Guild Wars 2

I think everyone knows what I mean XP

Please leave WvW alone content wise. Just fix bugs, free server Xfers, and culling please…

Other players are the change in content week to week, we don’t need fort taking NPC’s out there

WvW = PvE with PKing.

Just saiyan.

New content is always welcome!

If a server can’t take a tower by themselves, then they don’t deserve the tower.

I agree if you man,
WvW is a war simulation, you don’t get magical invincible allies when you start losing. Its starting to cause grinding of a single tower where a few people are forced to stay continuously reclaim the same tower over and over again.

Anet need to get a grip on their content additions and stop listening to all the idiots complaining on the forums. Hardcore players are the games core, and we don’t complain about it being too difficult. This isn’t Minecraft.

Having to retake the tower maybe tedious, but it’s better then the boredom of being in a completely conquered map. Seriously, once you’re server takes over a whole map, do you find it fun sitting there waiting for battles that probably won’t come?

Dual.8953:

Having to retake the tower maybe tedious, but it’s better then the boredom of being in a completely conquered map. Seriously, once you’re server takes over a whole map, do you find it fun sitting there waiting for battles that probably won’t come?

You change map to another bl or Eternal.
Standard WvW procedure when your enemy is defeated in the map you’re in.

Rob.7624:

Dual.8953:

Having to retake the tower maybe tedious, but it’s better then the boredom of being in a completely conquered map. Seriously, once you’re server takes over a whole map, do you find it fun sitting there waiting for battles that probably won’t come?

You change map to another bl or Eternal.
Standard WvW procedure when your enemy is defeated.

I’m talking late in the week. It doesn’t happen as often as it used to with most worlds having drifted to their respective tiers, but it still is entirely possible for at least one of the worlds to lose all of their encampments on all maps and be unable to regain any form or solid footing. At times like those, most worlds pack it in because any move they make will usually be quickly stopped by the dominant server.

Dual.8953:

Rob.7624:

Dual.8953:

Having to retake the tower maybe tedious, but it’s better then the boredom of being in a completely conquered map. Seriously, once you’re server takes over a whole map, do you find it fun sitting there waiting for battles that probably won’t come?

You change map to another bl or Eternal.
Standard WvW procedure when your enemy is defeated.

I’m talking late in the week. It doesn’t happen as often as it used to with most worlds having drifted to their respective tiers, but it still is entirely possible for at least one of the worlds to lose all of their encampments on all maps and be unable to regain any form or solid footing. At times like those, most worlds pack it in because any move they make will usually be quickly stopped by the dominant server.

This would most likely only happen on Friday before a reset.
And unless its a very close match, very few regular WvW’ers bother going in. Waste of siege and preparation time.
Its usually pugs and other disorganised players that play a minor role in WvW that would venture in at that time. To which in my own opinion, when leaderless are essentially useless anyway.

No sane Commander will risk being in a queue at reset for a handful of loot bags.
Rendering still, the breakout event useless in a meaningful attack to actually win the match or even to defend against, since its so stupid that you might as well surrender the tower each time.

Hears what I be agreein’ wit. If’n ye own 2 towers/keeps or more the NPC Commander should despawn right then and there. If it’s only one tower or none, then NPC Commander event can be triggered.

I disagree with the “don’t change WvW”. WvW DOES need changes. It needs better rewards, for one.

First thing first get that NPC out of my PvP. BTW make more dev team play WvW because they have no idea. How do I know? Let’s just say I know one.

Arenanet have always said wuvwuv would be an open world environment with no concern for balance, eg. if a team can’t flip an outpost: so be it.

And now this….

I understand that for casual players this event can be fun, and that ANet want casual players. But the Breakout event is totally contrary to the open-world-ignore-balance principle.

For non-casual players the event will rapidly become mind-numbing. Every few minutes it’s “Breakout @ Lake” and off we go to fight the same array of awfully placed, invulnerable siege against teams that only possess the skill to zerg in the first place.

