Junkpile.7439 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 This is actually good idea. Problem just is that people are stupid and would try to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 > @"Acyk.9671" said: > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. This is a really good idea imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 the game is not that rewarding or has any incentive to purely go for the fights. i recall, we'd allow the enemy to kill us abit for awhile so they will fight us again and again, but the moment we'd pull off a win, they'd disappear. maybe if players cared less about dying, and more about playing it would work. i mean, winning is meaningless in wvw. there are no tournaments, most kd has nos. vs few. what can we do? maybe set our own score and reorganize based on player consensus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juno.1840 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > @"juno.1840" said: > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > > > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > > > > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > > > > > > > > @"TallBarr.2184" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"LaGranse.8652" said: > > > > > > > > > > Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong. > > > > > > > > > > killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been... > > > > > > > > > > Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design. > > > > > > No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem... > > > > > > WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm > > > > You wandered all over the place in your argument... really not sticking to the original point. > > > > You stated "it is impossible to play WvW wrong"... and that is not accurate depending upon the goals. If the goal is to win (which is a compelling goal since it is a competitive game mode) then it is possible to play it wrong. I'm not sure why you chose to fight a battle over that, because it's clear as the sky is blue. If your goal is to have fun, then I guess you can say someone is playing it "wrong" if they are not having fun... that's a bit pedantic though. > > > > Right now I'm on a server that plays it "wrong". They are interested only in fights so their score is mostly PPK and not PPT. This same server has no patience for sieging a structure for defense. This server has no patience to break down a well defended T3 structure. Half the time, players don't even man siege when required. Nobody puts down supply traps... and yet they get mad when walking into opposition supply traps (like it's some kind of horrible play). After losing, the excuse is "this tier is cancer". > > > > Theres no arguement here so because of that I ignored everything you said after the first sentence... Not as a rudeness thing but as a "youre out of context and not on the same page as the discussion" sorta thing... > > > I guess... You did say it's not possible to play wvw wrong, and I disagree (along with someone else). If that's not an argument, then I guess you're conceding that it is possible to play WvW wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephiroth.4217 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 > @"juno.1840" said: > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > @"juno.1840" said: > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > > > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > > > > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Klipso.8653" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"TallBarr.2184" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"LaGranse.8652" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been... > > > > > > > > > > > > Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design. > > > > > > > > No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem... > > > > > > > > WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm > > > > > > You wandered all over the place in your argument... really not sticking to the original point. > > > > > > You stated "it is impossible to play WvW wrong"... and that is not accurate depending upon the goals. If the goal is to win (which is a compelling goal since it is a competitive game mode) then it is possible to play it wrong. I'm not sure why you chose to fight a battle over that, because it's clear as the sky is blue. If your goal is to have fun, then I guess you can say someone is playing it "wrong" if they are not having fun... that's a bit pedantic though. > > > > > > Right now I'm on a server that plays it "wrong". They are interested only in fights so their score is mostly PPK and not PPT. This same server has no patience for sieging a structure for defense. This server has no patience to break down a well defended T3 structure. Half the time, players don't even man siege when required. Nobody puts down supply traps... and yet they get mad when walking into opposition supply traps (like it's some kind of horrible play). After losing, the excuse is "this tier is cancer". > > > > > > > Theres no arguement here so because of that I ignored everything you said after the first sentence... Not as a rudeness thing but as a "youre out of context and not on the same page as the discussion" sorta thing... > > > > > > > > I guess... > > You did say it's not possible to play wvw wrong, and I disagree (along with someone else). If that's not an argument, then I guess you're conceding that it is possible to play WvW wrong. And thats your opinion and I wont argue that. Even just your wording is clear youre looking to fight or argue with someone but im not that person. You would have really hated the guild I was in years ago, RUN.... we would break into keeps then all use animal tonics and run around getting farmed or farming people inside thier keeps or we would break into enemy towers like mendons and set up a bunch of spreadshot ballistas and mow down anyone who came to defend the tower even though we had no intentions of capping it, we even had someone with your display name in our guild although she was a cool Phillipines girl who had a crush on a dude called kit kit kit kat.