Second Child
Weakest server should NOT be red
I personally think Anet hate red, even tho it’s the colour of their logo. Arid Fortress in EotM is also the worst keep of the 3 colours…
Personally I’d give Overlook to Green, Valley to Red, and Lowlands to blue.
I think that Valley is a much easier keep to defend than Lowlands, and it can cover the back towers with quite ease.
While you have the advantage of holding the front towers from lowlands, if the enemy go straight for your keep, you’re likely to be in a huge trouble if you’re the weakest server (Outer lowlands is a pain to defend, as much as a contantly trebbed Overlook). I’d take being able to defend my keep over being able to hold 2 towers (Besides, QL can pretty much defend itself, so Durios is the only draw back from blue side).
Kawagima / Kelvena Riverstream / Calamis Fatima / Hanna Flintlocke
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
(edited by Jeknar.6184)
I personally think Anet hate red, even tho it’s the colour of their logo. Arid Fortress in EotM is also the worst keep of the 3 colours…
Personally I’d give Overlook to Green, Valley to Red, and Lowlands to blue.
I think that Valley is a much easier keep to defend than Lowlands, and it can cover the back towers with quite ease.
While you have the advantage of holding the front towers from lowlands, if the enemy go straight for your keep, you’re likely to be in a huge trouble if you’re the weakest server (Outer lowlands is a pain to defend, as much as a contantly trebbed Overlook). I’d take being able to defend my keep over being able to hold 2 towers (Besides, QL can pretty much defend itself, so Durios is the only draw back from blue side).
Red isn’t so bad when it doesn’t belong to weakest server. However, when weakest server is always red, that puts them at a huge disadvantage. In order to make use of the full benefits of red corner, you have to be able to hold SM, or at least cap it to get rid of trebs. The biggest problem is that weakest server usually has no shot of taking SM.
Giving OL to green would be insanely OP. Then green would have a very easy to defend keep, along with a very easy to defend corner. If green got OL, green would have to belong to weakest server.
Second Child
It’s a tricky one really, as Red is equally troublesome when in the hands of the strongest server. When given to such a server it makes for an incredibly strong offensive platform.
Pangloss gives double that Speldan does so as long as you keep upgrading pangloss and scouting it more, your keep should upgrade faster than any other keep in ebg. Also didn’t mention that red is the only side that can treb SMC from their keep.
Also didn’t mention that red is the only side that can treb SMC from their keep.
And the only one that can be trebbed from SMC aswell… I rather not being able to treb and not be trebbed either…
Kawagima / Kelvena Riverstream / Calamis Fatima / Hanna Flintlocke
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
In EotM, green always just farms Red and Blue because of their superior numbers. In an even battle they would just steam roll the other two colors. Unless Red or Blue expected them and had AC’s built it would be tough.
Green gets the biggest buff which can be used around the maps if you don’t know what this buff is, it heals conditions, gain health every second, and a chance to create a lightning strike on hit.
Red has Wurm, which is a special objective that can easily be taken if they breach the outer wall, the scorpions which are used to take out walls/gates, and the cannons scattered about that just annoy the enemy players.
Blue has a slowness condition that is only put on the enemy when they enter their keep and bells that are scattered about that summon a vet that usually doesn’t even attack/hit people that run by. The best buff that Blue gets is a 10% damage reduction that is a special objective and can easily be taken by the other two servers.
Why do they give the Green Servers the best buffs?
Pangloss gives double that Speldan does so as long as you keep upgrading pangloss and scouting it more, your keep should upgrade faster than any other keep in ebg.
Your keep gets upgraded faster, but not fast enough to keep up with SM trebs. At some point, you have all the upgrades, and you’re just constantly getting treb’d to keep the waypoint contested.
Also didn’t mention that red is the only side that can treb SMC from their keep.
Yes, red can treb SM, but the problem is that WEAKEST server is red. This means that red usually has no chance of taking SM. In practice, what happens when red trebs SM is that the strongest server descends upon red corner, destroys the trebs, takes Pang/OW/Anz/Speld/Mend, and leaves red crippled for a tick or two. Red is often too afraid to treb SM for this reason.
Like I said, red corner is fine in theory for not-weakest server. However, the problem is that red always goes to weakest server, which has no way of dealing with SM trebs without being put in a perpetually defensive position.
Second Child
Red is actually very decent. Keep, Veloka & Ogre are almost impossible to flip. Ogrewatch can basically only be trebbed from either SM or Ogres, Veloka can only be steamrolled or ninjad with Catapults. Ogrewatc has strong cover fire from Keep and can be reached in seconds (as an outer tower!). Red is the only color that can treb SM from their keep, giving them a huge advantage in ability to ninja SM. The downside is of course keep outer walls being trebbed from SM, but those SM trebs can be dispatched by counter treb. So basically green and blue need to camp north of SM to do damage to the keep or ogrewatch which leaves their back open.
