Q:
I don’t understand the overall meta that many commanders seem to follow which is to flip as many camps, keeps and even SM as fast as possible.
Take it, abandon it and run to the next objective. Most of the time they seemed unconcerned about holding these places. Is there a logical reason for this? Do you get more badges or world points?
Then at other times there is a defend our keep or SM at all costs, but I can never really tell why. How do people decide when it is desirable to hold an objective over running off and taking others?
Can anyone explain this or is WvW just a jumble of the whims of whatever commanders are present on the map?
A:
As others have said, you want to flip enemy towers to keep them paper, you want to protect your towers to keep them upgraded etc….
From a commander standpoint there are two things to consider:
1. Anytime you choose to defend something you immediately lose 50% of your forces. People squirrel off, die pvping (then won’t return back), WP out….Defense just isn’t a very high priority unfortunately if the objective isn’t “ours” (one of our towers for example.)
2. I play on a lower tier, and while sometimes I have large zergs, it is usually the majority of the map. So I cannot dedicate 3/4 of the map on defending Klovan and possibly losing a T3 Ogres….But if I keep Klovan paper, then I also have to worry less about someone building a treb in it to hit SM.
Beyond all of that, flipping things is of course the Karma-train everyone above referenced. But it is also somewhat beneficial in that it frustrates the enemy (no one likes to lose an upgraded tower or worse keep spending money on upgrades only to lose it halfway through), and it improves the morale of your server. The long and short of it is that 80% of people like to take things, 20% like to keep them…(I may be being kind by saying 20%)…
The karama/wexp/exp/gold per hour is much higher if you flip things and then abbandon them. People want more of those things, so they will flip and not defend.
You might ask, “Well that seems like an easy fix, just buff up those rewards for defending!”, and then you get the flip-side, where people afk within towers, just to throw a few attacks down on people to get their rewards.
They had a really good opportunity to discourage this behavior when they introduced Wexp, and they could have greately reduced the Wexp from recently flipped structures (to make it pointless to flip), or they could have reduced the Wexp gain when you have 50 people PVDoor a tower, as opposed to say 15-20. There could have been additional bonus effects if you could hold a camp for say 30 minutes that would greatly help your server (say a buff on the nearby keep called “well supplied”, where the supply would slowly tick up).
I could go on, but I don’t really see the point. Most if not all the releases since the Wexp patch have been to encourage the zerg – flip – zerg – flip. You may have a commander defend a waypoint keep just because he wants some easy bags, but that is all you are going to get.
that called karma train and give a lot wxp, exp, karma and money, bit its no strategy to make points, just to make personal rewards
things that are worth to defend are all t3 buildings (esp. keeps and sm), t1 and t2 towers are often be dropped by coms if there are better targets to attack or deffend (esp. enemy t3 towers, keeps and sm)
so if 1 bl or eb are full of t1 towers and keeps its easy to flip then and not worth to defend, t1 things only be defend if they are in the own side of the map and target is to uprade them
also important is to defend full upgraded supply camps to dont run out of supplies and have enough supplies in the towers/keeps to upgrade them and counter an siege
I find it odd that people put more value on a t3 tower, as if the fact that you’ve made it more secure makes it more valuable.
afik, the towers are all worth the same tic-score, regardless of grade. So logically you should defend the weaker structures more carefully.
It’s rather like having half your money in the bank and half under your mattress. Then sitting in the bank-vault with a shotgun while leaving your front door open.
Anyway, that’s off topic.
@OP. Because it’s easier than thinking about it, that’s why. Your last observation was right on the nail.
Well, I dont know about others, but my server just does it cause it makes no sense to defend one spot that might be attacked when other places are ripe for capture. We usually go back to defend, but we dont wait to be attacked.
… is WvW just a jumble of the whims of whatever commanders are present on the map?
Yes. The whims of the commander(s), the players, the majority guild(s): these determine the map’s strategy. Personal fun or game rewards are merely variables (and not the only ones) in that function.
What do you think?
Of course you do.
You get more badges and WXP, train crashing than you do following the train.
What do you think?
Of course you do.
You get more badges and WXP, train crashing than you do following the train.
… if you win. Of course, that’s also more fun… if you can win.
You flip towers to them into paper. The more paper towers the enemy has the easier it is to take. By using this strategy you are not taking down 8 t3 towers. Making it easier to cap the towers around a keep.
It will also keep an enemy occupied trying to retake those towers while your forces work somewhere else.
It is good to keep your enemy with paper towers, and protect your fortified towers.
… if you win. Of course, that’s also more fun… if you can win.
Karma trains are usually the very definition of pugs and mindless zerg, coordinated guilds farm them. :P
… if you win. Of course, that’s also more fun… if you can win.