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamarc.7463 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > This is a really good idea imo. Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneirikb.7506 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiga.3075 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 > @"TallBarr.2184" said: > fairer matchups and less steamroll from 1 side I don't think it should be based on kdr or ppt. It should be based on both. If you win the ppt game but have a terrible kdr compared to a server that has ok ppt and kdr then you will move down a tier. This would force servers (sos I'm looking at you) to fight instead of trying to be sneaky and back cap on dead maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. > > Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? Would be more like it was originally where you needed to talk to the quartermaster to trigger an upgrade. Back then, there was a gold cost. Could be reverted to that minus the gold. So, once the upgrade was ready, someone would have to trigger it. Currently, autopilot kicks in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyDisLegend.1678 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > Because it’s not just PvP. The core task on those maps is to take and defend assets. So many noobs in Conquest who don't focus on objectives. I swear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneirikb.7506 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > > > > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. > > > > Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? > > Would be more like it was originally where you needed to talk to the quartermaster to trigger an upgrade. Back then, there was a gold cost. > > Could be reverted to that minus the gold. So, once the upgrade was ready, someone would have to trigger it. > > Currently, autopilot kicks in. I remember how it used to be (and honestly don't miss it). Just the more I see the discussion against the "auto-pilot", and the more I see people complain about paper and tier3 keeps, the more I think EotM might have made the right choice, hard set the keep to Tier2, and put a WP there. Just ignore the whole upgrading aspect, the more I think about it, the more I find that it doesn't really do anything beneficial to the game-mode. Sure, in some cases taking one upgrade over another could be beneficial. Rush for Tier 3 walls/gates/waypoint being the most usual one, sometimes going for cannons etc. But in most cases, it just didn't matter, and just forced people to sit click F to continue. Since people doesn't bother defending most paper, and no one wants to attack Tier3, Tier2 should be what everyone likes to fight against, and being solid enough that some would want to defend it ? WvW, the game mode that feels like a strategy game, but splits the decision-making between every single unit on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > > > > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > > > > > > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. > > > > > > Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? > > > > Would be more like it was originally where you needed to talk to the quartermaster to trigger an upgrade. Back then, there was a gold cost. > > > > Could be reverted to that minus the gold. So, once the upgrade was ready, someone would have to trigger it. > > > > Currently, autopilot kicks in. > > I remember how it used to be (and honestly don't miss it). Just the more I see the discussion against the "auto-pilot", and the more I see people complain about paper and tier3 keeps, the more I think EotM might have made the right choice, hard set the keep to Tier2, and put a WP there. Just ignore the whole upgrading aspect, the more I think about it, the more I find that it doesn't really do anything beneficial to the game-mode. > > Sure, in some cases taking one upgrade over another could be beneficial. Rush for Tier 3 walls/gates/waypoint being the most usual one, sometimes going for cannons etc. But in most cases, it just didn't matter, and just forced people to sit click F to continue. > > Since people doesn't bother defending most paper, and no one wants to attack Tier3, Tier2 should be what everyone likes to fight against, and being solid enough that some would want to defend it ? > > WvW, the game mode that feels like a strategy game, but splits the decision-making between every single unit on the board. I wouldn't be opposed to either the fixed level 2, or having to speak to the quartermaster. I just am not a fan of the auto process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acyk.9671 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > > > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > > > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > > > > > > > > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. > > > > > > > > Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? > > > > > > Would be more like it was originally where you needed to talk to the quartermaster to trigger an upgrade. Back then, there was a gold cost. > > > > > > Could be reverted to that minus the gold. So, once the upgrade was ready, someone would have to trigger it. > > > > > > Currently, autopilot kicks in. > > > > I remember how it used to be (and honestly don't miss it). Just the more I see the discussion against the "auto-pilot", and the more I see people complain about paper and tier3 keeps, the more I think EotM might have made the right choice, hard set the