Very well thought out ideas, and explainations of why or how each is beneficial to the general aim of WvW. I support all of these ideas completely, anything that encourages less of the megablobbing going on, is always good.
Well I have to agree with these changes, wvw is quite simply dull at the moment. The game needs new dynamics unfortunately Anet do not want to introduce these.
With this patch I can only assume Anet does not listen to the community. Making arrow carts even more op is a joke. Getting rid of swirling winds blocking treb shots, pls Anet tell me how we are supposed to take a defended t3 keep with 1700 supply in it and a waypoint so the the defenders can border hop and get supply from other keeps etc as well.
No change to warrior banners etc etc etc. Whats the point? Anet are making the game worse not better. Anyway for those who like 5 hour sieges fighting arrow carts – enjoy.
Sadly this thread like many others and pm’s sent to Anet will no doubt be ignored as well.
It’s sad that this post by Aneu was written just before the crazy AC-buff was announced, that AC-buff just proves even more how WvW is not getting the changes it needs.
I totally agree 100% that Reinforced gates/walls NEED to lose HP and defence, A LOT. Also, i really like the ideas that u stated and think it would make WvW a lot more interesting, since it’s gonna be more about fighting, than sitting in a reinforced tower using arrowcarts for hours and hours.
This is WvW atm, 12 arrow-carts facing a single door, fun isnt it
Thanks for your contribution.
This defensive situation, should have a correct approach, different from the one you suggest (rams or golems), the siege must be cleared by a treb, including before he starts siege, the commander must clear the AC in the wall, in the process he will notice that is group getting too much damage, this indicates the existence of other siege, then he can order the building of a treb or trebs (don’t waste any supplies before you know the enemy defenses.)
If I want something I must be prepared to pay the price, make the enemy waste provisions, cut them the provisions, and be prepared to not succeed the 1st time, and don’t see this as a defeat, but like one step to victory.
There are so many situations in game that aren’t correctly done. Siege it’s a major one, defensive or offensive.
Its a funny situation yes. Hard but funny.
Let’s face it using a trebuchet is one of the most boring activities one has ever done in a game. Then you get the defensive counter trebuchet to bombard the offensive trebuchet and the game becomes a total trebuchet snoozefest.
Yes for me the siege is one of the funniest parts of the game, try to find the best place, establish a defensive perimeter for your offensive siege, this is all pure WWW, the “other thing” between guilds isn’t not part of it, it should be another chapter of the game, and I think it will be a success.
PS: I’m keeping the promise to myself to not discuss the “other thing” here in WWW forum
There is no need to discuss the what you call the “other thing” here. I was on about sieging. I do not mind establishing defensive/offensive perimeters nor do I mind the strategies and counter-strategies used in sieging. I think they can be creative and the meta can to an extent be interesting.
My problem is that AFTER the proper siege pieces are placed the game stagnates. With people running supply correctly or a fully stocked keep it could take up to 4 hours of nothing but constant supply running building trebuchet’s and firing them to take down an enemy keep wall. During this time if the enemy doesn’t come out to stop the supply runs or only flips the camps for the immune buff and leaves them there are no fights, no new strategy or siege placements. You are just waiting for what has already been placed to take effect. Yes, being creative about offensive siege placement and creating good strategic defense perimeters and counter-siege can be good, but do you honestly think that the actual execution of the process AFTER all the pieces are in place should not be faster? IE.: does someone rly have to go and have a macro to press 2 on a trebuchet or actually sit there for hours and press it? I think the actual game experience of that, not the overall strategy involved is awful and not fun.
Sad part is that almost everything there has already been suggested. This waste of space on WvW maps is sad, I still can’t believe Speldan area in EB is just a supply camp. It’s such a nice spot to fight (if you remove pve mobs, lol). Water in Borderlands should not even exist.
Moving NW/NE towers on BL maps to extreme NW/NE could give more space to fight, you always have a close spot to hide yourself which is extremely annoying. There are also too much objectives in EB, 4 towers per camp, what’s the point? As long as feedbacks are filled by guys that don’t have a clue except standing on their arrow carts 24/7, I don’t think things will change.
Tried to gather some WvW guildmasters thoughts about changes that should be made to discuss with Anet but some good friend made me realize they probably made more money with people buying quaggan backpack than every WvW active player, so why bothering that much. TESO is already a fail and more than 2 years for CU. Bad times.
Proposed changes >Reduce Reinforced gate HP and damage reduction. >Reduce Reinforced Wall HP and damage reduction. >Reduce Fortified Wall HP and damage reduction.
Holy kitten … What the kitten i just read?
