Things that 100% make WvW unfun atm - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Things that 100% make WvW unfun atm

2

Comments

  • SexyMofo.8923SexyMofo.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    Dead game mode. I don’t notice any of them.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    1 and 5. This is true, no matter how you try to spin it around. Defenders advantage is overtuned. Those who played pre-HoT know it exactly. You already have siege, positioning, respawn. If you can't win the fight with these massive advantages in addition to tactics, gliding, homelands, maybe you just deserve to lose the keep?

    And don't tell me that you haven't seen a clowny group of random players of random builds drive away an organised group from a keep even without siege. That's the effect of the increased stats; anyone who has ever created a build or swapped amulets in PvP, knows the effect of gaining 200 power, precision, toughness, vitality.

    Also don't forget that while I am suggesting to bring defenders down to similar level as attackers regarding stats, I am suggesting to nerf siege gens, offensive siege that blocks pretty much all siege from being used to defense. And no, disablers don't counter them because you're forced to run some bad stealth build and even then you need 3-5 people coordinate with disablers that might still get reflects. To spin the downtalkers around; If the stats don't matter to defenders at all, why do you even care if half of them are removed?

    What I am suggesting is gameplay that promotes brains and equality of stats. There are both nerfs to attacking to defending in my suggestions so you have no need to get overly defensive in fear of losing your homeland keeps. What I am offering defenders is more tools to defend and attackers more incentive to attack while bringing back decisionmaking of using different siegeweapons and positioning to breach an objective while having peace of mind over "too many defenders" showing up and farming you because their increased stats.

    2, The healbuilds are currently braindead, theres overcap of cleanse, boons and heals. Something needs to be done. During fights you should have to pay close care to which boons your party needs and which conditions need to be cleansed. And if your zerg gets low there should be a way to coordinate heal everyone up, which would be waterfield blasting in the past. Now my suggestion was to nerf boon duration and access to full support builds to return to HoTish meta where no1 was that tanky and party still had to work together but there are plenty of things anet can do to bring back both non-abusive-conditions and cooldown management.

    3, I know there are people here that don't mind or started to like the desert map, but that isn't argument against what I am saying. Lot more people prefer alpine map massively. So you don't mind alpine map meaning if theres 3 alpine maps instead of 2 alpine maps and 1 desert, it doesn't really matter to you. But to those lot of people it matters and 3 alpines will make the gamemode more enjoyable in general.

    Also you didn't respond to my MAIN argument about desert map making lot of matchups completely irrelevant regarding points because some servers ignore desert map completely. This is not okay, it makes WvW 2-server game. You should be able to log in any week and able to enjoy both sides of the gamemode, points and fights.

    Now to bring up a thought, there should be either 3 desert maps or 3 alpine maps to reduce the variance of people not defending homemap 1 week and defending the next. Obviously alpine was the better option for my suggestion because it has way more popularity. I myself don't mind desert map that much but I mind what it does to the strategic side of winning matchups reducing it to dust some weeks.

    4, I already responded regarding watchtower arguments in above comments but in summary it killed/kills scouting (relevance) and roaming (area/options available). Reasoning in other comments.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭

    @mulzi.8273 said:
    people take WvW way too seriously. The key to be successful is to (1) bring more people and (2) spam the hell outta aoe condis. Loose rule of thumb is, the team with the most firebrands/scourges wins 90% of the time. You can dress it up however you want, but at the end of the day, if you put a dress on a pig, it is still a pig.

    Until they break up the holy-trinity that 80% of a zerg is made of scourges, firebrands and maybe revs, there is no competitiveness out there. All it is nowadays it is folks spammnig AoEs, preferrably condi aoes as there is no skill with applying condi pressure and running away letting dots do their thing. Yes, you'll see some hard-liners on other classes, but they are the exception rather than the rule nowadays.

    True, I agree, AoE spam is way too strong in the current meta and skill of picking people off in fights has been reduced to none with increased heals, perma stab/superspeed.
    Single targeting and crippling conditions should have a space in this meta so 1 player outplaying another actually has some relevance. There is no choosing between how much single-targeting and AoE spam you should do to maximize your effectiveness now, correct solution is just AoE spam always.

    Anyways it seems you have misunderstood meta, condis don't really exist in this meta as long as you have meta party with antitoxin scrapper converting them all to boons.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    Tbf I just believe minstrel stats are the main issue of the sucky meta. If you want to make any healer/support build, it just automatically becomes minstrel once you optimize it. I have 2 sets of legendary armor, soon 3, myself as well.

    You can make the same arguments against Trailblazer and Marauder, but as has already been stated, the amount of time and effort WvW'ers have put into their gear makes it highly unlikely that ANET would launch an update replacing all of that with an amulet system, especially as some players don't even PvE, so if they can't use that armor in WvW, it effectively becomes worthless.

    Its ok, my heart knows that amulet system would take them 2 years to implement anyways. I just thought it was most reasonable solution to removal of Minstrel stats that don't fit any PvP mode.

    Well considering it's been 2 years since Alliances were announced, and still nothing, your timeline might be optimistic. But that wasn't my point. WvW players have spent huge amounts of resources on gearing up their characters, even if we are just talking about ascended gear and/or infusions. This is something you never had to do with Conquest mode (sPvP) as at worst you had to pay a few silver for 'white' quality weapons.

    No developer would ever seriously consider such a sweeping change as to make the hundreds/thousands of gold worth of gear that WvW players posses worthless. It just wouldn't happen.

    I play PvX, but I have several characters that I play solely in WvW. Still, if they did implement that change, I could use those characters and gear in PvE. But what about those players who only play WvW? All the resources they spent on gear would be in the bin.

    It just would never happen.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    Tbf I just believe minstrel stats are the main issue of the sucky meta. If you want to make any healer/support build, it just automatically becomes minstrel once you optimize it. I have 2 sets of legendary armor, soon 3, myself as well.

    You can make the same arguments against Trailblazer and Marauder, but as has already been stated, the amount of time and effort WvW'ers have put into their gear makes it highly unlikely that ANET would launch an update replacing all of that with an amulet system, especially as some players don't even PvE, so if they can't use that armor in WvW, it effectively becomes worthless.

    Its ok, my heart knows that amulet system would take them 2 years to implement anyways. I just thought it was most reasonable solution to removal of Minstrel stats that don't fit any PvP mode.

    Well considering it's been 2 years since Alliances were announced, and still nothing, your timeline might be optimistic. But that wasn't my point. WvW players have spent huge amounts of resources on gearing up their characters, even if we are just talking about ascended gear and/or infusions. This is something you never had to do with Conquest mode (sPvP) as at worst you had to pay a few silver for 'white' quality weapons.

    No developer would ever seriously consider such a sweeping change as to make the hundreds/thousands of gold worth of gear that WvW players posses worthless. It just wouldn't happen.

    I play PvX, but I have several characters that I play solely in WvW. Still, if they did implement that change, I could use those characters and gear in PvE. But what about those players who only play WvW? All the resources they spent on gear would be in the bin.

    It just would never happen.

    I believe with reasonable timeframe of warning (lets say like 4 months) provided the gamemode meta would be better, people wouldn't mind it too much if it would allow WvW balance to be truly separated from PvE. I find it hard to believe anet would be held back by thought of a few people getting kitten if it would truly make the gamemode better place. But yeah I forgot about existance of WvW legendary armor when writing about it so it obviously the amulet system wouldn't work because it would make existing system obsolete.

    You must understand that thinking that other competitive people gaining stat selection is something away from you (note; if WvW legendary armor didn't exist), is shallow and selfish way of thinking which people would come around after a good nights sleep. its like PvE raiders complaining about PvP/WvW getting legendary armor.

    But yea you guys have convinced me that amulet system wouldn't work but I still believe the meta is boring and we need some serious balance changes.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Samug.6512Samug.6512 Member ✭✭✭

    I definitely prefer desert map over alpine.

    [NUKE]

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    @Samug.6512 said:
    I definitely prefer desert map over alpine.

    Well you're in [NUKE] so what is your opinion about some servers not playing desert map at all?

    WSR, old vabbi? Doesn't it make some matchups completely irrelevant? Like currently WSR goes T1, gets red map doesn't play, drops to T2 and farms enemies and goes back to T1. Is that good for sake of WvW competitiveness? It makes half the matchups in both T1 and T2 completely meaningless.

    I play desert map a lot too but I believe the downside of it birthing attitude like this is not worth its existance.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Timelord.8190Timelord.8190 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    @Karnasis.6892 said:

    @Timelord.8190 said:
    WvW went downhill with HoT, no doubt. The WvW team is clueless.

    I just want to remove all the unbalanced defender's advantage garbage they added with HoT and the game would be much better. Keep aura buff and bloodlust buff. It's a very bad game design which leads to stale boring scenarios where people don't even try taking keeps anymore. Roaming is now pretty much dead because of all the sensor towers and mounts that make the enemy blob able to react faster and avoid fights.

    I have NO idea when you are actually playing, but yeah..... that's not true. Taking keeps is attempted or happens all the time. I spent like an hour and half the other night defending a keep on an enemy bl that we managed to t3 up AND was being hit from the other two servers. And we fought in it with multiple walls down, no supply coming in. And held it for a long time until the multiple guilds defending just gave up.

    So yeah, for "No one" trying to take keeps anymore, you might want to get your facts straight.

    Also, roaming isn't dead because of sensor towers and mounts. Roaming still happens even with those things. But it's seen as less necessary because every server ignores the towers until they are t3 or have been claimed long enough to HAVE a watchtower tactic placed in it to allow a quick response. If you deal with the problem of the tower being claimed long enough, you deal with quick response.

