I thought we weren’t allowed matchup threads anymore. Please advise?
Yea, there are the clear cut ones, but you know there will be players reported for taking 20 supply from a keep once, after the commander says to leave supplies, or similar situations. Most of the time, it’ll be black and white, you know the guy is screwing with the server, but not every case will be so easy, and that’d be a lot of work on the ban-team to sift through and determine whether each report is legitimate.
If they addressed even the most obvious 10%, it would be an improvement for people who don’t like that style of play.
Ah well, I suppose that if that’s how the game is built I should probably pick up some extra accounts and play in that perfectly-acceptable way. Doing otherwise would seem foolish.
With spying, I wonder if Anet decided it was ok because there’s not much they can do about it, like, at all. I mean, they could ban players, but it’s a pretty fuzzy line between intentionally trashing a servers golems for the sake of another server, or someone who just wants to drive a Cadillac around the BL’s for a bit.
It’s not hard to tell when you’re repping the same exact guild that’s attacking your server and pulling emergency waypoints for uncontested keeps just before your guildies appear.
Evidently that’s A-OK.
Likewise the unofficial wvw matchup forum is full of screenshots of people wasting supply for the lulz and bragging about it.
This isn’t a sandbox or a free-for-all arena. It’s a competitive league with matches and a scoring system. It needs to operate that way and if there is a widespread desire for a more open, player-based, non-score oriented game mode, be it free-for-all or Guild vs Guild or whatever then that needs to be separated off and developed appropriately. These aims and purposes are not compatible and cannot operate effectively in the same gamespace.
I disagree completely. WvW is a free-form sandbox gamemode. There are a great many mechanics that developers never intended which are used in different proportion among servers. Some servers have large population, some servers have talented spies with accounts on other servers, some servers have crass spies & meddlers that destroy supply and waste tactivator cooldowns, some servers have crafty and talented use of siege.
Yeah. Playing against your own team is against the tos, and even if it wasn’t, it would obviously be against the spirit of gw2.
This is the kind of person who defends spawn trebs.
I don’t have any accounts on any servers other than my own. I despise the spies that other servers use against us. ANet has said that spying & wasting resources is A-OK in the past. I disagree with that judgment absolutely, but they have decided they want it as part of their game.
Bugged and deliberately prevented by a buff are completely different.
I have no mechanism to remove that debuff other than the one exactly as intended of walking out of the area it affects.
Wait, so you can’t just stand where you intend to drop siege, and drop it? You have to move somewhere, to place the siege, in a place that previously, you couldn’t? And that’s perfectly legit….
Well, this debate won’t be getting anywhere lol.
Siege deployment is bugged in lots of places. Heck, I have a character who can’t drop any at all half the time.
However….. I do agree that something needs to be done to help a server that’s getting pushed that far back.
There’s already a mechanic in the game for this. It’s called Tier 2.
And here we get to the real motive and reason for this series of threads and hyper-emphasis.
I’ve read the counter arguments and if I try to tl:dr them: You’re outnumbered therefore you should be allowed to exploit. Right
Wrong.
The fact that the spawn siege can’t be dropped without jumping through some hoops should be enough for you to realize it’s an exploit.
Hoops? No. It requires jumping to the area where the Determined buff does not apply and deploying siege as permitted by the game.
However….. I do agree that something needs to be done to help a server that’s getting pushed that far back. That’s what Siegerazer was suppose to be, but he wasn’t particularly effective.
None of ANet’s various attempts to help servers that are pushed into spawn have been effective at all. Every one has failed and become merely a tool used to expand the advantage of the dominating server.
This feature which you call an exploit has been their only success on that front ever.
This isn’t an anti-YB thing, I don’t know why people from YB always think everything is about them.
Everything? No. This thing? Yes, see: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Spawn-Treb/first#content
As far as BG goes, if we run into spawn siege, we’ll counter siege, because that’s the only option, that, or leave the tower so the enemy can recap without resistance.