Karma trains are usually the very definition of pugs and mindless zerg, coordinated guilds farm them. :P
Would never have known that (much less, have been on both sides of it), thank you for the valuable :P
But… tell that to Blackgate this week, thanks.
Would never have known that (much less, have been on both sides of it), thank you for the valuable :P
But… tell that to Blackgate this week, thanks.
I would, since I am on Blackgate, but then my guild avoids those zergs to farm the other zergs. :P
Would never have known that (much less, have been on both sides of it), thank you for the valuable :P
But… tell that to Blackgate this week, thanks.
I would, since I am on Blackgate, but then my guild avoids those zergs to farm the other zergs. :P
Skilled “zergs” aren’t zergs no matter how much the word “zerg” is abusively zerged. :P
Defense just isn’t a very high priority unfortunately if the objective isn’t “ours” (one of our towers for example.)
I suppose that by “ours” you really mean naturally ours, as in home borderland and 1/3 of EBG. Honestly… even that isn’t convincing enough for many players. Really the decision is emotive: do I care, and will it be fun?
2. I play on a lower tier, and while sometimes I have large zergs, it is usually the majority of the map. So I cannot dedicate 3/4 of the map on defending Klovan and possibly losing a T3 Ogres….But if I keep Klovan paper, then I also have to worry less about someone building a treb in it to hit SM.
I’ve played in Anvil Rock, Dragonbrand, and Sorrow’s Furnace (been helping SF spawn-camp AR occasionally this week) and no commander with half a brain would defend Klovan while Ogrewatch is being attacked and red corner was their home turf. Not all commanders are equal in reasoning, though!
The long and short of it is that 80% of people like to take things, 20% like to keep them…(I may be being kind by saying 20%)…
A savvy commander can effectively cause the 80% to unwittingly play defensive, if that’s what it takes to keep the threatened structure.
There is also, of course, always the one or two crazies that cry out “we’ve got incoming to north camp!” every time two enemies venture into it after some upgrades are dropped.
A savvy commander can effectively cause the 80% to unwittingly play defensive, if that’s what it takes to keep the threatened structure.
I do that until the decision is forced upon me to make a choice (can’t be in two places at once), I try to stay moving and anticipate attacks. (I may move on Klovan, all the while intending to defend QL if I know they’re around it, just waiting for the enemy to attack it). I keep my groups in the area I think the enemy will hit, but if you have really played on SF then you know…If I am taking a keep, things are going to get lost before we can cap it. Unless you get lucky and the enemy is asleep, as soon as they see my orange swords pop at blue keep, the green ones are headed for anz/mend etc….
If we had two commanders going my preference is to zone both sides of EB for instance, then we have adequate coverage to both defend and attack. More often than not though I am the only commander, or 2-3 more tag up after me. At which point I tag down usually.
A savvy commander can effectively cause the 80% to unwittingly play defensive, if that’s what it takes to keep the threatened structure.
Not to mention that player morale will get shot through the foot the moment your opposition gets a more savvy, multi-front commander who can bunker while flipping everything your karma train turned into paper and repeatedly wipes you train.
People are quick to join, quick to abandon karma trains that have no goal other than to farm karma/wxp, and all it takes is one opposing commander to spoil it all.
I find it odd that people put more value on a t3 tower, as if the fact that you’ve made it more secure makes it more valuable.
afik, the towers are all worth the same tic-score, regardless of grade. So logically you should defend the weaker structures more carefully.
It’s rather like having half your money in the bank and half under your mattress. Then sitting in the bank-vault with a shotgun while leaving your front door open.
Anyway, that’s off topic.
@OP. Because it’s easier than thinking about it, that’s why. Your last observation was right on the nail.
How can you not see why T3 towers are more valuable to defend? :S First of all someone spend gold and time to upgrade them. Secondly the towers can withstand attack longer and hence the zerg can come and defend them in time. Finally keeping towers is still important, if you dont keep towers, you don’t get points, if you keep ending last in the matches, you will loose people, if you loose people, you will end up outnumbered more often, which will lead to more people leaving, and guilds transfering to other servers and the total downfall of the server! Lol, and that’s why T3 towers are important to defend.
upgraded tier 3 keep with WP will be defended at all cost. at least on my server.
to upgrade a keep or tower to T3 takes time and effort and a good situation on map. if you don’t have that, you let the enemy take it until situation changes. you can not upgrade things while under attack.
if you have really played on SF then you know…If I am taking a keep, things are going to get lost before we can cap it. Unless you get lucky and the enemy is asleep, as soon as they see my orange swords pop at blue keep, the green ones are headed for anz/mend etc….
That’s a fact in all matches I’ve played, too. Anzalia’s is just made to be flipped more often than not.
