Guild Wars 2

The end of PvDoor.

• Doors should only be damaged by rams and ballista.
• Walls should only be damaged by cats and trebs.
• 25% price reduction on siege equipment.

• if for some technical reason structures cannot be made immune to player damage, reduce damage taken from players to 1 dmg.

so easy it’s kind of a facepalm it is not already as such right now in WvW.

So many people actually wants to get rid of this bad mechanic, including me.

Its just stupid to see 80+ people banging their way into tier3 structures with their heads once siege has been countered, I dont mind players able to tag a keep making it contested, its a valid tactic imo.

Better to do limit how much damage you can do to a Gate, Wall that also go with Siege, Say gate 3rams, 2 omega 3 alpha golem, 10players, Wall 3Treb, 3Cats, 3Golem, so if you place 8rams on a gate you will not do more then 3rams do.

I agree that ranged weapons and spells should not damage gates. It just makes no sense.

I still think melee weapons should damage gates. It might also make Burning Oil more attractive to use.

It would also help if reinforced gates was the first upgrade to a tower, rather than walls. 90% of the time you enter a structure through the door.

Theoreticly the gates have limit on how many rams can be put in standard conditions, however we all know that players can bypass that limit (see screenshots on this or other forums with 6+ rams on single gate).

Player damage to gates through spamming skills was reported as broken long ago but nothing was done about it. Ranged damage can be somehow stopped ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpEey3Z_6J0 ) but meele not. Somehow Anet have not adressed this issue either, so I guess they’re ok with it. However reducing/removing player dmg to gate could help to reduce the amount of blobs around and make players to split around (no longer needed to take your 80man to take down gate in around 1m with no siege – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VtE8IYbgpQ)

I kind of miss the way Shadowbane did things. Players could get sledge hammers and siege bows to use against structures. These weapons did no damage to players, but good damage to structures. This way if you caught an enemy by surprise they didn’t have time to swap weapons back to their normal set and couldn’t fight back. But if you didn’t take defense seriously even a small number of people could ruin your day.

I agree that only siege should be able to damage gates. It is very frustrating as a defender to spend the time killing their siege only to have the gate broken by a horde of PvDers in just about the same amount of time.

So you want people to build so many ac’s that rams can only take that damage for about 3 seconds and never be able to cap anything? No thanks… Siege is already overpowered enough. Just learn proper placement and how to use them for different situations (unless its omegas they are hard to counter.)

Latinkuro.9420:

The end of PvDoor.

• Doors should only be damaged by rams and ballista.
• Walls should only be damaged by cats and trebs.
• 25% price reduction on siege equipment.

• if for some technical reason structures cannot be made immune to player damage, reduce damage taken from players to 1 dmg.

so easy it’s kind of a facepalm it is not already as such right now in WvW.

Doors being damaged by ballistas? No.

Besides, if they are able to PvDoor your gate down then you either haven’t built enough defensive siege or haven’t bothered manning it.

Instead of complaining that attackers can knock your doors down without siege, you should focus on, I don’t know, defending your fortress? and no, sitiing inside with your thumb up your rear isn’t defending.

broken siege mechanics :

1. omega golem. shouldn’t even be in the game. alpha ok, but omega is just riduculous.

2. you can damage ram on the other side of the gate using arrow carts, no line of sight needed.

3. while catapult doesn’t do damage to ram, they still knock back anyone behind the gate.

I don’t see why 60 ppl woudnt be able to break down a door though O.o

60 people wouldn’t break down a gate,they’d climb over the gate or the walls lol

Ragnarok.4506:

I don’t see why 60 ppl woudnt be able to break down a door though O.o

Can you imagine 60 people all trying to hit the same door at the same time? It is unrealistic (not saying the rest of the game is…).

If people are able to PvD, you already lost the fight. No point in complaining that they have way more people than you and you didn’t build any seige.

Compromise solution:

Player skills can damage tier 1 and tier 2 gates. A tier 3 gate can only be damaged by siege weapons per the current rules governing them.

Now there’s an incentive to upgrade to tier 3 and defend the structure. It also gives an incentive to attack an upgrading fortification before it reaches tier 3 versus PvDooring structures which are not being upgraded.