It seems BG will also whisper and mail developers and participate in this shameful PvF.
Is that what those who are defending spawn trebs want? To cap towers without resistance?
No, had you read the replies in favor of keeping them, you would understand.
Or to fight siege vs siege? Isn’t the whole siege v siege why the term “siege-humper” exists?
A badge I’ll wear with pride.
I agree, the rewards for the [Outnumbered] buff are insufficient for any purpose. The only reason to participate and play from behind is if you’re bloody-minded stubborn and don’t mind getting kicked around a lot.
If you’re motivated by spite, it helps. Occasionally you can put your thumb in the eye of the dominating server, and that’s very very enjoyable.
Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.
Interesting response, because it sounds like you’re taking forum feedback as it is and seem to make no distinction between valid and invalid concerns like someone who has no experience of the game mode. Do you play Guild Wars 2 or WvW yourself? In your own words what do you like about it and what you don’t like about it?
You do know people have also reported this through in game functions right?
I assume you, your guild, and your servermates, and have lobbied for this rule change through every avenue available to you.
I have, I even mailed a dev about it unfortunately didn’t get a response back. This is not about a rule change, its about fixing an exploit kthx.
You’re free to describe it as you wish, and so am I.
This is lobbying, very loudly, to change how the game mode works because your matchup has not tilted quite far enough in your favor.
Alpine has 0 effective designed-in catchup mechanisms right now and remains incredibly friendly to snowball outcomes. The server with even moderate population advantage can easily leverage that into a runaway score. Spawn camping and control of enemy garrison is a major morale victory.
Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.
Interesting response, because it sounds like you’re taking forum feedback as it is and seem to make no distinction between valid and invalid concerns like someone who has no experience of the game mode. Do you play Guild Wars 2 or WvW yourself? In your own words what do you like about it and what you don’t like about it?
You do know people have also reported this through in game functions right?
I assume you, your guild, and your servermates, and have lobbied for this rule change through every avenue available to you.
Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.
Interesting response, because it sounds like you’re taking forum feedback as it is and seem to make no distinction between valid and invalid concerns like someone who has no experience of the game mode. Do you play Guild Wars 2 or WvW yourself? In your own words what do you like about it and what you don’t like about it?
From what I’ve seen, it’s a big concern to players from two servers who have coordinated to make a ton of noise about it. Also both servers that are handily winning their matchups and have cooperated in the past to rig T1 matchups so that it can be their exclusive playground.
Was I really only a Silver Major on Tuesday? I guess ranks fly by when you’re having fun.
That treb is counterable, in fact your server has destroyed it during this matchup. Build some siege.
With this logic i can also say to build ballistas to counter flyhackers. These trebs are being build in no siege deployment locations thus an exploit but go on defending this stuff gogo
That is a bad analogy. Placing siege where the game engine allows is legitimate play.
Every player should place every piece of siege in the game in its most advantageous position. That means on the furthest-back corner of parapets, on top of tower domes, at the edges of citadel, on the bridge east of north camp, on 3rd floor of stonemist, etc…
There are no hacks, no third party programs, no radical advantage from this placement.
If and when the developers alter the game against this creative placement, I will find the next-best location and continue to use tactics that grant the best leverage possible.
A tactic that allows one player to defend against 20 will always be unpopular with those 20 that it frustrated, but WvW should not be decide merely on population.
The tower is not hard to assault, though it requires more creativity than literally walking up to its front door.
This isn’t a sandbox or a free-for-all arena. It’s a competitive league with matches and a scoring system. It needs to operate that way and if there is a widespread desire for a more open, player-based, non-score oriented game mode, be it free-for-all or Guild vs Guild or whatever then that needs to be separated off and developed appropriately. These aims and purposes are not compatible and cannot operate effectively in the same gamespace.
