Helm's Deep "reverse break out" event idea — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Helm's Deep "reverse break out" event idea

Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

It looks like the thread was deleted? I don't know why, but the event idea was constructive, on-topic, and worthy of discussion. I don't see why the idea should get lost.

IIRC the idea was to have a boss level NPC that would help an outnumbered defense team sally forth from an objective to try to break a siege as a means to incentivize an "all hope is lost" fight. I found the idea to incentivize fights to be superior to more heavy-handed solutions such as the old oasis event in the desert bl that basically let an attacking force into an objective for free.

In addition, why not bring back the old siegerazer that helped siege an objective?

Comments

  • Eliren.4985Eliren.4985 Member ✭✭

    If you want PvE go to PvE gamemodes. Its already bad enough with the groups only focused on PPT that refuse to fight so adding even more PvE would just make things worse.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2019

    @Eliren.4985 said:
    If you want PvE go to PvE gamemodes. Its already bad enough with the groups only focused on PPT that refuse to fight so adding even more PvE would just make things worse.

    Yes, it is bad that groups only focused on PPT refuse to fight, which is the idea behind creating an event that incentivizes fights.

    When you say "adding more PvE" without explaining what you mean by "PvE" leaves an open-ended statement. By your definition even keep lords are PvE, which we know they are not since they exist as part of the objective's capture mechanics and objectives are expressly designed to be fought over by players (I.E. there are no automated NPCS that attempt to take an objective without players).

  • SlateSloan.3654SlateSloan.3654 Member ✭✭✭

    the ppt guys spend hours and hours defending camps to upgrade the structures. the reward is a higher score for that tier building.
    you cannot await to just ravish this hard work in minutes cause you find it popcorn entertainment to conquer such building brain afk 11111 on rams and just flip the thing. there will be no reason to play the gamemode anymore.

    anet should have never changed the damage on the gates. a t3 buidling has been worked for so should be a challgenge to ever turn around easy.

    dragon stand, dragonfall, silverwastes, etc - all the pve maps grant for your lord of the rings cinema escort event.

    if you dont understand that you never did ppt and never have been into wvw for real.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2019

    @SlateSloan.3654 said:
    the ppt guys spend hours and hours defending camps to upgrade the structures. the reward is a higher score for that tier building.
    you cannot await to just ravish this hard work in minutes cause you find it popcorn entertainment to conquer such building brain afk 11111 on rams and just flip the thing. there will be no reason to play the gamemode anymore.

    anet should have never changed the damage on the gates. a t3 buidling has been worked for so should be a challgenge to ever turn around easy.

    dragon stand, dragonfall, silverwastes, etc - all the pve maps grant for your lord of the rings cinema escort event.

    if you dont understand that you never did ppt and never have been into wvw for real.

    People who don't understand how defending structures is a means towards a fight against other players have never been into WvW for real. The term is "PPT for fights".

    The original WvW design included weak arrow carts, weak defenses that were buffed at HoT release and then thankfully nerfed again recently, and a "capture the orb" mechanic to incentivize fights in, around, and for structures. WvW was never intended to be a game mode where one could spend hours and hours escorting yaks to upgrade structures without any challenge because the whole reason you upgrade a structure in the first place was due to expecting a fight. People used to have to talk to the quartermaster and pay for upgrades whereas now they can just afk and it happens automatically. That was a huge buff to defense that hasn't been addressed yet. There's absolutely zero reason why an empty map should automatically upgrade.

    That said, the original idea in the deleted thread was a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders that had nothing to do with what tier/upgrades a structure had. It could be a paper tower that just was captured 10 minutes earlier. The point was to give outnumbered defenders an incentive to stay and fight with a fighting chance.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2019

    the base idea was solid. defenders need a buff to actually incentivize going out there tho, like iron hide in a small radius (no dmg buff). the event shouldn't last long, maybe a couple of pushes that last 10 seconds each. the npcs shouldn't be push overs also, they should actually do damage and survive (not too much). they shouldn't do any damage to siege tho.

