WP, are they really necessary?

Currently the WP are easy to block, you just have to approach a guard to alert everyone and block the WP. The castle, for example, spends the most time attacked, but also blocks the fortress guards only by attacking them.

My idea is that the WP will be blocked if they manage to lower it 5% to a wall or internal door.Otherwise then remove it and add another reward for getting a fortress or castle to T3, since it has no strategy to have a WP that is easy to block.

I wonder if you might want to rephrase the question. Aren't you objecting to how easy it is to put swords on a keep, rather than the waypoints themselves? The waypoints are useful in all sorts of ways independent of defending the keep itself, including getting troops to other areas, making it easier for roamers to roam, and providing quick supply.

Fairly neutral regarding this topic but I see it pop up now and again... players have debated in the past that the following would be suitable options regarding contested objective WP's:

The WP only becomes contested (inaccessible) if (no particular order, any one option(s) applicable):

• Damage is done to the wall/gate (starting at ~3-7%)
• Damage is done to objects such as cannons/mortars/oil (starting at ~5-10%)
• Use of siege damage on any attackable NPC/object/gate/wall etc
• Killing a player within the objective's event radius

As it currently stands, merely tagging an NPC/gate etc to proc the contested WP's is a valid tactic; roamers in particular utilise it to cut off enemy forces from approaching sooner than expected.

@Zephyra.4709 said:Fairly neutral regarding this topic but I see it pop up now and again... players have debated in the past that the following would be suitable options regarding contested objective WP's:

The WP only becomes contested (inaccessible) if (no particular order, any one option(s) applicable):

• Damage is done to the wall/gate (starting at ~3-7%)
• Damage is done to objects such as cannons/mortars/oil (starting at ~5-10%)
• Use of siege damage on any attackable NPC/object/gate/wall etc
• Killing a player within the objective's event radius

As it currently stands, merely tagging an NPC/gate etc to proc the contested WP's is a valid tactic; roamers in particular utilise it to cut off enemy forces from approaching sooner than expected.

You only have to aggro the npcs in order to contst it.

I feel like the only thing that should contest a keep is siege damage to walls & gates

edit:also to OP you might wanna change your poll options to more neutral alternatives.

The problem is that it is not necessary to kill the guards, just by attacking them without killing them or attracting them is enough to block the WP. So there I see an error and it goes against the "nature" of WvW. What they should do is block it when there is a real attack, not a false alarm ...

Another idea would be to decrease the blocking time and if the guards are constantly attacked or attack the walls but without destroying it, the WP ingore attacks for 10 min or more and only blocks when they are already inside the fort or castle. I mean, do not take advantage of this either and use this method of attacking the outer guards just to block the WP.

what is "WP"? this acronym just sounds like waypoint to me

Posting only two answer options limits objectivity when they are not just yes/no. A "yes, they're fine" and a "no, they're not needed" would have been fine or if you wanted more input you could have included 2 more possible answers with yes/no and "but I have an idea". Like it is now, the poll is biased.

Personally the way they currently operate is fine with me.

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:

@Zephyra.4709 said:Fairly neutral regarding this topic but I see it pop up now and again... players have debated in the past that the following would be suitable options regarding

contested

objective WP's:

The WP only becomes contested (inaccessible) if (no particular order,

any one

option(s) applicable):

• Damage is done to the wall/gate (starting at ~3-7%)
• Damage is done to objects such as cannons/mortars/oil (starting at ~5-10%)
• Use of
  siege damage
  on any attackable NPC/object/gate/wall etc
• Killing a
  player
  within the objective's event radius

As it currently stands, merely

tagging

an NPC/gate etc to proc the contested WP's is a valid tactic; roamers in particular utilise it to cut off enemy forces from approaching sooner than expected.

This would not be helpful, because if a group under 25 has already broken inside and is fighting the lord swords would not be reapplied.

@Bunter.3795 said:Posting only two answer options limits objectivity when they are not just yes/no. A "yes, they're fine" and a "no, they're not needed" would have been fine or if you wanted more input you could have included 2 more possible answers with yes/no and "but I have an idea". Like it is now, the poll is biased.

Personally the way they currently operate is fine with me.

That is a yes.

Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option?

@Dawdler.8521 said:Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option?

This isn't even an option. It is the one and only truth.

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option?

I don't know......

life is easier if you just have to choose yes or no. ;)

this thread makes no sense. you have a very clear title and poll here but then you have ur own opinion piece about an idea......so it could be interpretted, as written, as being either ur new idea or no waypoint at all.

In other words the results here could mean just about anything..

@Dawdler.8521 said:Where is the "Revert back to how they worked for years" option?

More like why did they even change it in the first place?

for now, it is good as it is. =)