Showing Posts For Sixpax.8360:
1 2
I do have to say one thing, the OP is spot on with the keep defense complaint. It’s silly that you can’t stand on your own battlements to defend a keep. It completely defies the logic of having a “fortification”. So what do you do to defend your keep? Why you build a catapult in your courtyard and fire it at your own keep doors. Yeah that makes sense.
This treb looks like you placed it to climb up on it to get over the door.
ANet should add ladders!
Or better yet, you should be able to climb onto the treb and be flung over wall.
To me the key to making zergs less appealing is to make defending more appealing. If small groups can successfully defend a fortification against a zerg, then it will draw more players away from just following the crowd everywhere.
Suggestions: you should be relatively well protected while on the battlements instead of the current design where it’s a deathwish to stand up there. Siege weapons should take far less damage from AoE spells, and while operating one you should gain the protection buff. Increase the arc on the catapult projectile so they can be used more effectively inside the courtyard to fire over walls (this would help the attackers too, but frankly taking a fortification should require siege weapons IMO). Double the HP of boiling oil and cannons.
Folks should upgrade what they can afford if they can and move on.
Because…?
I think most people have come to the same conclusion. I’m usually one of the very few people that make supply runs to repair walls/gates, build siege weapons for defense, pay for upgrades, escort yaks, etc. But after watching the tower/keep I just got finished upgrading fall in the amount of time it takes to run to a supply camp and back, I’ve almost given up on even trying to fortify anymore. It’s a lost cause.
So now you’re changing the story to the ultra-rare 1vX (where X is a very small number) situation. If it weren’t for downstate, you probably would have died before killing all three. As long as one of them still would have ended up living, the outcome is the same. Furthermore, the meaningless interaction at a supply camp where you obviously didn’t bother trying to call for help (which in a fight of the length you described would have easily allowed to reach you in time) which is only possible because of downstate.
I wasn’t “changing the story”, I was refuting your blanket statement that downed state doesn’t affect outcomes. It does. I’m not sure why you assume I would have died in that fight if it weren’t for downed state… if they weren’t able to rally the ones I downed I could have won through sheer attrition. It’s because of downed state that I had no chance whatsoever. Also, I did broadcast in map chat that the supply camp was being attacked, but nobody responded.
But yet again, you’re making the (absurd) assumption that you “should have won that fight.” There’s no reason to think that other than your own ego.
Yeah my ego and the fact that I was able to down an enemy player a few times and they didn’t down me. Nice personal attack though… typical.
But downstate does not meaningfully affect outcomes right now. In fact, as I detailed earlier, it favors a smaller (but more coordinated) group more than a larger (uncoordinated) group.
Downed state does indeed affect the outcome of battles. I’ll give you a perfect example. I once engaged in a 1v3 fight against players trying to take a supply camp. It was everything I could do to stay alive while focusing on one of the enemy to take them down. Every time I got one down, I couldn’t stomp them because I was having to move around too much to avoid attacks, and of course one of them would disengage and rally their downed teammate. Sure I’d interrupted them once or twice, but I couldn’t completely stop them from rallying without putting myself at too much risk. I eventually had to flee and let them have the camp. So yes, downed state most certainly kept me from winning that fight.
And again, you’re making the (faulty) assumption that the smaller group will be more coordinated. Downed state favors any group that’s coordinated whether they are small or larger, but the larger the group the more downed state gives them an advantage.
It also tends to extend fights, which allows smaller forces to gather reinforcements, or mobilize to a new strategy.
Yeah I just love those hour long keep defenses where you’re severely outnumbered but no matter how much skill and coordination you have there’s no chance of stopping the attackers because every time you drain someone’s health to zero they just get insta-rezed.
“Removing the downed state will actually give smaller/coordinated groups more of a chance to beat the larger group.” – still haven’t seen an argument to support this that isn’t simply “they have more people”.
Exactly. People have repeated that statement so often that it seems to be just universally accepted as fact, but I’ve never seen or understood the logic behind the statement. All evidence I’ve seen points to the opposite, that downstate helps a smaller/coordinated group more than anyone else.