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SlateSloan.3654 said:
    the ppt guys spend hours and hours defending camps to upgrade the structures. the reward is a higher score for that tier building.
    you cannot await to just ravish this hard work in minutes cause you find it popcorn entertainment to conquer such building brain afk 11111 on rams and just flip the thing. there will be no reason to play the gamemode anymore.

    anet should have never changed the damage on the gates. a t3 buidling has been worked for so should be a challgenge to ever turn around easy.

    dragon stand, dragonfall, silverwastes, etc - all the pve maps grant for your lord of the rings cinema escort event.

    if you dont understand that you never did ppt and never have been into wvw for real.

    I liked that a lot too, when it took a real effort to get something tiered up and then a real effort to flip it, but it did have the unfortunate side effect of creating a lot of stagnant maps. I think anet is trying to move the mode away from that kind of marathon play into more of a pick up and play kind of a situation, where you can pop in for a few minutes at a time and still find rewarding things to do. The carryover participation and defensive nerfs are evidence of this, and if that is the goal then I think they have found a good balance where they are now, where only the laziest of attacks fail to breach and it pretty much comes down to who can pvp . . .

    With the increased ease of flipping tiered structures they could also do something to make tiering structures easier, like make sups from supply drops count towards tiering or something, just so you didn't spend hours on a map where everything is paper, but I don't think that's necessary, would just create a little more balance . . .

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    mmm worth testing. struggles we have sometimes is ppl feae dying in fights.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The idea to send out an npc to the likes of siegerazor to help defend something if you're highly outnumbered is an ok proposal, but still not something I'm fully on board with.

    The original idea was at 3mins to have the lord himself open the gates and come out to fight the attackers, basically forcing defenders to give up their biggest advantage, and potentially give up their lord to a larger attack force and hand them the structure.

    There are ton of problems with this idea either way, and should just be left to the human element to attack and defend.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭

    I could maybe see having some kind of extra NPC spawn at a time mark (say 5 minutes) if you defend the structure successfully long enough to help the defenders. Like a lord but more durable. It could mainly do soft CC with the occasional hard CC and heal and cleanse nearby allies at an interval. Something to give the defenders a possible choice to push out and maybe grab some kills but not force them to give up the advantage if they know they couldn't possible win (e.g 10v40).

    D/D core thief cause I hate myself.
    Are You Proud Yet [DAD] is best guild.

  • @Chaba.5410 said:
    It looks like the thread was deleted? I don't know why, but the event idea was constructive, on-topic, and worthy of discussion. I don't see why the idea should get lost.

    IIRC the idea was to have a boss level NPC that would help an outnumbered defense team sally forth from an objective to try to break a siege as a means to incentivize an "all hope is lost" fight. I found the idea to incentivize fights to be superior to more heavy-handed solutions such as the old oasis event in the desert bl that basically let an attacking force into an objective for free.

    In addition, why not bring back the old siegerazer that helped siege an objective?

    This is actually a great idea.

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SlateSloan.3654 said:
    the ppt guys spend hours and hours defending camps to upgrade the structures. the reward is a higher score for that tier building.
    you cannot await to just ravish this hard work in minutes cause you find it popcorn entertainment to conquer such building brain afk 11111 on rams and just flip the thing. there will be no reason to play the gamemode anymore.

    anet should have never changed the damage on the gates. a t3 buidling has been worked for so should be a challgenge to ever turn around easy.

    dragon stand, dragonfall, silverwastes, etc - all the pve maps grant for your lord of the rings cinema escort event.

    if you dont understand that you never did ppt and never have been into wvw for real.

    So you tell people who attack objectives to go pve and escort mobs instead of ppt players who do escorts in wvw?

    Arent you mixing things up a bit?

