Guild Wars 2

You realise that your suggestions won’t help new players at all? If a buff is accessible to everyone, then it helps the veterans just as much as the newbies. Infact, it helps the veterans more, as they know better how to take advantage of it. So, instead, newbies are actually disadvantaged by your suggestion.

I’m all for ways to make it easier for beginners to get involved in WvW, but these suggestions are just horrible.

Instant rally on 180 second cooldown? Who do you think that benefits more, the newbie who gets downed every 10 seconds, or the veteran who goes down once every 5 minutes?

It depends a great deal on how you’re traited. If you have 30 points in both the toughness and vitality trees, then you can get away with full zerker in wvw if you’re careful. I still wouldn’t recommend it, particularly if you wanna be involved in the big fights, but it’s do-able.

The standard advice for newcomers to WvW is to start with full Soldiers gear, then slowly add in zerker pieces one at a time until you find you’re having trouble surviving.

I’m glad we have our priorities in order.

¬¬

Wtf is this QQ?

We’re 3 days in to the season, and I’m already over 50% on all the achievements besides the mercenaries. And I haven’t even been trying to get them, just playing normally.

These achievements are way too easy for 7 weeks. If they’re supposed to test whether someone is “contributing” to WvW, then they’re a failure.

That said, the sooner the achievement rats are out, the better, so yes, please continue begging for them to be easier.

Its now easier to make sure you get boons to everyone, not harder. With the old system, the frontline warriors/guardians would hog all the swiftness and stability to themselves, as they are usually packed together. Now you can easily make sure the backline get some of that as well by mixing parties a bit.

Do you even understand what the update has done?

Telephone.

Television.

Telegraph pole.

Only one can be correct right? I mean, a television is nothing like a telegraph pole.

The problem you’re having is attaching the definition of “metagame” to the prefix “meta”. Try looking at it the other way round and you’ll find that both uses of “meta” are perfectly sensible and consistent with the definition of the prefix.

They finally make a change to give skilled, organised players a tool to use against blobs of mindless spammers, and people still complain ^^

Best change since culling.

Flesh worm allows a 1200 range teleport.

Between melandru runes, dogged march, -% condition food, traited stability and invulnerability, shield block, the ability to sword/GS leap into range before you even know I’m there, and a choice on utility bar of 2 more stabilities, another invulnerability, and immunity to condition (any 3 of those 4 are fine), there’s no way in hell you’re stopping me bannering a lord if I really want to.

That’s not even considering that there’s 50+ other people around me either doing the same thing, or providing a distraction. Or that a thief might stealth me before I enter.

Arguments along the line of “just kill the warriors”, or “use CC” or “boon-strip lol!” are stupid. Sure those things might work if the warrior is alone, and you see them early enough. But in the middle of a blob-fight, and where warriors can appear out of nowhere already at the lord, these arguments are nonsense.

The only valid point of discussion is whether having a Lord repeatedly ressed is a legitimate tactic to aid defence against dirty golem rushers, or abuse of mechanic to act as a fail-safe for bad defensive play.

Not even in this league, but will be watching closely with interest.

Snowballing and PvE-bandwaggoners are gonna be so important in this league. All servers in silver league suffer hugely from the problem of massive queues and population when winning, and empty maps when losing.

I would expect Abaddons to win on paper, but if any of the other servers can take an early lead and whip up the enthusiasm of their pugs, it could go to nearly any of the servers.

If your complaint is that groups of 5+ heavies are beating your 2-man team, then the problem isn’t really with the classes.

Necros weak?

It might feel that way when you’re playing one. That’s because necros are the most feared class and are always targeted first, whether its 2v2 or 50v50. If you leave a necro to free-cast while you engage the rest of a group, you’re just begging to be killed.

I’d agree warriors are pretty strong right now, but necros are by no means weak.

Merciless hammer isn’t important at all.

What is important, though, is some movement/leaps. I’d recommend swapping the longbow out either for a GS or for a sword/warhorn or sword/shield. Or if you’re really attached to your longbow, swap out the hammer. Otherwise your Mobile Strikes trait is completely wasted.

Traveller’s runes are kinda “meh” on a warrior. They’re alright, but they don’t really add anything to your build, since warrior has plenty of easy access to swiftness and mobility. I’d recommend either swap them for Melandru, or for Soldiers and take another shout on your utility bar.

