Guild Wars 2

Make denying supply to a tower/keep/etc cause a starve out mechanic.

Keep in mind everything you are about to read is for the sole purpose of promoting smart gameplay. I have no hatred for anyones game mode or play style.

Example….. Holding all camps that feed supply to a garrison for X period of time would cause the garrison to lose a tier.

This promotes Defending – Protecting your camps – Small teams/Roamers will have an actual impact on the map again.

This also prevents servers that experience the “snowball effect” from spiralling out of control as they will need to actually defend their established zones and will need to make an educated decision as to move out and take more or fall back and keep what they have.

For those who want to argue the reason to this mechanic this was a common tactic used when an invading force was not large enough to take a position. So they would simply just deny the zone of all resources eventually wearing it down to nothing.

I feel this will make for educated gameplay instead of mindlessly k training like it is now.

Just a thought. Hope a dev reads this as WvW is in dire need of an actual change to the game mode vs just adding pointless items to the game.

- Fighter Curby

Its good idea in theory, but tbh its only a workaround for already existing mechanics that doesnt work so well for small forces trying to starve out heavily defended objectives – long range siege is way too expensive, weak and easily countersieged from impossible to hit locations.

I like this idea a lot. Fortifications could have operating costs and consume what’s in the hut, then drop tiers. Maybe the walls take damage after dropping to t1 or the guards desert. Idk if it would have an effect, but it would be cool.

It might be tough to balance, though. How many missed yaks until it downgrades? And how long is that in real time? Would it really be worth it to code, debug and balance the mechanic for such a minor effect? Camps seem to flip frequently; they’re difficult to hold. How many yaks need to get through to undo the last hour of starvation?

I really like this idea a lot. As I like any idea that goes towards more tactical gameplay, and sheds more light on the objectives.

I only have two concerns about it :

1. As MichaelofOrange said, it’ll be hard to tweak, but that’s no reason not to try.
2. From my personal experience, I’m afraid it won’t give that much incentive. As I said in some other topic, I once was scouting in an enemy BL, 2-3 guild raids came and took roughly the whole map, then stood at spawn while trolling the /t and even laughed “What do we do now ?”. The playerbase that has interest in objectives matter may not be sufficient.

This is an idea that sounds great until you realize that the current game has unbalanced matches, so it becomes a huge bonus for the side with more coverage/population, which is never a good thing.

Swamurabi.7890:

This is an idea that sounds great until you realize that the current game has unbalanced matches, so it becomes a huge bonus for the side with more coverage/population, which is never a good thing.

It’s still a good thing. The higher populated server is still forced to split up to hold their camps which means they can’t just roll around with 1 massive blob.

Jim Hunter.6821:

It’s still a good thing. The higher populated server is still forced to split up to hold their camps which means they can’t just roll around with 1 massive blob.

It is entirely pointless when the game mode is simply a broken joke as any sort of competition in terms of “winning” on points, go look at mos.millenium, go to EU, 4 out of 5 tiers are completely one sided in terms of score (e.g – t1 – Piken 1st – 31 times, RS 1st – 5, FSP 1st – 2), which is why other than new players & a handful of “special” players, no one is really bothered about “winning” PPT or about losing objectives, because the match-ups are over before they’ve even begun.

Suggesting minor changes to a game mode that is completely broken is nonsensical and a waste of dev resources.

The good thing about this is it would force groups into a number of smaller objectives and promote fights there, as camps have a direct affect on structures they feed but now also be able to starve them.

The problem is, why would any force need to take on a fully upgraded structure ever again? other than if they know they can get an easy cap. Also the home side defending force is always at a disadvantage because they are fighting off two sides, numbers wise they already at a disadvantage in their home areas.

Then the real problem pops up when you take a closer look of it’s effects on EBG. Every side in EBG has 2 camps, but what happens when green and blue decided to camp each of red’s camps? Red which now has to deal with 2 zergs blocking their supply, and also worry about structures downgrading.

As for this being a common tactic before, yes havoc teams use to take camps and starve supply to keeps, punch holes in the keep so the defenders would have to repair. build more siege, and drain their supply. Only thing is, that was before auto upgrades were in place, upgrades go through no matter what, all dolys do is speed up the timer when one gets in. Another reason why havoc guilds died off.

This tactic might be useful the 211 era but that’s being changed, since it’s suppose to promote going after the winning side, but yeah 543 is coming so double teaming on the weakest team will the easy route to victory again.