The inner red keep cannot be trebbed except from Veloka and Vista (which can be countertrebbed by a treb that cant be trebbed) and is easily sieged up to overkill because there is no room for the enemy to build anything. So the “triangle of power” how i call it (ogre, veloka, keep) give red a very strong fallback position. Yes, Anza and Mendon are constantly exposed and can easily be capped, but the enemy who caps it is very far out and vulnerable to the other color. And red needs a downside too :P
BLUE on the other hand has long ways, no good defensive siege positions on outer towers, open to all kind of attacks. I would consider it worst.
i fear we will look back to this day and remember the good old wvw as it is now – Jan 2015
(edited by Steelo.4597)
@Steelo, I agree with you, but I think you miss the point. The point is that WEAKEST server is red. That means that weakest server will have a very tough time dealing with SM trebs. Strongest server will probably be constantly trebbing OW and OL.Red basically is forced to hang around their corner and continuously counter treb. Even if red takes out SM trebs, they’ll just be rebuilt in 5-10 minutes.
Ogrewatc has strong cover fire from Keep and can be reached in seconds (as an outer tower!).
OW should be treated as an inner tower. Keep trebs and mortars will defend OW gate. And OW trebs the inner of red keep. These are properties all inner towers share. Mendon’s, on the other hand, cannot be defended by keep trebs and cannot treb the inner of OL. The outer towers in red are Anz and Mend.
Red is the only color that can treb SM from their keep, giving them a huge advantage in ability to ninja SM.
In theory, yes, but in practice, because red belongs to WEAKEST server, they usually have no shot of taking SM. If red does decide to treb, strongest server usually descends on red corner and wreak havoc.
The downside is of course keep outer walls being trebbed from SM, but those SM trebs can be dispatched by counter treb.
This is precisely the problem. Red has to constantly be counter trebbing SM. Because red is weakest, they probably won’t be able to push into the strongest server’s territory to cut off enemy supply. SM will keep getting supply faster than red can counter treb. Each time red kills the SM trebs, strongest server just rebuilds them in 5-10 minutes, forcing red back into its corner. This cripples the weakest server.
So basically green and blue need to camp north of SM to do damage to the keep or ogrewatch which leaves their back open.
On the contrary, they just have a small group of players trebbing and rebuilding trebs while their zerg runs around either destroying red corner or hitting second strongest server. The trebs force weakest server to stay in red corner.
The inner red keep cannot be trebbed except from Veloka and Vista (which can be countertrebbed by a treb that cant be trebbed) and is easily sieged up to overkill because there is no room for the enemy to build anything.
This is wrong. OW can treb the inner of red keep. Hell, you can even treb the inner of red keep from the cliffs between SM and OW.
So the “triangle of power” how i call it (ogre, veloka, keep) give red a very strong fallback position.
I discussed this already, but OW is really vulnerable when in the hands of weakest server. It’ll be constantly treb’d from SM. This means that red’s “fallback” is only Pang, Vel, and OL. However, OL will be constantly treb’d, contesting the waypoint and eventually bringing down the outer wall
What I want to emphasize is that red corner is fine in theory, but red corner is TERRIBLE when it belongs to WEAKEST server.
Second Child
What I want to emphasize is that red corner is fine in theory, but red corner is TERRIBLE when it belongs to WEAKEST server.
The Overlook, Veloka, and Ogrewatch triangle is the strongest area of cross-covering siege in the game. If the weakest server can’t even hold that, what chance would they stand playing from another corner?
Yaks Bend [SoF] [Me] [One]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
What I want to emphasize is that red corner is fine in theory, but red corner is TERRIBLE when it belongs to WEAKEST server.
The Overlook, Veloka, and Ogrewatch triangle is the strongest area of cross-covering siege in the game. If the weakest server can’t even hold that, what chance would they stand playing from another corner?
At this point, I feel like I’m repeating myself. To simplify my points even further, the problem with giving red to weakest server is that weakest usually has no shot of grabbing SM. SM completely dominates the red corner because the strongest server can treb both the keep and an inner tower. Because red has no shot of grabbing SM, red is in a perpetually defensive position in their corner, due to the SM trebs. This isn’t the case for blue or green.
In fact, weakest server would probably fare much better with blue. Valley can’t be constantly treb’d from SM, so if weakest plays blue, they can at least have an uncontested waypoint and not have to perpetually worry about SM trebs hitting their keep and inner tower.
Second Child
What I want to emphasize is that red corner is fine in theory, but red corner is TERRIBLE when it belongs to WEAKEST server.
The Overlook, Veloka, and Ogrewatch triangle is the strongest area of cross-covering siege in the game. If the weakest server can’t even hold that, what chance would they stand playing from another corner?
At this point, I feel like I’m repeating myself. To simplify my points even further, the problem with giving red to weakest server is that weakest usually has no shot of grabbing SM. SM completely dominates the red corner because the strongest server can treb both the keep and an inner tower. Because red has no shot of grabbing SM, red is in a perpetually defensive position in their corner, due to the SM trebs. This isn’t the case for blue or green.
In fact, weakest server would probably fare much better with blue. Valley can’t be constantly treb’d from SM, so if weakest plays blue, they can at least have an uncontested waypoint and not have to perpetually worry about SM trebs hitting their keep and inner tower.
Exactly how weak do you think Red usually is? It is completely impossible for Red to ever lose OL, OW, or Vel unless they are lazy, or Green/Blue conspire, or they are outnumbered by so many that they don’t even belong in the tier.
Yaks Bend [SoF] [Me] [One]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
What I want to emphasize is that red corner is fine in theory, but red corner is TERRIBLE when it belongs to WEAKEST server.