What are the reasons people believe downstate encourages “zerg” groups, and that it helps them more than other types of groups?
Because the rate at which one get resurrected from downed (and stomped) state scales with the number of people ressurrecting?
Wow, I’m surprised this actually had to be spelled out. If you’re a 5-man coordinated group going up against say a 15 man group, you take 2 or 3 people down quick due to focus fire and coordination, but then you can’t stomp them fast enough before 5 people from the other group insta-rez them… so you’ve gained no ground. The smaller group doesn’t have the luxury. They can’t afford to have people trying to rally downed players or they put themselves at an even more serious disadvantage.
I don’t believe that downstate benefits a larger force over a more skilled (but smaller) force.
A higher skilled, better coordinated group which is outnumbered should benefit more from downstate than an uncoordinated zerg would.
Since the more skilled, more coordinated group is better at focusing targets, supporting each other, and just generally playing the game, when a player is downed for the small force, they should rally very quickly as the group either rezzes them (which they are better at than the zerg) or kills off an opponent for the rally. The groups trying to win with sheer numbers won’t have the coordination to quickly kill off an enemy to force a rally, or to quickly rez their downed forces.
In general, if a “more skilled, but outnumbered” group is losing to a larger zerg with downstate, they would almost certainly have lost anyway (and in much shorter of a time period) if downstate were removed.
All you’re really doing is stating that a coordinated group beats an uncoordinated one. There are plenty of coordinated zergs and plenty of uncoordinated small groups. Even within a zerg you can have coordinated 5-man groups assisting each other. So when all else is equal coordination wise, the larger group has numbers + better chances rallying allies… double bonus for them. Removing the downed state will actually give smaller/coordinated groups more of a chance to beat the larger group.
Downed state has no place in WvW. As others have stated it just tips the scales even more in favor of the bigger group/zerg. They already have a number advantage, there’s no need to give make things worse by having to kill people 2 and 3 (or more!) times over to defeat them.
I know it would be major work to remove due to all the traits that support it, but it would be best for the longevity of the game.
WebleyMost other MMOS it has no time limit lol. With the rogue in WoW you just “turn it on”
That’s true, but in WoW stealth would break on damage and when performing nearly any action (attacking, looting, etc), and you had to be out of combat to “turn it on” (aside from one get-away ability). You even have a chance in WoW to detect a stealthed enemy if you’re close enough and facing them.
In GW2 you can literally turn on stealth with combat attacks, never be seen while stealthed, and with the right build can keep it up nearly permanently while in combat.
I would much rather have WoW’s version than GW2’s version. Limited stealth my eye.
I really don’t see why the decay is so short. At minimum it should be an hour, but preferably two would be more reasonable. Or better yet, have the decay time be based on cost: 30m for ram/a-cart, 60m for ballista/catapult, 90m for treb, 120m for golem.
If by “portal bombing” you’re referring to exploiting the culling issue, then anyone who can cast swiftness on an infinite number of players can achieve the same result. Cast swiftness… bum-rush the enemy… culling achieved.
And pulling without line of site is no different than getting knocked back without line of site.
The wall/cliff glitch isn’t a Mesmer only problem.
I don’t see what’s wrong with implementing a 15 minute deserter debuff. At least you’d get some satisfaction of knowing that player removed themselves from WvW for an extended amount of time.
Any everyone who lags out would be sitting in overflow.
What does overflow have to do with my statement?
Perhaps Anet should force downed players to disconnect and not be able to get back into wvw for an hour. Then, would you be happy?
That comment makes zero sense. The point of implementing a deserter debuff is to deter those who cheat death (and therefore deprive the victor of his reward). If a downed player gets auto-disconnected that wouldn’t deter anything (other than perhaps them ever playing the game again) and would still deprive the victor of his reward.
I don’t see what’s wrong with implementing a 15 minute deserter debuff. At least you’d get some satisfaction of knowing that player removed themselves from WvW for an extended amount of time.
Okay, here’s what I’ve got….
1) Added ( though this kind of immunity to specific damage types is nearly impossible to program because abilities like Fireball is considered AOE due to splash and would make defending also way too balanced on their side. It’s taking the scale and instead of evening it out you dump everything from one side and the other side just sinks.)
