Guild Wars 2

Note from the Heart of Thorns discussion – “Holding objectives is now a bigger component of victories in WvW”

Thanks a lot, anet, for giving us the opposite of what we have been asking for.

isn’t it the most important one already? i mean if you hold objectives, you win.

It is just another win for the bigger servers. The match-up system needs to be fixed. NSP and IOJ have been getting rolled by the blob servers we have been getting for months. When you loose week after week by over 300k it become old real fast.

truliy.3509:

isn’t it the most important one already? i mean if you hold objectives, you win.

Not if your up against a server that blobs up and K-trains to make their PPT. This is a great step in reducing blob behavior.

Baratta.1083:

It is just another win for the bigger servers. The match-up system needs to be fixed. NSP and IOJ have been getting rolled by the blob servers we have been getting for months. When you loose week after week by over 300k it become old real fast.

The only thing left to do in the T3 matchups is learn to fight better. You can hold stuff, but only if the big green meanie in the matchup allows it. As soon as their pugmander sets their sights on your stuff, it’s gone

Osu.6307:

Thanks a lot, anet, for giving us the opposite of what we have been asking for.

That seems to be the pattern.

Players: “Low populations servers are suffering. Defending is unrewarding. We don’t want a karma train and gimmick maps like EotM. Server communities matter to us.”

ANet: “Right. We need to make high population even more powerful, make it harder to defend, give WvW maps even more gimmicky than EotM, and destroy the server communities.”

It’s like information passes though some sort of bizarro reverse translation before it reaches them.

Osu.6307:

Note from the Heart of Thorns discussion – “Holding objectives is now a bigger component of victories in WvW”

Thanks a lot, anet, for giving us the opposite of what we have been asking for.

Actually, a lot of people have been asking for a more rewarding defense experience.

Making defending involve fighting players instead of sitting around waiting to fight with siege against siege would be a more rewarding defence experience.

Coldtart.4785:

Making defending involve fighting players instead of sitting around waiting to fight with siege against siege would be a more rewarding defence experience.

Which was how the white swords generally worked in my experience, because they let players show up to fight when a location was under attack, but they’re experimenting with removing them, too.

People, you complain about EVERYTHING.

I am personally stoked. I love defending on low tier server because you get great outnumbered fights, and everybody know you were defending it! The problem at low tiers isn’t population imbalance per say. We on Kaineng are holding our own against FC and DR who have nearly 4x the numbers of the largest zerg we have. That’s why we don’t zerg often. Yes, our havocs will sometimes accumulate pugs and grow to be MAYBE 10 people. But when the kitten hits the fan, it is the core 5 people who end up killing the 10-15 man group. We are capable of fighting outmanned. That is the real reason many servers give up. They look at the enmy force an think “oh kitten, we’re gonna die” and they run of let themselves get wiped. If u look at downing 10 in a 49 man group when u only have 5 people as a victory, it is much more rewarding.
So yes, I think the new map is a good thing. You need to stop looking at it as we want more. We don’t even have the new map yet. Be content for now, ask for more later

Maybe they’ll nerf karma and lord drops to trash until you’ve held a tower for 15 minutes, scaling with the number of structures you hold. That’ll kill the k-train faster than anything else.

I will be happy if it doesnt backfire but that sounds like it will. I mean, more populus servers will hold more objectives so wouldn’t that mean they get even more powerful and harder to touch?

Honestly I am interested in more ways they will be looking to make defending objectives more important than they are currently.

If I want Ktrain I just got o EOTM.
However in WvW I like a mix of attacking, defending, scouting, ppt play, and open field fighting.
Right now I can find Ktrain in eotm, open field and ppt in wvw, scouting was getting there during the test without white swords.

About attacking, well few use tactics since fewer “defend” well. Seems many are even afraid of anything which will be longer then a 10minute siege, and I want the long drawn out fights to claim something for a server.

I miss the old days of 1-8+ hour fights over Garrison, bay, hills, and basically any keeps.

Jayden Ennok.3687:

People, you complain about EVERYTHING.

Baratta.1083:

It is just another win for the bigger servers. The match-up system needs to be fixed. NSP and IOJ have been getting rolled by the blob servers we have been getting for months. When you loose week after week by over 300k it become old real fast.