The Overlook, Veloka, and Ogrewatch triangle is the strongest area of cross-covering siege in the game. If the weakest server can’t even hold that, what chance would they stand playing from another corner?
At this point, I feel like I’m repeating myself. To simplify my points even further, the problem with giving red to weakest server is that weakest usually has no shot of grabbing SM. SM completely dominates the red corner because the strongest server can treb both the keep and an inner tower. Because red has no shot of grabbing SM, red is in a perpetually defensive position in their corner, due to the SM trebs. This isn’t the case for blue or green.
In fact, weakest server would probably fare much better with blue. Valley can’t be constantly treb’d from SM, so if weakest plays blue, they can at least have an uncontested waypoint and not have to perpetually worry about SM trebs hitting their keep and inner tower.
Exactly how weak do you think Red usually is? It is completely impossible for Red to ever lose OL, OW, or Vel unless they are lazy, or Green/Blue conspire, or they are outnumbered by so many that they don’t even belong in the tier.
The problems I outlined above arise when red is too weak to have a shot at SM. This happens more often than not.
To give you a concrete example, last week, in the YB/IoJ/BP matchup, IoJ completely shut down BP’s corner in late NA/early OCX because BP had no shot of capping SM in that time slot. After the outer wall fell in OCX, IoJ would just waltz golems into OL and cap it.
Second Child
What I want to emphasize is that red corner is fine in theory, but red corner is TERRIBLE when it belongs to WEAKEST server.
The Overlook, Veloka, and Ogrewatch triangle is the strongest area of cross-covering siege in the game. If the weakest server can’t even hold that, what chance would they stand playing from another corner?
At this point, I feel like I’m repeating myself. To simplify my points even further, the problem with giving red to weakest server is that weakest usually has no shot of grabbing SM. SM completely dominates the red corner because the strongest server can treb both the keep and an inner tower. Because red has no shot of grabbing SM, red is in a perpetually defensive position in their corner, due to the SM trebs. This isn’t the case for blue or green.
In fact, weakest server would probably fare much better with blue. Valley can’t be constantly treb’d from SM, so if weakest plays blue, they can at least have an uncontested waypoint and not have to perpetually worry about SM trebs hitting their keep and inner tower.
Exactly how weak do you think Red usually is? It is completely impossible for Red to ever lose OL, OW, or Vel unless they are lazy, or Green/Blue conspire, or they are outnumbered by so many that they don’t even belong in the tier.
The problems I outlined above arise when red is too weak to have a shot at SM. This happens more often than not.
To give you a concrete example, last week, in the YB/IoJ/BP matchup, IoJ completely shut down BP’s corner in late NA/early OCX because BP had no shot of capping SM in that time slot. After the outer wall fell in OCX, IoJ would just waltz golems into OL and cap it.
If you capped OL, you outnumbered them by so many that you could have done the same to Valley or LL. The fact that the outer wall was down was of marginal significance.
Yaks Bend [SoF] [Me] [One]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
What I want to emphasize is that red corner is fine in theory, but red corner is TERRIBLE when it belongs to WEAKEST server.
The Overlook, Veloka, and Ogrewatch triangle is the strongest area of cross-covering siege in the game. If the weakest server can’t even hold that, what chance would they stand playing from another corner?
At this point, I feel like I’m repeating myself. To simplify my points even further, the problem with giving red to weakest server is that weakest usually has no shot of grabbing SM. SM completely dominates the red corner because the strongest server can treb both the keep and an inner tower. Because red has no shot of grabbing SM, red is in a perpetually defensive position in their corner, due to the SM trebs. This isn’t the case for blue or green.
In fact, weakest server would probably fare much better with blue. Valley can’t be constantly treb’d from SM, so if weakest plays blue, they can at least have an uncontested waypoint and not have to perpetually worry about SM trebs hitting their keep and inner tower.
Exactly how weak do you think Red usually is? It is completely impossible for Red to ever lose OL, OW, or Vel unless they are lazy, or Green/Blue conspire, or they are outnumbered by so many that they don’t even belong in the tier.
The problems I outlined above arise when red is too weak to have a shot at SM. This happens more often than not.
To give you a concrete example, last week, in the YB/IoJ/BP matchup, IoJ completely shut down BP’s corner in late NA/early OCX because BP had no shot of capping SM in that time slot. After the outer wall fell in OCX, IoJ would just waltz golems into OL and cap it.
If you capped OL, you outnumbered them by so many that you could have done the same to Valley or LL. The fact that the outer wall was down was of marginal significance.
But IoJ didn’t start off outnumbering them by such a large margin. Rather, the effects snowballed from the SM problem. With constant treb pressure on red corner, red has limited waypoint access and three weak towers.
If weakest were playing blue or green, at least strongest server couldn’t treb their inner towers, and if strongest server wanted to play for their keeps, they’d have to bring their zerg to take down two sets of walls/gates, as opposed to letting a couple of players treb while their main zerg does other stuff. Giving red to weakest server magnifies the outnumbered problem because the SM trebs are that much more devastating.
Would IoJ have probably cap’d BP keep, regardless of color? Yeah, probably. But it would have been much more difficult if BP had been blue or green. There’s no reason to give weakest server another handicap.