Good point. I should have stated GTAoE spells. Spells that target players are fine, even if they cause AoE splash damage, because if they are in LOS, that’s what they get.
4) Added (though from a single perspective that a whole server could go from supply camp to supply camp in circles just draining them, to then teleport back to their spawn and rush to their Keep to get it up would be crazy. It just encourages flipping for the sake of getting supply and nobody would care about Yaks or their supply lines on that style).
I see your point, but we already have the option to repair walls and doors that way but the vast majority of players don’t do it. Only a minority of players would go to the trouble of running supply from a depot to a tower/keep, but it would be nice to have the option when you need one upgraded quickly.
6) Already on there (though I entirely disagree with this stance and the downstate is part of this game’s combat mechanics and it won’t go away any time soon)
I agree it probably won’t go away any time soon. It’s very frustrating though when you’re fighting against superior numbers, and repeatedly get players down only to have them teleport/rocket back into the pack and get insta-rezed.
7) Added (don’t see this happening as damaged siege gives progression to one side or another, also it prevents build up of say 5 siege golems that keep going because after a Keep take they teleport to spawn, repair, and go to the next objective 100%. balance would be thrown off)
They could add diminishing returns (less health each time it’s repaired), and require a fee (have to buy a repair kit).
8) Added ( but again, like above, there’s a balance thing. Not only that, but each siege item is an asset on the server that has to be rendered in. If 50,000 pieces of siege stayed without decay or destruction, it would crash the server.)
We can already achieve this effect by “tapping” each siege weapon every so often. It’s silly that you have to do so. And as far as crashing the server, that’s the reason I also suggested limiting how much siege could be built within a fortification.
9) Added (but, to cause a more heightened fire would cause a shorter fall. Catapults and like siege are based on set physics, you have to take from one to give to the other.)
Yes, that’s the point. We should be able to be lob projectiles over keep walls from the courtyard and hit people just outside.
10) Added (I disagree with this one. Every time a sentry dies, moves, or flips….well, he served his purpose by telling us exactly where the enemy is , with or without swords. Also, these are soloable by single players, which is why A.Net added them in the first place as they had said so.)
If their purpose is to tell where the enemy is, then they need to do a better job. A flipped sentry isn’t much of an indication of anything. It could have been 1 solo player who’s now long gone or an entire zerg about to attack your Garrison. Also, if the enemy doesn’t want you to know they’re there, then they’ll just avoid killing him.
That’s true but your building a group around exploiting the culling bug, and on thieves OP burst damage in DD builds.
Not true. I’m suggesting a group built around exploiting stealth that doesn’t break from damage and can be activated repeatedly in combat.
It’s the stupidest implementation of stealth I’ve ever seen in an MMO.
Way too many flaws and unknowns to draw this conclusion. For one, the 400k number wasn’t total accounts, it was concurrent players online at the same time. Also, if WvW is full on all servers 24/7 but the average playtime for each WvW player is 2 hours, then that means there are 351,900 different people doing WvW (51 servers * 575 players * 12 shifts) in a day. Obviously all servers are not full 24/7 and we don’t know what the average play time of a WvW players is so there’s no real way to calculate it.
Realistically you just need an all Thief group with a heavy stealth build focus firing one player at a time. No other professions required. I wouldn’t be surprised if they could take out a group twice their size.
They should probably either limit the number of players it can effect just like every other offensive/defensive/utility skill in the game or they should remove the limit on other skills.
Not all skills have a player cap. Look at the skills that give people swiftness, for example. One person can supply swiftness to an infinite number of players.
Good point. It should be the same as well. Again, I lean towards all skills having the limit removed. Why did they limit it in the first place?
I’m in complete agreement with you. If 30 people are stupid enough to stand in one spot then one Elementalist should be able to wipe them out. Portal bombing would become suicide.
Most of my suggestions are based on the problem I have with towers/keeps being way too easy to take. There should be a lot more strategy involved (supply starvation, cutting off defenders, requiring more siege weapons than just rams + superior number of players, hitting the fortification from multiple sides simultaneously, etc).