I disagree completely. WvW is a free-form sandbox gamemode. There are a great many mechanics that developers never intended which are used in different proportion among servers. Some servers have large population, some servers have talented spies with accounts on other servers, some servers have crass spies & meddlers that destroy supply and waste tactivator cooldowns, some servers have crafty and talented use of siege.
A WvW match lasts 168 hours. That’s not a reasonable length of time for any person to play in one sitting (except DK o7), so community and morale are fundamental to the game as well. So are rivalries and disdain and spite.
Then my advice is to make these trebs permanent and indestructible features of every citadel. They’re a positive feature, every server should have them.
An opponent insufficiently creative to avoid easy-to-predict fields of fire doesn’t deserve to capture deep into enemy territory.
To others:
There is no spawn camping here. The entrance to NW tower is right next to where you jump down from spawn. You have to walk passed it on the way to garrison, it isn’t spawn camping. Additionally, on the NW tower, the trebs fire over your head if you’re in that area, so again, it doesn’t really help with that. And for NE tower the spawn decent is farther north.
Lastly, you can use other siege to defend this siege. Without being able to engage the user of said siege, it becomes impossible to kill these. Glad it’s being handled at some point, appreciate all the responses and support.
The siege is all fully counterable. And please don’t tell me that BG hadn’t pushed YB back to spawn when we built them, and don’t tell me we weren’t substantially outnumbered at the time. These trebs are only useful when you’re being spawn camped or at risk of that.
They’re useful to somewhat slow enemy incursions into your northern towers and to break walls on an enemy occupied garrison or enemy occupied northern towers.
I promise that when this is removed, imbalanced matchups will become an even greater problem. This is a recipe for even worse snowballing.
And when dbl comes back whats going to be your excuse then? Its really sad anyone would defend the use of exploits because they believe they are entitled to use it.
Pardon? Dbl had a catchup mechanism in the form of instant waypoints for spawn-proximate keeps and has better defense capability in the form of shrine buffs. We’re talking about Alpine borderland.
And I disagree with your assessment that this is an exploit. Please do not try to put words into my mouth.
To others:
There is no spawn camping here. The entrance to NW tower is right next to where you jump down from spawn. You have to walk passed it on the way to garrison, it isn’t spawn camping. Additionally, on the NW tower, the trebs fire over your head if you’re in that area, so again, it doesn’t really help with that. And for NE tower the spawn decent is farther north.
Lastly, you can use other siege to defend this siege. Without being able to engage the user of said siege, it becomes impossible to kill these. Glad it’s being handled at some point, appreciate all the responses and support.
The siege is all fully counterable. And please don’t tell me that BG hadn’t pushed YB back to spawn when we built them, and don’t tell me we weren’t substantially outnumbered at the time. These trebs are only useful when you’re being spawn camped or at risk of that.
They’re useful to somewhat slow enemy incursions into your northern towers and to break walls on an enemy occupied garrison or enemy occupied northern towers.
I promise that when this is removed, imbalanced matchups will become an even greater problem. This is a recipe for even worse snowballing.
In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:
- Is the counter viable?
- Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?
I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.
So… thoughts?
o_O
Gaile, you trying to trick me into posting a video of the counter, which many players consider an exploit, yet supposedly isn’t an exploit since it is the only reasonable counter to spawn siege? Or are you referring to the counter-siege for the spawn siege that isn’t always reasonable (for example, the spawn trebs for northeast tower cannot be countered with siege placed outside the spawn.) The only reasonable counter currently for spawn siege is to jump into citadel and stealth past any legendary defenders.
There are many locations where you can attack NE tower without drawing fire from a citadel treb. Catapults in the tunnel, a treb in NE camp, a treb in Garrison, a cata between garrison and NE tower, or a cata from the cliff below the back of NE tower.
And from inside NE tower, you can countertreb to remove the offending citadel treb easily (even moreso with shield generators).
There is no need to make an excursion into citadel to capture the tower or to destroy the offending trebs. People who do that do it to make a statement.
There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:
- Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "
- We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.