Second Child
If you capped OL, you outnumbered them by so many that you could have done the same to Valley or LL. The fact that the outer wall was down was of marginal significance.
Weird… Isn’t you the one that said that one of the “advantages” of red is being able to keep SMC outer wall down (so you can ninja cap it)? How the oposite have marginal significance?
Kawagima / Kelvena Riverstream / Calamis Fatima / Hanna Flintlocke
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
Green has the strongest keep setup and should be given to the weakest server. There is no choke point getting to its main keep from spawn, easy gates to defend, has the easiest recapture setup for its two weakest towers and short yak runs.
There should be zero keep to keep trebbing possible in this game which is part of what makes Red a PIA. The main gate on Red keep doesn’t have the solid choke points found on Blue and Green. Red is also stuck with Anz and Mendons which are easy caps for most servers even when upgraded. Only Veloka is a strong tower on Red side. OW is decent but certainly no Aldons or Bravost.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
(edited by Straegen.2938)
Green has the strongest keep setup and should be given to the weakest server. There is no choke point getting to its main keep from spawn, easy gates to defend, has the easiest recapture setup for its two weakest towers and short yak runs.
Lowlands is a bit harder to defend than OL or Valley because of the large open spaces on inner and the possibility of trebbing from outside of AC/cannon range on inner.
For this reason, I think blue should go to weakest server. Valley is a bit easier to defend than Lowlands, and the Lang/Dane/QL set up is just as strong, if not stronger than the Vel/Pang/OW set up.
Second Child
But IoJ didn’t start off outnumbering them by such a large margin. Rather, the effects snowballed from the SM problem. With constant treb pressure on red corner, red has limited waypoint access and three weak towers.
If weakest were playing blue or green, at least strongest server couldn’t treb their inner towers, and if strongest server wanted to play for their keeps, they’d have to bring their zerg to take down two sets of walls/gates, as opposed to letting a couple of players treb while their main zerg does other stuff. Giving red to weakest server magnifies the outnumbered problem because the SM trebs are that much more devastating.
Would IoJ have probably cap’d BP keep, regardless of color? Yeah, probably. But it would have been much more difficult if BP had been blue or green. There’s no reason to give weakest server another handicap.
The numbers situation had nothing to do with SM or OL. The issue is the coverage differential between IoJ and BP. OL is ~impossible to capture unless Red has basically nobody on the map, even if the outer wall starts down. In other words, so few people that it doesn’t matter which color they are. Capturing Valley or LL would not be “much more difficult.” Outer walls buy you what, a few minutes? This VAST color imbalance of which you speak will rarely even be the difference of a single tick.
If Red is so weak that it can do literally nothing to stop the chain of events that you portend, the problem is that that server is in the wrong tier. So I’ll grant you that the red corner will fall marginally faster than another corner if not defended at all. But Red is actually a very attractive corner for an underdog, but not completely pathetic, side.
Yaks Bend [SoF] [Me] [One]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
OL IMO is the hardest keep to take. Although anz and mendons are too far away from the keep.
If they had tweaked the design of Mendon’s (put it against a wall, made approach narrow and covered by tower siege) it would be perfect to be Red.
Valley is by far the easiest to assault keep of the 3, and Lowlands is vulnerable from any of the 4 towers. One falls, trebs go up and walls go down.
OL and Veloka with a handful of defenders can easily cover each other and stop all but the most determined assaults.
Valley is by far the easiest to assault keep of the 3, and Lowlands is vulnerable from any of the 4 towers. One falls, trebs go up and walls go down.
WTF? Valley is much better than lowlands… Its compact, so you can cover it with very little siege. It’s perfect for defending with few people. The only issue on valley is that you can’t put a treb for watergate, but 3 superior ACs down there will melt any zerg.
Kawagima / Kelvena Riverstream / Calamis Fatima / Hanna Flintlocke
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
WvW Rank 3800 (Platinum Veteran) – PvP Rank 69 (Shark) – 25,9k Achievment Points
Mërcenaries [Sold] – Ferguson’s Crossing
Lowlands is a bit harder to defend than OL or Valley because of the large open spaces on inner and the possibility of trebbing from outside of AC/cannon range on inner.
For this reason, I think blue should go to weakest server. Valley is a bit easier to defend than Lowlands, and the Lang/Dane/QL set up is just as strong, if not stronger than the Vel/Pang/OW set up.
Lowlands is easier to defend because the same siege can be used to defend multiple gates requiring fewer players and less supply. Players only need to build siege up in two spots in the keep to effectively cover every inner and outer gate. Jerri can also provide some of the best cover fire of any EB tower. Getting through the WG on lowlands is difficult compared to either Blue/Red keep.
Red keep is too easily trebbed since trebs on the cliff just behind the cliff vista can hit both outer and inner while being completely safe from inner treb counters. Inner can be a tough take for a zerg that is rushing but with a little patience this keep can be cracked open with one set of siege. It also only has one effective defensive tower. Veloka is good but only covers 1/3 of the attack vectors.
Blue can also be a tough take but it requires a lot more siege for that to be true as virtually no outer gate can effectively be covered by inner siege. This keep requires siege in a half dozen places to be a fortress. It also has three inner gates unlike red/green.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
I understand why Anet would think red would be good for weakest server, but in practice, it’s really not.