Remove the Breakout event. Remove it now. Do not wait for match reset.

And BTW Anet, where was the player base analysis for this? Perhaps I missed the months or weeks of preceding info regarding this, but all I saw was “Good news! Wintersday update…”

Anet should start making polls n’such for opinions on patches since it seems like they only spend time to respond to major exploits and adding incomplete or unwanted content.

Yes I agree with everyone here, if you can’t take it yourself then you don’t get the dang castle.

Dual.8953:

Having to retake the tower maybe tedious, but it’s better then the boredom of being in a completely conquered map. Seriously, once you’re server takes over a whole map, do you find it fun sitting there waiting for battles that probably won’t come?

Some servers allow a team to cap their entire BL so that there are very few players in the zone (the defenders have nothing to do, get bored and leave and small groups of attackers can’t do much).

They do this so when they want to zerg they can bring their entire group in at once (as their team has so few players in the zone). They now have a group of 80+ in an effectively defenderless BL in which they can prove how skillful they are at PvD. Add to this that they are entitled to the Breakout event as they have no outposts (by their choice) and you have a group of skilless eWarriors that believe they should each individually be considered to be somewhere between Sun Tzu and Chuck Norris. More like Zapp Brannigan.

(Oops, that got away from me!)

OT: Unbalanced by design. If a team can’t cap, they can’t cap.

Encourages PvDoor terrible idea.

Defensive bonus for servers being pushed back, fewer keeps => more bonus
Like in Factions

i agree but anet did this to aid the servers that were having issues with their WvW population and couldn’t get the numbers to actually take a somewhat defended tower. even then the first post sums it all up, leave WvW the way it was and fix bugs, culling and the like.

also with the server transfers there should be some limitation. with people able to transfer every week the people who enjoy WvW but don’t like losing are always gonna transfer to the winning server.

I actually enjoy the event. It makes wvw a little more accessible for people who are making the transition form PvE to PvP.

My only gripe is that a new player may think this kind of siege placement might work on other attacks and quickly learn that without the invulnerabubbles most of the siege is arrowcart-food.

I’d like to have the event limited to liike 1 breakout event per server per hour. Atm it is being spammed on us.

the more pve crap they put into wvw the more hardcore pvp’ers will leave the game. maybe they’re tired of having a player base?…

Nothing wrong with the breakout event. WvW is boring this week even with 3 breakouts going at same time in EB.

Where do I even begin…WvW is a hybrid between PvP and PvE…you want pure PvP, go play sPvP.

I am tired of that argument…and the counter argument is too obvious to even bother writing it down. But sorry to tell you that WvW can never be what it is, nor can it be balanced without some PvE elements.

Furry Fury.9036:

Arenanet have always said wuvwuv would be an open world environment with no concern for balance, eg. if a team can’t flip an outpost: so be it.

And now this….

I understand that for casual players this event can be fun, and that ANet want casual players. But the Breakout event is totally contrary to the open-world-ignore-balance principle.

For non-casual players the event will rapidly become mind-numbing. Every few minutes it’s “Breakout @ Lake” and off we go to fight the same array of awfully placed, invulnerable siege against teams that only possess the skill to zerg in the first place.

Remove the Breakout event. Remove it now. Do not wait for match reset.

And BTW Anet, where was the player base analysis for this? Perhaps I missed the months or weeks of preceding info regarding this, but all I saw was “Good news! Wintersday update…”

Agreed completely

Morningstar.6208:

Furry Fury.9036:

Arenanet have always said wuvwuv would be an open world environment with no concern for balance, eg. if a team can’t flip an outpost: so be it.

And now this….

I understand that for casual players this event can be fun, and that ANet want casual players. But the Breakout event is totally contrary to the open-world-ignore-balance principle.