Last night we lost a full upgraded SM in 30 sec, and we take a full upgraded Lowland in 60 sec … ya reduce all anet, we like to flip, flip is fun
/no
Proud ex-Kaineng T8 best server ever vs DR & FC
FC
Retired
Proposed changes >Reduce Reinforced gate HP and damage reduction. >Reduce Reinforced Wall HP and damage reduction. >Reduce Fortified Wall HP and damage reduction.
Holy kitten … What the kitten i just read?
Last night we lost a full upgraded SM in 30 sec, and we take a full upgraded Lowland in 60 sec … ya reduce all anet, we like to flip, flip is fun
/no
I understand it looks weird at first but look at it a bit longer. If the structures have less hp then people will have to respond more and the actual people defending will be more important than the walls.
Now it is too easy to wait for the blob to come to the tower and save you. With less hp there would be less time for that and the zergs would have to split up to be able to respond to everything. On top of that sieging an objective would become a battle. Because people cannot afford to let their structures take too many hits they will have to go outside and fight people almost immediately to defend their tower. It forces people outside of towers as wel as give an incentive for zergs to split up.
It might seem counterintuitive at first but there is a strong reasoning behind it.
[VoTF] www.votf-online.net
7.2k+ hours played on Minesweeper
I’d like the southern king of the hill point on bl’s to be at ruins because its just such a brilliant environment for fighting.
I’d also like to see wp’s removed – its too easy to get around the map at this point. But your other suggestions would probably solve the problems that creates so maybe not (running from point a to b is pretty dull no reason to extend it, even if it is a short run).
I totally agree 100% that Reinforced gates/walls NEED to lose HP and defence, A LOT. Also, i really like the ideas that u stated and think it would make WvW a lot more interesting, since it’s gonna be more about fighting, than sitting in a reinforced tower using arrowcarts for hours and hours.
This is WvW atm, 12 arrow-carts facing a single door, fun isnt it
I see 2 arrow carts and a lot of unfinished blueprints.
How? Please give a more directed piece of feedback than generalising as much as possible.
Possibly this is a tier difference, but lately I’ve seen the following meta, particularly from servers like SF:
1. There are 100 people in a zerg ball. Guilds ask players to form “ranks” of specific classes with specific builds, so the zerg ball has a designated make-up, roughly as follows:
1. 10 guardians
2. 10 Mesmers
3. 20 Staff elementalists
4. 20 Well necros
5. 40 or so “others” who tag along but aren’t part of the main group.
This group runs around each BL (they have one of these on each BL) clockwise. When they reach a tower with a gate that’s not upgraded, they bring it down without siege in about 40 seconds, and take the tower in about 3 minutes.
If they meet opposition, the following happens:
1. The mesmers all drop portals, then all stand together and drop another portal and everyone goes through so the ball is stacked on a single location (prevents catching some of the group in an AoE).
2. Guardians rotate reflection bubbles and Hallowed Ground (it doesn’t buff people who already have 3xstability, so with buff duration spec you can give the whole zerg permanent stability.
3. Mesmers all drop temporal curtain and then into the void, either on wall top to pull people forward, or in the field to bunch enemies. Elementalists drop a wave of AoE on the top of the wall in a siege, or on the bunched the zerg in a field battle, starting with 20 meteor showers. Power necros do the same with wells. Everyone else spams a ranged attack.
4. In a siege, the majority of enemy siege and players are dead. In a field battle, any group that’s not running a similar strategy is dead.
By all accounts, this is dreadfully boring to do after a while, but it works. Up until now this strategy has been counterable by glamor mesmers (now dead), or 8 or more arrow carts hitting the same spot (maybe only 5 now with the buff).
The changes you’re suggesting would make this strategy more effective. People already do this while complaining that it’s not fun. Nerfing WXP would do nothing. Reducing siege damage and making gates weaker would make this strategy completely unstoppable.
Never seen this before this organized but what Aneu suggested would destroy that tactic. It would no be efficient for any group over 30 to run together because there are too many things to do at once. This would destroy your zergball problem.
Ever play Alliance Battles in Guild Wars 1? What you’re saying sounds like changing WvW into large scale Alliance Battles. At least that’s what it reminds me of.
Possibly a mix of Jade Quarry from GW1 as well. Make a build that caps mines as fast as possible, die, rinse, repeat. Not much for large scale battles to be had.
Instead of reducing the hp of gates/walls. Some ppl prefer that playstyle
Some idea I like to add for those who prefer a different playstyle. So we have best of both playstyle
- remove gates at stonemist
- give more points to sentries capture (10 points per tick). Expand/add to the environment/terrain around the sentry to give more variety to pvp battles around it. Enlarge the capping circle around sentries
- give more points to camp capture as well (15 points per tick). Enlarge capping circle
- Anyone find a point to those npc camps? Remove the npc there and have a capping circle there that add to the ppt
If you give more points to camps or sentries per tick, it will essentially force more battles to occur there. If 10-15 points is not enough, make it higher
good ideas in the OP, i really would like to see this implemented.
my only question to Aneu is:
how this will affect lower tier servers (i’m on Drakkar Lake)? i see a problem, when it comes to the manpower a server can field. We normaly have no problem during primetime (19.00 – 22.30 CET) but during the night, early morning we regularly fall prey to nightcapping.