- This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.
- For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.
- It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.
Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.
I strongly disagree with this decision. The counters are viable and, speaking as somebody who has played on both sides of this siege placement, this makes the game worse.
When one server has pushed another back to its spawn, there ought to be any reason to continue playing and logging into WvW.
The notion that vastly outmanned servers should filter out 1 by 1 to fight 1v20 is absurd.
Exploits are not, and should never be a viable counter. Whats to stop people with an equal sized force or more people on the map from using this? I will answer that for you, nothing.
The thing that stops them is that this, literally, only ever affects servers pushed back to their citadel, which is where your server had mine on Tuesday.
When I’ve been on the receiving end of citadel trebs, that’s the situation we were in. We owned the entirety of the underdog server’s territory and had waypointed their garrison. If they hadn’t been able to breach the outer walls, we’d have easily fended them off for an indefinite time.
If this change goes through, I promise that T1 will stagnate as long as it persists. The self-selected servers that feel they own T1 will spawn camp any upstart absolutely and they will not see the inside of their garrison all week starting 1 hour after reset.
This is a big balance change.
(edited by Heimlich.3065)
There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:
- Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "
- We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.
- This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.
- For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.
- It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.
Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.
I strongly disagree with this decision. The counters are viable and, speaking as somebody who has played on both sides of this siege placement, this makes the game worse.
When one server has pushed another back to its spawn, there ought to be any reason to continue playing and logging into WvW.
The notion that vastly outmanned servers should filter out 1 by 1 to fight 1v20 is absurd.
Was I really only a Silver Major on Tuesday? I guess ranks fly by when you’re having fun.
That treb is counterable, in fact your server has destroyed it during this matchup. Build some siege.
That’s all getting a little personal, isn’kitten I don’t think it is an exploit. I am allowed to hold my own opinion.
All of your accusations against me fall apart because this is not an exploit.
And FYI, it’s extremely entertaining to drain supply out of your guild in particular from citadel trebs. They never seem to move out of the way.
It’s not an exploit, end of story, nor is it difficult to see who is doing the complaining here nor who it’s directed towards.
Build an arrow cart, treb, or ballista to destroy the offending siege. It isn’t an exploit, the siege is vulnerable to destruction, just like all siege is.
It’s no more an exploit than building trebs on the upper floors of Stonemist or building trebs inside towers to hit keeps (and vice-versa).
My argument is precisely that it’s not an exploit. How on earth could I be arguing that “[I] get an exploit if” when I don’t agree with the premise?
This is players from large population blobby servers arguing to change mechanics they they don’t like in order to adjust balance. It’s obvious why “most” disagree when it’s popular with blobfolk.
This is not an exploit, is counterable, and is not broken. It’s the ultimate l2p issue.
Massive blob servers have enough advantages already.
1. Use a feedback cycle shorter than 5 months. It was the 14th of October when ANet told us that you were moving WvW reset to Saturday. Despite overwhelmingly negative feedback, you persisted. Now you’re apparently gathering feedback on fixing that mistake. That’s not good enough.
2. Communicate, discuss (with us), iterate, implement, get feedback. I don’t expect every change to be one that <i>I</i> agree with. But it would be nice to see that WvW changes are things that <i>some</i> WvW players agree with.
3. Let WvW players reasonably access all stat sets of gear, in Ascended quality + all runes and all sigils, from playing WvW.
Friday, of course, as almost everybody said exactly 5 months ago.
Thanks, this is a step in the right direction both in communicating to WvW players and in acknowledging our communications.
Aren’t those auras supposed to double? Is the doubling just not listed in the tooltip?
At the top of the screen, he has 25 supply, so that doubling seems to have worked. That makes that buff especially strong.
But a significant amount of the materials can be obtained through means which are both highly time-efficient and also highly time-gated. I.e., flax farm, ley-line infused tools, elder wood farm, mystic coins, etc. Sviel’s point is that if you use the most time-efficient means of obtaining the materials, even if it means your daily rate of acquiring them is highly gated, then the total time spent acquiring them is fairly reasonable.