For non-casual players the event will rapidly become mind-numbing. Every few minutes it’s “Breakout @ Lake” and off we go to fight the same array of awfully placed, invulnerable siege against teams that only possess the skill to zerg in the first place.

Remove the Breakout event. Remove it now. Do not wait for match reset.

And BTW Anet, where was the player base analysis for this? Perhaps I missed the months or weeks of preceding info regarding this, but all I saw was “Good news! Wintersday update…”

Agreed completely

Disagree completely

I’d rather not have the event be in WvW. If you can’t break out on your own then your server is in the wrong bracket.

If the event does have to exist then fix it.
Put a serious cd on it, scale down the npc and clarify when the event pops.

Ekove.4586:

Where do I even begin…WvW is a hybrid between PvP and PvE…you want pure PvP, go play sPvP.

I am tired of that argument…and the counter argument is too obvious to even bother writing it down. But sorry to tell you that WvW can never be what it is, nor can it be balanced without some PvE elements.

if I wanted to play some boring 5v5 timed games on a tiny map I’d go play leage of legends or something like that.
wvw is supposed to be a huge map focused on pvp. not focused on pve or pvnpc.

thanks, come again

Yes, Anet could be so kind as to fix culling and free server transfers. They do need fixing, and I’m sure Anet are hard at work trying to figure out the best solution to keep everyone happy.

However I am happy with this update. I can’t understand how people that are winning a map are complaining that their opponents are getting a little help. Its not as if this is going to turn the tide of a match, it doesn’t effect close matches only one-sided ones. I play on Gunnar’s Hold, a EU server that hasn’t won a match in the past 7-8 weeks at least. Quite often when I get home from work I would struggle to find more than one or two supply camps in our colour ACROSS THE ENTIRE 4 MAP WORLD.

Surely giving us the means to get a footing on a map and give our overpowering enemies a challenge instead of a dull player hunt is a good thing? Try to look at it from a losers perspective instead of just from the winners… After all we all want to have fun don’t we?

I’ve found a solution to breakouts!!1 (this is a joke)

Imgur: http://i.imgur.com/cXqyz.jpg

Too bad people cap the tower as soon as a Commander leaves the Borderland but still, it works. Enjoy the pic!

Wolbryne.4037:

the more pve crap they put into wvw the more hardcore pvp’ers will leave the game. maybe they’re tired of having a player base?…

Maybe those so called hardcore pvp’ers shouldn’t be so prejudiced and narrowminded and just accept a few pve elements in something that’s supposed to be GW2’s version of open world PvP? There aren’t too many MMORPG’s with open world pvp that doesn’t have any pve elements at all…. If you’re looking for something purely pvp then go spvp or if your personal requirement is that it’s open world then you should be looking for something in another gaming genre than mmorpg.

What is a MOBA, (dota2, lol etc) surely not pure PvP! /sarcastic_remark

The point is the NPC overshadows players. That is not good. At all. The only NPC that overshadows single players in Dota2 is Roshan and attempting to kill him is a huge risk.

There is no risk in the breakout event. And the commander Navelgazer hits like Roshan.

The breakout even is rediculous. It goes against Anets earlier statements in relation to nightcapping (its war! Get over it) by handholding one side to get their tower back.

If you lose your spawn tower and cannot get it back, you are outnumbered. Horribly, horribly outnumbered.
Let these people do what they should do. Go to another borderland, so atleast they get some fighting going on on 1 borderland. Instead of this event which just string the few players even more out.

Not to mention the bugs with this event. Champion bugging through walls and gate that were still up. Killing everything inside and just claiming the tower. What the actual kitten?
Get the PvE out of WvW.

What would you have them do? Are you all seriously saying you prefer it to be a one sided fight where one team is bored of not having any opponents to kill, and the other teams are annoyed at not being able to put up a fight? That is what makes people leave WvW. Giving a handicap to a losing side can only help keep things interesting. If it wasn’t a PvE solution it would have to be a PvP solution which would mean giving some players buffed stats/armour. Now you try and tell me THAT wouldn’t cause arguments in this game.