Is there a chance, this suggestions are translated in german, cause i think there would be also a lot of people with opinions?
therefor it’s even more important, that suggestions like this are vividly discussed and promoted, so the developper can respond and make things better.
good ideas in the OP, i really would like to see this implemented.
my only question to Aneu is:
how this will affect lower tier servers (i’m on Drakkar Lake)? i see a problem, when it comes to the manpower a server can field. We normaly have no problem during primetime (19.00 – 22.30 CET) but during the night, early morning we regularly fall prey to nightcapping.
Is there a chance, this suggestions are translated in german, cause i think there would be also a lot of people with opinions?
You are welcome to do that yourself. I would just suggest crediting Aneu and providing a link to this thread.
[VoTF] www.votf-online.net
7.2k+ hours played on Minesweeper
Arena Net should seriously consider reading this topic and seeing the suggestions. They got all the work done for them by the community, all they need to do is listen and apply.
Oh another change that would be great – if your supply got reset to 0 when you changed maps. Some servers have an annoying habit of wp’ing supply in from other maps to repair walls and rebuild siege making starving them of supply take even longer (and be basically impossible)
You are correct that there are two type of players in WvW, people who prefer long drawn-out proper siege warfare and people who prefer open field battles. The problem with your suggestions is that it diminishes the fun for the first type players while I am not sure it’s going to create as much fun to the second type players as you suggested. While you hope that reduced hp of walls and gates and king of hills type siege warfare is going to encourage more rapid response and more group fighting in keeps, I fear the end result is just more zergs going to go around each other to flip keeps as it seems to be the least resistance path to take.
Personally I think ANET should leave the siege warfare as it should be while creates more reasons for people to engage in open field combat (e.g. making blocking off the exit of keep and cutting off reinforcement more important, or more reasons to engage in open field combat to maybe destroy siege placements). I think it’s bad idea to mix open field combat into siege combat as neither party will be fully happy with what they get.
Even if they left the wall hp as is, this would be an improvement. More things to fight for (and things that have no walls) will require people to spread around a bit.
Being able to wp supply in from other maps is pretty broken as you really cant control every supply camp on every map. Its hard enough to control the 2 next to a keep at times. Hell being able to wp into a keep is pretty broken, you simply cant cut off reinforcements if they can just teleport to the middle of a keep.
As WHAT IF IF IF point. I’m strongly of the believe that zerging culture would have never evolved if there was set raid sizes with private commanders(like raid frames or similar advantage), of say 20-30. I know squad is 30 people but it makes no advantage joining it, actually has a disadvantage of not seeing movement of other raid commanders. Resulting in less focus on guilds.
Without this purely phycological soft restriction there was no guide to stop anywhere. I remember starting game with 10-15 man, we felt very impactful and actually a driving force in what ever zone we were in.
During the first couple months I saw alot of single nation guilds growing bigger and bigger – I started on SFR and there was OSC and FD gained numbers by the day (not pointing any blame here! just telling my story). They really didn’t have a good reason to stop at any number due to being same nation among members. Something like 40-50 of them often. And I had a few week break/quit as the lag started to be to much of a participant in the fights.
Around cristmast I had couple of good weeks in the mid tiers but then we got against Elona Reach national server. This was the time of the stacked 50+ moving with only portals. Simple way for national servers to organise everyone, because the identity was in the server and nation, not in a guild say. And the same story continued in t1 against vizuna. Not trying to blame here! Just a natural direction for national communities to take because there was little guidance from Anet to focus on guilds and working with set raid sizes.
Theres a plethora of things that could be implemented but the problem is that corporations feel the need to hold this off until something “dangerous” comes out or approaches (ESO/WS/CU/AA).
There are some really scary posts in this thread though, love for long drawn out siege battles? shudders … probably the same people who enjoy sitting on a treb in SM for hours on end, I guess it’s all about the immersion?
I appreciate the OP’s post, but I don’t see how this gives the smaller servers a boost. Yeah, forces blobs to spread out, but in my tier(EB/AR/BP) this would only give EB a bigger advantage because they’d have the numbers to hold more points than the other servers. These changes would seem to thin out already thin forces.
OP’s suggestions would certainly change things up, but I dunno if it would be for the better. I think it would just give population imbalances even more leverage in the outcome.