…Their are no t3 gates. By the time a keep get upgraded to t3 walls their are more than enough AC’s on the gate to stop people from pvd. 30people do about the same amount of damage as a ram. I do not have a issue with PvD if a keep is fully upgrade your server should have a small defense force watching it during prime time hours.

Take an axe.

Walk up to your front door.

Hit the door, hard. What happens?

Multiply that by forty people, some using magic etc.

Ulion.5476:

…Their are no t3 gates. By the time a keep get upgraded to t3 walls their are more than enough AC’s on the gate to stop people from pvd. 30people do about the same amount of damage as a ram. I do not have a issue with PvD if a keep is fully upgrade your server should have a small defense force watching it during prime time hours.

I’m well aware there is no formal “Fortified Gate” upgrade. The suggestion is to introduce the feature that a structure upgraded to t3 receives a gate that can not be damaged by player skills; only siege weapons.

As for prime time hours, who’s prime time are we referring to in a 24/7 game mode?

VOLKON.1290:

Take an axe.

Walk up to your front door.

Hit the door, hard. What happens?

Multiply that by forty people, some using magic etc.

Take an axe.

Walk up to a steel-clad gate made of hardwood timbers 2 feet thick.

Hit the gate, hard. What happens?

Nothing (maybe you break the axe head).

VOLKON.1290:

Take an axe.

Walk up to your front door.

Hit the door, hard. What happens?

Multiply that by forty people, some using magic etc.

I would imagine a lot of blood and loss of limb/life. 40 people swinging wildly with axes at a target about 3 feet wide? Carnage. (assuming you have a regular sized front door)

Today was no PvD door in EotM. Supply drain cows för the win.

Ins.7139:

60 people wouldn’t break down a gate,they’d climb over the gate or the walls lol

Carzor Stelatis.9435:

Latinkuro.9420:

The end of PvDoor.

• Doors should only be damaged by rams and ballista.
• Walls should only be damaged by cats and trebs.
• 25% price reduction on siege equipment.

• if for some technical reason structures cannot be made immune to player damage, reduce damage taken from players to 1 dmg.

so easy it’s kind of a facepalm it is not already as such right now in WvW.

Doors being damaged by ballistas? No.

Besides, if they are able to PvDoor your gate down then you either haven’t built enough defensive siege or haven’t bothered manning it.

LOL did you notice where I play ?
I’m on Beast Gate, I have no problem defending doors against these pvders, it’s actually funny to see them run away just to be crushed by incoming defense forces.

Does that mean I do not recognize when something is broken or doesn’t work like it should be ? of course NOT

pvdoor is unrealistic and takes away from the immersion of the game.

Why is it only 1 person is needed to use a ram in the first place ? I don’t know of any siege like that in history that didn’t need at least a few people for it to work effectively.

Asurastafarian.9708:

Why is it only 1 person is needed to use a ram in the first place ? I don’t know of any siege like that in history that didn’t need at least a few people for it to work effectively.

It incorporates an Asura Inertial Dampener (you can see Asura-tech built into the rams as evidenced by it levitating due to Asura stone-crystal cubey thingies).

Multiple players being required to operate a ram would be an interesting change, though.

Best solution to end PvD is to outright change the capping mechanics. Must decap points first, and to get a ppt-earning-point to a capped state (and the reward), require players to supply a resource that can only be gotten via player kills or limited objectives (borderland bloodlust). This would also solve night capping and karma training.

roamzero.9486:

Best solution to end PvD is to outright change the capping mechanics. Must decap points first, and to get a ppt-earning-point to a capped state (and the reward), require players to supply a resource that can only be gotten via player kills or limited objectives (borderland bloodlust). This would also solve night capping and karma training.

This is an interesting suggestion.

To simplify it using just the existing mechanics (so as to preempt the guaranteed complaints of, “Don’t ask for more stuff because it takes away developer time from more important bug fixes and updates, etc.”) do the following:

• An objective that has been captured but has no upgrades earns zero points per tick.

• The objective will earn the owning server a scaling increase in PPT as upgrades are completed.

To illustrate this, let’s use a supply camp as an example:

1) Server captures the supply camp. It earns no PPT at present.

2) Supply camp is upgraded with “Hire Caravan Guard”. When this upgrade completes, the camp will then start earning the owning server 1 PPT.