Wolbryne.4037:

Ekove.4586:

Where do I even begin…WvW is a hybrid between PvP and PvE…you want pure PvP, go play sPvP.

I am tired of that argument…and the counter argument is too obvious to even bother writing it down. But sorry to tell you that WvW can never be what it is, nor can it be balanced without some PvE elements.

if I wanted to play some boring 5v5 timed games on a tiny map I’d go play leage of legends or something like that.
wvw is supposed to be a huge map focused on pvp. not focused on pve or pvnpc.

thanks, come again

So let me get this straight, no PvE…

So remove neutral NPC camps, remove keep lords, remove guards, remove dolyaks….hell some would argue even remove gates and walls…
So what do we have here? Conquest mode on a huge map? oh wait….-.-

Like someone posted in another thread, When they removed the Orbs from the BL’s they changed the dynamics of WvW.

No longer is it required to keep players on a BL to maintain the Orb. SO what we have now is hold your own BL and as much as you can in EB. Then go to an opposing BL when you need to drag some of their forces away from whatever they are doing..

When the orbs where in play you knew if you deserted a BL in which you owned the Orb, shortly thereafter you would no longer own the orb.

I agree however that the NPC commander think is a bit of stretch as far as a game design. I’d rather they fix the bugs and bring back the orbs. Even if they returned the orbs with the same OP buff

Ekove.4586:

Where do I even begin…WvW is a hybrid between PvP and PvE…you want pure PvP, go play sPvP.

I am tired of that argument…and the counter argument is too obvious to even bother writing it down. But sorry to tell you that WvW can never be what it is, nor can it be balanced without some PvE elements.

This was my understanding as well. Seems to me they were selling sPvP for the hardcore PvPers and WvW as a more relaxed, casual style of PvP that PvE people might enjoy. Which is why there are so many PvE elements in the WvW maps.

If that wasn’t ANets intention I’m fine with that as well, but that’s just what I thought they were working towards. Obviously hardcore PvP people want WvW to be hardcore PvP and take all of the existing PvE out of it which I can totally understand.

Catisa.6507:

Morningstar.6208:

Furry Fury.9036:

Arenanet have always said wuvwuv would be an open world environment with no concern for balance, eg. if a team can’t flip an outpost: so be it.

And now this….

I understand that for casual players this event can be fun, and that ANet want casual players. But the Breakout event is totally contrary to the open-world-ignore-balance principle.

For non-casual players the event will rapidly become mind-numbing. Every few minutes it’s “Breakout @ Lake” and off we go to fight the same array of awfully placed, invulnerable siege against teams that only possess the skill to zerg in the first place.

Remove the Breakout event. Remove it now. Do not wait for match reset.

And BTW Anet, where was the player base analysis for this? Perhaps I missed the months or weeks of preceding info regarding this, but all I saw was “Good news! Wintersday update…”

Agreed completely

Disagree completely

You disagree that ANet intended for WvW to be open world?
You disagree that Anet intends for WvW to be unbalanced?
You disagree that I think casual players can find this fun?
You disagree that the Breakout event is contrary to open-world-ignore-balance principle?
You disagree that the siege in the event is placed awfully?

Nothing wrong with the breakout event. WvW is boring this week even with 3 breakouts going at same time in EB.

Three Breakout events and you’re bored, but you want to keep the events.

I think I’m catching on here.

Combined with your previous comment that your concept was too obvious to post I’m failing to see how you’re bringing anything constructive to this thread.

Now I can only run back and forth from my spawn to a single tower.

Can we have a couple more NPC commanders help me take the supply camps nearby please?

Thanks!

Ekove.4586:

Wolbryne.4037:

Ekove.4586:

Where do I even begin…WvW is a hybrid between PvP and PvE…you want pure PvP, go play sPvP.