The problems:
1) Anzalias, Speldan, and Mendon’s are all very tough to defend and upgrade. The yaks walk a LONG path. And because red is weakest, it’s likely that all three are going to flip constantly, depriving red of at least 25 PPT.
2) Anet thinks that Veloka, Pangloss, and Ogrewatch compensate for the Anzalias/Speldan/Mendon’s set up, but this isn’t true. The biggest problem is that OW should be considered an inner tower because an enemy can treb red keep inner from OW. However, because red is weakest, it’s unlikely red will hold SM. And OW can be constantly treb’d from SM. OW is the only inner tower that can be treb’d from SM. In practice, this means that the weakest server will have trouble holding Anz/Speld/Mend/OW, leaving the weakest server only Pang/Vel/OL. The costs far outweigh the benefits.
3) Overlook outer can be constantly treb’d from SM. Again, because weakest server is red, it’s unlikely that they’ll be able to hold SM for very long, if at all. On the flip side, the owner of SM can keep building trebs to treb outer wall of OL. This offers a number of disadvantages:
- First, OL waypoint is constantly contested.
- Second, if the wall falls, it’s much easier for the stronger server to waltz in, build 4 superior rams, and ninja the keep because they only really have to go through one set of walls/gates.
- Third, red will constantly have to build counter trebs or counter AC’s to deal with the SM trebs. And usually, SM gets supply faster than red can counter treb, so the stronger server can just keep rebuilding trebs to force weakest server into a perpetually defensive position. Not only is it difficult to hold Anz/Speld/Mend/OW, but weakest server will constantly be in their corner trying to take out SM trebs, which just keep getting rebuilt. This prevents the weakest server from pushing out of their corner, even if they wanted to.
To make things worse, Anet thinks it’s a good idea to give the strongest server green corner. The only real drawback to green corner is Lowlands, but that’s pretty much a non-issue because the strongest server usually doesn’t need to worry about enemies going for their EB keep anyway. However, green conveys a lot of advantages. Both outer towers in green corner can be defended by keep trebs and mortars. This means that enemy servers pretty much have to cata Klovan and Wildcreek, allowing green to upgrade their outer towers much easier. This makes it that much harder for red to disrupt the supply flow to SM, which usually belongs to green.
tl;dr: Anz/Speld/Mend/OW very difficult to hold for weakest server. OL constantly treb’d from SM. Strongest server rebuilds trebs faster than weakest server can take them out. Forces weakest server to stay in their corner.
red in eternal battlegrounds has the best vantage point for taking SM as well, which is why it’s always treb’d. my server is absolutely crushing this week and we’re red. so i’m not sure if it’s intentional that the weakest server gets to be red. Personally i’d rather be red than any color, because when you are the weaker server(in eb anyway) you need to harass, that is your only chance.
As quick as the Valkyries ride,
As true as Odin’s spear flies,
There is nowhere to hide.
As true as Odin’s spear flies,
There is nowhere to hide.
The numbers situation had nothing to do with SM or OL. The issue is the coverage differential between IoJ and BP. OL is ~impossible to capture unless Red has basically nobody on the map, even if the outer wall starts down. In other words, so few people that it doesn’t matter which color they are. Capturing Valley or LL would not be “much more difficult.” Outer walls buy you what, a few minutes? This VAST color imbalance of which you speak will rarely even be the difference of a single tick.
I don’t think there’s a “VAST color imbalance” in theory, but when red always goes to weakest, they’re put at an inherent disadvantage. Yes, weakest is usually outnumbered by a fair margin (if they have no shot at SM, they’re usually fairly outnumbered). However, even if outnumbered like this, they shouldn’t be forced to play defense in their corner. The SM trebs magnify the numbers disadvantage by preventing the weakest server from pushing out. Eventually, this defensive posture crumbles and strongest server is able to roll through the corner with ease after wearing red down with SM trebs.
Like I said, strongest server would probably still dominate weakest server in another corner. However, without constant treb pressure on keep + inner tower, weakest server has a better chance of pushing out and building momentum. I think you underestimate the difference red makes in the hands of weakest server.
If Red is so weak that it can do literally nothing to stop the chain of events that you portend, the problem is that that server is in the wrong tier.
Even matchups with servers in the proper tier are grossly imbalanced, like the YB/IoJ/BP matchup. BP is too strong to be in T5, but is outnumbered in T4. That said, the attitude shouldn’t be “oh, they’re gonna lose anyway, who cares what corner they play”. Rather, the attitude should be “they have fewer people, so we shouldn’t give them another handicap”.
Lowlands is easier to defend because the same siege can be used to defend multiple gates requiring fewer players and less supply. Players only need to build siege up in two spots in the keep to effectively cover every inner and outer gate. Jerri can also provide some of the best cover fire of any EB tower. Getting through the WG on lowlands is difficult compared to either Blue/Red keep.
I still can’t see how Lowlands is easier to defend. Lord’s room siege will hit north and south inner gates, but will not hit north outer gate. In Valley, lord’s room siege will hit north outer gate as well. Lowlands inner is much larger, requiring more siege to cover all assault angles. If a zerg were to break into Lowlands inner, they could run around on the perimeter, take out mortars, build a treb to destroy cannons/AC’s from a distance, and continue the assault. This isn’t possible in Valley.
red in eternal battlegrounds has the best vantage point for taking SM as well, which is why it’s always treb’d. my server is absolutely crushing this week and we’re red. so i’m not sure if it’s intentional that the weakest server gets to be red. Personally i’d rather be red than any color, because when you are the weaker server(in eb anyway) you need to harass, that is your only chance.