That’s the same as saying that there are some activities in the game that are time-gated and make above-average money.
That is true and relevant and doesn’t contradict anything I’ve ever said about guild hall upgrades.
I also have friends and guildies who stress themselves unnecessarily about the cost and timing and effort of GH upgrades. I see the cost as something that detracts from the game. I hope that the improved money rewards from fractals helps them manage that stress better (WvW activities are still a terrible way to fund WvW guild upgrades).
If you find the 7000g cost of upgrading to a +5 supply claim reasonable, then I disagree, but it’s OK for you and I to have different opinions on that.
(edited by Heimlich.3065)
In fact, by farming the materials directly, the hall is very obtainable.
This is the opposite of true.
If the value of the materials is 7000g, and gathering lets you get 10g of materials per hour, then it will take 700 hours of playtime to equip your guild hall.
If the value of materials is 7000g and doing Fractals gets you 20g of cash per hour, then it will take 350 hours of playtime to equip your guild hall.
The only relevant numbers are the value of the materials and the income rate of whatever activity you perform to get those materials.
I’m sorry you think otherwise, but I can’t think of a plainer way to explain that.
That’s the point. The gold value measures the opportunity cost of making the guild hall. It does not accurately measure the time/effort necessary.
They are the same thing. Actually, a closer analysis would show that opportunity cost underestimates the actual cost, but that’s not something I want to get into right now.
So, yes, you’re right, congratulations. Unfortunately, that technicality has zero real-world application. It doesn’t make the gold value any better of an indicator of the necessary effort.
It’s an incredibly good measure of the opportunity cost of those donations to your guild. I.e. If I donate 100g worth of materials, then I could have chosen to sell them instead and spend 100g (actually 85g after TP fees) on my characters.
That is very relevant. Guild Hall upgrades are a big sink of player time and effort and wealth.
My past calculations (which are theorycraft) on this would put the likely cost of OP’s Guild Hall upgrades at about 7000g. That is a lot of GW2 money and/or player time spent to replace a 200 influence (40 silver) consumable.
If Linseed Oil costs about a gold to buy and we value 5 Oils at 5g, it is a bit misleading since the time it takes to make 5 Oils (about 10 minutes daily with 4 characters) is far less than the time it takes to make 5 gold.
What if I told you that the times are exactly the same (minus 15%) by definition.
1. Gather flax for 10 minutes.
2. Make Linseed Oil
3. Sell the Linseed Oil on the Trading Post
4. Collect your money
Thanks you, Downwood. I’d like to compare your actual set of upgrades to some that I’ve theorycrafted. Several planning spreadsheets can track the monetary value of the inputs for each upgrade (at current prices).
If you were right, prices would only change due to difficulty of getting a material changing. You’re completely ignoring even the basic principle of supply and demand.
No. That’s not at all what I said.
Tavern Restoration 1 requires 10 Empty Kegs, they require 30 (10 × 3) Vial of Linseed Oil, that requries 600 (30 × 20) Piles of Flax Seeds.
Pile of Flax Seeds, right now, are worth 3 silver on the trading post.
So 600 Piles of Flax Seeds are worth 18 gold. They are worth 18 gold whether I bought them or gathered them. The 600 Piles of Flax Seeds have the same value either way.
Donating them to the guild is exactly the same as donating 18 gold to the guild, regardless of whether you gathered them or purchased them.
If a guild has 8 characters (which could be 2 players or less) gathering daily, they get 10 Linseed Oil a day.
They then have the choice of either selling that on the Trading Post and profiting from it or of donating it to the guild.
However you get material, if it is tradable and you donate it to your guild, you’re donating something with cash value. The value doesn’t change simply by changing its form.
(edited by Heimlich.3065)
Materials have the same value whether gathered/crafted or purchased from the trading post.