  • Eliren.4985Eliren.4985 Member ✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Eliren.4985 said:
    If you want PvE go to PvE gamemodes. Its already bad enough with the groups only focused on PPT that refuse to fight so adding even more PvE would just make things worse.

    Yes, it is bad that groups only focused on PPT refuse to fight, which is the idea behind creating an event that incentivizes fights.

    When you say "adding more PvE" without explaining what you mean by "PvE" leaves an open-ended statement. By your definition even keep lords are PvE, which we know they are not since they exist as part of the objective's capture mechanics and objectives are expressly designed to be fought over by players (I.E. there are no automated NPCS that attempt to take an objective without players).

    I get your point but you have to take into consideration the fact that people who won't even fight to defend their objectives unless they have tons of siege really won't start fighting more simply because they can get help from a npc to take objectives. Besides, adding something like this for the outnumbered group to get won't change much, they will still get blobbed down and simply loose even more motivation to fight as they have just spent x amount of time just to get the thing so they can try take something.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Eliren.4985 said:
    I get your point but you have to take into consideration the fact that people who won't even fight to defend their objectives unless they have tons of siege really won't start fighting more simply because they can get help from a npc to take objectives. Besides, adding something like this for the outnumbered group to get won't change much, they will still get blobbed down and simply loose even more motivation to fight as they have just spent x amount of time just to get the thing so they can try take something.

    you cant lump everyone together and expect it to be factual. there are those who wouldn't push out no matter what, as i'm sure there are plenty of people who would.

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • Eliren.4985Eliren.4985 Member ✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Eliren.4985 said:
    I get your point but you have to take into consideration the fact that people who won't even fight to defend their objectives unless they have tons of siege really won't start fighting more simply because they can get help from a npc to take objectives. Besides, adding something like this for the outnumbered group to get won't change much, they will still get blobbed down and simply loose even more motivation to fight as they have just spent x amount of time just to get the thing so they can try take something.

    you cant lump everyone together and expect it to be factual. there are those who wouldn't push out no matter what, as i'm sure there are plenty of people who would.

    There defenetly are those who won't push no matter what which is why I made sure to mention at the start that "the people who won't even defend their objectives" so as to not make everyone into one group and instead keep them split up. You have those who fight and you have those who dont, that's just how the game is these days. Adding a objective the outnumbered forces can benefit from could easily cause a issue if it's not balanced correctly and with how Anet has done their balancing so far it's not looking too bright. It's a good idea on paper but it's not something I realisticly see being added to wvw anytime soon.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

  • Eliren.4985Eliren.4985 Member ✭✭

    @steki.1478 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

    Shield generators, Mesmer pulls, scourge / revenant to keep walls hot, Fireband with their retal and bubbles + scrappers doing scrapper things.

    If you spend 500+ taking a single objective your doing something very very wrong considering most people spend 500 to take a T3 keep.

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Eliren.4985 said:

    @steki.1478 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

    Shield generators, Mesmer pulls, scourge / revenant to keep walls hot, Fireband with their retal and bubbles + scrappers doing scrapper things.

    If you spend 500+ taking a single objective your doing something very very wrong considering most people spend 500 to take a T3 keep.

    You can cast the same skills as defender as well. You dont even have to be on the wall, spread around and focus from all sides, they cant kill all of you at once. If they push, you destroy their siege and they have to spend even more supplies.

    They spend less than 500 supplies because you let them flip it freely. If defenders are good it can even take 1k supplies for enemy to flip a t3 keep.

    Stealth and siege disabling is a thing. So is damage to those shield gens.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I've suggested similar ideas to this one in the past and they've been ignored, so it's obviously something that Anet aren't interested in doing.

    Expect more golem weeks and no-down-state level novelty tweaks. Don't expect any meaningful changes, this game is done.

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @steki.1478 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

    Are you saying it’s impossible to take a fortified structure with defenders?

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @steki.1478 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

    Are you saying it’s impossible to take a fortified structure with defenders?