I’ve addressed this point already. Weakest often has no shot of grabbing SM, so harassing just brings the wrath of the strongest server upon their corner faster. Being able to treb SM when you’re weakest server often does nothing for you, but allowing strongest server to treb red keep often cripples you.
Second Child
Like I said, strongest server would probably still dominate weakest server in another corner. However, without constant treb pressure on keep + inner tower, weakest server has a better chance of pushing out and building momentum. I think you underestimate the difference red makes in the hands of weakest server.
That said, the attitude shouldn’t be “oh, they’re gonna lose anyway, who cares what corner they play”. Rather, the attitude should be “they have fewer people, so we shouldn’t give them another handicap”.
The game should not be balanced around trying to handicap the situation where one side is weak to the point of absurdity. The red corner is supposed to be given to a slight underdog.
For such an underdog, the red corner is extremely good. It is completely impossible to take OL/OW/Vel once they are properly sieged and scouted. These structures will upgrade extremely quickly from Pang. There is no treb pressure on the red corner because the SM north wall is always down from the OL trebs, so red can kill the SM trebs whenever it pleases. Red bunkers down its eastern territory so well that Green/Blue would be wiser to fight eachother. Once the WP is it expands west or threatens SM. So the red corner allows the underdog to dig in and not get blown off the map, and shortly thereafter secure nearly it’s fair share of the map. What else could an underdog desire?
Yaks Bend [SoF] [Me] [One]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
I don’t understand how they chose the colors anyway. But I am pretty sure GoM is NOT the weakest in their matchup with SoR and DR. It is a nice change, we have been green since the end of March.
Ascended Phoenix [ASH] – Gates of Madness
The game should not be balanced around trying to handicap the situation where one side is weak to the point of absurdity. The red corner is supposed to be given to a slight underdog.
Apparently Anet disagrees because during Season 2, they decided to give red to weakest server, mistakenly thinking it would help them. Red needn’t start out “weak to the point of absurdity”. Momentum plays a huge factor in gaining/losing population, and playing red generally prevents weakest server from gaining momentum. This compounds the population problem, as strongest server gains momentum quickly, and weakest server is stuck in their corner.
There is no treb pressure on the red corner because the SM north wall is always down from the OL trebs, so red can kill the SM trebs whenever it pleases.
This is just plain false. In theory, this is what should happen, but in practice, strongest server descends on OL trebs, takes them out, and easily caps half of red corner in retaliation. Red is often too afraid to treb for this reason. Even worse if SM is upgraded.
Because weakest server can’t treb SM, strongest server is free to cripple weakest server with constant treb pressure.
What you have in mind works well if red is weak, but not so weak that it has no shot of grabbing SM. However, very often, red is so weak that it can’t grab SM, even when red is playing in the proper tier. When this is the case, playing red cripples weakest server.
So the red corner allows the underdog to dig in and not get blown off the map, and shortly thereafter secure nearly it’s fair share of the map. What else could an underdog desire?
The underdog could desire a corner where it’s impossible to have SM trebs contest its waypoint and hit its inner towers. Blue offers this advantage over red. Lang/Dane/QL upgrade just as quickly as Vel/Pang/OW. Bravost can’t be treb’d from SM and is just as easily defended by keep trebs as OW. Lang is just as tough to crack as Veloka. Valley waypoint can’t be contested from SM. Blue offers the advantage of allowing weakest server to dig in without the disadvantage of the possibility of inane treb pressure.
Second Child
(edited by mango.9267)
What’s pretty horrible with Red being given to the weakest is that once the strongest caps it, the weakest server will only get their keep back when Green is tired of holding it.
And once Green is in OL, they can very easily take Veloka and OW since OL is on a hill. So Red ends up with nothing and Green with their side and Red side.
I agree that red is the worst corner to have. Although I would not want to see the strongest server on the red corner.
Anza, Speldan and Mendon are the main reason why it sucks to be red. The dolyaks take to long to bring supplies to their towers, this makes upgrading Anza and Mendon a horrible task. This is mostely due to Speldan. When speldan is contested and a commander opts to defend it. It is most likely flipped before they arrive (even by roamers) Also Overlook can be trebbed from Mendon (outer wall) but you can’t place a treb in Overlook that can hit gate or wall in Mendon.
When you have one scout in Ogrewatch you can see everything that will happen to Ogrewatch/Pangloss/Veloka. When you have an uncontested waypoint in Overlook it is easy to arrive in time to defend it. Even when it is contested you will probably have enough time to run from spawn. The distance between Pangloss and the two towers (and keep) is short, so short that Veloka is probably the fastest upgrading tower on EBG. And with one well placed trebuchet in Overlook you can defend both gates of Veloka and Ogrewatch. You can also use that trebuchet to retake those towers once they are lost. Because everything is so close by and easy to defend with propper siege, it is the perfect place for the weakest server to be. Except for Speldan ofcourse.