- Limit AoE damage on battlements to siege weapons only giving the defenders at least some advantage (currently attackers have the advantage, which is backwards).
- Double boiling oil and cannon health.
- Adjust the LOS check so players don’t have to jump up on the ledge of a keep wall to hit attackers on the ground.
- Allow players to drop off the supply they are carrying at a tower/keep (to speed up upgrades and resupply).
- Allow Yaks to keep traveling if the supply depot at their destination is full. This should include moving through keeps to the other side. It is so frustrating when a tower near a supply depot needs Yaks, but they turn toward a keep (which is full of supply) and then go poof when they get there.
- Agreed on removing the downed state in WvW. It gives an unnecessary advantage to larger groups of players. Having superior numbers is already an advantage in itself, don’t make it that much harder by having to kill them 2 and 3 times over just to score a victory.
- Allow players to repair siege weapons when not in combat.
- Remove the expiration time on siege weapons. If need be implement a cap on number built within a structure to keep from having it become too fortified.
- Make the projectile arc for catapults adjustable so they can be fired over walls (both into and out of the courtyard).
- Remove road sentries. They serve no purpose.
- Buff Yak escorts so they actually stop solo players from killing the Yaks.
Which in turn makes the portal bomb a highly organized, tactical event. I don’t see the problem with requiring 10 Mesmers to portal bomb with 50 players.
I take it you also wouldn’t have a problem with putting a 5 person cap on swiftness buff skills as well?
They should probably either limit the number of players it can effect just like every other offensive/defensive/utility skill in the game or they should remove the limit on other skills.
Not all skills have a player cap. Look at the skills that give people swiftness, for example. One person can supply swiftness to an infinite number of players.
By the logic of some people in this thread anything that amplifies the culling issue should be nerfed. So it only stands to reason that at most 5 people in any given area should be able to have the swiftness buff because when 50+ enemy players come running at me with swiftness on I don’t see them until after I’m dead. Sound fair?
I typically use my portal in small scale fights (1v1, 1v2, 2v2, 2v3, etc). I’ll drop the first portal them move away from it a bit and drop the second. Then just pop back and forth between them to avoid being hit.
I also use it to escape when several enemies are chasing me.
To the OP, the perma stealth Thief is more of a client issue. Anet reduced the # of distance objects that show on user end as a ghetto way to improve game performance.
As an example, earlier today I ran to our catapult to help defend it cause from my client as I approached it appeared only “2” enemy near it. Soon as I reached the Catapult I did an instant death and was like WTF but as I lay there as a corpse trying to figure out how I went from 100-0 so quickly the server decided to show a mass zerg all around our cats, haha.
This is completely unrelated to the perma-stealth of certain Thief builds.
If they are CnD, they are hitting something to maintain it. Simply stack up and aoe your stack to kingdom come. Eventually all of the bunnies and other squishy NPC’s will be exhausted and it will have to come to you. Once you see damage from an aoe, stun / lock / squish.
This tactic doesn’t work because in most supply camps there are buildings and other obstacles the Thief can hide behind without being in stealth. So you have no choice but to have people roam around the circle looking for them.
Again, easy fix: shrink the circle.
I do know there are certain things that grant you points instantly because you can watch the score change between intervals. I believe the 15m point update is just for structures your server owns. I’m not sure what the instant points are for, but I assume it would be for doing events and whatnot.
There’s an easy solution to this without touching Thieves whatsoever: make the capping circle around supply camps about half the size. It’s ridiculously large as is.
wow this week is completely different from last, seems like all the pvp players are taking a break and have been replaced by pve players. I just stepped out of a BL and this was the conversation
“do thieves have an ability to make you skip the downed state?”
“you probably died too much”
“where is our main force?”
“we don’t have one”
“I can’t build siege is this map bugged?”
“you can’t build in the citadel grounds”
“Can I get a rez I’ve fallen off a cliff”
“where are you?”seriously, our main guilds aren’t showing up (taking a well deserved break probably) and now the maps are full of randoms. Lets hope we hang in there and not drop down to T2 just yet. But a good beating is what is required.