I am tired of that argument…and the counter argument is too obvious to even bother writing it down. But sorry to tell you that WvW can never be what it is, nor can it be balanced without some PvE elements.

if I wanted to play some boring 5v5 timed games on a tiny map I’d go play leage of legends or something like that.
wvw is supposed to be a huge map focused on pvp. not focused on pve or pvnpc.

thanks, come again

So let me get this straight, no PvE…

So remove neutral NPC camps, remove keep lords, remove guards, remove dolyaks….hell some would argue even remove gates and walls…
So what do we have here? Conquest mode on a huge map? oh wait….-.-

Yes I think we know that WvW has PvE in it. For the sake of argument I’m happy to consider WvW as PvE with PKing involved. So why the issue with the Breakout event?

Because it’s the first PvE that directly aids (gifts?) a team capping a structure. All other PvE is, to all design intents, passive and does not assist in directly capping a structure.

In addition, until now the capping of a structure relied upon active players forming and executing their own strategy. Here that is replaced by a developer coded strategy executed with significant NPC support, free supply, invulnerable siege…

Surely we can agree that the manner and impact of the PvE is of an entirely different nature here?

My position is that I’m happy to lose a structure to a superior number of enemy, or a superior tactician or anything that is another player’s doing. But I don’t want to lose it to a programmed event.

It takes the Pee out of PvP.

Good luck, and have fun.

Crosstrack.9184:

What would you have them do? Are you all seriously saying you prefer it to be a one sided fight where one team is bored of not having any opponents to kill, and the other teams are annoyed at not being able to put up a fight? That is what makes people leave WvW. Giving a handicap to a losing side can only help keep things interesting. If it wasn’t a PvE solution it would have to be a PvP solution which would mean giving some players buffed stats/armour. Now you try and tell me THAT wouldn’t cause arguments in this game.

So what do you want instead, artificial means to keep scores a little closer? That server stomping you is still stomping you. But the place on the map has slightly changed.
But now that servger might not get enough points to move out of your tier. Gratz, youre up for another week of getting stomped.

Ive seen it happen so many times that servers change tier based on just a few points. Just last week we (Deso) pretty much stomped Kodash and Millers. And we moved from tier3 to tier2 on mere single digit points.
Had Miller and Kodash used events like this the difference wouldve been slightly smaller. They wouldve still been stomped, but odds are we would still be in tier 3 this week aswell. Stomping them again, instead of the point system balancing things out.

Furry Fury.9036:

Ekove.4586:

Wolbryne.4037:

Ekove.4586:

Where do I even begin…WvW is a hybrid between PvP and PvE…you want pure PvP, go play sPvP.

I am tired of that argument…and the counter argument is too obvious to even bother writing it down. But sorry to tell you that WvW can never be what it is, nor can it be balanced without some PvE elements.

if I wanted to play some boring 5v5 timed games on a tiny map I’d go play leage of legends or something like that.
wvw is supposed to be a huge map focused on pvp. not focused on pve or pvnpc.

thanks, come again

So let me get this straight, no PvE…

So remove neutral NPC camps, remove keep lords, remove guards, remove dolyaks….hell some would argue even remove gates and walls…
So what do we have here? Conquest mode on a huge map? oh wait….-.-

Yes I think we know that WvW has PvE in it. For the sake of argument I’m happy to consider WvW as PvE with PKing involved. So why the issue with the Breakout event?

Because it’s the first PvE that directly aids (gifts?) a team capping a structure. All other PvE is, to all design intents, passive and does not assist in directly capping a structure.

In addition, until now the capping of a structure relied upon active players forming and executing their own strategy. Here that is replaced by a developer coded strategy executed with significant NPC support, free supply, invulnerable siege…

Surely we can agree that the manner and impact of the PvE is of an entirely different nature here?

My position is that I’m happy to lose a structure to a superior number of enemy, or a superior tactician or anything that is another player’s doing. But I don’t want to lose it to a programmed event.