This is why I transferred to T1.

I know i have been complaining with a negative/sarcy tone but please , can we just wait till we have played it and if it does not work out you want it to be, start complaining?

I would like to see a wvw map similar to pvp. A huge conquest map with lots of points with no gates. Where you just need to win fights to cap. Where if you make 1 blob cap and leave people will just backcap you.

Just wait for the details, will you?

Osu.6307:

Note from the Heart of Thorns discussion – “Holding objectives is now a bigger component of victories in WvW”

Thanks a lot, anet, for giving us the opposite of what we have been asking for.

I don’t see what is the problem. A lot here on these very forums, me included, were pointing fingers at K-trains that care about nothing save PvD and never defending anything.

If they start to reward the time you manage to keep objectives, scouting and defense will be a lot more important to win. What if the tick value of an objective was to go up by 1 point at each thick up to a max unless it reset it’s value because it was taken by the enemy? People would care to defend and I can only applaud that. Flipping stuff just in time for the tick would be less effective than keeping it all the time. It would also be a lot less frustrating to invest into upgrades…

We don’t know how they’re actually doing it, so don’t panic yet. For example to me one solution might include some meaningful NPC action against held locations.

If you frequently fended off minor incursions from NPC’s in the absence of a real attack, that would give you something to do and some rewards while waiting for the real attackers. There’s plenty of room for variety in those dynamic events- you might need to do some siege vs siege as a merc catapult team rolls up, collapse sapper tunnels, or track down and kill an infiltrator who otherwise has a chance to take out the lord.

The bonus there too is that it would be easy to use that as a mechanism to help balance population impact a little. Scale the difficulty or frequency of events based not on the number of defenders in the immediate area, but instead on the world’s population on that map. Bigger populations would be forced to spread out resources to defend. Smaller populations would have the opportunity to all focus on taking individual objectives with their full force.

Just thoughts- my point is I’m sure there are ways to make it work, and I’m not writing it off until I see the details.

Wow. The WvW community is simply impossible to please! A lot of people have asked for defense to be more rewarding! Wait till we now more to complain.

Sorel.4870:

Wow. The WvW community is simply impossible to please! A lot of people have asked for defense to be more rewarding! Wait till we now more to complain.

lold… Karma train blobs gona moan now because they want to flip more instead of play a decent game.
It is like balance a op class/build they QQ because need more effort and call it a nerf.

It is a move in the right direction, if it requires more team work and organization from part of servers, i believe every server will have a little influx after this change.

Coldtart.4785:

Making defending involve fighting players instead of sitting around waiting to fight with siege against siege would be a more rewarding defence experience.

This is absolutely right. Siege wars are simply boring. Who enjoys one guy firing a treb while everyone else stands around? I would definitely support changes that include a lower cap on the number of siege engines built per objective.

I was hoping for something that would reward open field fights, not sitting on objectives all day. I live for large fights. Rewarding tactics that encourage sitting on objectives is a step in the wrong direction, imo. I guess we will just have to see what the details of the changes are.

Osu.6307:

Coldtart.4785:

Making defending involve fighting players instead of sitting around waiting to fight with siege against siege would be a more rewarding defence experience.

This is absolutely right. Siege wars are simply boring. Who enjoys one guy firing a treb while everyone else stands around? I would definitely support changes that include a lower cap on the number of siege engines built per objective.

I was hoping for something that would reward open field fights, not sitting on objectives all day. I live for large fights. Rewarding tactics that encourage sitting on objectives is a step in the wrong direction, imo. I guess we will just have to see what the details of the changes are.

Well, again, the WvW community is so diverse that not everyone will be pleased. Open field battles are a numbers game: the more players you have, the more likely you are to win. WvW was intended to be a siege game, and yes, siege take time, and a small army can in theory keep a fort against an enormous zerg for a long time. You can’t cry all day about population imbalance and at the same time ask for a gameplay that favors zeroing.

Osu.6307:

Note from the Heart of Thorns discussion – “Holding objectives is now a bigger component of victories in WvW”

It’s one part of along list of what we have been asking for. If they give us this and nothing else, it won’t change WvW AT ALL! People will still stack servers and off-time hours making this change meaningless.

A lot of pieces of WvW need tweaking – defending objectives included – to revive WvW.