90% of experienced guild/zerg warriors run healing shouts with hammer and sword/warhorn (warhorn traited to remove conditions). It’s not the only viable build so you don’t have to follow the trend, but it is definitely proven to be tough, reliable and useful.

People get bored of being zerged down 50v20.

Or they get bored of being accused of being skill-less zergers.

GvG is just WvW, but with the numbers imbalance removed. Asking why people like GvG is exactly the same as asking why people like WvW.

The fact that GvG doesn’t involve seige or towers or complex terrain is purely down to the fact that ANet doesn’t support the game-mode and we’re forced to go somewhere out of the way (windmill).

I’ll say it again: GvG is just WvW, but without the numbers imbalance.

In terms of pure speed for out-running a zerg, Thief and Warrior are way ahead of any other class.

However, they aren’t best for 1vX and flipping camps quickly.

I’d recommend Engineer or Elementalist, they both have decent mobility/escape options, and are far more capable in 1vX situations. However, they do have a slightly higher skill threshold, that puts some people off.

Mesmer and Guardian are both fantastic in 1vX, but they don’t have the mobility to escape a bad situation.

Aberrant.6749:

If he doesn’t understand the difference by now he’s not going to…

He’s a known troll, and obviously trolling.

But it’s still fun to watch him flail around :P

lordkrall.7241:

Ragnar.4257:

And GvG is “just happening” too.

The kills are not the intent or purpose, the are a by-product of the fights. Just as in WvW, the kills are not the intent or purpose, they are a by-product of the fights.

Good try though.

No it isn’t.
It is planned fights.

If the kills are not the intent or purpose, why kill?
Why not just leave downed enemies?

As I edited in just now:

If kills in GvG didn’t count towards kill-counts and totals, nobody would care. They would still do it anyway. Thus the exchange or gain of kills is not the intent or purpose of it. Your point is moot.

lordkrall.7241:

Ragnar.4257:

If you’re going to get that picky, then you can say that the whole of WvW is kill-trading.

“Our server will fight and kill your server for control of keeps/towers”

OMG kill trading!

No, since that is just happening.
If you on the other hand decided to trade a keep/tower back and forwards, there would indeed be an issue.

And GvG is “just happening” too.

The kills are not the intent or purpose, the are a by-product of the fights. Just as in WvW, the kills are not the intent or purpose, they are a by-product of the fights.

If kills in GvG didn’t count towards kill-counts and totals, nobody would care. They would still do it anyway. Thus the exchange or gain of kills is not the intent or purpose of it. Your point is moot.

Good try though.

lordkrall.7241:

Aberrant.6749:

No… if nothing is being sold, it’s not selling. No agreement was made to give X kills to either side. Nothing is being traded.

And yet it is more or less: “We meet you guys here at that time, with no outside interference, and then we fight until one side is dead!”.
How is that not organizing kill-trading?

If you’re going to get that picky, then you can say that the whole of WvW is kill-trading.

“Our server will fight and kill your server for control of keeps/towers”

OMG kill trading!

If GvG guilds wanted to raise their kill counts in the fastest way possible, they’d go and do what they do every other night of the week: rofl-stomp zergs.

KINGMAISON.7598:

The WvW players who disagree with GvG are correct when they say you are taking up que spots, regardless if you’re just taking them up on an empty map.

What??

I….. what?

Its not related to map, as guild mates on different maps also crashed at the same time, and nobody from outside the guild on the map is affected.

Its not related to an external program (like teamspeak) as we had a team-mate on teamspeak not representing the guild, and they don’t crash at.

It’s not a one-off, as it happened several times last night, and is happening today was well.

When we represent a different guild, it doesn’t happen at all.

Definitely related to our particular guild tag.

DevonCarver.5370:

Yaro.3251:

The idea of outmanned buff ikitteno give enough incentive for more people to join the war on the losing side. Not to make those who are already on the map kittenronger – that would be unfair.

Whether these incentives work as well akittenhey thought to be by developers – I don’t know. Only thing I know is buffing any side of the fence combat-wise, be it losing or winning one, is unfair. Orbs kinda blow in this regard.