It takes the Pee out of PvP.

Good luck, and have fun.

Then you are against the new game mechanic, not PvE in WvW. That’s an entirely different story.

I agree that I don’t like it as a solution. But after removing orbs, servers would desert 2 BL and just hold their own and EB…which really made an already the simple WvW of GW2 even simpler….breakouts are an attempt to add a new dimension and make people spread out of all 3 maps. Sadly it’s not working since most people trigger the event, take the tower and leave.

Terrahero.9358:

Crosstrack.9184:

What would you have them do? Are you all seriously saying you prefer it to be a one sided fight where one team is bored of not having any opponents to kill, and the other teams are annoyed at not being able to put up a fight? That is what makes people leave WvW. Giving a handicap to a losing side can only help keep things interesting. If it wasn’t a PvE solution it would have to be a PvP solution which would mean giving some players buffed stats/armour. Now you try and tell me THAT wouldn’t cause arguments in this game.

So what do you want instead, artificial means to keep scores a little closer? That server stomping you is still stomping you. But the place on the map has slightly changed.
But now that servger might not get enough points to move out of your tier. Gratz, youre up for another week of getting stomped.

Ive seen it happen so many times that servers change tier based on just a few points. Just last week we (Deso) pretty much stomped Kodash and Millers. And we moved from tier3 to tier2 on mere single digit points.
Had Miller and Kodash used events like this the difference wouldve been slightly smaller. They wouldve still been stomped, but odds are we would still be in tier 3 this week aswell. Stomping them again, instead of the point system balancing things out.

you have completely ignored what I said and just gone off in a direction above moving up and down tiers…

Breakout is dumb as a bag of hammers. We drive people off our maps, barely have time to start getting supplies and upgrades going in our towers, then a new breakout waltzes in to recap it for the other world. Don’t even get a chance to take a bloody break before it all rolls again. Never mind that the way the announcement went it made it sound it was more for when you get rolled back into your own citadel, not just to restart an invasion you failed on.

But back to the story. We set up in Lake Tower, cannon, basic upgrades, some carts and everyone in the map defending is there. Bout the same number of players as NS had in the breakout (we GoM). Sure they make it in the tower. Have yet to see all that free siege WITH SHIELD BUBBLES SO YOU CAN’T DAMAGE THE EQUIPMENT, get destroyed. So in comes the rush, and we kill ALL the NS in the Lord’s Room in a last stand. Victory, right? Nope. Cause you have a friggin NPC that can’t be killed waltz in and cap the place for all the dead players. An NPC, in a PvP part of the game.

Dumb as a bag of hammers doesn’t even BEGIN to accurately and deservedly describe this idea.

The npc can be killed, the invasion “thwarted”. But, the rapid recyling of it, is an issue. Ultimately, let the “invaders” keep their tower. Periodically, reflip the supply camps nearby. Just don’t get sucked into the “invulnerability zone” by the bluffs; the one where the invulnerability buff should have been on the top of the bluff.

It’s not that hard to kill the NPC commander and stop the invasion. Seriously.

Crosstrack.9184:

Terrahero.9358:

Crosstrack.9184:

What would you have them do? Are you all seriously saying you prefer it to be a one sided fight where one team is bored of not having any opponents to kill, and the other teams are annoyed at not being able to put up a fight? That is what makes people leave WvW. Giving a handicap to a losing side can only help keep things interesting. If it wasn’t a PvE solution it would have to be a PvP solution which would mean giving some players buffed stats/armour. Now you try and tell me THAT wouldn’t cause arguments in this game.

So what do you want instead, artificial means to keep scores a little closer? That server stomping you is still stomping you. But the place on the map has slightly changed.
But now that servger might not get enough points to move out of your tier. Gratz, youre up for another week of getting stomped.