    I didn't say that people never take keeps anymore. I said that the defender's advantage stops people from trying to take keeps in some scenarios they otherwise would have if the defender's advantage wasn't so big.
    Pretty much the only chance to take a keep is when the enemy is giving up cause of the overpowered defender's advantage lets you be able to defend with a much weaker force.

    Far Shiverpeaks
    My YT- channel: Toxilo

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    @zinkz.7045 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:
    No smart guild will fight another guild within enemy keep.

    Only kitten PvE guilds, made up of kitten players won't fight another guild in a keep. (which granted is all of them that still play the game, unless things have miraculously improved),

    Have you played PvP? And do you understand importance of 800 stats within amulet? Do you understand how much difference food/stones/oils make in your build and how much stat they're worth?

    800 stats is basically difference of running ascended with foods over running exotics without foods. Now put a decent guild with exotic gear and no foods vs a-little-worse guild that has ascended and foods. Who wins? Its gonna be crushing victory for the worse guild.

    I am sorry I have to be so rude but math and experience both say 800 stats is way too much. Now compare it fighting in your keep compared to fighting in enemy keep. Its 1600 stats in total, defending is just overpowered... Why attack if you can afk and wait for enemy to come to you when they get bored? Fights are decided by location, not by how you use your skills, that's why there's no competitive guilds left in the game, just GvG.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Handin.4032Handin.4032 Member ✭✭

    Defenders of a high tier keep should have the advantage. Getting a keep to T2-T3 requires often hours of commitment while an enemy team can bring about a blob to try to zerg it down once a prime time hits. But defenders don't have as huge of an advantage as people QQ about (come on, get a few healers and most ACs are rendered useless. 1 scrapper can outheal several ACs at once, but less fbs) . In many keeps and towers, most places to put ACs are in ample range of AoE from the ground. Defenders cannot stand on the walls without lots of stab, not only because of the previously mentioned AoEs but the sheer number of pulls. Defenders typically have to rely on grouping up and leaving the walls (which is counter intuitive) to try to attack the attackers. The problem is all zergs want to try the same things. Take Hills for instance: more often than not, large zergs will try one of two things: either concentrate all their numbers and try to cata at the cata spot and stay there to break through inner, which leaves them in a choke point. Or they try to go to south gate, leaving them in an open environment. But defenders should have the advantage there, they've had time to prepare the keep. IF they haven't, then it is likely lost anyways. People who seem to QQ about how defenders have it too easy seem to just wait to ktrain or bag farm in keeps. In fact, defenders probably have it worse off now than how it was pre-HoT. If you want to take a T3 keep, you should have to put similar effort to take it as it was to build up. If anything needs to be toned down, its the stats buff, but given how many defense-based mechanics are useless (i.e. firing from walls, which has horrible obstruction and LoS problems) or heavily nerfed (e.g. ACs), it only needs to be toned down a bit.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    @Handin.4032 said:
    Defenders of a high tier keep should have the advantage. Getting a keep to T2-T3 requires often hours of commitment while an enemy team can bring about a blob to try to zerg it down once a prime time hits. But defenders don't have as huge of an advantage as people QQ about (come on, get a few healers and most ACs are rendered useless. 1 scrapper can outheal several ACs at once, but less fbs) . In many keeps and towers, most places to put ACs are in ample range of AoE from the ground. Defenders cannot stand on the walls without lots of stab, not only because of the previously mentioned AoEs but the sheer number of pulls. Defenders typically have to rely on grouping up and leaving the walls (which is counter intuitive) to try to attack the attackers. The problem is all zergs want to try the same things. Take Hills for instance: more often than not, large zergs will try one of two things: either concentrate all their numbers and try to cata at the cata spot and stay there to break through inner, which leaves them in a choke point. Or they try to go to south gate, leaving them in an open environment. But defenders should have the advantage there, they've had time to prepare the keep. IF they haven't, then it is likely lost anyways. People who seem to QQ about how defenders have it too easy seem to just wait to ktrain or bag farm in keeps. In fact, defenders probably have it worse off now than how it was pre-HoT. If you want to take a T3 keep, you should have to put similar effort to take it as it was to build up. If anything needs to be toned down, its the stats buff, but given how many defense-based mechanics are useless (i.e. firing from walls, which has horrible obstruction and LoS problems) or heavily nerfed (e.g. ACs), it only needs to be toned down a bit.

    Let me quote my earlier replies

    @Threather.9354 said:
    800 stats is basically difference of running ascended with foods over running exotics without foods. Now put a decent guild with exotic gear and no foods vs a-little-worse guild that has ascended and foods. Who wins? Its gonna be crushing victory for the worse guild.

    I am sorry I have to be so rude but math and experience both say 800 stats is way too much. Now compare it fighting in your keep compared to fighting in enemy keep. Its 1600 stats in total, defending is just overpowered... Why attack if you can afk and wait for enemy to come to you when they get bored? Fights are decided by location, not by how you use your skills, that's why there's no competitive guilds left in the game, just GvG.

    @Threather.9354 said:
    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    As you see, I am not asking to nerf just defense so you don't need to worry about your happy life within a keep! I am just wanting to give you guys your treb and ballista defenses back while taking some stats away!

    And you already have tactics, respawn, stats, gliding, positioning, siege. And you're worried about little bit of stats and offensive nerfs?
    Don't forget that post-HoT keeps and towers upgrade 3 times faster and get supply. There's no way defenders have it worse than pre-HoT.

    All I am asking is a stat nerf for defenders, more equal fighting ground. Surely your spirit of a warrior can agree with that.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Handin.4032Handin.4032 Member ✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:
    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    As you see, I am not asking to nerf just defense so you don't need to worry about your happy life within a keep! I am just wanting to give you guys your treb and ballista defenses back while taking some stats away!

    And you already have tactics, respawn, stats, gliding, positioning, siege. And you're worried about little bit of stats and offensive nerfs?
    Don't forget that post-HoT keeps and towers upgrade 3 times faster and get supply. There's no way defenders have it worse than pre-HoT.

    All I am asking is a stat nerf for defenders, more equal fighting ground. Surely your spirit of a warrior can agree with that.

    I'm not actually typically a big keep defender, but thanks for the whole "happy life within a keep" ;). Respawn - what?? If you're attacking a keep you don't have way point. Gliding is an advantage - again, home field advantage makes sense. Tactics are 75% laughable: at least on my server, more often than not they get pulled by trolls or alt-accounts. I agree the stat change, but all the QQ about keep defense being "too hard" is because big blobs want to just be able to ktrain or bag farm with very little effort. I've been in zergs that come to a T3, throw down 8 catas in a super open obvious spot, and when they fail they give up and go take a T1 tower. I've also seen numerous zerg groups from T1 - T4 do that: they poke a T3 keep in an obvious way, it won't "give them the fights", so they go poke a T1 tower. If you want higher tiered objectives, it SHOULD take work and dedication. Defenders SHOULD have the advantage: it's their objective and their time to upgrade it and siege it up. Their time SHOULD lead to some advantage. That being said, attackers who actually spend 1/2 a minute to think and prepare can bypass a lot of the defense - but as I said, most big groups I see or have been in typically just pull up next to a keep door or wall with all their numbers and try to brute force it.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    1. Bandwagoning / Population imbalance. Playing on a declining and dying timezone, the bandwagon impact is apparent.
    2. Lag. Playing on the other side of the world, the higher ping already doesn't feel good and lag spike now? Gosh.
    3. Boring balance. Just boring.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

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

    pre hot and hot was staff 1 guard days. :/

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There are a lot of reasons people might not be seeing as many scouts. As someone that used to scout more I can only list my own reasons and one of them is that defending has been a losing ordeal with the various nerfs to defense options people can make. If you don't have a chance to hold a larger force back while you call for help, what is the point in defensive scouting, its always been and always will be easier to counter attack since your best option is choosing when and where to fight. So the more you nerf defending the closer and closer we come to just k-trains. Objectives need to be defendable with less against more, you need to be able to upgrade them, they need to act like little choke points, and they need to be worth more the longer they are held.

    If anything I would like to see more options for keeps, towers, camps and even sentries. The more options we have the more tactics are available which also means a changing landscape which is what keeps things fresh. The more diversity the more it keeps people engaged.

    As far the OP's original statement, no I would say I disagree with most of the points raised, outside of never asked for shield generators. But having them just means people need to use different tactics.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    i guess this becomes i agree or disagree thread.

    Quite so. :)

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    There are a lot of reasons people might not be seeing as many scouts. As someone that used to scout more I can only list my own reasons and one of them is that defending has been a losing ordeal with the various nerfs to defense options people can make. If you don't have a chance to hold a larger force back while you call for help, what is the point in defensive scouting, its always been and always will be easier to counter attack since your best option is choosing when and where to fight. So the more you nerf defending the closer and closer we come to just k-trains. Objectives need to be defendable with less against more, you need to be able to upgrade them, they need to act like little choke points, and they need to be worth more the longer they are held.

    If anything I would like to see more options for keeps, towers, camps and even sentries. The more options we have the more tactics are available which also means a changing landscape which is what keeps things fresh. The more diversity the more it keeps people engaged.

    As far the OP's original statement, no I would say I disagree with most of the points raised, outside of never asked for shield generators. But having them just means people need to use different tactics.