Mattargul.9235:

Osu.6307:

Note from the Heart of Thorns discussion – “Holding objectives is now a bigger component of victories in WvW”

It’s one part of along list of what we have been asking for. If they give us this and nothing else, it won’t change WvW AT ALL! People will still stack servers and off-time hours making this change meaningless.

A lot of pieces of WvW need tweaking – defending objectives included – to revive WvW.

If people are willing to fork out money to buy gems so they can transfer servers on a weekly basis then Anet will be happy to take their money.
Here’s a radical idea – make each tier have 4 servers, allow the two weakest to ally – as in not be able to kill or take territory from each other.
The blob would still consume them…

A few more details in an interview on Shacknews -

“Shacknews: I’ve spoken to some of our readers and they’re concerned that interest in World v. World is starting to wane, but you are adding new content to it. What can you tell us about the Borderland map and how do you plan to build further interest in WvW?

Johanson: World v. World is one of the most unique experiences we have in Guild Wars 2, with hundreds of players fighting these epic sieges. It really is like being a troop inside an RTS game. There are amazing moments when you have battles to control towers or when you have armies facing off and we want to ensure that that’s the bread and butter of the World v. World experience. So we’re doing a lot of work to ensure that holding objectives through all of World v. World is a more important part of the experience. We’re going to make that a bigger part of victory, a bigger part of the strategic decisions that you and your army makes, and you really need to defend and hold your objectives. That leads to great battles between two sides when they’re strong and struggling to hold them.

The new Borderland map certainly has a lot of that built into it. Al of the key, strategic locations provide strategic benefits to your world. Everything from providing abilities when you’re near your keep to preventing players from getting through chokepoints. The towers are the chokepoints of the map that prevent enemy army movement if they’re not able to break through. We’re really trying to place more strategic emphasis on that and, as part of that, we’ll be dealing with a lot of things that World v. World players are excited about seeing. That includes truly awesome battles and more strategic decision-making, the kind you would make in an RTS game, where you’re splitting your troops to attack different places, you’re bringing the army together, you’re scouting to determine where to go next, and we want to make that rewarding. The new Borderland map will feed into that, as well as the fundamental changes we’re making to the World v. World experience."

I hope those “fundamental changes” are going to deal with lopsided matchups. I’m on IOJ, enough said.

Well…and this is all speculation…if “defending” is more important, one way to make it so, is to have all siege in a keep/tower/garri available regardless of who built it. For instance, if we get in and take SM that was fortified, it stays fortified. All cannons/mortars and any player-built siege INSIDE the walls now become usable by us. Making it VERY important to defend..and have people destroy siege once another server caps

They should make fights more important

Osu.6307:

Note from the Heart of Thorns discussion – “Holding objectives is now a bigger component of victories in WvW”

Thanks a lot, anet, for giving us the opposite of what we have been asking for.

The wording is interesting, my interpretation is that objectives may be worth more the longer they are held. However it doesnt appear to address the issues of no rewards for scouting and a lack of personal rewards for defending.

jamesg.7128:

A few more details in an interview on Shacknews -

The towers are the chokepoints of the map that prevent enemy army movement if they’re not able to break through.

So that’s what they mean by emphasis on defending? I think I’ll be a tower guard more often that’s decent.

misterman.1530:

Well…and this is all speculation…if “defending” is more important, one way to make it so, is to have all siege in a keep/tower/garri available regardless of who built it. For instance, if we get in and take SM that was fortified, it stays fortified. All cannons/mortars and any player-built siege INSIDE the walls now become usable by us. Making it VERY important to defend..and have people destroy siege once another server caps

I think this is a good idea, but without the upgrades. What I think should happen is that defensive siege is universal, meaning ballistas and arrow carts are usable by any server when they are built. This prevents people from taking towers with enemy siege, but being rewarded for taking a structure that was defended. If an enemy is ON the siege, you can destroy it, and siege hitting siege that is manned by an enemy should be destroyable.
It would be really cool if they made it so siege placed by an enemy inside of a tower is enemy until the tower is flipped, than it becomes friendly, so whenever a keep or tower flips, all siege inside of it becomes neutral for 5 minutes, than after 5 minutes, it becomes the side of the tower. This way, you can make the choice of whether or not you wish to clear siege on the walls, or go straight for lord so you have the siege for later.
Obviously the second idea is a bit more complicated, but it would be pretty great imo. If not, I think my first idea is pretty good.