Ive seen it happen so many times that servers change tier based on just a few points. Just last week we (Deso) pretty much stomped Kodash and Millers. And we moved from tier3 to tier2 on mere single digit points.
Had Miller and Kodash used events like this the difference wouldve been slightly smaller. They wouldve still been stomped, but odds are we would still be in tier 3 this week aswell. Stomping them again, instead of the point system balancing things out.

you have completely ignored what I said and just gone off in a direction above moving up and down tiers…

I am spot on about my comment. You want to give artificial boosts to the losing side. Supposedly to keep it interesting.
How interesting do you want it to be?

Any boost would translate in pointgain, one way or another. And the pointgain skews the score of the stomping server. Which is then reflected in the way tiers are balanced. Slowing down the rate at which a server can move up or down. Servers will be stuck in tiers not fitting them for longer.

Im in a hardcore WvW guild, with many other hardcore WvW players. And we find this change to be very uninteresting. It forces us to keep a large presence on a borderland where no fighting is going on for the offchance a server kicks off this event.

And the result in nightime WvW is clear. Where all servers dont have a full presence the result is that every server sits on their borderland, unable to move enough people to another borderland to start a fight because it makes it to easy to get countered. And every borderland has the color of the server it belongs to and thats about all the action going on.

No artificial boosts, no PvE events. If you cant take a tower, then you dont deserve a tower. Kinda like, if you dont have a nightcapping crew you dont deserve to get nightpoints? Eh Arenanet? https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Night-Capping-and-YOU/first
Would be nice if Arenanet would start communicated with the WvW players. Instead of assuming what changes might appease the casual WvW players that show up once in a blue moon to QQ about how kittenty their server is then ragequit.

WvW becomes nearly pointless when you own an entire map. Spawn camping is an awful situation that badly needed to be stomped out.

The break out event does several things. It gives servers that have no foothold on the map a stronger chance to get back into the match and provide some competition. It’s still possible to push them off, but rallying 10 people and being provided with a buffer to get the map going acts as support to get a team together to put up a fight and maybe cap or defend some structures. The reality is, for this event to trigger it requires the server to have no fortified structures, so prior to it happening, you had nothing to do (other than spawn camp or chase small ops supply camp groups) with that server. This gives both sides something to do.

A lot of times (even in tier one) being pushed of the map results in the map being almost empty. Instead of having an active resistance and back and forth battles going on, the side that got pushed off bleeds players until they are outmanned, the side that capped the map moves on to another map and things remain largely static. These events encourage the full cap server to remain on the map if they want to hold it (or at least have enough to put up active resistance) and it gives the server that became outmaned a viable chance at getting back on the map instead of loading into WvW and seeing no-one there, the outmaned buff and then moving to another world or going back to LA/PvE/real life.

Basically, the event’s value to WvW and everyone’s enjoyment of the game, is to reinvigorate a map that would have otherwise died. That’s in everyone’s interest.

It has a side benefit of teaching people siege location, siege purposes and how to build and man siege. It has a lot of valuable ways to contribute to WvW as a whole and people should look at what it contributes to WvW rather than seeing NPCs carrying some of the workload and complaining about PvE in WvW. It’s a robust help to the attacking force but in no way is the capture done for you.

Terrahero.9358:

I am spot on about my comment. You want to give artificial boosts to the losing side. Supposedly to keep it interesting.
How interesting do you want it to be?

Any boost would translate in pointgain, one way or another. And the pointgain skews the score of the stomping server. Which is then reflected in the way tiers are balanced. Slowing down the rate at which a server can move up or down. Servers will be stuck in tiers not fitting them for longer.

Im in a hardcore WvW guild, with many other hardcore WvW players. And we find this change to be very uninteresting. It forces us to keep a large presence on a borderland where no fighting is going on for the offchance a server kicks off this event.

And the result in nightime WvW is clear. Where all servers dont have a full presence the result is that every server sits on their borderland, unable to move enough people to another borderland to start a fight because it makes it to easy to get countered. And every borderland has the color of the server it belongs to and thats about all the action going on.