    I used to roam and scout, but I don't any more for a few reasons:

    • roaming isn't much fun thanks to mounts - can't initiate a fight unless the opponent chooses to engage as well - especially in enemy territory. Most players just run away even when they outnumber me. This is a waste of my time and is boring, so I tend to log off and play other games if I can't get some 1v1 or 1vX action. The alternative is taking camps and waiting for someone to show up, but generally they just sit and wait until they outnumber me 5 to 1 and then attack. Also boring.
    • rest of the server can't or won't help - there's no point in scouting if your server can't muster a large enough force to deal with the attackers you report. There's also no point if they won't leave other maps (eg. large queue on ebg) to come help. In fairness, most players in this game (except maybe BG players) aren't playing to win either.
    • no point in caring about score - related to the above two points: scouting can be a lot of work. It takes time to run around keeps and check all the walls, read the map and figure out where the enemy probably is, tail them to provide info, etc. If you do it well, the end result is: your server gets a few more points? You might go up a tier?

    .. but I don't agree that objectives should be more defensible. That's partly why people hate T1 and BG so much. Attacking a sieged up structure with ACs and counter-siege is ridiculously time consuming, costly, and not much fun. I don't know what solves these problems, but more defense probably isn't it.

    I think the alliances system (really doubt that's ever coming at this point) would help, and some incentive to win (so more servers would actually try) might also be a good idea.

  • fixit.7189fixit.7189 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 7, 2019

    what sucks is if you play in a time zone when there is no tags or even players to follow...yet on the other side there is 75 man zergs roving every where 24/7. :(

  • Iozeph.5617Iozeph.5617 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019
    1. Go ahead and change this, but only after you remove the ability to use ground target AOE spells/attacks on the tops of walls from below. Because any realm making an actual effort to take an objective this way doesn't need to worry about defenders as much if they have superiour numbers. If they're taking an objective at prime time with equal numbers then it's more a matter of who brought more healing and more scourges to the fight for when they eventually break through.

    2. No, don't get started on Scrapper because they have next to no role outside of this any more. Core Engineer isn't an option anymore and, believe it or not, some people don't want to play Holosmith, thanks. Oh, and there's no such thing as a "good zerg." Just my opinion though.

    3. Desert map? Get rid of it. If they'd wanted desert elements the answer should have been obvious- expand the three non-EB maps and do Biome by corner for each. Alpine/Snow for Citadel, Temperate/forest for Hills, and Desert/Seaside for Bay. Do the same for EB -Alpine/Snow for Overlook, Temperate/Forest for Valley, Desert/Seaside for Lowlands. And on each map with the exception of EB and SM, have a forest or jungle where the biomes meet. There were a lot of missed opportunities - especially racially themed biomes such as Sylvari-styled maps which could have incorporated elements from Tolkien's Lorien, high trees topped with flets with connecting bridges to fight from etc. We needn't have a single map dedicated to any one biome.

    4. Or we could actually have more rewards for small group activity. Do away with the watchtower tactic and also the automatic crossed swords when under attack. Instead have defence return to being an active role for roamers. Build a proper, higher tower roof on each tower's lord bastion. On top of this tower have a signal fire that needs to be lit by players in order for the crossed swords to be seen over an objective. Remove monuments and bloodlust. Replace them with additional signal fires spaced between the towers and the garrison/keeps. Have a timered event linked to this where if all fires are lit there's support sent from the keep/garrison in the form of elite NPC responders or - if the objectives are upgraded somewhat, the automatic activation of an emergency waypoint in the tower/keep.

    5. I say the problem isn't only siege generators. It's bad objective design. Keep and tower wall defence should favour defenders. If it wasn't so damnably easy for attacking players to cover the top of a wall with ground target AOE spam then you'd have plenty of defending players able to actually shoot siege generators, golems, rams and their operators etc. The strongest element of any attacking force against an objective in WvW has been the players and not the siege. On some of the more terrible battles I've played in - where the sides were terribly miss-matched we had attacking forces who, after having their engines destroyed on the inner garrison door -either by catapults from behind doors or other methods- simply kept the wall tops cleared with ground target aoe spam and then PvD'd their way into the objective just to spite us. There should be an advantage to standing on top of a wall. Right now, between ground target aoe damage or just being lifted/pulled down off the wall there isn't one. A keep/garrison/tower etc -anything with walls shouldn't require equal or greater numbers to defend. But this is what we're seeing. it isn't fun.

  • Skotlex.7580Skotlex.7580 Member ✭✭✭

    @coro.3176 said:

    • roaming isn't much fun thanks to mounts - can't initiate a fight unless the opponent chooses to engage as well - especially in enemy territory. Most players just run away even when they outnumber me. This is a waste of my time and is boring, so I tend to log off and play other games if I can't get some 1v1 or 1vX action. The alternative is taking camps and waiting for someone to show up, but generally they just sit and wait until they outnumber me 5 to 1 and then attack. Also boring.

    Frankly, those people who run away most likely are poorly performing builds against which you might have just steam rolled them, and for most people it's boring when the mode isn't much of a challenge.

    On the other hand, it's true that mounts change the way people have to approach encounters. The roamers I run into mostly are nearby (but generally out of sight), waiting for an unsuspecting foe to attempt to take the camp (or whatever), and then they jump on you while still in combat. Unless the build has good disengage ability, that forces an encounter.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . .

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . .

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Skotlex.7580 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • roaming isn't much fun thanks to mounts - can't initiate a fight unless the opponent chooses to engage as well - especially in enemy territory. Most players just run away even when they outnumber me. This is a waste of my time and is boring, so I tend to log off and play other games if I can't get some 1v1 or 1vX action. The alternative is taking camps and waiting for someone to show up, but generally they just sit and wait until they outnumber me 5 to 1 and then attack. Also boring.

    Frankly, those people who run away most likely are poorly performing builds against which you might have just steam rolled them, and for most people it's boring when the mode isn't much of a challenge.

    Thank you. But the sad truth is a lot of ppl who bemoan the lack of fights in wvw aren't actually looking for fights . . .

    On the other hand, it's true that mounts change the way people have to approach encounters. The roamers I run into mostly are nearby (but generally out of sight), waiting for an unsuspecting foe to attempt to take the camp (or whatever), and then they jump on you while still in combat. Unless the build has good disengage ability, that forces an encounter.

    Like these ppl, for example . . .

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . .

    Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend:

    • Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.
    • Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.
    • Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.
    • Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.
    • Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?
    • There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .

    No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.

    Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.

    Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.

    Same goes regarding smaller scale, lot of lone commanders and guilds don't play desert map. Now the same problem arises. It is brings unbalance to any timezone you play at. Strength of a server can be commander caring about homemap but if that commander changes his behaviour when it happens to be desert map, it can change the whole timezone which server is strong at to a losing one.

    The existance of desert map affects not only large-group-fighters (that prefer alpine/eb) but also anyone who plays for points.

    Now as you see this isn't another rant post about desert map being bad or anything, it is a post about how it affects WvW in whole, there is no qualities, expect its popularity, of desert map here. The map is fine, the popularity and the imbalance it brings to matchups is not. So you should argue against those. Does it not remove the meaningfulness scoring system from some matchups? If it does, then is the 3 alpine maps better choice than 3 desert? Does the importance of small number of people who prefer desert map a bit hold a candle to competitiveness/meaningfulness of matchups in the gamemode?

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . .

    I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole).

    I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    unfortunately the only thing that is op right now is numbers and the number of experienced players on either side. ^^ they know the tricks to stop a zerk and they know how to use numbers to do their thing. grind grind grind

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Handin.4032 said:
    I'm not actually typically a big keep defender, but thanks for the whole "happy life within a keep" ;). Respawn - what?? If you're attacking a keep you don't have way point. Gliding is an advantage - again, home field advantage makes sense. Tactics are 75% laughable: at least on my server, more often than not they get pulled by trolls or alt-accounts. I agree the stat change, but all the QQ about keep defense being "too hard" is because big blobs want to just be able to ktrain or bag farm with very little effort. I've been in zergs that come to a T3, throw down 8 catas in a super open obvious spot, and when they fail they give up and go take a T1 tower. I've also seen numerous zerg groups from T1 - T4 do that: they poke a T3 keep in an obvious way, it won't "give them the fights", so they go poke a T1 tower. If you want higher tiered objectives, it SHOULD take work and dedication. Defenders SHOULD have the advantage: it's their objective and their time to upgrade it and siege it up. Their time SHOULD lead to some advantage. That being said, attackers who actually spend 1/2 a minute to think and prepare can bypass a lot of the defense - but as I said, most big groups I see or have been in typically just pull up next to a keep door or wall with all their numbers and try to brute force it.

    I am sorry but this was the correct action by the enemy blob.

    1. They tried to cap the keep before enough defenders showed up to wipe them due to all the defender advantages (Rushed it down)
    2. Once they didn't manage to cap the keep inside which enemy has 800 increased stats and countless other advantages, they went for easier objective where they actually have a chance to beat the enemy (400 stats, less time for enemies to gather).
    3. The stat difference of defenders and attackers is so massive that a bad group (roamers/scouts, no voice comms) without coordination can wipe a decent group (open tag, voice comms) with coordination with less numbers. Thats why taking your time to take objectives is pointless, thus using your brain to take them is not used. Imagine enemy commander being in same situation 100 times, which is reasonable, and he wiped 100 times. And you're asking him to do 101th time in hope of magical success? Do you think that enemy commander hasn't tested attacking ever? He knows how hard and unfun it is, he is a human with thoughtprocess and memories after all. Anyone who has lead actual zergs/blobs these days and pre-HoT days, knows it is like night and day, the difference of quality of fights within enemy objectives.

