Guild Wars 2

meltdown.5870:

i hope that DBL will NEVER come back was horrible…jezz

I guess there is always a chance they could pull the whole ‘no new legendary’ about face and abandon the DBL.

I was really enjoying the DBL after the changes to simplify a lot of the areas. Still could use a bit more work, more transition points between the sand dunes and the underground fire keep area. Maybe simplify the Air keep area a bit more. And replace the mid area that is totally unused with the bloodlust capture points.

Make the Northern towers strategically meaningful. You can treb Garri from the northern towers in Alpine making them a good asset to control offensively and defensively.

Chorazin.4107:

Make the Northern towers strategically meaningful. You can treb Garri from the northern towers in Alpine making them a good asset to control offensively and defensively.

Honestly, this is what I like on DBL. You cannot just sit inside a tower and treb it from safety. You have to actually go to the objective or treb from open field if you wanna do some progress. I’m pretty sure the people who yell “NO MORE SIEGE WARS” never took that fact in consideration when they cried for ABL back.

Either way, idc. We have ABL to do Treb wars and DBL to fight in the open. DBL don’t need any more changes after the ones made in april (Except maybe for the stupid air keep which can be simplified a little).

Thanks for the update. I admit this was disappointing at first but looking at it from another angle at least it gives people time to try the other changes that the patch brings without creating a conflict for time. Really looking forward to more map diversity.

Jeknar.6184:

Chorazin.4107:

Make the Northern towers strategically meaningful. You can treb Garri from the northern towers in Alpine making them a good asset to control offensively and defensively.

Honestly, this is what I like on DBL. You cannot just sit inside a tower and treb it from safety. You have to actually go to the objective or treb from open field if you wanna do some progress. I’m pretty sure the people who yell “NO MORE SIEGE WARS” never took that fact in consideration when they cried for ABL back.

This so much.

What kind of military planners set up their fortifications in siege range of (potentially enemy) fortifications?

Kylden Ar.3724:

This so much.

What kind of military planners set up their fortifications in siege range of (potentially enemy) fortifications?

Because it’s a game and the structures are there to promote fighting. If it’s sitting out in the middle of nowhere guarding nothing, where the attackers don’t even want to bother with it because it’s only worth is 4ppt, it might as well be a regular sentry.

If you really want to go with “real life” planning, no one is going to set up fortifications like towers right next to access ways so you can go around them lol, they’ll set it up ON it. That’s the problem of the dbl towers, they did neither of the two.

Xenesis.6389:

Because it’s a game and the structures are there to promote fighting.

Structures close to each other promote bunkering and siege wars, not fighting.

Xenesis.6389:

Kylden Ar.3724:

This so much.

What kind of military planners set up their fortifications in siege range of (potentially enemy) fortifications?

Because it’s a game and the structures are there to promote fighting. If it’s sitting out in the middle of nowhere guarding nothing, where the attackers don’t even want to bother with it because it’s only worth is 4ppt, it might as well be a regular sentry.

If you really want to go with “real life” planning, no one is going to set up fortifications like towers right next to access ways so you can go around them lol, they’ll set it up ON it. That’s the problem of the dbl towers, they did neither of the two.

But they did block the path, with the barricades that the player base asked to have taken down. After they were down they had reduced value since people could then more freely move around them. So now we are back to, what needs to happen to them to increase their value and/or increase their significance. Which is a completely different thread. So leaving that alone for now.

You could just break down the barricades and go around, or even take another path to go around, so again, what was the point of the tower sitting next to the access route instead of actually blocking it? If no barricades were present and instead you had to go through the towers to access the next area, then the towers would have some value, but then… you get through the north towers for what? access to north camp? lol.

Oh please Jeknar if all it did was promote bunkering and siege wars you would have commanders parked up in them all the time, and you don’t. You can roam the map all you want and hope to run into a good fight, fact is attacking a structure it’s like putting up the bat signal for a fight.

Xenesis.6389:

Oh please Jeknar if all it did was promote bunkering and siege wars you would have commanders parked up in them all the time, and you don’t. You can roam the map all you want and hope to run into a good fight, fact is attacking a structure it’s like putting up the bat signal for a fight.

Tell that to the people sitting on these walls and not comming down to fight even when the numbers are even. Hell sometimes even when they outnumber they don’t come out. And most of the time, if you ever breach a wall when players are inside, they just wp without even trying to make a last stand.

Jeknar.6184:

And most of the time, if you ever breach a wall when players are inside, they just wp without even trying to make a last stand.

So, people should fight when the situation has become one that they know they will loose… just to be polite. I think not. Also, as for defenders using structures and siege etc. why wouldn’t they make the best use of tools given to them regardless of numbers.

You are living in some strange world if you think most people would opt for a tactic that has a higher risk of loss just so they give their opponent a fair match. No one wants to run back from the waypoint if they can avoid it.

Crise.9401:

You are living in some strange world if you think most people would opt for a tactic that has a higher risk of loss just so they give their opponent a fair match. No one wants to run back from the waypoint if they can avoid it.

So they just go back to the wp instead of try to fight for their tower and if they lose they go back to the wp. What?

I don’t mind when people run when we clearly outnumber the defending force. But honestly, I’ve seen groups of about the same size as mine to just tuck their tails and run away once their walls are down.