I truly felt sorry for the commanders online having to deal with these people, it was like herding cats.
That’s standard fare for being a T1 server. Welcome to the world of band wagoners. Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it.
There’s another recent thread on this issue:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Thieves-and-capping-points-again
I completely agree with everything you posted. I posted similar concerns in this thread.
I have similar issues with the current tower/keep design in WvW as others have stated. My biggest complaint is that defenders are at a disadvantage, which is opposite of how it should be. You can’t stand up on the walls long enough to do any defending without being annihilated by AoE overlap. Basically if you aren’t manning a siege weapon you’re of almost no use for defense unless you do hit and run tactics outside the keep.
In order to take a tower/keep you generally need very little siege weapons. Just 2 or 3 rams on the door and that’s about it (granted having catapults/trebs makes things easier and faster but it’s not required). However, to defend a keep takes a lot of siege weapons. Does anyone else find this backwards? IMO the only AoE that should be able to hit people on the walls is siege weapons. That way the defenders would be able to stand up there longer and actually contribute to defense, and the attackers would be required to build siege weapons to fend them off and overtake the tower/keep. That’s how it should work.
Speaking of siege weapons, it’s mind boggling to me why the boiling oil is even in the game. It’s not like you can stand there and control it due to the aforementioned AoE on the walls. Anet could remove it altogether and it would go unnoticed. If they fixed the boiling oil such that the person controlling it were protected and give it a lot more health, we wouldn’t have to build catapults inside the courtyard and fire them at our own gates (how much sense does that make anyway?).
Lastly, it makes no sense to me that when you do attack from the walls you can’t target anyone without jumping up on the outer ledge. Seriously? It’s bad enough we can’t stand up there very long, but to make us fully expose ourselves and even risk being pulled down off the wall? We’re supposed to have an LOS advantage on the walls, not a disadvantage. It should be easy for the defenders to target/attack the enemy and difficult for the attackers.
Towers and keeps change hands so fast in this game it has gotten silly. Often times people won’t even bother defending towers and just let them fall, then go back 10 minutes later when the enemy has left and re-take them.
Had the same thing happen to us last night. 30 of us trying to take one supply camp for at least 15 minutes with just 1 Thief defending. Most people got bored and left after 5 minutes. A few of us stuck it out and only capped it because the Thief had to occasionally move outside the circle to run behind a building when they were exposed giving us very slow progress toward the cap. We never did kill the thief.
There are 2 fixes for this issue: 1) no stealth capping, and 2) shrink the circle significantly (why is it so large anyway?).
I have to agree that this is the best MMO (in my opinion). It’s not perfect, but there is zero appeal to all other MMO’s now that I’ve played GW2. I just can’t stomach playing an MMO where the following are part of the game design:
1) A subscription fee
2) Punctuation marks over NPC’s heads (what is this, Sesame Street?)
3) Quests that you have to use your imagination to buy into (centaurs attacking the town my eye)
4) Raiding (/puke)
5) Kill stealing and resource stealing
6) Quest competition instead of cooperation
7) Gear-based PvP
8) Level disparity discouraging cooperative play in lower level areas
I’ll say it again… siege won’t make much difference vs. a well coordinated turtle group. Well at least a reasonable amount of siege won’t. For those of you who think turtles are easy to beat, just wait. You’ll see.
it is taking advantage of that design and using it in way that’s unscrupulous (my opinion). See: Cheap Tactics.
Fair enough, but “cheap tactics” is entirely subjective. I can decide that someone using stealth is “cheap tactics”, someone shooting at me from higher ground I can’t easily reach could be “cheap tactics”, or even being killed 3v1 instead of fighting me 1v1. Large-scale warfare like WvW, is about pressing every advantage you have to win, not about “fair” duels. That doesn’t mean condoning hacks or cheating, but using the downed state as it is intended is very much within the realm of a skill-based mechanic you should be using to get ahead.