    Thats why I suggest the changes so that bruteforcing is not the correct play. Nerfing both claim buff (fighting for the objective is possible) and shield gens (brute force isn't an option if enemy has siege). So as I see, you should be for these changes, not against them.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . .

    Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend:

    • Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.
    • Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.
    • Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.
    • Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.
    • Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?
    • There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.

    You've just completely lost me now I'm afraid. If making something more difficult makes it better, why are you so motivated to punish all those poor unfortunate attackers by nerfing their challenge . . ?

    Thinking about this did lead me to another change that might be worth considering, which would be reducing or eliminating the score advantage of having a tiered objective. This would leave the structures for the players who enjoy attacking and defending prepared points while those who prefer to move through objectives with less resistance would have the rest of the map to play in without worrying about the cost of ignoring those more difficult objectives . . .

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .

    No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.

    And anet -- with input from their players -- decided that offering variety was the better choice. They could instead alternate all of the maps to alpine or desert week to week, but that would alienate all of the players who are tired of playing on the same map all the time and all of the players who are unwilling to learn a new map. The current setup is the better option, esp since your main complaint seems to be about scoring which does not have any consequence anyway . . .

    Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.

    I feel it is perfectly right and just to punish players for refusing to play on a particular map, just as it is perfectly right and just for me to be punished for refusing to play easier classes. This is why I gave you that example . . .

    Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.

    You are correct that a team that chooses to forfeit decides the match before it begins. You are incorrect in arguing that is the fault of anyone other than the forfeiting team. And I would have nothing against removing the scoring system from wvw, but I don't think it would make wvw better. Winning can't mean anything until anet can create more balanced matchups, but it is one more thing to pursue and giving ppl a broader variety of goals is better as it increases the number of ppl who can find something they like to do . . .

    Same goes regarding smaller scale, lot of lone commanders and guilds don't play desert map. Now the same problem arises. It is brings unbalance to any timezone you play at. Strength of a server can be commander caring about homemap but if that commander changes his behaviour when it happens to be desert map, it can change the whole timezone which server is strong at to a losing one.

    The existance of desert map affects not only large-group-fighters (that prefer alpine/eb) but also anyone who plays for points.

    Now as you see this isn't another rant post about desert map being bad or anything, it is a post about how it affects WvW in whole, there is no qualities, expect its popularity, of desert map here. The map is fine, the popularity and the imbalance it brings to matchups is not. So you should argue against those. Does it not remove the meaningfulness scoring system from some matchups? If it does, then is the 3 alpine maps better choice than 3 desert? Does the importance of small number of people who prefer desert map a bit hold a candle to competitiveness/meaningfulness of matchups in the gamemode?

    I just can't see why it would be a good idea to change the mode to account for ppl who refuse to play it. Would it not be better to facilitate those who do wish to play . . ?

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . .

    I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole).

    I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size.

    To me the biggest effect removing the watchtower would have is it would make it easier for ppl to flip structures without a fight, and harder for ppl looking for a fight to draw one. That would be consistent with a lot of anet's recent choices making it easier to cap defended structures, but I don't see it as a positive change . . .

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . .

    Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend:

    • Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.
    • Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.
    • Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.
    • Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.
    • Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?
    • There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.

    You've just completely lost me now I'm afraid. If making something more difficult makes it better, why are you so motivated to punish all those poor unfortunate attackers by nerfing their challenge . . ?

    You seem to misunderstand, I don't only attack, I defend also so don't think me of a filthy blobber, I also scout and command defense/attack. I said attacking is one-dimensional in current system where 1 way of attacking counters all defensive siege one can build. Attacking and defending should have variety, which I believe all people should find more fun. Same regarding equal fighting stats.

    Thinking about this did lead me to another change that might be worth considering, which would be reducing or eliminating the score advantage of having a tiered objective. This would leave the structures for the players who enjoy attacking and defending prepared points while those who prefer to move through objectives with less resistance would have the rest of the map to play in without worrying about the cost of ignoring those more difficult objectives .

    True there used to be times when upgraded objectives were worth same as unupgraded objectives. There are upsides to both, for your system it is that smaller groups can keep up with larger groups in points as easier to cap towers would have same value as higher value towers. This makes existance of small off-prime guilds and groups have way more value. I do believe the new system feels overtuned regarding how much more points upgraded objectives give and it could be reduced.
    . .

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .

    No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.

    And anet -- with input from their players -- decided that offering variety was the better choice. They could instead alternate all of the maps to alpine or desert week to week, but that would alienate all of the players who are tired of playing on the same map all the time and all of the players who are unwilling to learn a new map. The current setup is the better option, esp since your main complaint seems to be about scoring which does not have any consequence anyway . . .

    Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.

    I feel it is perfectly right and just to punish players for refusing to play on a particular map, just as it is perfectly right and just for me to be punished for refusing to play easier classes. This is why I gave you that example . . .

    Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.

    You are correct that a team that chooses to forfeit decides the match before it begins. You are incorrect in arguing that is the fault of anyone other than the forfeiting team. And I would have nothing against removing the scoring system from wvw, but I don't think it would make wvw better. Winning can't mean anything until anet can create more balanced matchups, but it is one more thing to pursue and giving ppl a broader variety of goals is better as it increases the number of ppl who can find something they like to do . . .

    Lot of the balance in WvW issues are within claimbuff and player activity that changes week-to-week due to existance of desert map. As I pointed out it isn't just 1 or 2 servers, it is lot of commanders and guilds that do the same to desert map. Server should have similar strength from one week to next if there isn't internal changes, the map layout shouldn't decide that and create balance issues. I don't play on a server that doesn't play desert map, I just want WvW map layout to be more balanced so that good plays decide the matchups, not the colour of ones side.

    Same goes regarding smaller scale, lot of lone commanders and guilds don't play desert map. Now the same problem arises. It is brings unbalance to any timezone you play at. Strength of a server can be commander caring about homemap but if that commander changes his behaviour when it happens to be desert map, it can change the whole timezone which server is strong at to a losing one.

    The existance of desert map affects not only large-group-fighters (that prefer alpine/eb) but also anyone who plays for points.

    Now as you see this isn't another rant post about desert map being bad or anything, it is a post about how it affects WvW in whole, there is no qualities, expect its popularity, of desert map here. The map is fine, the popularity and the imbalance it brings to matchups is not. So you should argue against those. Does it not remove the meaningfulness scoring system from some matchups? If it does, then is the 3 alpine maps better choice than 3 desert? Does the importance of small number of people who prefer desert map a bit hold a candle to competitiveness/meaningfulness of matchups in the gamemode?

    I just can't see why it would be a good idea to change the mode to account for ppl who refuse to play it. Would it not be better to facilitate those who do wish to play . . ?

    I didn't say it has anything to do with people who didn't play it. I said people who are playing this competitive gamemode should have working scoring system and timezones. Existance of 1 desert borderlands changes the way WvW plays from week to week so much that it has an negative impact to lot of matchups. Okay imagine this; 1 server plays desert map, another doesn't. It doesn't just affect both servers, not only the one that doesn't play it. Now imagine you're making a perfect WvW game, would it have 2 alpine maps and 1 desert map regarding scoring and matchmaking?

    Having 2 different kind of borderlands, out of which 1 is popular and 1 isn't, is a major issue within WvW making WvW more unbalanced for everyone, not just the people who don't play it. You can't have balanced matchups while the map exists.

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . .

    I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole).

    I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size.

    To me the biggest effect removing the watchtower would have is it would make it easier for ppl to flip structures without a fight, and harder for ppl looking for a fight to draw one. That would be consistent with a lot of anet's recent choices making it easier to cap defended structures, but I don't see it as a positive change . . .

    If you read my suggestion carefully, I was suggesting to make the watchtower detect siege weapons (even build sites). Meaning lot of camps and towers would require an active scout.

    It seems you misunderstand the fact what a fight is, if the enemy shows up the moment the red dots show up, you won't be getting in the tower and getting an epic fight. You will be countered by cannons and acs before you even have a chance to get siege up. Now this change is also so that smaller groups (5-25 people) can play during daytime, because going to north towers on alpine maps, any eb tower with watchtower, is basically a suicide at the moment. Sure you can walk all the way around through the jumping puzzle and waste 1 minute to try to sneak NW tower on enemy border but then if you fail it feels even worse.

    Point is if there are more groups of different size going for objectives, there will be more fights. Atm the only way to take an upgraded objective is by Sneaking it (no red dots) or blobbing it down. Issue is that you need way more people to even attempt capping towers and camps than what is fun.

    WvW community will adapt to changes for watchtowers by promoting active scouting more. If you played pre-HoT, you would know there used to be dedicated scouts that sieged everything up and ran around, obviously the new watchtower would still help us massively but it wouldn't make their job obsolete at half the objectives while providing variety of defenses they can experience rather than just long-range catas by sneaky-sneakys.

    Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭

    Wow. Basically I disagree with just about everything, except maybe the strength of meta builds. We should have more build diversity, we should have at least one spec and build option for each profession that would allow them to take part in any part of WvW. They should be able to contribute in a meaningful way.

    The whole discussion about sieges and the advantage in defending them? I don't see it. I know we've literally spent two hours in an enemy-controlled bay, faming even large groups of defenders. I've also seen our hills and even home border garry fall, despite 30+ defenders being there. I've seen it fall repeatedly. Nope. Not seeing that advantage. Not even in a T3 keep or garry.