keep to Tier2, and put a WP there. Just ignore the whole upgrading aspect, the more I think about it, the more I find that it doesn't really do anything beneficial to the game-mode. > > > > Sure, in some cases taking one upgrade over another could be beneficial. Rush for Tier 3 walls/gates/waypoint being the most usual one, sometimes going for cannons etc. But in most cases, it just didn't matter, and just forced people to sit click F to continue. > > > > Since people doesn't bother defending most paper, and no one wants to attack Tier3, Tier2 should be what everyone likes to fight against, and being solid enough that some would want to defend it ? > > > > WvW, the game mode that feels like a strategy game, but splits the decision-making between every single unit on the board. > > I wouldn't be opposed to either the fixed level 2, or having to speak to the quartermaster. > > I just am not a fan of the auto process. When it came out, EotM was all about circling around the map to chain cap objectives in order to train karma, no fights whatsoever. You don't want that for WvW because people quit the game when there are no fights. As for removing automatic upgrade to go back to what is was before HoT I would personally be fine with it but I don't think people want to do that anymore after 3 years. It surely added some strategic purpose but expected a lot of efforts from players/guilds that wanted their keep and tower upgraded. I remember during tournaments when players from guilds relayed each others to scout them 24/7 and that played a huge part in the following burn out. Remember that alliances will be about guilds, are they willing to go through the same kind of time and energy investment? I don't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > > > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > > > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > > > > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > > > > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. > > > > > > > > > > Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? > > > > > > > > Would be more like it was originally where you needed to talk to the quartermaster to trigger an upgrade. Back then, there was a gold cost. > > > > > > > > Could be reverted to that minus the gold. So, once the upgrade was ready, someone would have to trigger it. > > > > > > > > Currently, autopilot kicks in. > > > > > > I remember how it used to be (and honestly don't miss it). Just the more I see the discussion against the "auto-pilot", and the more I see people complain about paper and tier3 keeps, the more I think EotM might have made the right choice, hard set the keep to Tier2, and put a WP there. Just ignore the whole upgrading aspect, the more I think about it, the more I find that it doesn't really do anything beneficial to the game-mode. > > > > > > Sure, in some cases taking one upgrade over another could be beneficial. Rush for Tier 3 walls/gates/waypoint being the most usual one, sometimes going for cannons etc. But in most cases, it just didn't matter, and just forced people to sit click F to continue. > > > > > > Since people doesn't bother defending most paper, and no one wants to attack Tier3, Tier2 should be what everyone likes to fight against, and being solid enough that some would want to defend it ? > > > > > > WvW, the game mode that feels like a strategy game, but splits the decision-making between every single unit on the board. > > > > I wouldn't be opposed to either the fixed level 2, or having to speak to the quartermaster. > > > > I just am not a fan of the auto process. > > When it came out, EotM was all about circling around the map to chain cap objectives in order to train karma, no fights whatsoever. You don't want that for WvW because people quit the game when there are no fights. > As for removing automatic upgrade to go back to what is was before HoT I would personally be fine with it but I don't think people want to do that anymore after 3 years. It surely added some strategic purpose but expected a lot of efforts from players/guilds that wanted their keep and tower upgraded. I remember during tournaments when players from guilds relayed each others to scout them 24/7 and that played a huge part in the following burn out. > Remember that alliances will be about guilds, are they willing to go through the same kind of time and energy investment? I don't think so... So... auto upgrading is good? Tier 2 walls and gates doesn't make WvW like EOTM. A tier 2 structure is worth fight for and over. That creates the fights. Most guilds would welcome the chance for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acyk.9671 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > > > > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > > > > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > > > > > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > > > > > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? > > > > > > > > > > Would be more like it was originally where you needed to talk to the quartermaster to trigger an upgrade. Back then, there was a gold cost. > > > > > > > > > > Could be reverted to that minus the gold. So, once the upgrade was ready, someone would have to trigger it. > > > > > > > > > > Currently, autopilot kicks in. > > > > > > > > I remember how it used to be (and honestly don't miss it). Just the more I see the discussion against the "auto-pilot", and the more I see people complain about paper and tier3 keeps, the more I think EotM might have made the right choice, hard set the keep to Tier2, and put a WP there. Just ignore the whole upgrading aspect, the more I think about it, the more I find that it doesn't really do anything beneficial to the game-mode. > > > > > > > > Sure, in some cases taking one upgrade over another could be beneficial. Rush for Tier 3 