The buy order price for Vial of Linseed Oil typically closely tracks the cost of crafting it from Flax Seeds bought at buy order (low) prices.
Yes, but the time it takes to gather Flax Seeds to make the oil is much lower than the time it takes to get the gold to buy the seeds/oil for the average player. Thus, even if the market value is very high due to demand, someone who farms wisely may spend less time/gold acquiring the item.
The time is exactly the same (ignoring trading post taxes) or the time to get money another way and buy them is less.
If flax gathering is the most profitable activity in the game (it isn’t), then the fastest way to raise money would be to gather flax and then sell it.
The market value of the upgrades isn’t a good indicator. If a guild buys literally everything then they’re going to make it much, much more expensive than it ever reasonably should be. For example, buying Linseed Oil will drive prices way up but is never really necessary with the Aetherium gating.
Materials have the same value whether gathered/crafted or purchased from the trading post.
The buy order price for Vial of Linseed Oil typically closely tracks the cost of crafting it from Flax Seeds bought at buy order (low) prices.
Congrats. Do you know what the set of upgrades your guild got is? Any chance you’ve tracked the market value of upgrades necessary for this?
Good and engaging gameplay is its own reward and is fundamental to making any reward work.
- Superior Siege, once the glut of spirit crystals dries up, will become comparatively sparse. It will be a much bigger investment to drop 5 superior catas on a wall, especially since they usually can’t hit both inner/outer on keeps now. It will either be replaced by guild siege or switched out for normal catas.
You can now buy superior siege with Proofs of Heroics + Badges. There will not be a shortage of superior siege blueprints.
- Guild upgrades will eventually become prominent and people will be heavily incentivized to defend said upgraded structures. Towers will run Sentry Balloons just about always and keeps will run Hardened Siege/Walls.
-Northern camps will run Speedy Yaks to boost PPT while southern camps will run Iron Guards so that they don’t flip to solo roamers. Southern camps will also run Sabotage Depot as it is comparatively cheap and effectively denies attackers any supply to work with.
These both heavily depend on the cost of crafting a schematics. We already know that low-tier schematics cost 2-5g to craft and Dune Rollers take 100 seaweed (about 15 gold).
Do you really think that 75 Flax Fibers (for one deployment of Sabotage Depot) is cheap? There’s never a time when I’d spend 3.75g (today’s material cost) to deny 100 supply.
-Fights will refocus on taking camps while harassing keeps. Taking a keep will generally happen after prolonged harassment instead of as a rush.
Maybe
-Small guilds will be relied upon to hold claims so that larger guilds can slot upgrades into a structure.
Maybe, but only to the degree that small guilds feel any incentive to progress the expensive and pointless tech tree of Guild Hall upgrades.
-Supply traps will become ever more important as supply itself gains importance. In the absence of guild catas and with a greater necessity to build siege to destroy defensive siege, zergs will need to actually pay attention to their supply count. Meanwhile, with so many small paths, it is easier to lay a trap where you know enemies will run.
Supply management has become less important since HoT, though also a bigger hassle.
Automatically-upgrading objectives (even without yaks!) removed a big part of the supply equation, while also increasing the demand for supply to build siege to breach those objectives.
Supply manipulation is now harder and more expensive than ever, but it basically simplifies to “bring lots of people” and “don’t bring a few people”.
-Small groups will become indispensable for taking camps and harassing keeps. I imagine 3-5 people. This will be driven by a desire to reset claim timers on camps for attackers and a desire to preserve claims/supply lines for defenders.
In order for these things to happen, we’ll need to see the price of higher tier guild upgrades drop. I don’t know if this will happen naturally or if ANET will be forced to intervene. We’d also have to see a bit of player adjustment, but this is happening…slowly.
tl;dr WvW will become a game of supply. The total amount of available supply will eclipse the total number of players in determining siege success. Camps will generate more fights than walls, many of them small scale.