    What really makes WvW unfun for me is something different alltogether: The effect of stacked AoEs and the gamble that comes with walking into AoEs. You can't tell how many AoEs are stacked in one place, you can't tell which, and how many will hit you once you zerg into them. You might get nothing at all, you might get a hit from each of them.
    If there is to be a change the current AoE meta, the way in how AoEs stack need to be reworked, some kind of diminishing returns should be implemented, so that greater build diversity is once more promoted. I don't think nerfing scourges more would fix this problem (and additionally it might make scourges unplayable at one point - which goes greatly against the build diversity I'd like to see). Nerfing professions and / or generally increasing cooldowns has a wide-ranging effect on all gamemodes. This is IMO not the way to go, due to the huge side-effects AND not treating the root cause of the problem. AoEs itself are fine. Just the infinite stacking of AoEs is not fine.

    "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

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    Tbf I just believe minstrel stats are the main issue of the sucky meta. If you want to make any healer/support build, it just automatically becomes minstrel once you optimize it. I have 2 sets of legendary armor, soon 3, myself as well.

    You can make the same arguments against Trailblazer and Marauder, but as has already been stated, the amount of time and effort WvW'ers have put into their gear makes it highly unlikely that ANET would launch an update replacing all of that with an amulet system, especially as some players don't even PvE, so if they can't use that armor in WvW, it effectively becomes worthless.

    Its ok, my heart knows that amulet system would take them 2 years to implement anyways. I just thought it was most reasonable solution to removal of Minstrel stats that don't fit any PvP mode.

    Well considering it's been 2 years since Alliances were announced, and still nothing, your timeline might be optimistic. But that wasn't my point. WvW players have spent huge amounts of resources on gearing up their characters, even if we are just talking about ascended gear and/or infusions. This is something you never had to do with Conquest mode (sPvP) as at worst you had to pay a few silver for 'white' quality weapons.

    No developer would ever seriously consider such a sweeping change as to make the hundreds/thousands of gold worth of gear that WvW players posses worthless. It just wouldn't happen.

    I play PvX, but I have several characters that I play solely in WvW. Still, if they did implement that change, I could use those characters and gear in PvE. But what about those players who only play WvW? All the resources they spent on gear would be in the bin.

    It just would never happen.

    I believe with reasonable timeframe of warning (lets say like 4 months) provided the gamemode meta would be better, people wouldn't mind it too much if it would allow WvW balance to be truly separated from PvE. I find it hard to believe anet would be held back by thought of a few people getting kitten if it would truly make the gamemode better place. But yeah I forgot about existance of WvW legendary armor when writing about it so it obviously the amulet system wouldn't work because it would make existing system obsolete.

    You must understand that thinking that other competitive people gaining stat selection is something away from you (note; if WvW legendary armor didn't exist), is shallow and selfish way of thinking which people would come around after a good nights sleep. its like PvE raiders complaining about PvP/WvW getting legendary armor.

    But yea you guys have convinced me that amulet system wouldn't work but I still believe the meta is boring and we need some serious balance changes.

    I have been advocating the amulet system in WvW for a while. They have no chance at balance at all without it. If WvW is meant to be a PvP mode, it should use PvP rules.

    The only difference from the PvP amulets that I am advocating for is;

    1) It's split into 3, so you can mix and match some: Trinkets, Weapons, Armor.

    2) Any infusion slots you might have still provide the infusion bonus.

    That would not only help balance, but also draw new blood. Yeah sure, the vets have all this Ascended gear, but new players do not. Which contrary to what people like to claim about it "only being 5%" still gives them an advantage. An amulet system for the mode would put newper players (often still with sub-par mixed sub 80 rares) on an more even playing field.

    @Threather.9354 said:
    Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.

    You already can set cata's outside of watchtower range. Which is also outside of arrowcart range (that everyone complains about). In fact, catas still have a better range than a balista.

    But that would require people to take longer cause they can't set up right next to the wall and just tap the button on recharge. They would instead need to fully charge the cata to reach.

    Yet, that would put them outside the range of the arrow carts they all claim to hate and draw people out for the precious fights to break the catas...

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @nthmetal.9652 said:
    Wow. Basically I disagree with just about everything, except maybe the strength of meta builds. We should have more build diversity, we should have at least one spec and build option for each profession that would allow them to take part in any part of WvW. They should be able to contribute in a meaningful way.

    The whole discussion about sieges and the advantage in defending them? I don't see it. I know we've literally spent two hours in an enemy-controlled bay, faming even large groups of defenders. I've also seen our hills and even home border garry fall, despite 30+ defenders being there. I've seen it fall repeatedly. Nope. Not seeing that advantage. Not even in a T3 keep or garry.

    What really makes WvW unfun for me is something different alltogether: The effect of stacked AoEs and the gamble that comes with walking into AoEs. You can't tell how many AoEs are stacked in one place, you can't tell which, and how many will hit you once you zerg into them. You might get nothing at all, you might get a hit from each of them.
    If there is to be a change the current AoE meta, the way in how AoEs stack need to be reworked, some kind of diminishing returns should be implemented, so that greater build diversity is once more promoted. I don't think nerfing scourges more would fix this problem (and additionally it might make scourges unplayable at one point - which goes greatly against the build diversity I'd like to see). Nerfing professions and / or generally increasing cooldowns has a wide-ranging effect on all gamemodes. This is IMO not the way to go, due to the huge side-effects AND not treating the root cause of the problem. AoEs itself are fine. Just the infinite stacking of AoEs is not fine.

    I am sorry but you are putting words to my mouth, I never said defensive sieges are the problem, I said inequal fighting grounds and monodimensional attacking are unfun and unfitting for competitive gamemode. I never suggested nerf to defensive sieges or that they're too strong. Shield generator, the only siege I talked about, is 90% an offensively used siege at higher level of WvW. Not a single time did I mention that any of the defensive siege does too much damage or fend defenders off too well.

    Having ascended-exotic set difference of stats is not okay in competitive gamemode. And its 2 sets difference between friendly and enemy keep. This makes existance of equally skilled, in fights, commanders, guilds or servers not exist. This means claim buff decides the outcome of fights instead of which side plays smarter with the tools they're given.

    Shield gens block any siege from being used. Of course this has to be so that the group has enough supplies to build shield generators in addition to siege. But basically large group meta is to attack with shield gens and it makes any defensive siege useless. Basically shield gen nerf would make it so that small group has a chance to at least buy time against large group that has 300+ supplies.

    I am not only suggesting only nerfs to defender stats, which shouldn't be a big deal to a player that thinks they don't do much, but also attacking power of large blobs.

    First we need equal fighting grounds by removal of overpowered stat buff (claim buff) and servers not having such a huge variance between weeks (having 2 different borderlands out of which 1 is unpopular), then they can actually fix the balance within gamemode. You must understand that I am aiming with these small changes, that you shouldn't think are the end of the WvW, for additional fun if you want to take the gamemode seriously or play actively by adding more meaningful decisions and less volatility between matchups/combat locations.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Tao.5096Tao.5096 Member ✭✭

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:
    I have been advocating the amulet system in WvW for a while. They have no chance at balance at all without it. If WvW is meant to be a PvP mode, it should use PvP rules.

    The only difference from the PvP amulets that I am advocating for is;

    1) It's split into 3, so you can mix and match some: Trinkets, Weapons, Armor.

    2) Any infusion slots you might have still provide the infusion bonus.

    That would not only help balance, but also draw new blood. Yeah sure, the vets have all this Ascended gear, but new players do not. Which contrary to what people like to claim about it "only being 5%" still gives them an advantage. An amulet system for the mode would put newper players (often still with sub-par mixed sub 80 rares) on an more even playing field.

    You seem to not realize that the issue on balance is not strictly related to stats from gear but actually it's due to traits and skill behavior.
    PvP is an example of that.

    They removed Cleric amulet from PvP because "Guardians too tanky!!!!111".
    Poof, they made Holos, Weavers and Firebrands with outstanding sustain compared to the issue with Guardian and Cleric Amulet.
    And funny is that Guardian was hitting like wet noodles compared to what Holo or Weaver do.

    Stats from gear are nothing more than adjustment to the output of traits and skills.
    If traits and skills are not balanced, then changing stats won't do a thing.

    For example:
    Revenant has such a strong cleave and damage output not because he is running zerk stats but because stacking 25 might is just a matter of few seconds.
    Drop that might and somehow his damage is normal like other classes.
    Same with Holo and with other classes.

    And they cap might exactly due to traits and skills so easily while retaining survivability and sustain.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . .

    Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend:

    • Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.
    • Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.
    • Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.
    • Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.
    • Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?
    • There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.

    You've just completely lost me now I'm afraid. If making something more difficult makes it better, why are you so motivated to punish all those poor unfortunate attackers by nerfing their challenge . . ?

    You seem to misunderstand, I don't only attack, I defend also so don't think me of a filthy blobber, I also scout and command defense/attack. I said attacking is one-dimensional in current system where 1 way of attacking counters all defensive siege one can build. Attacking and defending should have variety, which I believe all people should find more fun. Same regarding equal fighting stats.

    You seem to misunderstand. You suggested more defensive nerfs. I pointed out the existing nerfs have made tiering structures a waste of time currently. You countered that making defense more difficult makes it more worthwhile. I pointed out that if that were true, making defense more difficult would punish attackers. You failed to counter . . .

    Thinking about this did lead me to another change that might be worth considering, which would be reducing or eliminating the score advantage of having a tiered objective. This would leave the structures for the players who enjoy attacking and defending prepared points while those who prefer to move through objectives with less resistance would have the rest of the map to play in without worrying about the cost of ignoring those more difficult objectives .