Even more specifically, the original intent wakitteno make it so that players had some little bookitten to playing even though you might be getting beaten. The main reason to not make it overly beneficial ikittenhat it creates a disincentive to have a full map of players at that point, which is where the balance comes in.

Bloodlust creates a disincentive to play when you don’t have a full map of players. Trying to fight a losing battle against a full server who gets points-for-stomps is actually more harmful to your team than not playing at all.

It’s amazing that you can’t see how bloodlust is just a mirror-image of outmanned. How you can even talk about outmanned creating “balance issues” and “disincentives” after implementing bloodlust…. I just….. can’t even….

Why would you think you should be able to take a keep with 10 people before the enemy can react? Objectives already flip way too often. Musical Keeps ftl.

Vol.5241:

They have done a great job at releasing WvW content and QOL changes considering the size of the playerbase and the dev team. They had an overhaul of the WvW interface, the ranks and rewards, new siege mechanics and skills.

wut?

Adding a few extra tabs to the scoreboard is something an intern knocks up in an afternoon while bored. It can’t even be classed as content, and describing it as an “overhaul” is PR bullkitten.

The new BL-maps do look excellent, and I can appreciate why they take a while to create. But aside from the removal of culling, it will be the only extensive update so far.

Vol.5241:

You are asking for an entirely different game mode, probably an entire different map for you folks. And then you’d have to design an entire different interface, probably with leaderboards and such. You know how much of an undertaking that is?

Given the rate that PvE content gets produced, I would say that infact it would only take about 2 months for them to set GvG up, if they really wanted it to happen.

But they don’t. They want WvW to be a casual zerg-fest, and all the hardcore and semi-hardcore players to go prop up sPvP.

I’m glad I took the time to make this thread.

Should’ve named it “OMGWTF Theives”.

SpehssMehreen.5897:

Ragnar.4257:

SpehssMehreen.5897:

aspirine.6852:

Kimhyuna.1035:

lordkrall.7241:

WvW is supposed to be WvW, not GvG, this have been stated by ArenaNet several times, and thus GvG in WvW won’t be supported.

Its not like your borderlands are qued 24/7. Most GvG occur when there is downtime during the week, normally when there is NO que. I dont get the moaning against GvG, most of those guilds are the hardcore guilds that, I dunno, carry the server?

That’s a problem on it’s own, people wanting to play but cannot because of a que. That is unacceptable in my eyes and should be fixed asap.

people still gvg in the maps? I thought the eb jp was more accessible now, why still in the maps?

In what sense is it more accessible?

because it doesnt add to the quees of Ebg as well as having the wps and portals that allow you to go in and out

You still have to queue for EBG to get into the JP. Nothing has changed, it isn’t any more accessible. Do you even WvW?

SpehssMehreen.5897:

aspirine.6852:

Kimhyuna.1035:

lordkrall.7241:

WvW is supposed to be WvW, not GvG, this have been stated by ArenaNet several times, and thus GvG in WvW won’t be supported.

Its not like your borderlands are qued 24/7. Most GvG occur when there is downtime during the week, normally when there is NO que. I dont get the moaning against GvG, most of those guilds are the hardcore guilds that, I dunno, carry the server?

That’s a problem on it’s own, people wanting to play but cannot because of a que. That is unacceptable in my eyes and should be fixed asap.

people still gvg in the maps? I thought the eb jp was more accessible now, why still in the maps?

In what sense is it more accessible?

Ross Biddle.2367:

I don’t give a kitten about Red Guard, nor do I see why their opinions matter any more than even the least of any servers militia men, or a dev actually working on the game.

So they made a youtube marking their take of WvW progression. So what.

Maybe because they understand pvp game-mechanics quite alot better than your average militia?

But on topic: lol of course there won’t be a response. Apart from anything else, what could they possibly say at this stage that any of us would believe?

Reserved (Editing)

Now for my personal view, which is that of bleepin course wvw should be balanced!

First, let me say that I understand why balance, particularly in WvW, is hard to achieve. Impossible, even, to 100% achieve, when the matches are based on server populations that wildly vary hour to hour. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim for 95% balance. Just because it isn’t possible to do something 100% perfectly, is not an excuse to throw all effort out the window.

