay.

>

> When the guild I ran with pre HoT was Zerg busting, there were guilds that were focused on PPT more. There was mutual respect for what each did. They would call our group in if one of the more skilled groups was hitting them, and we would go and hit that group while the main group peeled off. (And yes, occasional AKs happened)

>

> I wish that would return. I see the toxicity you mention though some times it's much less open and more subtle.

>

> Having an alliance that has both types of focused groups in it would make the mode more enjoyable in my opinion.

 

I completely agree, but I highly doubt it'll happen unless anet gives both groups a reason to want to play together / help eachother. That's exactly why everyone in PvE is so "friendly". Because they all have a common goal. Which having competitive wvw would help, but uncontrolled transfers make that impossible... And so it keeps going onwards.

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > I am totally in agreeance to nerf AC but only when they nerf the toxic rings of death all over walls , you have 40 plus standing outside throwing stuff all over walls and they complain about AC well it goes both ways , you cannot have it all your own way when it evenly balanced yeh I will give you your fights . Less rings on walls and a chance to actually compete within range without dying to get to such fights, it is laughable to say they want fights when the ranged gets you before you can get to them. I will hump when the need arises break the walls come get me then I wont jump out because I will be in the middle of you :open_mouth: will get some before I die

> >

> > Do you expect them to just let scourges and weavers jump to the edge of the wall and drop all their damage on them without attacking back?

>

> Not taking sides here: unless you jump on the actual ledge, you can't use player skills below, where as the attackers can reach no less than halfway accross the wall.

>

> I think that is where the disparity is. It should work both ways is all. Maybe we might see (though I truly doubt it) more player skill usage from the wall, and less AC usage.

 

The defenders already have advantages, I don't think the defenders and attackers should be equal in that right. There are plenty of ways to get your damage off while standing on a wall. Weaver can start channeling MS and lightning flash away, necro can use spectral walk to jump off the wall, drop damage, then pop right back on top of the wall. There is always the ability to get a mesmer or thief to stealth you so people don't see you until you start doing dmg. I think people try to make it sound like attackers have so many advantages, when the only one they have is that dropping damage onto a wall is far safer then dropping it from a wall.