    Depends on size and quality of both, but generally it just takes effort to do so, which is enough to "earn their way in".

    You can't flip a fortified objective with 0 effort, but you can upgrade it with 0 player impact.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @steki.1478 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

    Are you saying it’s impossible to take a fortified structure with defenders?

    Again, tier/upgrade status shouldn't matter for a last stand mechanic that is based on attacker/defender numbers. Talking about objective upgrades is useless to this thread.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @steki.1478 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @steki.1478 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

    Are you saying it’s impossible to take a fortified structure with defenders?

    Depends on size and quality of both, but generally it just takes effort to do so, which is enough to "earn their way in".

    You can't flip a fortified objective with 0 effort, but you can upgrade it with 0 player impact.

    There ya go... “effort”! That’s how ya do it!

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

    I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

  • Samug.6512Samug.6512 Member ✭✭✭

    We already had that. Siegerazor was generally used as a free champion bag.

    [NUKE]

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

    I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

    Yes, Chaba is confused about the idea brought up in the old topic that was referenced in the OP.

    The deleted idea was...

    -Attackers knock on door...

    -Defenders say “go away, no soliciting here”...

    -Attackers start laughing because they know 3 minutes later mama lord will open the gate anyway and fight them, thus giving attackers an easy way in to the objective and screwing over defenders...

    ...And if Chaba has a completely different idea, then Chaba needs to clearly lay out exactly what that idea is, not piggy back off the other idea from the thread that was removed.

    “It looks like the thread was deleted? I don't know why, but the event idea was constructive, on-topic, and worthy of discussion. I don't see why the idea should get lost.

    IIRC the idea was”... to help the attackers, not defenders.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    ...And if Chaba has a completely different idea, then Chaba needs to clearly lay out exactly what that idea is, not piggy back off the other idea from the thread that was removed.

    Read my first post where I say exactly what I recall from the old thread. If you have a problem with something from the old thread, go complain to the mods for removing it. No where did I say here that I'm pushing for an NPC boss that opens gates for attackers so stop trying to turn this thread into that. That's your confusion, not mine.

    Attackers who outnumber defenders and want to get into the objective are going to "earn their way in" regardless - that's why your point is meaningless. The topic once more is about a last stand mechanic that can help defenders in an "all hope is lost" fight.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    ...And if Chaba has a completely different idea, then Chaba needs to clearly lay out exactly what that idea is, not piggy back off the other idea from the thread that was removed.

    Read my first post where I say exactly what I recall from the old thread. If you have a problem with something from the old thread, go complain to the mods for removing it. No where did I say here that I'm pushing for an NPC boss that opens gates for attackers so stop trying to turn this thread into that. That's your confusion, not mine.

    Attackers who outnumber defenders and want to get into the objective are going to "earn their way in" regardless - that's why your point is meaningless. The topic once more is about a last stand mechanic that can help defenders in an "all hope is lost" fight.

    “It looks like the thread was deleted? I don't know why, but the event idea was constructive, on-topic, and worthy of discussion. I don't see why the idea should get lost.

    IIRC the idea was”...

    Again, that other idea was to help attackers, not defenders. You should leave out anything from that old thread because you “iirc” incorrectly.

    You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

    You need to be clearer when posting.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

    The answer is no.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

    The answer is no.

    “English is a writer-responsible language. That means it is the responsibility of the writer to make sure the message is understood.”

    You should remove references to that thread because it didn’t have anything to do with help for defenders. It had to do with help for attackers. You were mistaken and should clear it up.

    And no, defenders don’t need that either right now.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

    The answer is no.

    “English is a writer-responsible language. That means it is the responsibility of the writer to make sure the message is understood.”

    You should remove references to that thread because it didn’t have anything to do with help for defenders. It had to do with help for attackers. You were mistaken and should clear it up.

    And no, defenders don’t need that either right now.

    No. You can stay on topic or not.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

    The answer is no.