It is no fun for anyone involved for one side to be steam-rolling the other. It isn’t fun for those doing the steam-rolling, and it isn’t fun for those being rolled. Especially not if the reason for the one-sidedness isn’t that the winning side is more skillfull and better organised, but simply that they have more people or access to better gear/buffs that the other side don’t have.

No-one wants to see a light-weight against a heavy-weight. No-one wants to see a chess grandmaster play a toddler. No-one wants to see Real Madrid play against a disabled school team. It’s just tedious. Whether it’s sport or computer games, fun and interest are created by a sense of “This could go either way! I wonder who’ll pull something interesting or spectacular out of the bag and snatch the win?”

Why do we have matchups based on server rating if balanced play is not desirable?

Why do lower levelled players get up-scaled if balanced play is not desirable?

Why do we have an out-manned buff if balanced play is not desirable?

Why do we have three-way matches if balanced play is not desirable?

Why do we have equal population limits for each server per map if balanced play is not desirable?

Clearly, balance is a requirement. I can’t begin to understand how anyone would argue otherwise. Which is why it worries me when I see posts like the one above from Devon. It also makes alot of sense when you consider past changes.

“Buff ACs into absurdity? Doesn’t matter, WvW isn’t supposed to be balanced”
“Allow veteran players to have +250 vitality and +100 power? Doesn’t matter, WvW isn’t supposed to be balanced”
“Match up T1 servers with T5 servers? Doesn’t matter WvW isn’t supposed to be balanced”
“Give the winning server +150 to all stats? Doesn’t matter, WvW isn’t supposed to be balanced”
“Rewards for the highest population server? Doesn’t matter, WvW isn’t supposed to be balanced”

IMO this is right at the heart of the discontent on these forums. Players want balanced, fair competition, and the developers just aren’t interested in providing it.

Right now, WvW is like a chess-board where one side starts with 8 pawns and 7 bishops, and the other side starts with 2 pawns and 2 knights. The knights can dance around for a while, maybe even take a couple of pieces. The 2 pawns can defend their king for a turn or two. But the outcome is inevitable, and the game is short. The only vaguely interesting part is how much trolling the knights can do before the game is over. And rather than changing the pieces to make it more interesting, ANet are giving the board a paint job.

I don’t want this thread to turn into another GvG hate-fest, but it’s worth noting that the GvG scene emerged and is so popular precisely because dedicated players got fed up with the imbalance in WvW and the numbers-over-skill meta, and even more fed up with the complete unwillingness of the devs to address it. GvG is born simply of the desire to cut out the imbalance from WvW. Right now it’s just a circle-pit deathmatch, but that’s not because that’s all GvGers want. We have to do it that way, because that’s all we can do. I’m sure alot of WvW guilds would love to be able to GvG in more interesting terrain, have to use more situational awareness, even use seige. In short, they want WvW but with the imbalance cut out.

I’ll give my opinions further down this post, but I want to lay out at the top what the intention of this thread is.

We’ve seen a great deal of discussion lately about balance in WvW, some complaining that there’s less and less of it, others saying it’s fine, and others saying it’s not meant to be balanced anyway. From server matchups, to GvG, to nightcapping, to ascended gear, to bloodlust and server leagues, to condition/CC meta, to wxp-masteries, balance is always the talking point.

So, lets cut the details out and get right to the heart of the matter:

• Should WvW be, or try to be, balanced and fair?
• Should it try to be balanced in all aspects, or only in some and not others?
• Is balance even possible?
• What should WvW be balanced around? PPT? Seige/Keeps (not the same as PPT)? Zergs? Roaming? Medium-size/Guild open-field? Rewards/Gear?

Until recently I assumed the answers to these questions were pretty obvious, but reading the discussions lately I’m wondering if infact there isn’t as much consensus as I’d assumed.

In particular I’d like clarification about this post by our Overlord:

DevonCarver.5370:

Walabone.6713:

I hope you take into consideration adding achievements that encourage zergs to disperse. Lets not have another WvExp situation.

Although, all in all, I’m not enthusiastic about this new system. I fail to understand the concept of “competition” that you hope to instill, when the playing field is inherently unbalanced. Numbers win everything. How is that a fair competition?

At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.

Now he doesn’t out-right say that balance isn’t a goal for WvW, but it’s very much implied that it isn’t a priority.