Dawdler.8521:

Its good idea in theory, but tbh its only a workaround for already existing mechanics that doesnt work so well for small forces trying to starve out heavily defended objectives – long range siege is way too expensive, weak and easily countersieged from impossible to hit locations.

This change is suppose to promote the idea of taking objectives without having to fire a shot (Figuratively) Siege is not the main focus as siege will not help you when your camp is being held by a force aimed at weakening you before the main assault.

Current mechanics are fine. This would be a pointless change.

There are a lot of tactics to zerging properly, enough with the “mindless k train” comments already.

Xenesis.6389:

The good thing about this is it would force groups into a number of smaller objectives and promote fights there, as camps have a direct affect on structures they feed but now also be able to starve them.

The problem is, why would any force need to take on a fully upgraded structure ever again? other than if they know they can get an easy cap. Also the home side defending force is always at a disadvantage because they are fighting off two sides, numbers wise they already at a disadvantage in their home areas.

Then the real problem pops up when you take a closer look of it’s effects on EBG. Every side in EBG has 2 camps, but what happens when green and blue decided to camp each of red’s camps? Red which now has to deal with 2 zergs blocking their supply, and also worry about structures downgrading.

As for this being a common tactic before, yes havoc teams use to take camps and starve supply to keeps, punch holes in the keep so the defenders would have to repair. build more siege, and drain their supply. Only thing is, that was before auto upgrades were in place, upgrades go through no matter what, all dolys do is speed up the timer when one gets in. Another reason why havoc guilds died off.

This tactic might be useful the 211 era but that’s being changed, since it’s suppose to promote going after the winning side, but yeah 543 is coming so double teaming on the weakest team will the easy route to victory again.

Double teaming is a mechanic people have used in PvP (not just Gw2) and is a tactic that is nearly impossible to stop. If you are going to get double teamed it will happen. Not much you can patch about that.

As for the issue with just zergs holding the camps…. that will make your zerg have a point other then just k training. It will promote the idea that zergs are an actual army that are used when they are needed.

I have no issue with double teaming, it’s the reason for 3 teams. My issue is having a double team targeting the weakest team most of the time, which will happen on victory conditions relying on points scoring.

Scoring will always make the bigger teams target the weaker teams for easier points, it’s just human nature to go after the easy road to victory. I don’t agree with mechanics that promote that type of game play. 211 is suppose to help promote double team on the bigger team, too bad players are lazy and don’t want to adapt.

As for your second statement, ktrains usually go after towers and camps first, with the new mechanic you suggest during that time they can hold the camps and weaken keeps before they get to them. You’re not really stopping their ktrain and giving them another “purpose”, you’re just adding to their power.

I’m not against the idea of the mechanic, I just think the idea needs to be fleshed out so that the weakest server isn’t in more of a disadvantage than it already is. I do think camps should be more important points of interest to promote more open field fighting, but doubt anet would put any work in for it.

Definitely, I just hope a Dev reads this because it will be a way to play the game mode without having to ram your head against a zerg.

Makes no sense from either a gameplay or roleplaying perspective.

You can already starve objectives doing this. Control supply points near the objective and whittle at their walls, gates and siege using trebuchets.

Passive defenses don’t need food from supply camps.

Curby.4897:

Dawdler.8521:

Its good idea in theory, but tbh its only a workaround for already existing mechanics that doesnt work so well for small forces trying to starve out heavily defended objectives – long range siege is way too expensive, weak and easily countersieged from impossible to hit locations.

This change is suppose to promote the idea of taking objectives without having to fire a shot (Figuratively) Siege is not the main focus as siege will not help you when your camp is being held by a force aimed at weakening you before the main assault.

Oh I got the idea. I just think its ultimately boring. Siege is the only thing keeping the playground of WvW dynamic and unpredictable, if all we ever had to do was to cap certain camps we’d get bogged down around them. Holding a camp already weakens an objective.

15 charr approve of this message

this doesnt actually improve anti blob gameplay all it does is empower roamer gameplay. the thing is im facing yaksbend atm and honestly i needed bloodlust to fight against them we cant hold blood lust for more than 5 minutes because they have a near infinite supply of people to send out on roaming orders. honestly a decent commander has command over their roamers too. i consistently organize roamers to go flip camps or tap garri to force enemy commanders to move.