    “English is a writer-responsible language. That means it is the responsibility of the writer to make sure the message is understood.”

    You should remove references to that thread because it didn’t have anything to do with help for defenders. It had to do with help for attackers. You were mistaken and should clear it up.

    And no, defenders don’t need that either right now.

    No. You can stay on topic or not.

    I am on topic. You’re the one who misunderstood that thread and used it for reference. You caused the confusion, yet blame others for being “off topic” instead of changing it to be accurate...

    Just told you defenders don’t need that either.

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

    I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

    I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

    Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

    I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

    Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

    The point I was making is that you have created your own problem by referencing in both your thread title and opening statement a deleted thread that did not in fact espouse the same idea that you are putting forth in this thread. Instead of taking responsibility for that confusion and trying to clear it up you are blaming other posters for being confused. It probably would have made more sense to just start this thread without referencing the other thread at all, and it would make more sense now to edit the OP than to try to individually correct everyone who reads it . . .

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

    I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

    Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

    The point I was making is that you have created your own problem by referencing in both your thread title and opening statement a deleted thread that did not in fact espouse the same idea that you are putting forth in this thread. Instead of taking responsibility for that confusion and trying to clear it up you are blaming other posters for being confused. It probably would have made more sense to just start this thread without referencing the other thread at all, and it would make more sense now to edit the OP than to try to individually correct everyone who reads it . . .

    It would be silly to act as if the idea was my own since it was not. Fundamentally the idea was not different, only the details of execution. Credit for the idea should go to the guy who thought of it.

    One cannot assume that everyone reading this had read everything in the removed thread without creating confusion. There was a lot I didn't get to read from it either. So I stated in my OP what I remembered of that thread as a starting basis. There is no reason to change it since it captures the big picture of the original.

    I will ask people to stay on topic if they spend their posts providing only criticism of another's writing style and I will point out the irrelevance to the big picture when they are assuming readers had read some detail from the deleted thread.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

    They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

    And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

    Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

    I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

    Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

    The point I was making is that you have created your own problem by referencing in both your thread title and opening statement a deleted thread that did not in fact espouse the same idea that you are putting forth in this thread. Instead of taking responsibility for that confusion and trying to clear it up you are blaming other posters for being confused. It probably would have made more sense to just start this thread without referencing the other thread at all, and it would make more sense now to edit the OP than to try to individually correct everyone who reads it . . .

    It would be silly to act as if the idea was my own since it was not. Fundamentally the idea was not different, only the details of execution. Credit for the idea should go to the guy who thought of it.

    One cannot assume that everyone reading this had read everything in the removed thread without creating confusion. There was a lot I didn't get to read from it either. So I stated in my OP what I remembered of that thread as a starting basis. There is no reason to change it since it captures the big picture of the original.

    I will ask people to stay on topic if they spend their posts providing only criticism of another's writing style and I will point out the irrelevance to the big picture when they are assuming readers had read some detail from the deleted thread.

    Up to you, I was just pointing out how you could make it easier on yourself :)

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited 8:01AM

    @Eliren.4985 said:
    If you want PvE go to PvE gamemodes. Its already bad enough with the groups only focused on PPT that refuse to fight so adding even more PvE would just make things worse.

    Don't you think this refusal to fight has something to do with the vastly different power levels? I mean, if I see our typical zerg with high tendencies for clouding trying to tackle a full fight zerg on a server with more tight focus on fights several times and fall apart upon first touch of the enemy zones, if I watch the enemy zerg sustain through our bomb without noteable damage, what would you expect people to do? Keep running into this fight, that you cannot take, that you get nothing out of - hell, if things run that badly, many people are not even getting participation.

    I do realize that this has a lot to do with L2P - but these large-scale issues have a lot to do with overall player and mindset structure on the whole server, it has to do with server population in WvW and with the guilds active in WvW. These are things, that you cannot change over a short time, possibly not at all.