Also, being able to trebuchet Stonemist Castle is needed for the weakest server. It gives them the oppertunity to keep an enemy waypoint in SMC contested. If you keep trebbing the wall they either spend all their supply constantly repairing the wall or they opt to have this wall open at all times, wich makes SMC an one gate objective. (not only for red but also for green or blue) Ofcourse they can counter with their own trebuchets.
But imagine what would happen if the strongest server (one with alot of coverage) has the red corner. Having the strong triangle (Overlook/Veloka/Ogrewatch) means that the two towers cannot be captured unless you capture their Overlook first. It means that they can actually have people walking the dolly’s from Speldan and people defending Speldan against roamers. Meaning their keep will be the first with a waypoint. It also means that (if your arguments are correct and the strongest server will always win the counter-trebuchet-battle) only red can ever take SMC. And if red has SMC it is easy for them to keep Anza as well.
I think it is fair that the weakest server gets red, although I do see room for improvement (making the distance between speldan and the two towers shorter would be a start) And I would like to see the green keep being easier to take. I have never taken Lowlands by watergate nor have I ever felt the need to defend it, or have I seen anyone take the water gate. Water gate on Lowlands has no place to deploy siege rams, so you have to take it with golems. You can always see enemies taking the watergate when walking towards north outer gate. Basicly, watergate on Lowlands keep is useless. Also every tower in green corner can be trebbed from green keep. This makes it easy to defend the entire corner and easy to retake towers, without losing the points. (True, red has three towers you can treb from keep, but it belongs to the weakest server, one who needs the points most) Blue seems the best spot for the number two server. Which it is. So thats nice. But blue also has the easiest keep to take. Yes you can hit every spot from inner, but you have multiple spots that can hit both inner and outer walls, this makes it real easy to ninja it with some catapults.
I think that red should belong to the weakest server, only be boosted by a bit. And green corner should be nerved by a bit.
Also not being able to take SMC if you belong to the weakest server. I play on bronze league tier on EU (Blacktide) And even Underworld (a server with a whooping 14 players on all maps during reset or prime time) can take SMC against servers who have 40 man zerg on EBG. It is always possible to take the castle.
This is just plain false. In theory, this is what should happen, but in practice, strongest server descends on OL trebs, takes them out, and easily caps half of red corner in retaliation. Red is often too afraid to treb for this reason. Even worse if SM is upgraded.
Because weakest server can’t treb SM, strongest server is free to cripple weakest server with constant treb pressure.
What you have in mind works well if red is weak, but not so weak that it has no shot of grabbing SM. However, very often, red is so weak that it can’t grab SM, even when red is playing in the proper tier. When this is the case, playing red cripples weakest server.
No it is not false. You are completely mis-attributing the source of the problems and misunderstanding the strategic situation in EBG. Based on your own descriptions, it seems that your point of view has been highly skewed by many encounters with Red teams that are unwilling or unable to fight back at all.
Unless Green and Blue are colluding, the SM owner cannot spend all his time babysitting this treb strategy. Meanwhile Red can spend all his time countering that strategy. If Red is only a slight underdog, the OL trebs are unassailable.
In a properly balanced tier in which people are actually tryharding for ppt, SM outer walls are always down in many places. The construction of any SM trebs at all is not feasible. SM almost never completes any upgrades. The red corner is never under treb pressure. If any of the above are false, the problem is either matchmaking, coverage, green/blue collusion, laziness, or a mixture of these.
I don’t know how many more times I’m going to have to repeat this. Red is the best underdog corner. Being red is an advantage so long as the red team actually has enough people to make the game resemble real and competitive WvW. If it does not, that is another problem entirely.
Yaks Bend [SoF] [Me] [One]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
Sea of Sorrows [All]
No it is not false. You are completely mis-attributing the source of the problems and misunderstanding the strategic situation in EBG. Based on your own descriptions, it seems that your point of view has been highly skewed by many encounters with Red teams that are unwilling or unable to fight back at all.
Maybe in your tier, this isn’t a problem, but I assure you in many tiers below you, it is. If my point of view is “skewed”, it’s because this is such a frequent problem. And it isn’t necessarily because red is unwilling or unable to fight back. It’s because of the inherent disadvantage of fighting a stronger server from red corner. To elaborate below, I think you’re misunderstanding me.
Unless Green and Blue are colluding, the SM owner cannot spend all his time babysitting this treb strategy. Meanwhile Red can spend all his time countering that strategy. If Red is only a slight underdog, the OL trebs are unassailable.
That’s precisely the point. strongest server doesn’t NEED to babysit the trebs. Red can take them out, but SM will get supply extremely quickly, and the trebs will be rebuilt in 10 minutes. If red is only a “slight underdog”, then I agree with you, and the corner isn’t a problem. Again, everything I’m addressing assumes red is too weak to be able to grab SM.
In a properly balanced tier in which people are actually tryharding for ppt, SM outer walls are always down in many places. The construction of any SM trebs at all is not feasible. SM almost never completes any upgrades. The red corner is never under treb pressure. If any of the above are false, the problem is either matchmaking, coverage, green/blue collusion, laziness, or a mixture of these.