I had always assumed that the most basic principle behind any game, from cards and dice to multi-million-dollar MMOs, was fair competition and balance; that it’s no fun if one side has a minimal to non-existant chance of winning. And I had always assumed that everyone agreed with this. But I see alot of people, including our lead developer, saying that WvW isn’t intended to be balanced. Which just leaves me completely confused.

So what’s your opinion on balance in WvW?

Shiren.9532:

Ragnar.4257:

Was it made clear if the points-on-stomp are actually for a stand-still-and-interact stomp, or just killing a downed player?

I believe he did make that distinction. He wasn’t pedantic with his wording, but he was specific about saying stomp as opposed to auto-attack. You only get the point/s if you stomp them.

Well, that doesn’t surprise me, although I’d hoped it might not be the case.

95% of the kills in WvW are not stomps, which means this won’t change anything. Which is a shame, because it was the one part of bloodlust that I was excited about.

Was it made clear if the points-on-stomp are actually for a stand-still-and-interact stomp, or just killing a downed player?

Konrad Curze.5130:

Terrahero.9358:

Neeho.3859:

Honestly, if they just cut the amount of people allowed in a map before que kicks in by half, the problem would fix itself.

However, I think I like your idea better… rewards those willing to work for it and keeps the zerglings at bay. At bay, not at Bay.

How does that solve anything? Servers that are winning with night/morning capping will still do that. And everyone else just gets even more queue’s, even the lower pop servers.
Again, punishing players with excessively long queue’s, which are bad enough at times as it is.

if the queues become unbearable enough, organized guilds will flock from stacked servers and spread. coattailers will follow them but trying not to stack too much again, so they will be more spread aswell..
and that is true for night/morning cappers too in the top servers, they will spread thin

worst case scenario, the WvW will be the same as it is now, but instead of 2-3 allpowerful servers , you will have 5-8 more equivalent. thats an improvement.

the idea behind low pop queues is to force people to spread. and they would work kitten well at it.

also, since stacking servers is a player-created problem, I see nothing wrong with punishing them for it.

Maybe it’s different on NA, but in EU even T7-8 servers are capable of having queues during primetime. It’s just naive to think that the only reason we have queues is because of stacking servers, and to think that queues induce people to change server. More likely; they’ll just stop playing.

The problem of population imbalance is usually most noticeable when there’s a late-night group of 30 flipping a map defended by 5 guys. In that situation lower-pop-caps won’t help at all, unless you’re seriously suggesting dropping it that low.

dreztina.4820:

There’s no reason GvG has to be 20v20. It’s ended up there because most of the guilds doing it are transitioning from zerging/zerg fighting and simply don’t know what smaller scale fighting is like. I think if these people played 5v5/10v10 enough to acclimate they’d prefer it, because ya, 20v20 is pretty lame.

The GW2 version of GvG emerged from WvW guilds wanting balanced and interesting fights, rather than simply zerging. However, the reason they are in WvW in the first place is because they enjoy large-scale combat.

The reason 20v20 has emerged as the “standard” is because it’s just about the most players you can have in a fight while still retaining a certain amount of control of the flow of battle, and individual positioning and timing being important. We want to have as many players included as possible in our fights, because sitting on the side-lines watching isn’t fun. However, once you take it to 25v25 or larger, the limitations of the game become too apparent and it does become a bit of a cluster-kitten. Despite what some will say, 20v20 is not a cluster-kitten, it’s not just skill spamming. Just because it’s harder to see on youtube than the skill in sPvP, doesn’t mean it’s not there. It just means you have to have a certain level of experience to see it.

A single player can have a significant impact on the outcome of a match, and the team that moves and co-ordinates better consistently wins. That isn’t attributable to luck.

15v15/20v20 aren’t the most common format because WvW guilds are scared of doing anything smaller. They’re common because we want to involve as many people as possible, but bringing in more than 20 just causes too many problems, both in terms of leadership/organisation, and game mechanics.

Deli.1302:

When was the last time a T1 server faced a T3 or lower server? Where does it say that T3 and lower servers are gonna get matched up with T1 servers? Just because you’re in the same league doesn’t mean you’re gonna fight each other. In no way should anet force people to transfer out of their server. Some have been there since day one…

They explicitly stated that every server in a league would face every other server in that league. Like, that’s the point of it.