3) Supply camp is upgraded with “Increase Supply Deliveries”. When this upgrade completes, the camp will then start earning the owning server 2 PPT.

4) Supply camp is upgraded with “Hire Additional Guards”. When this upgrade completes, the camp will then start earning the owning server 3 PPT.

5) Supply camp is upgraded with “Strengthen Guards”. When this final upgrade completes, the camp will then start earning the owning server 4 PPT.

To bring the supply camp up to earning 5 PPT as it originally did, we could go one of two routes:

1) Ordering all possible upgrades at an objective allows it to earn some bonus PPT that brings it up to the same level as it earned prior to this revamped scoring mechanic. For example, the supply camp on having all four upgrades completed will earn 5 PPT instead of 4 PPT.

OR

2) Holding an objective through a full 15 minute PPT cycle allows it to earn some lesser amount of points which – once combined with fully upgrading the objective – will bring its PPT up to the same amount as existed prior to this change. Going back to the supply camp again, on holding it for a full 15 minute PPT cycle it will start earning 1 PPT. By the time all four upgrades are completed, it will be back to earning 5 PPT as it originally did.

I prefer option (1) as it’s rewarding active play (the owning server gets the final bonus point from having fully upgraded the supply camp) rather than being rewarded per option (2) for passively sitting on an objective over time.

In some other threads I’ve argued for the elimination of PPT altogether; instantly rewarding, instead, players’ actions as they are completed (i.e. you earn World Score points at the time of capturing an actively defended objective or points for actively defending a besieged fortification). By merging the two systems – instant rewards for actions completed and rewards over time if effort is put into upgrading structures – perhaps we strike a reasonable compromise.

My suggestion, which I just repeated in another thread (and other’s have made similar suggestions, as well, so I think it’s a fairly common line of thinking):

Camp: 1 point + 1 point per upgrade (Max 5 points)
Tower: 3 points + 1 points per upgrade (Max 15 points)
Keep: 6 points + 2 points per upgrade (Max 30 points)
SMC: 9 points + 3 points per upgrade (Max 45 points)

Each has a maximum higher than the current points under the assumption that it won’t always be ticking at maximum points.

The potential motivations this will create:

- It encourages a more powerful enemy to keep sweeping your territory to turn your holdings to paper and reduce the points they are worth. This could be very frustrating for an underdog in a matchup.

- It encourages an opponent to take on fully upgraded structures and turn them to paper to stop the enemy from earning the points a fully upgraded structure yields. I think this one is a positive one, since it provides incentive to do what’s hard, not what’s easy.

- It encourages an opponent to try to hold what they take, even if it’s in enemy territory. This, again, could be very frustrating to an underdog server. Right now, a much more powerful enemy might sweep through your BL and turn everything to paper, but then they usually leave and you can take it back. If they stay and upgrade for the points, then it might be harder for an underdog to get anything done.

Bad idea towers need to be taken and lost regular or it just become some boring siege war game,if you have scouts and commander willing to def T3 tower you will not lose them anyway Trep drain and ACs are so OP atm…

Berk.8561:

My suggestion, which I just repeated in another thread (and other’s have made similar suggestions, as well, so I think it’s a fairly common line of thinking):

Camp: 1 point + 1 point per upgrade (Max 5 points)
Tower: 3 points + 1 points per upgrade (Max 15 points)
Keep: 6 points + 2 points per upgrade (Max 30 points)
SMC: 9 points + 3 points per upgrade (Max 45 points)

Each has a maximum higher than the current points under the assumption that it won’t always be ticking at maximum points.

It’s quite common indeed. I made the post Scale WvWvW objectives’ value w/ upgrades 11 months ago and similar suggestions in related threads ever since then. So, too, have others. It seems to take repeating the same recurring theme about twenty times and getting somewhere near 15,000 collective views before it finally lands on the devs’ radar; so keep on making these suggestions.

Berk.8561:

The potential motivations this will create:

- It encourages a more powerful enemy to keep sweeping your territory to turn your holdings to paper and reduce the points they are worth. This could be very frustrating for an underdog in a matchup.

That pretty much describes what happens every night on the server on which I play for the past 19 months; so it’s not really detracting from your suggestion from the underdog’s perspective.