Have you noticed AR this week, going all the way into your corner just to flip Speldan even when they can’t possibly flip either of those towers? I chuckle every time… I just know it’s one of their eight guys “solo roaming.”
If we had two commanders going my preference is to zone both sides of EB for instance, then we have adequate coverage to both defend and attack. More often than not though I am the only commander, or 2-3 more tag up after me. At which point I tag down usually.
That style of zone play often only works in the types of matches that SF gets (biggest one amongst relatively very small servers). At the middle and above on the leader board, there’s fewer (progressing toward no) chances to do that effectively. At least, not organically with any two commanders just because they’re there at the same time.
In this week’s tier 1, I’ve seen all 3 servers lose SM and their corner of EBG when trying to have it both ways like that. Blackgate responds quickest out of the three (and with greatest volume of players), when thusly threatened. Last night, they very effectively used siege to stop 15 of us (Dragonbrand) from threatening their towers while also stopping SOR from taking BG keep. BG lost SM to us multiple times in all of that, though… then most of us logged out, and they got our entire corner.
People are quick to join, quick to abandon karma trains that have no goal other than to farm karma/wxp, and all it takes is one opposing commander to spoil it all.
People are slower and less likely to join a group with a goal beyond farming mad loot, and also quick to tuck tail from such a group… which scales with the expectations that the group itself projects. On Anvil Rock, my guild instantly dumped 75 members by implementing one demand: be in our TeamSpeak while playing WvW with us.
When faced with odds like all that… sometimes flipping and forgetting is the only thing that’s going to work.
I don’t really want to get into this because it’s off- topic.
But
upgraded tier 3 keep with WP will be defended at all cost. at least on my server.
That’s fair. A WP has strategic value, so it’s worth defending. The fact it has to be t3 in order to have a WP is just by-the-way.
How can you not see why T3 towers are more valuable to defend? :S First of all someone spend gold and time to upgrade them. Secondly the towers can withstand attack longer and hence the zerg can come and defend them in time.
@zerospin: – Just because you pay extra for something doesn’t give it increased value. All towers have equal value in the game. You lose the same income if you lose a t1 or a t3. The gold you spent on it doesn’t affect that.
Your second point there is actually a good reason to defend the t1 tower first. The t3 requires less effort. and can look after itself for a while. Your final point (which I didn’t quote) is just a statement that ‘All towers have equal value in the game.’ which is my point.
To add to everything that has been said
When my server has the torch of doom (outnumbered) I like to fire up the karma train and run like kitten*. Why?
Because if they enemy has to keep going back to their towers/camps and waiting out RI and taking them, then they are not crushing your outnumbered forces. It allows you to set the pace of the game and make them react to you. As soon as they are following you around, it does not matter how big their zerg is. Big = Slow.
but hey, thats just my 2 cents
As others have said, you want to flip enemy towers to keep them paper
I appreciate the answers, it really helps me understand a bit more the overall different motivations that are occurring in WvW.
I have only been doing WvW on a regular basis for a month or two, so I am afraid I don’t know what the term “paper” tower means.
What does “paper tower” mean?
I infer it means towers that after being taken, are left undefended, but I am not sure.
As others have said, you want to flip enemy towers to keep them paper
I appreciate the answers, it really helps me understand a bit more the overall different motivations that are occurring in WvW.
I have only been doing WvW on a regular basis for a month or two, so I am afraid I don’t know what the term “paper” tower means.
What does “paper tower” mean?
I infer it means towers that after being taken, are left undefended, but I am not sure.
It means the tower is not upgraded.so the walls and gates are wooden. So people can tear through it easily like ‘paper’.
According to the Manual, The material of the towers isn’t actually specified.
The terms wood, paper are used by players to indicate some sort of upgrade or none.
The game actually uses the words ‘reinforced’ and ‘fotrified’.
A T1 tower has reinforced doors.
A T2 tower has reinforced walls.
A T3 tower is has fortified walls.
T1, T2 and T3 would all be called wooden I guess. Idk if there’s any agreement between players on the exact meaning.
According to the Manual, The material of the towers isn’t actually specified.
The terms wood, paper are used by players to indicate some sort of upgrade or none.The game actually uses the words ‘reinforced’ and ‘fotrified’.
A T1 tower has reinforced doors.
A T2 tower has reinforced walls.
A T3 tower is has fortified walls.T1, T2 and T3 would all be called wooden I guess. Idk if there’s any agreement between players on the exact meaning.
LOL, this is totally opening the great programmers’ debate: does the count start at zero or one? Technically should start at zero, but socially we often begin at one.
I’ve definitely seen and heard plenty of people say “T1” or “tier 1” is a default-state tower with normal (not reinforced) gate. Yet, supposing that you’re numbering the upgrade tiers according to the rows on the Quartermaster’s screen, top to bottom, I know what you mean. Communication foul-ups, go!