As to OP, preventing people from playing is never the solution to a problem.

Its a nice idea, but I don’t see it happening. There are alot of guilds that are heavily invested in their server community. And I imagine it would be an even bigger hurdle for NA guilds.
I’m sure there are some guilds who would be willing to do this, but I can’t see it reaching “critical mass”. You’d need the co-operation of 50+ guilds to make this workable.

What worried me the most was when Colin(?) said they’re very wary of adding new PvP game modes because they’re worried about fragmenting the community.

Which implies they won’t support GvG because they need our guilds to keep propping up the WvW population.

Trouble is Colin, it’s too late. The community is already fragmented. We’ve been moved to the kittening Events forum, and there’s a growing divide and hostility between guilds and casuals in WvW. A GvG mode would actually reduce fragmentation. Either that, or a serious shift in focus from karma-training to balanced open field fights inside WvW itself. So heads out of arses please, this isn’t gonna resolve itself.

Mif.3471:

Luiz Swordbreaker.6547:

So basically the point you’re making is that you should play a video-game not to have fun, but to win in the virtual scoring system

Meanwhile you’re saying in a competitive league, we shouldn’t focus on winning, we should focus on “having fun”.

You might like the idea of little league “everyone gets a trophy” day, but I much prefer an actual competition where people put in effort and care about the outcome.

A competition that’s stacked before it even begins, and where individual contribution is meaningless?

Mif.3471:

Lutto.8745:

Mif.3471:

Lutto.8745:

This fixes nothing and its only going to make things worse.. no fights and everyone is going to tryhard for points.

WvW is about points. If you don’t like that don’t play WvW.

Sorry but that statement is just stupid.
Its mostly about points yes but its not all and it should abosolutely not be about points.

WvW is about objectives, siege weapons and points. Deal with it.

If you only want “fights” and don’t care about objectives, siege weapons or points, then what you want isn’t WvW.

Might as well just do away with player weapons then. Everyone just carries a supply bag.

Sounds fun.

WvW is about massive fights and points are just a mechanic to bring them about. Deal with it.

Vena.8436:

“Europe will feature three leagues and North America will have four leagues, each league containing several worlds.”

This would be 4×6.

Yeah, unfortunately for you, that’s not what Devon said. Thats what the article wrote, but not what Devon said. He said 2×12.

If this puts an end to T1/2 servers being matched with T5/6 then it sounds pretty awesome.

It still leaves a ton of stuff broken and in need of fixing, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

FrankieBonez.8361:

“We’d rather spend a good deal amount of time making it awesome than just push it out because the community wants it asap”

This Exactly – do you really want them to rush out GvG? Or do you want them to do it right? I actually would rather them fix and add things to WvW as a whole to make it better as it is already an existing feature that has been ignored since launch.

MMO community these days are so impatient . . . spoiled i say! Spoiled!.

That’s fair enough, I agree it’s better to wait and do something properly rather than rushing it.
And I can understand the general policy of not committing to release-dates or specific details until they’re 100% ready, because then people cry when it gets pushed back.

But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t at least say……… something……. anything, to let us know we aren’t just alone in the void, forgotten.

“GvG is something we realise the community wants. Right now there’s no real way to persistently keep track of a team in PvP and assert their dominance. We’d rather spend a good deal amount of time making it awesome than just push it out because the community wants it asap.*

wut

Finding a scoring/leaderboard system is the only thing holding this back?

just…….. wut?

Shoe.5821:

dear GvGers

this is why noone likes you

stop it.

Or maybe ANet could at least acknowledge the existence of a flourishing community of dedicated players and give them even a hint of a clue of a suggestion that someday we might get some support? Rather than consistently pretending we don’t exist, forcing people to go to extreme measures for attention?

Devon Carter couldn’t even bring himself to say the word “GvG” when he asked us to be quiet. Because you can’t ask a community that doesn’t exist to shut up, that would be insane.

And you seem to think that because the idea doesn’t cure cancer and solve world hunger, that it isn’t even worth bothering with.