Rangerdeity.5847:

this doesnt actually improve anti blob gameplay all it does is empower roamer gameplay. the thing is im facing yaksbend atm and honestly i needed bloodlust to fight against them we cant hold blood lust for more than 5 minutes because they have a near infinite supply of people to send out on roaming orders. honestly a decent commander has command over their roamers too. i consistently organize roamers to go flip camps or tap garri to force enemy commanders to move.

it isn’t meant to be " Anti-blob". I said it promotes thoughtful tactics for both small and large group engagements.

As someone who claims to use roamers and has control over them I would assume you would like a mechanic that makes them more useful then just a scout.

Curby.4897:

Rangerdeity.5847:

this doesnt actually improve anti blob gameplay all it does is empower roamer gameplay. the thing is im facing yaksbend atm and honestly i needed bloodlust to fight against them we cant hold blood lust for more than 5 minutes because they have a near infinite supply of people to send out on roaming orders. honestly a decent commander has command over their roamers too. i consistently organize roamers to go flip camps or tap garri to force enemy commanders to move.

it isn’t meant to be " Anti-blob". I said it promotes thoughtful tactics for both small and large group engagements.

As someone who claims to use roamers and has control over them I would assume you would like a mechanic that makes them more useful then just a scout.

the problem is my zerg has usually around 3 teams of 2 roamers yaks bend can field 4 teams of 5 roamers that would allow them to hold our camps and slaughter our keep while we are fighting inside the keep to defend it. so this honestly wouldnt empower smaller servers it would just change playstyle a little bit. honestly a good change but not one that will solve our problems.

+1 to this idea. There are so many things that need fixing in this game mode, but changes that encourage smartplay over raw outnumbering are always welcome. Although not the panacea, this offers a good alternative for small groups that want to play offense. If this is not hard to implement it would definitely be nice to see.

would make speedy/invuln/armored yak upgrades useful

Rangerdeity.5847:

the problem is my zerg has usually around 3 teams of 2 roamers yaks bend can field 4 teams of 5 roamers that would allow them to hold our camps and slaughter our keep while we are fighting inside the keep to defend it. so this honestly wouldnt empower smaller servers it would just change playstyle a little bit. honestly a good change but not one that will solve our problems.

Thats nothing, some EU servers have 1 team of 50 roamers.

Dawdler.8521:

Rangerdeity.5847:

the problem is my zerg has usually around 3 teams of 2 roamers yaks bend can field 4 teams of 5 roamers that would allow them to hold our camps and slaughter our keep while we are fighting inside the keep to defend it. so this honestly wouldnt empower smaller servers it would just change playstyle a little bit. honestly a good change but not one that will solve our problems.

Thats nothing, some EU servers have 1 team of 50 roamers.

That’s called your defensive team, you dork :p

Curby.4897:

Make denying supply to a tower/keep/etc cause a starve out mechanic.

Keep in mind everything you are about to read is for the sole purpose of promoting smart gameplay. I have no hatred for anyones game mode or play style.

Example….. Holding all camps that feed supply to a garrison for X period of time would cause the garrison to lose a tier.

This promotes Defending – Protecting your camps – Small teams/Roamers will have an actual impact on the map again.

This also prevents servers that experience the “snowball effect” from spiralling out of control as they will need to actually defend their established zones and will need to make an educated decision as to move out and take more or fall back and keep what they have.

For those who want to argue the reason to this mechanic this was a common tactic used when an invading force was not large enough to take a position. So they would simply just deny the zone of all resources eventually wearing it down to nothing.

I feel this will make for educated gameplay instead of mindlessly k training like it is now.

Just a thought. Hope a dev reads this as WvW is in dire need of an actual change to the game mode vs just adding pointless items to the game.

- Fighter Curby

I’m pretty sure there’s some dynamic mechanic that can come out of this. Personally i would make this supply-based; let’s say you have a tower or keep lose 20 every minute, and if said tower or keep stays at zero supplies for 5 minutes, it downgrades.

This might need some sort of restriction so that trolls don’t drain supply of a t3 keep to intentionally downgrade it, tho. Ideas?

BordeL.1283:

.
This might need some sort of restriction so that trolls don’t drain supply of a t3 keep to intentionally downgrade it, tho. Ideas?

Just fix it like how we fixed supply trolls draining keep supplies 5 years ago and never saw it again.

Oh wait.

I think ideas is redundant at this point.

