please don't remove things making WvW good
for all of you wvw players that look at this post i want you to visualize… just in case you didn’t know, if you lose you keep on eternal battlegrounds, you lose all 4 of the towers around it due to siege from inside of that keep that was just taken. you cant fight back because they just took it and the objectives are close enough to each other to hit with catapults from the INNER wall. that’s right, they took your keep and now you have to fight past 2 walls to even contest it.
now for all of you older players, i want you to look at the bay objective in the alpine borderlands. there was a place that you could place CATAS from the south OUTER and hit inner without risk. im putting ephasis on these words because it needs to be said that they used 80 supply instead of the intended 160 supply that it should have taken to take a KEEP.
these placements might as well be called exploits and they are imbalanced from a commander perspective. if i come from that same objective from the north i costs me that 160 supply, but if im willing to risk my team for a better placement and better use of supply i can attack it from the south. but the other team just walks up from the south without risk to do the same thing i risk myself for.
Story summed up? the desert borderlands dont have OP placements, they dont have boring landscapes, and they dont have stupid ruins that have no impact on the game.
im trying to point out that the new maps are way better than the old maps and players are scared that learning something new is going to be too difficult. all of my points are things that i see. and im a guy that likes a little strategy to his open world pvp. and I dont like seeing things taken out that remove the need for a brain.
This, so much this!
People complain about teams hunkering in a keep and using siege instead of fighting, but then they want a map back that encourages it.
Kylden
Leader of TACO mini-roamer guild, Kaineng.
Leader of TACO mini-roamer guild, Kaineng.
I look at it this way. They were supposed to rotate the BL’s after they were updated with the HoT mechanics and other fixes. 6 months have gone by and no rotation and minimal attention was paid to address the issues with the DBL.
All the whining and screaming we’ve done in the last month has finally made the light come on. Things for WvW are now being addressed while actually testing and communicating with us that we begged for.
The ABL will come in when ready and the DBL will return hopefully when we get the kinks worked out of it.
Please be patient, we are moving in the right direction.
I would like to thank Gaile for her involvement in getting the ball rolling, the Dev’s for the work and communications and especially Mo for his attitude change toward WvW and putting his foot down.
Gem purchase inbound!!!
Tacktical Killers [TK]
We’re looking for players.
PM me here or ING.
Everything you described makes EB and the ABL far more appealing to me personally. When you lose your keep the impact is huge because it creates a staging ground for further assaults on your towers. It creates this sort of territory war that is absent from the DBL because each objective is entirely succinct. There’s no two structures warring against one another in DBL – you’re either a defender or an attacker with no role change as the dynamics of the battle evolve.
In ABL you could take, say, Cragside and build some trebs to start making dents in the enemy garrison. Players defending the Garrison will likely build counter trebs but won’t be able to hit the Cragside trebs. Opposing forces in the garrison and the tower treb the other’s walls down creating opportunities for both forces to attack and defend. You’d get havoc squads attempting to push into and recapture the lost tower whilst the rest of the server defends garrison. The invading players themselves need to protect their foothold in the tower, whilst still proceeding with their assault. Whilst all this is going on the two sides are attempting to starve each other’s supply lines to get the upper hand. These sort of sieges could last for upwards of 4 hours and they were incredibly exciting because there were so many things going on.
The average siege in the DBL just doesn’t compare. Barricades did nothing but hinder roamers as zergs could tear them down within a minute (they were pointless). You defend until either all the attackers are dead and have to respawn (at which point the siege is likely over) or you spend all the supply repairing your structure and/or building arrowcarts until you’re overwhelmed and lose. Granted, some of these problems are because of the new upgrade system but still, there’s no territory struggle in the DBL or interplay between adjacent objectives – it’s just lots of vertical terrain between self-contained objectives.
I’m glad that at least some one is able to have the DBL meet their needs, but for me it’s just EotM 2.0 and offers no cerebral ‘hit’ that I desire as a WvWer.
Gandara
(edited by Simonoly.4352)
First off, i love the desert borderlands. i think hat they are a great change of pace from the “run around on flat ground and move as one zerg”. I love seeing changes that require me to think, plan and risk kitten. i love that i can take an objective with just me and a few friends but it takes zergs forever to take an objective. Everything that the dessert borderlands stand for is small team engagements. i love seeing zergs get run over because they ran though a choke point. i love that i had to breakdown a barricade. everything that the new maps had were mechanically pleasing. from the lords being pve bosses, to the creative way the maps are designed. i hate the alpine borderlands and its a shame that so many players love such a boring map.
for all of you wvw players that look at this post i want you to visualize… just in case you didn’t know, if you lose you keep on eternal battlegrounds, you lose all 4 of the towers around it due to siege from inside of that keep that was just taken. you cant fight back because they just took it and the objectives are close enough to each other to hit with catapults from the INNER wall. that’s right, they took your keep and now you have to fight past 2 walls to even contest it.
now for all of you older players, i want you to look at the bay objective in the alpine borderlands. there was a place that you could place CATAS from the south OUTER and hit inner without risk. im putting ephasis on these words because it needs to be said that they used 80 supply instead of the intended 160 supply that it should have taken to take a KEEP.
these placements might as well be called exploits and they are imbalanced from a commander perspective. if i come from that same objective from the north i costs me that 160 supply, but if im willing to risk my team for a better placement and better use of supply i can attack it from the south. but the other team just walks up from the south without risk to do the same thing i risk myself for.Story summed up? the desert borderlands dont have OP placements, they dont have boring landscapes, and they dont have stupid ruins that have no impact on the game.
im trying to point out that the new maps are way better than the old maps and players are scared that learning something new is going to be too difficult. all of my points are things that i see. and im a guy that likes a little strategy to his open world pvp. and I dont like seeing things taken out that remove the need for a brain.
+1. Agree. At least they are planning on rotating but would be even better if both could be available all the time since there are people that like one or the other and some both. Never limit variety, it leads to people leaving a game mode.
GW/PoTBS/WAR/Rift/WAR/GW2/CU
De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
This, so much this!
People complain about teams hunkering in a keep and using siege instead of fighting, but then they want a map back that encourages it.
That makes absolutely no sense in relation to the post you quoted.
Yes, it was easier to siege both hills and bay on Alpine – catas placed on the outside had a couple spots they could be used to shell inner too. And yes, they had towers in proximity of keeps where you could build safe trebs. That meant overall less siege and more easily opened walls leading to more player combat. How the heck do you get this to encouraging teams to bunker in keeps, compared to Desert which is all about the defenders having a major siege advantage with the high ground on inner keeps (ie build ACs and win).
Sometimes people confuse me.