Its true that it wouldn’t solve all the problems in the game. However, as I said to start with, it would significantly reduce the impact of people, whether intentionally or not, hurting the server by doing foolish things. Starting cannons before upgrading gates is annoying, but not game-breaking. Starting Fortify and Guards when you need supply to build defensive trebs is game-breaking.

Obviously making it 60/60 would increase the total supply floating around the game, which is why I initially suggested 30/30. But this is nitpicking details, you could make it 60/30 or 40/40 or 50/10. ANet will have access to statistics on supply usage and could very easily balance the numbers to have minimal impact on game balance. This is why I said the numbers are irrelevant, because the precise values are not the main point of the suggestion.

And of course trolls can still build useless rams, however these people are much easier to spot and deal with. But now they can’t slow down a building upgrade by doing it.

I still consider splitting supply into Seige Supply and Building Materials to be a useful solution to reducing the impact of well-meaning idiots and griefers.

Stormleaf.1769:

Ragnar.4257:

Stormleaf.1769:

Ragnar.4257:

To be honest, 9 times out of 10 it won’t be a spy, it’ll just be some newbie who thinks they’re helping out by dropping 50 silver for the team. The problem is that one person can burn the supply of the entire server, troll or not.

You can never conclusively prove that someone is griefing in order to ban them, they might just not know any better. But you can limit the ability of trolls to cause damage.

Just split supply into two types: Seige Supplies and Building Materials. Dolyaks, instead of bringing 60 supply to a tower, instead bring 30 Seige Supply and 30 Building Materials. BM can only be used for upgrades and repairs, SS can only be used to build seige. That way if someone starts an upgrade when you really need supply for building defensive seige, you aren’t completely screwed.

And suddenly it takes twice as long to upgrade the defenses of a keep or tower (while also providing half as much supply for siege and repairs when being attacked), just for the sake of making things slightly more difficult for griefers. And this when the forum whiners are constantly complaining about defense being hard enough, already.

Make it 60 SS and 60 BM then. The numbers are irrelevant, thanks for missing the point ^^

The numbers are entirely the point. If you skew things too much in either direction, you harm the balance of the game for all players, simply in an effort to deter griefers (a group of people that can never truly be deterred).

I just dont’ understand why you’re so hostile to an idea that would both help:

1. People wanting to build seige by stopping their supply being eaten by trolls/newbies starting ugprades.

2. People trying to upgrade and having their supply stolen by others.

Other than demanding some developer time, there is no downside.

Stormleaf.1769:

Ragnar.4257:

To be honest, 9 times out of 10 it won’t be a spy, it’ll just be some newbie who thinks they’re helping out by dropping 50 silver for the team. The problem is that one person can burn the supply of the entire server, troll or not.

You can never conclusively prove that someone is griefing in order to ban them, they might just not know any better. But you can limit the ability of trolls to cause damage.

Just split supply into two types: Seige Supplies and Building Materials. Dolyaks, instead of bringing 60 supply to a tower, instead bring 30 Seige Supply and 30 Building Materials. BM can only be used for upgrades and repairs, SS can only be used to build seige. That way if someone starts an upgrade when you really need supply for building defensive seige, you aren’t completely screwed.

And suddenly it takes twice as long to upgrade the defenses of a keep or tower (while also providing half as much supply for siege and repairs when being attacked), just for the sake of making things slightly more difficult for griefers. And this when the forum whiners are constantly complaining about defense being hard enough, already.

Make it 60 SS and 60 BM then. The numbers are irrelevant, thanks for missing the point ^^

And as I said above (edited in), it actually helps people trying to upgrade, because they no longer have their supply stolen by people wanting to build golems or w/e.

To be honest, 9 times out of 10 it won’t be a spy, it’ll just be some newbie who thinks they’re helping out by dropping 50 silver for the team. The problem is that one person can burn the supply of the entire server, troll or not.

You can never conclusively prove that someone is griefing in order to ban them, they might just not know any better. But you can limit the ability of trolls to cause damage.

Just split supply into two types: Seige Supplies and Building Materials. Dolyaks, instead of bringing 60 supply to a tower, instead bring (for example) 30 Seige Supply and 30 Building Materials. BM can only be used for upgrades and repairs, SS can only be used to build seige. That way if someone starts an upgrade when you really need supply for building defensive seige, you aren’t completely screwed.

It also stops people halting upgrades by stealing all the supply.