walls/gates/waypoint being the most usual one, sometimes going for cannons etc. But in most cases, it just didn't matter, and just forced people to sit click F to continue. > > > > > > > > Since people doesn't bother defending most paper, and no one wants to attack Tier3, Tier2 should be what everyone likes to fight against, and being solid enough that some would want to defend it ? > > > > > > > > WvW, the game mode that feels like a strategy game, but splits the decision-making between every single unit on the board. > > > > > > I wouldn't be opposed to either the fixed level 2, or having to speak to the quartermaster. > > > > > > I just am not a fan of the auto process. > > > > When it came out, EotM was all about circling around the map to chain cap objectives in order to train karma, no fights whatsoever. You don't want that for WvW because people quit the game when there are no fights. > > As for removing automatic upgrade to go back to what is was before HoT I would personally be fine with it but I don't think people want to do that anymore after 3 years. It surely added some strategic purpose but expected a lot of efforts from players/guilds that wanted their keep and tower upgraded. I remember during tournaments when players from guilds relayed each others to scout them 24/7 and that played a huge part in the following burn out. > > Remember that alliances will be about guilds, are they willing to go through the same kind of time and energy investment? I don't think so... > > So... auto upgrading is good? > > Tier 2 walls and gates doesn't make WvW like EOTM. > > A tier 2 structure is worth fight for and over. That creates the fights. > > Most guilds would welcome the chance for that. Easier, no need to spend gold on the least rewarding game mode and you don't spend entire evening upgrading every step of a keep. I didn't mind at the time, probably still wouldn't now but most would i guess. Yeah but the person you responded to said Eotm's model seems good but i didn't understand what he meant. Well my first message was with the keep still t3 with iron inner but outter with stone walls. Still hard to cap and you have to deal with defensive siege weapons on inner but the idea of opening outter more easily and get in to fight feels attractive (to me at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneirikb.7506 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > > > > > > > @"Adamarc.7463" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Acyk.9671" said: > > > > > > > > > > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3 outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > > > > > > > > > > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > > > > > > > > > > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a really good idea imo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even better idea is just to remove automatic upgrades altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting, that would almost turn it into EOTM style upgrading (basically none, but having them default stronger than paper). Sort of like a permanent Tier2 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Would be more like it was originally where you needed to talk to the quartermaster to trigger an upgrade. Back then, there was a gold cost. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could be reverted to that minus the gold. So, once the upgrade was ready, someone would have to trigger it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, autopilot kicks in. > > > > > > > > > > I remember how it used to be (and honestly don't miss it). Just the more I see the discussion against the "auto-pilot", and the more I see people complain about paper and tier3 keeps, the more I think EotM might have made the right choice, hard set the keep to Tier2, and put a WP there. Just ignore the whole upgrading aspect, the more I think about it, the more I find that it doesn't really do anything beneficial to the game-mode. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, in some cases taking one upgrade over another could be beneficial. Rush for Tier 3 walls/gates/waypoint being the most usual one, sometimes going for cannons etc. But in most cases, it just didn't matter, and just forced people to sit click F to continue. > > > > > > > > > > Since people doesn't bother defending most paper, and no one wants to attack Tier3, Tier2 should be what everyone likes to fight against, and being solid enough that some would want to defend it ? > > > > > > > > > > WvW, the game mode that feels like a strategy game, but splits the decision-making between every single unit on the board. > > > > > > > > I wouldn't be opposed to either the fixed level 2, or having to speak to the quartermaster. > > > > > > > > I just am not a fan of the auto process. > > > > > > When it came out, EotM was all about circling around the map to chain cap objectives in order to train karma, no fights whatsoever. You don't want that for WvW because people quit the game when there are no fights. > > > As for removing automatic upgrade to go back to what is was before HoT I would personally be fine with it but I don't think people want to do that anymore after 3 years. It surely added some strategic purpose but expected a lot of efforts from players/guilds that wanted their keep and tower upgraded. I remember during tournaments when players from guilds relayed each others to scout them 24/7 and that played a huge part in the following burn out. > > > Remember that alliances will be about guilds, are they willing to go through the same kind of time and energy investment? I don't think so... > > > > So... auto upgrading is good? > > > > Tier 2 walls and gates doesn't make WvW like EOTM. > > > > A tier 2 structure is worth fight for and over. That creates the fights. > > > > Most guilds would welcome the chance for that. > > Easier, no