    True there used to be times when upgraded objectives were worth same as unupgraded objectives. There are upsides to both, for your system it is that smaller groups can keep up with larger groups in points as easier to cap towers would have same value as higher value towers. This makes existance of small off-prime guilds and groups have way more value. I do believe the new system feels overtuned regarding how much more points upgraded objectives give and it could be reduced.
    . .

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .

    No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.

    And anet -- with input from their players -- decided that offering variety was the better choice. They could instead alternate all of the maps to alpine or desert week to week, but that would alienate all of the players who are tired of playing on the same map all the time and all of the players who are unwilling to learn a new map. The current setup is the better option, esp since your main complaint seems to be about scoring which does not have any consequence anyway . . .

    Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.

    I feel it is perfectly right and just to punish players for refusing to play on a particular map, just as it is perfectly right and just for me to be punished for refusing to play easier classes. This is why I gave you that example . . .

    Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.

    You are correct that a team that chooses to forfeit decides the match before it begins. You are incorrect in arguing that is the fault of anyone other than the forfeiting team. And I would have nothing against removing the scoring system from wvw, but I don't think it would make wvw better. Winning can't mean anything until anet can create more balanced matchups, but it is one more thing to pursue and giving ppl a broader variety of goals is better as it increases the number of ppl who can find something they like to do . . .

    Lot of the balance in WvW issues are within claimbuff and player activity that changes week-to-week due to existance of desert map. As I pointed out it isn't just 1 or 2 servers, it is lot of commanders and guilds that do the same to desert map. Server should have similar strength from one week to next if there isn't internal changes, the map layout shouldn't decide that and create balance issues. I don't play on a server that doesn't play desert map, I just want WvW map layout to be more balanced so that good plays decide the matchups, not the colour of ones side.

    The quality of play has never decided matchups. It has always been numbers and coverage. Eliminating the desert map would do nothing to address this, unfortunately . . .

    Same goes regarding smaller scale, lot of lone commanders and guilds don't play desert map. Now the same problem arises. It is brings unbalance to any timezone you play at. Strength of a server can be commander caring about homemap but if that commander changes his behaviour when it happens to be desert map, it can change the whole timezone which server is strong at to a losing one.

    The existance of desert map affects not only large-group-fighters (that prefer alpine/eb) but also anyone who plays for points.

    Now as you see this isn't another rant post about desert map being bad or anything, it is a post about how it affects WvW in whole, there is no qualities, expect its popularity, of desert map here. The map is fine, the popularity and the imbalance it brings to matchups is not. So you should argue against those. Does it not remove the meaningfulness scoring system from some matchups? If it does, then is the 3 alpine maps better choice than 3 desert? Does the importance of small number of people who prefer desert map a bit hold a candle to competitiveness/meaningfulness of matchups in the gamemode?

    I just can't see why it would be a good idea to change the mode to account for ppl who refuse to play it. Would it not be better to facilitate those who do wish to play . . ?

    I didn't say it has anything to do with people who didn't play it. I said people who are playing this competitive gamemode should have working scoring system and timezones. Existance of 1 desert borderlands changes the way WvW plays from week to week so much that it has an negative impact to lot of matchups. Okay imagine this; 1 server plays desert map, another doesn't. It doesn't just affect both servers, not only the one that doesn't play it. Now imagine you're making a perfect WvW game, would it have 2 alpine maps and 1 desert map regarding scoring and matchmaking?

    Having 2 different kind of borderlands, out of which 1 is popular and 1 isn't, is a major issue within WvW making WvW more unbalanced for everyone, not just the people who don't play it. You can't have balanced matchups while the map exists.

    The map is not causing the problem you describe. Players who refuse to play the map are causing the problem you describe. You may also want to consider that since desert is given to the team that just moved up a tier, whether ppl in desert avoid playing bc they don't like desert, or bc they are tanking to drop from an undesirable tier . . .

    And yes, my perfect wvw game would have long term appeal, which would include a variety of maps . . .

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . .

    I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole).

    I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size.

    To me the biggest effect removing the watchtower would have is it would make it easier for ppl to flip structures without a fight, and harder for ppl looking for a fight to draw one. That would be consistent with a lot of anet's recent choices making it easier to cap defended structures, but I don't see it as a positive change . . .

    If you read my suggestion carefully, I was suggesting to make the watchtower detect siege weapons (even build sites). Meaning lot of camps and towers would require an active scout.

    It seems you misunderstand the fact what a fight is, if the enemy shows up the moment the red dots show up, you won't be getting in the tower and getting an epic fight. You will be countered by cannons and acs before you even have a chance to get siege up. Now this change is also so that smaller groups (5-25 people) can play during daytime, because going to north towers on alpine maps, any eb tower with watchtower, is basically a suicide at the moment. Sure you can walk all the way around through the jumping puzzle and waste 1 minute to try to sneak NW tower on enemy border but then if you fail it feels even worse.

    Point is if there are more groups of different size going for objectives, there will be more fights. Atm the only way to take an upgraded objective is by Sneaking it (no red dots) or blobbing it down. Issue is that you need way more people to even attempt capping towers and camps than what is fun.

    WvW community will adapt to changes for watchtowers by promoting active scouting more. If you played pre-HoT, you would know there used to be dedicated scouts that sieged everything up and ran around, obviously the new watchtower would still help us massively but it wouldn't make their job obsolete at half the objectives while providing variety of defenses they can experience rather than just long-range catas by sneaky-sneakys.

    Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.

    A good fight is a long fight. A good fight for a defended objective involves siege, sapping supply, being rebuffed, returning as many times as necessary to wear the structure down before finally breaching and getting down to the direct toon v toon pvp, which might also require repeated attempts before the fight is finally decided. Skipping to the end does not make the fight more fun . . .

    I stopped scouting bc ppl stopped answering calls. Discussion of why ppl stopped answering calls in wvw would likely be derailing . . .

    Watchtowers only limit the map if you are trying to avoid fights . . .

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    Tbf I just believe minstrel stats are the main issue of the sucky meta. If you want to make any healer/support build, it just automatically becomes minstrel once you optimize it. I have 2 sets of legendary armor, soon 3, myself as well.

    You can make the same arguments against Trailblazer and Marauder, but as has already been stated, the amount of time and effort WvW'ers have put into their gear makes it highly unlikely that ANET would launch an update replacing all of that with an amulet system, especially as some players don't even PvE, so if they can't use that armor in WvW, it effectively becomes worthless.

    Its ok, my heart knows that amulet system would take them 2 years to implement anyways. I just thought it was most reasonable solution to removal of Minstrel stats that don't fit any PvP mode.

    Well considering it's been 2 years since Alliances were announced, and still nothing, your timeline might be optimistic. But that wasn't my point. WvW players have spent huge amounts of resources on gearing up their characters, even if we are just talking about ascended gear and/or infusions. This is something you never had to do with Conquest mode (sPvP) as at worst you had to pay a few silver for 'white' quality weapons.

    No developer would ever seriously consider such a sweeping change as to make the hundreds/thousands of gold worth of gear that WvW players posses worthless. It just wouldn't happen.

    I play PvX, but I have several characters that I play solely in WvW. Still, if they did implement that change, I could use those characters and gear in PvE. But what about those players who only play WvW? All the resources they spent on gear would be in the bin.

    It just would never happen.

    I believe with reasonable timeframe of warning (lets say like 4 months) provided the gamemode meta would be better, people wouldn't mind it too much if it would allow WvW balance to be truly separated from PvE. I find it hard to believe anet would be held back by thought of a few people getting kitten if it would truly make the gamemode better place. But yeah I forgot about existance of WvW legendary armor when writing about it so it obviously the amulet system wouldn't work because it would make existing system obsolete.

    You must understand that thinking that other competitive people gaining stat selection is something away from you (note; if WvW legendary armor didn't exist), is shallow and selfish way of thinking which people would come around after a good nights sleep. its like PvE raiders complaining about PvP/WvW getting legendary armor.

    But yea you guys have convinced me that amulet system wouldn't work but I still believe the meta is boring and we need some serious balance changes.

    I have been advocating the amulet system in WvW for a while. They have no chance at balance at all without it. If WvW is meant to be a PvP mode, it should use PvP rules.

    The only difference from the PvP amulets that I am advocating for is;

    1) It's split into 3, so you can mix and match some: Trinkets, Weapons, Armor.

    2) Any infusion slots you might have still provide the infusion bonus.

    That would not only help balance, but also draw new blood. Yeah sure, the vets have all this Ascended gear, but new players do not. Which contrary to what people like to claim about it "only being 5%" still gives them an advantage. An amulet system for the mode would put newper players (often still with sub-par mixed sub 80 rares) on an more even playing field.

    @Threather.9354 said:
    Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.

    You already can set cata's outside of watchtower range. Which is also outside of arrowcart range (that everyone complains about). In fact, catas still have a better range than a balista.

    But that would require people to take longer cause they can't set up right next to the wall and just tap the button on recharge. They would instead need to fully charge the cata to reach.

    Yet, that would put them outside the range of the arrow carts they all claim to hate and draw people out for the precious fights to break the catas...

    Actually I don't know whens the last time you used a catapult but fully charged catas do more damage per hit now compared to a tap, its about same speed the wall goes down with fully charged shots unless you have alacrity. I already included the watchtower range and catapults being able to take down some of the towers (not all), from outside range.

    The main issues with the watchtower system I have answering about were attackers not having variety, small groups/roamers being punished and scouts/communication losing its relevance. And I did know that you can cata from outside the watchtower range, your answer didn't change anything about the issues watchtower has. It is anti-fun.