An interesting idea, but I still feel this would favor the higher population size. There are times when all a server can muster up is 3 or 4 roamers while the other teams can send out groups of 10 plus just to flip camps even as they park people in towers and keeps as lookouts.

What I would suggest is the higher the population on a given BL by any given team the lower the overall supply. As example if at full population your yaks deliver 40 percent less supply per trip to a location and 40 percent more yaks needed to tier and this scales delivering more of such as your population drops. (The numbers are just off the cuff).

(This lower delivery rate of supply would only apply to the teams controlled objectives and not opposing teams)

This would reflect the need to supply a greater army in the field.

In this way keeps and towers will upgrade more slowly if you just have a blob on a BL while they would still upgrade. The “larger size” side will need to ensure more of those camps remain controlled in order to upgrade so that more yaks from different camps are coming in to compensate for lower delivery rate.

I think it would also encourage more roaming on solid color BLs as those BLS may not want to have too many people defending at one time so as to allow those upgrades. You can still “blob up” and raid a BL but the theory is this would encourage a wider distribution of forces onvarious borderlands.

It should make it harder for one of the larger population size servers in a match to focus a keep in an enemies home BL with a large Blob wherein they take a keep and dig in until it tiers to three with that blob. They can still use that tactic but that keep will upgrade at a much slower rate as long as that army remains in that BL.

Since this not based on maintaining supply in a given keep to upgrade or maintain a tier those troll types could not downgrade keeps simply by draining supply by building rams and the like. In very general terms the idea is that if you have a smaller population on a given BL, your controlled towers/keeps should be at a higher tier faster.

This all “in theory” of course but I think it can allow for more strategic gameplay as teams balance the size of their forces in a given BL with the desire to get those locations upgraded. (one could also consider some small bonus to the delivery rate built in for a home BL to reflect the sentiment of a population to a given side)

It would require a lot of work, but this is a nice fresh idea for a change.

Nice to see this post getting some attention. hopefully the right people look at it too.

do you know what we need? we really do need gen 2 in pokemon go, doggie niantic

Curby.4897:

Nice to see this post getting some attention. hopefully the right people look at it too.

The devs are not going to add in a structure decay mechanic… Objectives, themselves, are easy enough to take already, and choking supplies is already a thing if you weren’t aware…

Edit- “This promotes Defending – Protecting your camps – Small teams/Roamers will have an actual impact on the map again.”… solo players and havoc groups already do stuff to have an impact…

“I feel this will make for educated gameplay instead of mindlessly k training like it is now.”… load up TS and command then come back and tell me it’s a “mindlessly k training” task.

Swagger.1459:

Curby.4897:

Nice to see this post getting some attention. hopefully the right people look at it too.

The devs are not going to add in a structure decay mechanic… Objectives, themselves, are easy enough to take already, and choking supplies is already a thing if you weren’t aware…

Edit- “This promotes Defending – Protecting your camps – Small teams/Roamers will have an actual impact on the map again.”… solo players and havoc groups already do stuff to have an impact…

“I feel this will make for educated gameplay instead of mindlessly k training like it is now.”… load up TS and command then come back and tell me it’s a “mindlessly k training” task.

Oh i am going to have fun with you i can tell, The mechanic exists until the tower already has supply then it is upgraded and done. No way to bring it down other then traditional siege. So no it does not already exist.

Second I do command. So I know what I am talking about.

if you are going to try and belittle someone try to actually bring a fact or a constructive opinion otherwise you come off as just egotistical and will be just dismissed.

How the gome works (as in players behavior, some mechanics) this is very imcompatible.

Anet paired servers to fight each other is diferent timezones to make them ktrain one at a time, so who can hold a camp against 20-30 while the other side only has 5 players?

Another thing, even when dual teaming both servers dont team against the stronguer one, what ic is they tend to atack the smaller one so they can ktrain or acumulate more ppt, this would make life more dificult for smaller servers or more lag since player sowuld have to start stacking for everything.

And at the end this would make game even more dull, more easy to ktrain, since players would not even care much about protecting stuff.

This is good idea. It’s so frigging annoying when enemy own one keep and they try to defend it. Maybe doors and walls could go down automatically if keep won’t get supply.

Not saying that your ideas are bad, but none of this matter if the gameplay isn’t enjoyable…

Players used to come to WvW for good epic fights, nothing else.
Fights aren’t fun anymore because of the lame and unbalanced meta.