WP, are they really necessary? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

WP, are they really necessary?

Kapax.3801Kapax.3801 Member ✭✭✭
edited November 17, 2017 in WvW

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.

WP, are they really necessary? 18 votes

Yes, but I have another idea!
66%
jul.7602Kapax.3801Dagger.2035Sovereign.1093Thereon.5219Andyx.3985Ayumi Spender.1082Gemnaid.4219Baldrick.8967Lollipup.6537ThunderPanda.1872Titan.3472 12 votes
No, I do not think they are necessary.
33%
Sciva.4865Malerian.8435Ben K.6238Cerby.1069Silver.2076xDudisx.5914 6 votes

Comments

  • 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.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Zephyra.4709Zephyra.4709 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 17, 2017

    @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.

  • Kapax.3801Kapax.3801 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, but I have another idea!

    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

  • Bunter.3795Bunter.3795 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

    If life gives you melons, you're probably dyslexic.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    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.

    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.

    BG

  • Kapax.3801Kapax.3801 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, but I have another idea!

    @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.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

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

  • Yes, but I have another idea!

    @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.

    Power > Condition

  • @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

    @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.

    I don't know......

  • Kapax.3801Kapax.3801 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, but I have another idea!

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

  • Cerby.1069Cerby.1069 Member ✭✭✭
    No, I do not think they are necessary.

    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?

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, but I have another idea!

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

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.