    The issue of watchtower is not only taking tower, as I said my major incentive is not reducing defense of the towers, its opening up the map and options to players, especially in small groups. Detecting only siege weapons would still do similar thing, just delayed.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:
    I have been advocating the amulet system in WvW for a while. They have no chance at balance at all without it. If WvW is meant to be a PvP mode, it should use PvP rules.

    Yet sPvP players report lack of balance to be a major issue, so clearly the amulet system isn't the key to balance.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . .

    Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend:

    • Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.
    • Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.
    • Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.
    • Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.
    • Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?
    • There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.

    You've just completely lost me now I'm afraid. If making something more difficult makes it better, why are you so motivated to punish all those poor unfortunate attackers by nerfing their challenge . . ?

    You seem to misunderstand, I don't only attack, I defend also so don't think me of a filthy blobber, I also scout and command defense/attack. I said attacking is one-dimensional in current system where 1 way of attacking counters all defensive siege one can build. Attacking and defending should have variety, which I believe all people should find more fun. Same regarding equal fighting stats.

    You seem to misunderstand. You suggested more defensive nerfs. I pointed out the existing nerfs have made tiering structures a waste of time currently. You countered that making defense more difficult makes it more worthwhile. I pointed out that if that were true, making defense more difficult would punish attackers. You failed to counter . . .

    I suggested 2 defensive nerfs (claim buff) and upgrade time while nerfing blob attacking power by MASSIVELY.

    Thinking about this did lead me to another change that might be worth considering, which would be reducing or eliminating the score advantage of having a tiered objective. This would leave the structures for the players who enjoy attacking and defending prepared points while those who prefer to move through objectives with less resistance would have the rest of the map to play in without worrying about the cost of ignoring those more difficult objectives .

    True there used to be times when upgraded objectives were worth same as unupgraded objectives. There are upsides to both, for your system it is that smaller groups can keep up with larger groups in points as easier to cap towers would have same value as higher value towers. This makes existance of small off-prime guilds and groups have way more value. I do believe the new system feels overtuned regarding how much more points upgraded objectives give and it could be reduced.
    . .

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .

    No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.

    And anet -- with input from their players -- decided that offering variety was the better choice. They could instead alternate all of the maps to alpine or desert week to week, but that would alienate all of the players who are tired of playing on the same map all the time and all of the players who are unwilling to learn a new map. The current setup is the better option, esp since your main complaint seems to be about scoring which does not have any consequence anyway . . .

    Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.

    I feel it is perfectly right and just to punish players for refusing to play on a particular map, just as it is perfectly right and just for me to be punished for refusing to play easier classes. This is why I gave you that example . . .

    Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.

    You are correct that a team that chooses to forfeit decides the match before it begins. You are incorrect in arguing that is the fault of anyone other than the forfeiting team. And I would have nothing against removing the scoring system from wvw, but I don't think it would make wvw better. Winning can't mean anything until anet can create more balanced matchups, but it is one more thing to pursue and giving ppl a broader variety of goals is better as it increases the number of ppl who can find something they like to do . . .

    Lot of the balance in WvW issues are within claimbuff and player activity that changes week-to-week due to existance of desert map. As I pointed out it isn't just 1 or 2 servers, it is lot of commanders and guilds that do the same to desert map. Server should have similar strength from one week to next if there isn't internal changes, the map layout shouldn't decide that and create balance issues. I don't play on a server that doesn't play desert map, I just want WvW map layout to be more balanced so that good plays decide the matchups, not the colour of ones side.

    The quality of play has never decided matchups. It has always been numbers and coverage. Eliminating the desert map would do nothing to address this, unfortunately . . .

    Same goes regarding smaller scale, lot of lone commanders and guilds don't play desert map. Now the same problem arises. It is brings unbalance to any timezone you play at. Strength of a server can be commander caring about homemap but if that commander changes his behaviour when it happens to be desert map, it can change the whole timezone which server is strong at to a losing one.

    The existance of desert map affects not only large-group-fighters (that prefer alpine/eb) but also anyone who plays for points.

    Now as you see this isn't another rant post about desert map being bad or anything, it is a post about how it affects WvW in whole, there is no qualities, expect its popularity, of desert map here. The map is fine, the popularity and the imbalance it brings to matchups is not. So you should argue against those. Does it not remove the meaningfulness scoring system from some matchups? If it does, then is the 3 alpine maps better choice than 3 desert? Does the importance of small number of people who prefer desert map a bit hold a candle to competitiveness/meaningfulness of matchups in the gamemode?

    I just can't see why it would be a good idea to change the mode to account for ppl who refuse to play it. Would it not be better to facilitate those who do wish to play . . ?

    I didn't say it has anything to do with people who didn't play it. I said people who are playing this competitive gamemode should have working scoring system and timezones. Existance of 1 desert borderlands changes the way WvW plays from week to week so much that it has an negative impact to lot of matchups. Okay imagine this; 1 server plays desert map, another doesn't. It doesn't just affect both servers, not only the one that doesn't play it. Now imagine you're making a perfect WvW game, would it have 2 alpine maps and 1 desert map regarding scoring and matchmaking?

    Having 2 different kind of borderlands, out of which 1 is popular and 1 isn't, is a major issue within WvW making WvW more unbalanced for everyone, not just the people who don't play it. You can't have balanced matchups while the map exists.

    The map is not causing the problem you describe. Players who refuse to play the map are causing the problem you describe. You may also want to consider that since desert is given to the team that just moved up a tier, whether ppl in desert avoid playing bc they don't like desert, or bc they are tanking to drop from an undesirable tier . . .

    And yes, my perfect wvw game would have long term appeal, which would include a variety of maps . . .

    Yes as I said desert map is fine thousand times but its unpopularity is bringing unbalance thus it should be removed. My argument was never that the map is bad. I am suggesting them to change to 3 same borderlands because the whole system of having 2 different borderlands, out of which 1 is unpopular, is messed up, not the maps itself. As I said 3 alpine borderlands or 3 desert maps is what I ask because it messes up the competitiveness and adds way too much variety of how servers act between matchups.

    Your argument is about if the map is good and my argument is about if the system behind it is flawed.

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . .

    I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole).

    I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size.

    To me the biggest effect removing the watchtower would have is it would make it easier for ppl to flip structures without a fight, and harder for ppl looking for a fight to draw one. That would be consistent with a lot of anet's recent choices making it easier to cap defended structures, but I don't see it as a positive change . . .

    If you read my suggestion carefully, I was suggesting to make the watchtower detect siege weapons (even build sites). Meaning lot of camps and towers would require an active scout.

    It seems you misunderstand the fact what a fight is, if the enemy shows up the moment the red dots show up, you won't be getting in the tower and getting an epic fight. You will be countered by cannons and acs before you even have a chance to get siege up. Now this change is also so that smaller groups (5-25 people) can play during daytime, because going to north towers on alpine maps, any eb tower with watchtower, is basically a suicide at the moment. Sure you can walk all the way around through the jumping puzzle and waste 1 minute to try to sneak NW tower on enemy border but then if you fail it feels even worse.

    Point is if there are more groups of different size going for objectives, there will be more fights. Atm the only way to take an upgraded objective is by Sneaking it (no red dots) or blobbing it down. Issue is that you need way more people to even attempt capping towers and camps than what is fun.

    WvW community will adapt to changes for watchtowers by promoting active scouting more. If you played pre-HoT, you would know there used to be dedicated scouts that sieged everything up and ran around, obviously the new watchtower would still help us massively but it wouldn't make their job obsolete at half the objectives while providing variety of defenses they can experience rather than just long-range catas by sneaky-sneakys.

    Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.

    A good fight is a long fight. A good fight for a defended objective involves siege, sapping supply, being rebuffed, returning as many times as necessary to wear the structure down before finally breaching and getting down to the direct toon v toon pvp, which might also require repeated attempts before the fight is finally decided. Skipping to the end does not make the fight more fun . . .

    I stopped scouting bc ppl stopped answering calls. Discussion of why ppl stopped answering calls in wvw would likely be derailing . . .

    Watchtowers only limit the map if you are trying to avoid fights . . .

    As I said, watchtower change would change the whole way how WvW would play out. More scouts, more lordfights, more siege, more small groups, less getting blobbed down, less attacking failing before it started. The pluses are stronger than minuses. You can have good fights even with the reworked watchtower (which will still scout enemies so it won't reduce the amount of fights just response time!!! <-- see this?)

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:
    I am sorry but you are putting words to my mouth, I never said defensive sieges are the problem, I said inequal fighting grounds and monodimensional attacking are unfun and unfitting for competitive gamemode. I never suggested nerf to defensive sieges or that they're too strong. Shield generator, the only siege I talked about, is 90% an offensively used siege at higher level of WvW. Not a single time did I mention that any of the defensive siege does too much damage or fend defenders off too well.

    I obviously used a wrong word there. I didn't mean "siege" - I meant "objectives", as in structures. I am telling you, those stat points, in reality they don't make a difference. See my examples. And I have countless of these examples, when objectives are lost despite these buffs. I have countless examples when objectives are lost, despite the use of siege. I have countable memories from the last three months, where we had huge fights (1h+) inside an objective we held or an enemy held! According to you this cannot happen, because the siege and objective buffs provide so much of an advantage. How then are we able to hold out inside an enemy bay for two hours? How can enemies keep attacking and fighting in our own home bay for two hours? How is it possible ff the advantage is soooo overwhelming?