Another reason for the more aggressive posture is that even with the addition of AC Mastery, the best way to fend off an attack remains counter-attack on foot.
Manned Arrow carts will drive off 5-10 random yayhoo’s and a single AC will prevent the “ninja cap” by 4 people and a ram.
However, the typical zerg cap (seen most often in T2-T4) is the multiple cata attack (now deadlier) and unless you have someone who’s quick on the counter-treb (and if anyone has invested in building one) the only way to get a large zerg away from your tower is the smash them on foot.
Given the human nature aspect of siege attacks where everyone gets myopic, attacking a besieging force from the blind-side seems to always work well.
Manned Arrow carts will drive off 5-10 random yayhoo’s and a single AC will prevent the “ninja cap” by 4 people and a ram.
An elementalist and a guardian, with competent builds and use of combos, means the attack probably still defeats the arrow carts.
Yet, I’ve seen an arrow cart or two defeat incompetent groups of 20 at a gate.
In order of priority
1.) Defend Keeps on whatever 1/3 is yours
2.) Defend upgraded structures if possible
3.) Push the an enemy’s 1/3 as much as you can
4.) Defend keep’s and towers on enemy 1/3 if your own them…if possible
That’s pretty much it in order of priority. The main reason being is that in this game playing offense (Besides being more rewarding and exciting) is that if you have a 50 person zerg on offense…more then likely they will need to bring a lot of people in to defend..if your constantly putting pressure on the enemy and they are constantly playing defense…they aren’t pushing you or taking your structures right? Forcing the opposing team onto defense is the goal, if they defend successfully…and have a smart commander, once they repair they SHOULD immediately take the fight back to you and put the pressure back on you…but most commanders are all…“lets siege this up and defend” and then they zerg is back knocking on your door again and yours till stuck on defense lol.
There are times and places to play defense, but if you have a big zerg…it needs to be your hammer and it should be swinging at the enemy.
Your second point there is actually a good reason to defend the t1 tower first. The t3 requires less effort. and can look after itself for a while. Your final point (which I didn’t quote) is just a statement that ‘All towers have equal value in the game.’ which is my point.
I think the salient point is weather or not its even possible to defend the tower. A paper tower is going to be fliped befor your mobile force can even arive to defend. In most cases you cant realisticly expect more than a few players to stand guard for any significant length of time and even if you could it weakens your team elsewhere. Even with good siege placement a strong push by the enemy will be through the doors and pushing to the lord withen 2 minutes and there is nothing a handful of players can do to stop them or even slow them apreciably. There’s no point in responding to defend a paper tower halfway accross the map from the main zerg when you’ll arive just to have the doors close in your face and have a large enemy force inside ready to fight you.
A fully upgraded tower on the other hand can often hold out long enough with a handful of players for the mobile defence to arrive. Obvious exceptions to this are if the enemy throws a golem rush at the door or a silly number of rams/cata’s but frankly there is no defence agianst an enemy willing to dedicate that many resorces into takeing a tower unless you have a comperable zerg close at hand.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to achievable goals. do you abandon your current objective in a vain hope of stopping a nearly sure flip of a paper tower or do you continue with your current plan and just take the tower back in 5 minutes after the enemy abandons it. Staying the corse on and sacrificeing a T1 tower gets you 2 karma/Wxp hits for the zerg. abandoning an attack to defend a T3 tower has a high probability of geting alot of Wxp and loot bags for your zerg. Abandoning the offence to try and save a paper tower gets you just the Wxp for retaking the tower because chances are most of the enemy will move on before you can breach unless they are looking to farm you.
Well, it’s always possible to defend a tower. In fact, the walls and doors are nothing more than a delay factor. The only way to actually repulse the attack is to have a sufficient number of defenders already in place.
Most times, (on my server at least) the zerg will take a tower and simply leave. No matter how important the location, they just vanish after the next target. It’s usually not possible to start an upgrade because the tower’s supply will have been depleted in the attack. So the tower just sits there unprotected. If it gets taken – ‘meh no big deal, it was only paper’.
Very often it doesn’t get taken back. It’s not unusual to pass bay a tower and note that there might be one or two people in it, or none and certainly no siege defences erected. The few defenders have nothing but chat to call for help.
If, after some considerable time, no-one has retaken the tower, it might have enough supply to start an upgrade . Suddenly, it becomes magically important, Despite the fact that nobody has shown the slightest interest in taking it for hours, the cry goes up ’they’re attacking our T3 tower!’ and a huge fight starts.
Curiously, the more fiercely the tower is defended, the more determined the attack becomes. And vice-versa. Usually, the tower eventually falls, becomes paper again and everyone pees of to go and fight over a different T3.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.