I added emphasis to your quote. At this point, I think we’re talking past each other. I agree with you that if red is a slight underdog, the corner is fine. I agree with you that if the matchup was balanced, then this isn’t an issue. But the truth is that matchups are very rarely balanced, and when weakest server plays red in an imbalanced matchup, the treb pressure becomes a real issue.
I don’t know how many more times I’m going to have to repeat this. Red is the best underdog corner. Being red is an advantage so long as the red team actually has enough people to make the game resemble real and competitive WvW. If it does not, that is another problem entirely.
I don’t know how many more times I’m going to have to repeat this either. We’re talking in circles now. I agree that red is good if weakest server is still strong enough to be able to cap SM occasionally. However, it often is not.
When it’s not, it’s usually a problem of coverage/population. However, that does not preclude red corner from being a problem. Let me repeat that, in case you miss the point again. Weakest server is often too weak to cap SM. But that doesn’t mean red corner isn’t a problem for the weakest server.
Are population/coverage bigger problems? Obviously, yes. But that doesn’t mean red corner isn’t a problem too. In fact, when weakest server is this weak, red corner starts to work to the detriment of the server, for reasons I’ve outlined above.
Again, the attitude shouldn’t be “well, if they’re that weak, then it doesn’t matter what corner they play”. The attitude should be “if they’re that weak, we shouldn’t put them at even more of a disadvantage”. Giving them red corner does just that.
Second Child
(edited by mango.9267)
Red is good for weakest. Since you can treb 2 of your own towers from the same spot. Its easiest to hide mesmers in. So can be easy to retake all your stuff. You definitely can’t say pangloss is hard to defend either
Red is good for weakest. Since you can treb 2 of your own towers from the same spot. Its easiest to hide mesmers in. So can be easy to retake all your stuff. You definitely can’t say pangloss is hard to defend either
It’s not really harder to hide a mesmer in Bravost and Langor. Or Aldon and Jerrifer.
However, hiding in OL is incredibly harder than in Green and Blue keep.
And while 1 treb can hit both towers, the time it takes to turn the treb around, might as well build a second one.
I agree that red is good if weakest server is still strong enough to be able to cap SM occasionally. However, it often is not.
Weakest server is often too weak to cap SM.
Everyone can capture SMC, even the weakest of servers. Keeping SMC is a diffrent story.
I still can’t see how Lowlands is easier to defend. Lord’s room siege will hit north and south inner gates, but will not hit north outer gate. In Valley, lord’s room siege will hit north outer gate as well. Lowlands inner is much larger, requiring more siege to cover all assault angles. If a zerg were to break into Lowlands inner, they could run around on the perimeter, take out mortars, build a treb to destroy cannons/AC’s from a distance, and continue the assault. This isn’t possible in Valley.
Build siege at N outer gate which covers the water gates as well. Build siege at S inner gate which hits N and S inner as well as south outer gates. You now have all gates covered. Jerri also has a high cliff that is perfect to build trebs for cover fire. If you are a super defender, you can even build ACs up top that are very difficult to get to.
Basically nothing about being green is difficult or at a disadvantage. Green has most of the advantages of both Red and Blue. Choke points, fewer inner gates, easy recaps, great side towers, minimal necessary siege, easy run from spawn, out of reach from SM, etc. Pretty much every conversation is about how one thing might be better than green not why green has some crappy design problem unlike Blue or Red.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
(edited by Straegen.2938)
but when red always goes to weakest
It doesn’t. It hasn’t for over a year.
Three red servers are winning their matches, three are losing and two are coming second. The distribution isn’t strictly random but it’s close enough.
As far as tactical layout goes, red is the easiest side not to lose all of when you’re outmanned. Red keep is a little easier to break into at the south wall, but getting through inner is a pig. With all three EB keeps, if you can’t set up siege on the gate due to arrow carts, you have the option of trebbing some walls open. The problem with red keep is all of the spots where you can set trebs or catas to do that are extremely vulnerable to counter-siege.
Additionally, it’s one of the most dangerous keeps to rush because attackers are fish in a barrel anywhere they can hit the inner gate. Yes, they might be able to get through one gate fast if no-one’s watching, but you’d have to be on the shortest of short buses not to have a scout in the keep while someone’s trebbing it from Stonemist.
but when red always goes to weakest
It doesn’t. It hasn’t for over a year.
It did during Season 2. The server with the fewest number of tournament points (or lowest Glicko if tied) was always red.
Second Child
“Maybe in your tier, this isn’t a problem, but I assure you in many tiers below you, it is. If my point of view is “skewed”, it’s because this is such a frequent problem. And it isn’t necessarily because red is unwilling or unable to fight back. It’s because of the inherent disadvantage of fighting a stronger server from red corner. To elaborate below, I think you’re misunderstanding me."
—————————————————
I’m in your Tier and well… It’s not that different. even on YB now that seasons is over we’ve got people taking a break from being burnt out, hence some servers are higher then others. Rebalancing will occur. Of any corner to have, I’d prefer red, and they have an advantage with the OL/Vel/OW triangle. Just because you can have your outer wall trebbed from SM, doesn’t mean you’re at a huge disadvantage. Sure your waypoint goes away, but if you’re so down on numbers you’re given an easily defended 2 towers and keep. So the outer walls go down, you still can hold inner with a ton of AC’s and bag farm the massive amount of people that it will require to take OL from you.
(edited by Busty Mounds.9801)