No artificial boosts, no PvE events. If you cant take a tower, then you dont deserve a tower. Kinda like, if you dont have a nightcapping crew you dont deserve to get nightpoints? Eh Arenanet? https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Night-Capping-and-YOU/first
Would be nice if Arenanet would start communicated with the WvW players. Instead of assuming what changes might appease the casual WvW players that show up once in a blue moon to QQ about how kittenty their server is then ragequit.

Thanks for the on topic reply.

So what you are saying is this event chain has now forced you to pay more attention to maps that before, you had completely shut out the enemy teams, and that is “uninteresting” for you? Personally I don’t see how having a better challenge from your opponents can be more uninteresting.

As for rage quitting and QQing(love that phrase) I do agree that you can’t let people who are upset about losing control how the game develops. However, in this instance, giving a team that is completely stomped a bit of help getting a foothold on the map… I honestly cannot see why so many people don’t like this. Its one tower. not even a keep. Just one tower that gives the overpowering forces a target instead of spawn killing(which is no sport at all). People seem to be complaining for the sake of it. Not only that, but its the WINNING servers that are complaining. those are the guys who are getting a lot more enjoyment out of the game than the losing teams are. So if it helps gee on the underdogs and gets them back in the fight, why can they not support this idea that will actually give them more people to kill?

Edit: just read the guys post above me. He make words sound more gooder than I.

I don’t think breakouts need to go away, but I do think they need some tweaking.

First day of patch I logged in, and our server launched 3 breakouts at the same time, because the second and third events started before the first commander took his tower. Now the other side has to deal with 3 unbreakable god-killing death machine commanders or lose 3 holdings. I was also under the impression this was to assist invaders pressing into someone else’s home BL, but it works both ways, and that makes it cut and clear that the advantage goes to the defenders, as now those east and west towers that the invaders worked so hard to fortify and defend (a common strategy to keep the home BL from having leverage to take back garr) get roflstomped.

I admit, it’s extremely frustrating when my server can’t take the east tower back because the invaders have built ballistae up on the high ground and properly placed arrow carts all over the tower. But they have to run deep into our territory to take and defend that tower. Now on top of that they can lose it even with a 20 man team on siege defending it? That needs to stop. Breakouts should not provide an unfair advantage to a team for being terrible, and by that I mean they should not spawn for defenders of their own BL.

We have 2-3 exits from spawns if you are bad and cant even go out of your base there is no NPC that can save you anyway.

Shiren.9532:

It gives servers that have no foothold on the map a stronger chance to get back into the match and provide some competition.

Shiren.9532:

The reality is, for this event to trigger it requires the server to have no fortified structures, so prior to it happening, you had nothing to do (other than spawn camp or chase small ops supply camp groups) with that server.

Crosstrack.9184:

However, in this instance, giving a team that is completely stomped a bit of help getting a foothold on the map… I honestly cannot see why so many people don’t like this.

Each of these points (and most of the pro-Breakout advocates) assumes that a server with no structures in a zone is weaker than the other servers. This obviously can be the case, but it’s equally likely to not be so. For example:

Stronger servers intentionally withdraw from zones so:

• their resources are not distrubuted in zones they’re not currently interested in;
• when they are interested in that zone, they can full on zerg the entire zone (80+ players, 8+ golems) as they are as far from pop cap as possible.

The point being that these servers don’t need a ‘chance’ they can wipe a map in 15-20 minutes anyway.

Shiren.9532:

It has a side benefit of teaching people siege location, siege purposes and how to build and man siege.

If you don’t mean “how not to place siege” then this must be a joke! There is no way a newcomer would benefit from seeing their first siege placed in these locations, and with invulnerability shields.

Shiren.9532:

People seem to be complaining for the sake of it.

That’s a lot of people with some pretty cogent ideas you’re talking about there. Are you sure you really believe they have no substance in their musings?