Combine it with my suggestion that un-upgraded structures earn no points for the owner, and it’s actually an improvement over the current situation. Yes, the karma train zerglings will still sweep the map out from under the underdog. However, if the k-train doesn’t bother purchasing upgrades and sticking around to defend the objectives they capture until the upgrades are completed, they won’t be earning any points, either.

Berk.8561:

- It encourages an opponent to take on fully upgraded structures and turn them to paper to stop the enemy from earning the points a fully upgraded structure yields. I think this one is a positive one, since it provides incentive to do what’s hard, not what’s easy.

This would be a vast improvement over the PvDooring that happens currently. The k-train deciding, “Owwie! Too hard to capture a fully upgraded and defended keep. We’re going to go cap some undefended towers and supply camps for easy lootz!” will result in the following (if paired with my suggestion above):

• Zero points to the k-train for capturing empty and undefended structures at the time of capture.

• Zero points-over-time if they don’t bother purchasing upgrades and seeing them through to completion at those empty structures.

• Their opponent will continue earning points for having invested heavily into upgrading an defending some of their objectives.

• If my full suggestion contained in the Collaborative Development: Edge of the Mists thread were implemented, then the k-train wouldn’t even receive loot for capping an empty and undefended structure, completely neutering the very motivation for using this tactic in the first place.

I don’t see a downside. And to those who want to start QQ-ing over the above, ArenaNet was kind enough to create a k-trainer’s paradise over on the EotM map. Go play PvDoor, flip objectives unopposed, and earn loot to your heart’s content over there while allowing those who want some real strategic depth added to the game their own space in WvW.

Berk.8561:

- It encourages an opponent to try to hold what they take, even if it’s in enemy territory. This, again, could be very frustrating to an underdog server. Right now, a much more powerful enemy might sweep through your BL and turn everything to paper, but then they usually leave and you can take it back. If they stay and upgrade for the points, then it might be harder for an underdog to get anything done.

Again, both scenarios already exist for the underdog. Implementing your suggestions in conjunction with some of mine doesn’t necessarily eliminate the sweeps. It does, however, make them far less profitable from both a PPT and a loot standpoint; especially if the sweeping server doesn’t stick around to upgrade and defend anything. That, in itself, may be all the disincentive needed to shift the meta away from k-training while giving outnumbered servers a fighting chance.

Latinkuro.9420:

The end of PvDoor.

• Doors should only be damaged by rams and ballista.
• Walls should only be damaged by cats and trebs.
• 25% price reduction on siege equipment.

• if for some technical reason structures cannot be made immune to player damage, reduce damage taken from players to 1 dmg.

so easy it’s kind of a facepalm it is not already as such right now in WvW.

this solution start a golem rush every time and every where
only blob golems XD

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

It’s quite common indeed.

It’s a fairly obvious way to make upgrades matter and add some depth to the choice of which tower or keep to attack rather than the easiest one. One of the reasons why the #1 and #2 servers gang up on #3 and #2 and #3 attack each other instead of #1 is that it’s just as beneficial to capture the easiest tower as it is to capture the hardest. The game encourages attacking the weakest opponent and doing PvDoor.

I think I upgraded sites should have some value so there is always some small advantage for taking them so they can’t be ignored. That’s why my version gives a few points by default, but most come from upgrades. At one point, I did suggest no points for a half-hour or until an upgrade was done.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

• If my full suggestion contained in the Collaborative Development: Edge of the Mists thread were implemented, then the k-train wouldn’t even receive loot for capping an empty and undefended structure, completely neutering the very motivation for using this tactic in the first place.

Tying the loot to how upgrades the objective is would also be good and would help encourage two stronger servers to tangle with each other to get loot instead of beating up on the weakest server.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

I don’t see a downside. And to those who want to start QQ-ing over the above, ArenaNet was kind enough to create a k-trainer’s paradise over on the EotM map. Go play PvDoor, flip objectives unopposed, and earn loot to your heart’s content over there while allowing those who want some real strategic depth added to the game their own space in WvW.

And, seriously, if you like PvDoor play where you can’t lose against NPCs, ANet has maps full of PvE content, several with nice champion train rotations, that are a lot more interesting and varied than PvDoor.