oscuro.9720:

misterman.1530:

Well…and this is all speculation…if “defending” is more important, one way to make it so, is to have all siege in a keep/tower/garri available regardless of who built it. For instance, if we get in and take SM that was fortified, it stays fortified. All cannons/mortars and any player-built siege INSIDE the walls now become usable by us. Making it VERY important to defend..and have people destroy siege once another server caps

I think this is a good idea, but without the upgrades. What I think should happen is that defensive siege is universal, meaning ballistas and arrow carts are usable by any server when they are built. This prevents people from taking towers with enemy siege, but being rewarded for taking a structure that was defended. If an enemy is ON the siege, you can destroy it, and siege hitting siege that is manned by an enemy should be destroyable.
It would be really cool if they made it so siege placed by an enemy inside of a tower is enemy until the tower is flipped, than it becomes friendly, so whenever a keep or tower flips, all siege inside of it becomes neutral for 5 minutes, than after 5 minutes, it becomes the side of the tower. This way, you can make the choice of whether or not you wish to clear siege on the walls, or go straight for lord so you have the siege for later.
Obviously the second idea is a bit more complicated, but it would be pretty great imo. If not, I think my first idea is pretty good.

Ooo.. I like that. Ok. I see your point about just siege (I guess that cannons and mortars would disappear on cap – you mean player-built siege).

Still, I think that’s a great idea.

I’d love to see each towers and keeps have a maximum number of points worth of siege that can be spent for defense. For example, make trebs worth 4 points, catas and ballistas worth 3 points, and ac’s worth 2 points. Then give each objective a cap on the number of points that can be spent sieging it up, like 10 points for towers and 20 for keeps. Defenders would then have to be smart about siege placement and not just dump siege on every gate and wall.

Naz.2607:

Osu.6307:

Note from the Heart of Thorns discussion – “Holding objectives is now a bigger component of victories in WvW”

Thanks a lot, anet, for giving us the opposite of what we have been asking for.

Actually, a lot of people have been asking for a more rewarding defense experience.

Yeah but people have been asking for defense to not suck too. It kinda doesn’t matter if holding objectives boosts the score more when it still involves the same activities with the same flaws(defending from a wall I’m looking at you).

Osu.6307:

I’d love to see each towers and keeps have a maximum number of points worth of siege that can be spent for defense. For example, make trebs worth 4 points, catas and ballistas worth 3 points, and ac’s worth 2 points. Then give each objective a cap on the number of points that can be spent sieging it up, like 10 points for towers and 20 for keeps. Defenders would then have to be smart about siege placement and not just dump siege on every gate and wall.

I disagree with this, no offense. I come from a server that is ALWAYS a outmanned (Kaineng). In Kaineng, we pride ourselves on borderland and EB home keep defesnse, as well as outnumbered fighting. People will say Kaineng is not outnumbered, because they play at nights when their server has 5 total people, and we have a good sized group (20). But in the days and prime time, we have far less people, and are capable of fighting outnumbered and defending our objectives. This comes from proper and adequate siege. Trend are a necessity when defending against 20+. Catapults are far from necessary, as are most ballistas. You can use 4 arrow arts and one properly placed teen can defend any keep inner or tower against 20+ easily.
The point im trying to make is that the amount of siege in the keep isn’t the problem, it is the siege limit in a SOECIFIC area. I think that siege limits should be based by wall. No more than 4 pieces of siege on one wall.
Personally, I think defending needs to be bugged, something in glad that is happening with this new map.

Holding objectives is a part of WvW, but on second thought it will make WvW rather dull for most.

Why? Siege everywhere!
It’s bad enough fighting german servers who rely on arrow carts for everything, but the above will mean every server will do it! Towers filled with endless siege.

I guess if you are rewarded for it, unlike now, it will make those who enjoy defending
happy, but those who want real fights will find it a complete bore, imagine your group of 25 having to run to get supplies to build siege to destroy the enemy siege and then more siege to get into the enemy tower before they can even hit an enemy themselves! Half your group will fall asleep.

Well anet have another 2 years to work on it before the next real WvW update so….