need to spend gold on the least rewarding game mode and you don't spend entire evening upgrading every step of a keep. I didn't mind at the time, probably still wouldn't now but most would i guess. > Yeah but the person you responded to said Eotm's model seems good but i didn't understand what he meant. > Well my first message was with the keep still t3 with iron inner but outter with stone walls. Still hard to cap and you have to deal with defensive siege weapons on inner but the idea of opening outter more easily and get in to fight feels attractive (to me at least). Sorry if I was a bit unclear :) Basically what I mean, is that I don't really see what the "upgrade system" really gives us as players. Back when we had to pick upgrades, manually start them, and pay for them, all they really did was giving us false choice since in most situations everyone went for the same thing (tier3 walls/gates/way-point) and everything else was a bonus. And now with the auto-upgrade, we sort of just get everything in Tier 1-2-3 done, which sorts of simplifies that and puts the "unwanted" upgrades in with the wanted ones. So with the old system, you might as well give the option to select: * 1 This is the best option * 2 This is a bad option * 3 This is a really bad option and will get you yelled at in map chat So, choice that doesn't actually give you a choice, does it serve any purpose? I'd say the current system, even if removing the Automation of the upgrades is a better upgrade system. (Personally I don't mind the Automatic part at all, since there is no way you'll ever find me sticking around to click F to upgrade anything). --- And then I fast-forwarded a bit too fast, to where I figured that if Tier-1 keeps are too "paper" for people to bother to defend, and Tier-3 are to "stone" to bother attacking, then it sounds like Tier-2 (Scissor?) is the golden middle way where people enjoy both attacking and defending. And that reminded me that EotM tried just that, all keeps locked eternally into Tier-2 with a way-point. I'd say there is a massive difference between EotM and WvW with keeps/towers locked to Tier-2 myself. --- I also think it could be interesting to have different tiers on inner/outer, permanently paper outside on SMC might create some more activity. But we just might end up with people not bothering to crack inner again. For other keeps I think that would work a bit better. Alternatively not allow any keep to upgrade both walls AND gates to Tier-3, pick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subversiontwo.7501 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 > @"Acyk.9671" said: > If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3, outter remains with stone walls (from t2). > It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend. > Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed. I'm slightly off topic now, but this (Acyk's post) gave me a good idea. They could tie PPT and PPK closer together by tying upgrades to some resource awarded by kills. It obviously wouldn't impact the game enough to deal with the game's perennial issues on its own but it is a fairly simple change that would add a small positive both on its own and in the right direction of the greater picture. It would be an incentive for players who claim something to later go out of the objectives to seek ways to upgrade them. A sort of escorts mk.2. Escorting was a good change back when it came out and the idea of it was also in the right direction but it isn't impactful enough whereas resources from opposing players would also be small on its own but is at least more impactful and better for the nightcapping issues than NPC escorts are. Something similar could be looked into for siege but it is less important there and more troublesome for offensive endeavours - camps et. al. is undoubtedly enough incentive to gain access to offensive siege. Defensive siege on the other hand, it could be discussed at least. Upgrades could be a small step though as the logic is already applied in escorting dollys but we know that most defensive effort does not come from the escorting itself, it comes from pre-held resources put into objectives when claimed. It's a whole other topic though and not entirely fit for this thread, only losely related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiawal.2351 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 If objectives would stop giving points for just "holding" them, by just having them, would encourage a more active play: capture and fights. There is no easy fixing, but the game needs to move towards solutions that rewards coming out and playing with each other, instead of cap something that isn't defended, avoid the enemy and run away to next objective, AND be rewarded for doing so, actually not just rewarded, but WIN the matchup and WIN the game solely because these capture and "hold". This is why "dead" servers go to T1, because they have a few players doing these capture "playing". The score doesn't care about anything else, or nothing even comes close to these. It's just these players capping when nobody is on, and even if there are, just avoiding them, are those deciding a matchup outcome by an almost 100% percent... So why not counter them and back cap? Since WvW is designed around this, and just this? Because for the huge percent of WvW population, who doesn't participate in this cap & backcap, it's an extremely boring, pointless and unwanted gameplay. Can such fundamental game design be changed? I think so. There is will to change it? Considering how slow is the work on the "alliance system", looks like WvW is the most ignored part of GW2. Despite being the end game for many, and the only fun game mode for some of us. (Fun at times, when the maps are alive and fighting is everywhere) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now