I started playing GW2 right after they took the Orbs out. They need to add something in WvWvW to make the weekly score worth a little more than bragging rights.
Asuran Engineer – Norn Ranger
[KAOS] of Anvil Rock
I appreciate the OP’s post, but I don’t see how this gives the smaller servers a boost. Yeah, forces blobs to spread out, but in my tier(EB/AR/BP) this would only give EB a bigger advantage because they’d have the numbers to hold more points than the other servers. These changes would seem to thin out already thin forces.
OP’s suggestions would certainly change things up, but I dunno if it would be for the better. I think it would just give population imbalances even more leverage in the outcome.
I started playing GW2 right after they took the Orbs out. They need to add something in WvWvW to make the weekly score worth a little more than bragging rights.
You can either adapt to the new tactics giving you more of a chance to take points or you can grow your server somewhat but essentially it gives you multiple avenues within which to gain points rather than bunkering inside of a keep/tower.
I really like the idea about adding more capture points to a map. Tbh JQ has been #1 for a really long time (not this week ofc) and it would be really fun to see more fights that are not blob warfare. It’s boring and stale.
However I would rather they not decrease keep/towers HP. I would however make the hp/strength of these towers dictated by the amount of people on a server. If you are out-manned your towers hp should get a boost and when you’re attacking your siege damage should go up. I think having that scaling/variability would help.
I think that anything that breaks up the zerg (arrow cart buff was a silly/easy solution) is important.
I don’t agree with reducing the HP of gates. Entire maps can be captured in 30 minutes already which is incredibly wrong. Rather, Arena Net should go the opposite way. When you capture a Keep or Tower you should have to repair whatever walls or gates you took down, instead of having them instantly repaired. This would encourage the server who lost the keep to come back and fight for it, and the only way to “secure” it would be through winning in open field and controlling supply points.
I do like your suggestion to have King of the Hill style battles though, however, I would much prefer to have them in Stonemist, i.e. turn Stonemist into an open area without gates and have perhaps 5 capture locations throughout the castle (for example west, north and east gates & lower and upper floor). These locations would each award 5ppt, and while holding all of them your server would gain another 10ppt, so the total would be 35ppt.
Instead of having a megablob of 60 people hold Stonemist, it would have to break up into smaller groups to be successful.
I don’t agree with reducing the HP of gates. Entire maps can be captured in 30 minutes already which is incredibly wrong. Rather, Arena Net should go the opposite way. When you capture a Keep or Tower you should have to repair whatever walls or gates you took down, instead of having them instantly repaired. This would encourage the server who lost the keep to come back and fight for it, and the only way to “secure” it would be through winning in open field and controlling supply points.
I do like your suggestion to have King of the Hill style battles though, however, I would much prefer to have them in Stonemist, i.e. turn Stonemist into an open area without gates and have perhaps 5 capture locations throughout the castle (for example west, north and east gates & lower and upper floor). These locations would each award 5ppt, and while holding all of them your server would gain another 10ppt, so the total would be 35ppt.
Instead of having a megablob of 60 people hold Stonemist, it would have to break up into smaller groups to be successful.
Please understand the entirety of these changes, they are to encourage fighting while also discouraging blobbing (due to more objectives) and the capture mechanic actually slows down captures so while it may be easier to get into a keep it is not easier to capture it.
As for walls and so on not going back up, that would need to be looked at from a top down view due to a 4min buff being on the Lord/Supervisor that essentially gives people 4min to suicide repair to stop reinforcements.
I don’t agree with reducing the HP of gates. Entire maps can be captured in 30 minutes already which is incredibly wrong. Rather, Arena Net should go the opposite way. When you capture a Keep or Tower you should have to repair whatever walls or gates you took down, instead of having them instantly repaired. This would encourage the server who lost the keep to come back and fight for it, and the only way to “secure” it would be through winning in open field and controlling supply points.
I do like your suggestion to have King of the Hill style battles though, however, I would much prefer to have them in Stonemist, i.e. turn Stonemist into an open area without gates and have perhaps 5 capture locations throughout the castle (for example west, north and east gates & lower and upper floor). These locations would each award 5ppt, and while holding all of them your server would gain another 10ppt, so the total would be 35ppt.
Instead of having a megablob of 60 people hold Stonemist, it would have to break up into smaller groups to be successful.
About the HP on structures, it might seem counterintuitive but I’ve already explained how it would benefit everything. You can read through the entire thread, it is not that long (yet).
In a way however you are right in saying that you can fastcap everything now but that has more to do with the people than with anything else. Things are easy to cap because people refuse to defend, not because it has ever been to hard. The only defence people know now is call for the blob in mapchat.
But what if the blob no longer exists or is otherwise engaged? …
[VoTF] www.votf-online.net
7.2k+ hours played on Minesweeper