This is actually the past of WvW. It is not the present, it will not be the future without large changes on ANet’s part.
The fact that Anet is posting straight to Reddit instead of their official forums at all is baffling. Reddit is where users should be reposting Red posts from the official forums, not the other way around.
Then perhaps we should be more active with the gw2 reddit community instead. Healthier and more productive two way discussions are needed so…
Many people have tried that as well. There have been many reasonable WvW posts on the Guild Wars 2 subreddit as well, that brought up the same issues as here, with 0 ANet employee replies.
Thursday or midday Friday would be better for Oceanic folks.
If the devs at anet really wants to fix wvw, …
I’d settle for making WvW as bad as it was pre-HoT.
The two or three genuine improvements don’t compare to the many, many things that they made worse.
Which specific trophy do you need?
You may want to switch to grinding out max HoT masteries (all of them) and full stacks of Airship Oil, Auric Dust, and Ley Line Sparks while you wait for a patch that resets the event chain or for a chance to do the event that you require.
I used to turn up for Friday night resets very regularly. It was a great occasion to clash, rush out some upgrades, and build defensive siege.
Even when our match was hopeless for the week, we could defend our north camp, north towers, and Garrison. Yak-walking helped us get walls and gates on Garrison (or sometimes cannons first for a WP rush) and upgrading north towers was crucial to the week.
Small group raids into southern camps, or yak-sassination missions let us stall out upgrades in enemy-held objectives.
We would log on for a bit in the afternoon and get everybody a +5 supply buff (for a total of 20 supply on my characters) and wait in TS for the match to reset and spam to all join the map we had agreed on. We’d get Hero Banners, food, and siege in inventory and play until 2 or 3 AM. Saturday. After a bit of sleep, I’d get up, check scores on my phone and log in a bit with my morning coffee to push our PPT (fixing up the home borderland or denying some camps to the enemy).
Since HoT, I haven’t touched WvW on Fridays unless it’s to complete an easy daily like Big Spender. The unavailability of a +5 supply buff and overall lower participation has removed the need for any prep-work.
Keeps, camps, and towers upgrade themselves, so there’s no need for me to check up on friendly objectives and no point to resetting upgrades on enemy objectives.
I think my guild technically has a reset-night WvW event on Saturday, but I’ve mostly been catching up on housework and Netflix instead.
(edited by Heimlich.3065)
What Arenanet does need to know is that you and others have invested time and other resources to build whatever you have right now, and those efforts should not be in vain.
They didn’t care about our efforts with the guildhalls.
So in all respekt it IS time to panik and to yell what we DON’T want. Or maybe we should all tell them how much we are hyped for an allincesystem and how much we would LOVE it, since it looks (at least to me) like Anet does exactly the opposite of what ppl asking for.
Sorry that i can’t find friendlier words, but i’m verry frustrated and now, nearly 2 months after HoT release WvW is even in a worse shape than at the HoT release.
I’m out of patience and faith!It’s certainly within your right, but I don’t think you understand the point of my post. It’s fine to be angry about what is happening, but panicking over rumors is another story— that’s simply just imploding.
Unfortunately, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate the recent trend of tone-deaf WvW changes out to include even worse changes in the future and as WvW players we haven’t gotten very much communication from Arena Net and even fewer replies that indicate they are listening.
As a concrete example, moving reset from Friday evening to Saturday evening has been a total disaster for WvW participation. When they announced that change, the WvW community response was nearly unanimous in its opposition. Yet here we are, 6 weeks later, with no follow-up or prospect of a change.
I respect your contributions and participation and I understand your post and your point, but WvW players are very frustrated right now and I don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel.
If and when ArenaNet announces the outlines or details of their WvW rework — all they’ve said so far is that they’ve put a year of effort into it — I don’t think they will listen to player feedback on it.
Recent changes to WvW make it look as though they didn’t solicit the input of players like myself or like any of the WvW regulars I know.