Oh I completely agree with you that it’s subjective and thank you for recognizing it as such. Our opinions of it are obviously different and for all I know Anet approves of the tactic as well… so be it. I was just posting my feelings about it and leaving it to them to decide if it’s something they want to remain in the game or not. Personally I don’t care either way. It’s just frustrating to be denied the kill the way I was because of it. It’s not like the player I fought had any strategic significance to WvW. I’ll be more cognizant of this (cheap) tactic in the future when I fight enemy players.
Any counter you can come up with for a turtle can be equally countered by that turtle. Those of you saying it isn’t hard to beat a turtle haven’t encountered one that’s very coordinated. Used with the proper coordination of spells, a turtle can be unbeatable and it won’t be long before people start figuring it out.
It’s so frustrating to beat someone not once but twice only to be denied because of low health animals in the area. I’m not sure what can be done, if anything, but it’s a really cheap tactic.
This is the problem here. You didn’t beat them. In the context of GW2, you got outplayed (or at least stalemated, if they escaped), because GW2’s combat system is not strictly confined to the perceptions you’re bringing from other games. You’re ignoring an entire subset of combat mechanics and then proclaiming victory on the basis of “those mechanics are dumb anyways”.
It’d be like refusing to use siege, losing a fight, and asking for siege to be removed because you can win when siege isn’t around. It isn’t “a cheap tactic” it is how the game is intentionally designed.
Point taken on not “beating” him. He got away so in fact no one one. However, just because it is an intentional design doesn’t mean it isn’t cheap (the two aren’t mutually exclusive). If it wasn’t intentional it would be an exploit (which clearly it isn’t), but it is taking advantage of that design and using it in way that’s unscrupulous (my opinion). See: Cheap Tactics.
Had this happen to me just yesterday. Fighting a Warrior who was hitting nearby deer while attacking me. He goes down and hits one of the deer twice while down… rallies. I engage him again and he goes down again. He kills the other deer before I can finish him off and manages to escape.
It’s so frustrating to beat someone not once but twice only to be denied because of low health animals in the area. I’m not sure what can be done, if anything, but it’s a really cheap tactic.
I’m completely against the chore of grinding in any form. It turns the “game” into a job. If I do something repetitively (be it dynamic events, dungeons, sPvP, WvW, or whatever) it should be because I enjoy doing that content, not because I have to. With that being said, I’m ok with them adding another tier of gear as long as I can acquire it without being forced to grind something I don’t enjoy. So if this new gear is obtainable via crafting or WvW badges or straight buying it off the TP, then I’m ok with that (that’s no different than going from rare quality gear to exotic gear). However, if they are using this new gear to turn dungeons into grinds, then they have done a complete 180 from what they claimed GW2 would be. In fact, in Anet’s own words: “we don’t find grinding fun”.
The first time I saw a turtle my impression was “how could Anet have overlooked such a basic flaw in WvW”. There are ways to overcome the damage from siege weapons in a turtle, so saying “siege” is no solution.
Here’s a thought: why doesn’t the turtle tactic work in other WvW type PvP games?
And here I thought Anet claimed there would be limited duration stealth in GW2. Franky I don’t see any difference between the stealth duration in this game and any other MMO. In fact, stealth is actually more limited in other MMOs because it typically breaks on damage and you can’t cap (or in this case prevent a cap) while hidden.
they better raise those badge exchanged gears to ascended. otherwise there will be no queue after reset this friday.
Not to mention adding the craftable versions.
The chests will only give weapon skins, not better weapons. Hardly pay to win. And buying gems with gold is always an option so it’s not like you’re forced to pay out of pocket to get the keys.
nVidia GTX 460.
Not sure if this is a bug, exploit, or completely legit, but I just watched a group of enemy players kill the Redbriar tower lord by AoE bombing his room while they stood on the ground just below him outside the tower walls. They completely bypassed the defense of the tower walls/gate.
Is that legit?
I sympathize with the OP. My server had it rough the first 2 weeks and there was no incentive to even try near the end of each week because less and less people would show up. This week the tables have turned and so far we’re the dominant server in our bracket. The other two servers are starting to thin out already and we’re not even to the half way point in the week. So it’s no fun being on the winning side either. Perhaps they should break the week up into 2 or 3 separate matches, doing a reset each time.
1 2