    So if you get nothing out of these fights, no lootbag, no participation, no feeling of success, what else is there to do, but PPT?

    This is why I keep re-iterating that WvW needs some kind of handicap system.

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • Eliren.4985Eliren.4985 Member ✭✭

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Eliren.4985 said:
    If you want PvE go to PvE gamemodes. Its already bad enough with the groups only focused on PPT that refuse to fight so adding even more PvE would just make things worse.

    Don't you think this refusal to fight has something to do with the vastly different power levels? I mean, if I see our typical zerg with high tendencies for clouding trying to tackle a full fight zerg on a server with more tight focus on fights several times and fall apart upon first touch of the enemy zones, if I watch the enemy zerg sustain through our bomb without noteable damage, what would you expect people to do? Keep running into this fight, that you cannot take, that you get nothing out of - hell, if things run that badly, many people are not even getting participation.

    I do realize that this has a lot to do with L2P - but these large-scale issues have a lot to do with overall player and mindset structure on the whole server, it has to do with server population in WvW and with the guilds active in WvW. These are things, that you cannot change over a short time, possibly not at all.

    So if you get nothing out of these fights, no lootbag, no participation, no feeling of success, what else is there to do, but PPT?

    This is why I keep re-iterating that WvW needs some kind of handicap system.

    Yes and no, i agree that there needs to be a "carrot" for the people who continue to go around and just get their kitten handed to them but adding a "boss" that helps to take objectives i dont see being a solution, if anything it could cause more issues. I fully agree there needs to be something for the less fortunate people but i have to say imo this isnt it.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    That said, the original idea in the deleted thread was a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders that had nothing to do with what tier/upgrades a structure had. It could be a paper tower that just was captured 10 minutes earlier. The point was to give outnumbered defenders an incentive to stay and fight with a fighting chance.

    No I believe the original idea was having the lord open the gates and attack the zerg at 3 mins into a contest. It wasn't to give defenders an incentive to stay and fight (they already have that by being in the structure especially if it's upgraded and sieged), it was to force the defenders out with the lord to the attack force of over 15 players. Then apparently a bunch of ideas got thrown around and then it looked like two people going back and forth on something, why a complete delete instead of a closed I have no idea.

    Now, wouldn't having pve defense of this type be in the same category of having too much siege or too powerful siege or t3 upgrades or tactivators helping carry servers higher in ranks than their normal rank because lack of coverage? Wasn't this what we were debating for months about the siege issue being too powerful months ago? and that a lot of people agreed that if you don't have the population or your players refuse to or not at all respond to hold something, you should lose it, then siege and walls and gates got nerfed.

    A lot of times people don't push out because they're waiting on reinforcements, or there's no commander or group to push with and running into a zerg over and over is not productive and in some cases a long run back, so yes people wait until they're closer in numbers to push. Yes there's even people that don't want to push at all and just sit on siege, but I believe that to be a small minority of players, and doesn't require a forced mechanic, that is not in any way going to convince those people to make a push unless it's extremely powerful to defend them.

    I think it's fine having help from siegerazor to take something back because they lost everything, because usually when that happens people leave or there really isn't anyone around, but attacking or defending should largely be left up to players and the optional tools available, not something automatically forced 3 mins into a zerg attack.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    i'm pretty sure Chaba has the right of it (cant be totally certain unless the OP chimes in here).

    I think I realize why some of you are confused. the OP said "the lord opens the gates and sallies forth" but the over arching content of the post was about giving defenders a "last ditch effort". so I don't think that the OP meant that the lord would actually let attackers in, it was poor wording. anyways its totally irrelevant since Chaba's post is a better scenario if indeed the original idea meant to let the attackers in.

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • oOStaticOo.9467oOStaticOo.9467 Member ✭✭✭

    Neither scenario is a good scenario. It's a horrible idea. Let people play the way they want to play and stop trying to force others to play the way you want them to play.

©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.