    Or maybe that is your issue, that some fights take so long? Well, I can assure you that most fights do not take nearly that long. Usually you walk up to an objective and take it, no matter what tier it is. If it is sieged up and defended, most objectives can still be taken in a few minutes. Obviously well-armed and defended enemy keeps take longer, but even those rarely take over half an hour from start of the assault to the point they are taken. And it's a keep! A defended keep should take longer!
    If a fight takes really long it is typically, because both sides decide to bring a full blob. And even in this case it isn't the structure or the siege that makes the process of taking a keep so long and tedious. Rather it's simply the presence of an enemy zerg.

    If both zergs facing in and around an objective structure are of equals strength, all these thigns do make a difference of course - as they should - but usually the bigger factors are ability and size of the zergs facing each other. If the presence of the buff and defensive siege is an issue for you and your server, maybe you and your comms need to play the game differently. Maybe you need to attack at two places at the same time. Maybe you need to be more mobile. The same tactic that works against one server, might not work against another one. I have never had real issues in taking enemy structures, once we get our stuff together. Getting it together traditionally is the bigger issue for my server.

    "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

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    OP is a list of an individual's preferences and not an objective assessment of the state of the game mode, and it's not clear it was meant to be taken as such. So read the title as 'Things that would make wvw more fun for the OP' and it all makes sense . . .

    Objectively, most of OP's suggestions would just be change for the sake of change, not better or worse, just different. And that would be fine, just another set of parameters to adapt to. But there are a few exceptions . . :

    1) OP seems to underestimate the effect recent defensive nerfs. Structures are no longer worth tiering for their defensive advantages, further nerfs seem superfluous . . .

    If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.

    And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . .

    Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend:

    • Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.
    • Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.
    • Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.
    • Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.
    • Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?
    • There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.

    You've just completely lost me now I'm afraid. If making something more difficult makes it better, why are you so motivated to punish all those poor unfortunate attackers by nerfing their challenge . . ?

    You seem to misunderstand, I don't only attack, I defend also so don't think me of a filthy blobber, I also scout and command defense/attack. I said attacking is one-dimensional in current system where 1 way of attacking counters all defensive siege one can build. Attacking and defending should have variety, which I believe all people should find more fun. Same regarding equal fighting stats.

    You seem to misunderstand. You suggested more defensive nerfs. I pointed out the existing nerfs have made tiering structures a waste of time currently. You countered that making defense more difficult makes it more worthwhile. I pointed out that if that were true, making defense more difficult would punish attackers. You failed to counter . . .

    I suggested 2 defensive nerfs (claim buff) and upgrade time while nerfing blob attacking power by MASSIVELY.

    We count differently as well, it would seem . . .

    Thinking about this did lead me to another change that might be worth considering, which would be reducing or eliminating the score advantage of having a tiered objective. This would leave the structures for the players who enjoy attacking and defending prepared points while those who prefer to move through objectives with less resistance would have the rest of the map to play in without worrying about the cost of ignoring those more difficult objectives .

    True there used to be times when upgraded objectives were worth same as unupgraded objectives. There are upsides to both, for your system it is that smaller groups can keep up with larger groups in points as easier to cap towers would have same value as higher value towers. This makes existance of small off-prime guilds and groups have way more value. I do believe the new system feels overtuned regarding how much more points upgraded objectives give and it could be reduced.
    . .

    3) Many ppl love desert. Taking desert from those who enjoy it and reverting it to alpine so the ppl who enjoy alpine can have a third copy to play on would reduce rather than increase the total number of ppl enjoying the game . . .

    Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.

    There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .

    No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.

    And anet -- with input from their players -- decided that offering variety was the better choice. They could instead alternate all of the maps to alpine or desert week to week, but that would alienate all of the players who are tired of playing on the same map all the time and all of the players who are unwilling to learn a new map. The current setup is the better option, esp since your main complaint seems to be about scoring which does not have any consequence anyway . . .

    Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.

    I feel it is perfectly right and just to punish players for refusing to play on a particular map, just as it is perfectly right and just for me to be punished for refusing to play easier classes. This is why I gave you that example . . .

    Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.

    You are correct that a team that chooses to forfeit decides the match before it begins. You are incorrect in arguing that is the fault of anyone other than the forfeiting team. And I would have nothing against removing the scoring system from wvw, but I don't think it would make wvw better. Winning can't mean anything until anet can create more balanced matchups, but it is one more thing to pursue and giving ppl a broader variety of goals is better as it increases the number of ppl who can find something they like to do . . .

    Lot of the balance in WvW issues are within claimbuff and player activity that changes week-to-week due to existance of desert map. As I pointed out it isn't just 1 or 2 servers, it is lot of commanders and guilds that do the same to desert map. Server should have similar strength from one week to next if there isn't internal changes, the map layout shouldn't decide that and create balance issues. I don't play on a server that doesn't play desert map, I just want WvW map layout to be more balanced so that good plays decide the matchups, not the colour of ones side.

    The quality of play has never decided matchups. It has always been numbers and coverage. Eliminating the desert map would do nothing to address this, unfortunately . . .

    Same goes regarding smaller scale, lot of lone commanders and guilds don't play desert map. Now the same problem arises. It is brings unbalance to any timezone you play at. Strength of a server can be commander caring about homemap but if that commander changes his behaviour when it happens to be desert map, it can change the whole timezone which server is strong at to a losing one.

    The existance of desert map affects not only large-group-fighters (that prefer alpine/eb) but also anyone who plays for points.

    Now as you see this isn't another rant post about desert map being bad or anything, it is a post about how it affects WvW in whole, there is no qualities, expect its popularity, of desert map here. The map is fine, the popularity and the imbalance it brings to matchups is not. So you should argue against those. Does it not remove the meaningfulness scoring system from some matchups? If it does, then is the 3 alpine maps better choice than 3 desert? Does the importance of small number of people who prefer desert map a bit hold a candle to competitiveness/meaningfulness of matchups in the gamemode?

    I just can't see why it would be a good idea to change the mode to account for ppl who refuse to play it. Would it not be better to facilitate those who do wish to play . . ?

    I didn't say it has anything to do with people who didn't play it. I said people who are playing this competitive gamemode should have working scoring system and timezones. Existance of 1 desert borderlands changes the way WvW plays from week to week so much that it has an negative impact to lot of matchups. Okay imagine this; 1 server plays desert map, another doesn't. It doesn't just affect both servers, not only the one that doesn't play it. Now imagine you're making a perfect WvW game, would it have 2 alpine maps and 1 desert map regarding scoring and matchmaking?

    Having 2 different kind of borderlands, out of which 1 is popular and 1 isn't, is a major issue within WvW making WvW more unbalanced for everyone, not just the people who don't play it. You can't have balanced matchups while the map exists.

    The map is not causing the problem you describe. Players who refuse to play the map are causing the problem you describe. You may also want to consider that since desert is given to the team that just moved up a tier, whether ppl in desert avoid playing bc they don't like desert, or bc they are tanking to drop from an undesirable tier . . .

    And yes, my perfect wvw game would have long term appeal, which would include a variety of maps . . .

    Yes as I said desert map is fine thousand times but its unpopularity is bringing unbalance thus it should be removed. My argument was never that the map is bad. I am suggesting them to change to 3 same borderlands because the whole system of having 2 different borderlands, out of which 1 is unpopular, is messed up, not the maps itself. As I said 3 alpine borderlands or 3 desert maps is what I ask because it messes up the competitiveness and adds way too much variety of how servers act between matchups.

    Your argument is about if the map is good and my argument is about if the system behind it is flawed.

    No, your argument is that we should remove a map bc some ppl don't play on it, my argument is removing something ppl like makes wvw less fun, which is what I took as the topic of the thread. Many ppl do not play wvw at all bc they don't like pvp. Should we also alter wvw to accommodate those ppl at the expense of those who do like pvp? It makes about as much sense . . .

    4) I only roam and the watchtower tactic does not affect me in any way. I do not believe I am special in this regard . . .

    There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it.

    Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.

    Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . .

    I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole).

    I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size.

    To me the biggest effect removing the watchtower would have is it would make it easier for ppl to flip structures without a fight, and harder for ppl looking for a fight to draw one. That would be consistent with a lot of anet's recent choices making it easier to cap defended structures, but I don't see it as a positive change . . .

    If you read my suggestion carefully, I was suggesting to make the watchtower detect siege weapons (even build sites). Meaning lot of camps and towers would require an active scout.

    It seems you misunderstand the fact what a fight is, if the enemy shows up the moment the red dots show up, you won't be getting in the tower and getting an epic fight. You will be countered by cannons and acs before you even have a chance to get siege up. Now this change is also so that smaller groups (5-25 people) can play during daytime, because going to north towers on alpine maps, any eb tower with watchtower, is basically a suicide at the moment. Sure you can walk all the way around through the jumping puzzle and waste 1 minute to try to sneak NW tower on enemy border but then if you fail it feels even worse.

    Point is if there are more groups of different size going for objectives, there will be more fights. Atm the only way to take an upgraded objective is by Sneaking it (no red dots) or blobbing it down. Issue is that you need way more people to even attempt capping towers and camps than what is fun.

    WvW community will adapt to changes for watchtowers by promoting active scouting more. If you played pre-HoT, you would know there used to be dedicated scouts that sieged everything up and ran around, obviously the new watchtower would still help us massively but it wouldn't make their job obsolete at half the objectives while providing variety of defenses they can experience rather than just long-range catas by sneaky-sneakys.

    Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.

    A good fight is a long fight. A good fight for a defended objective involves siege, sapping supply, being rebuffed, returning as many times as necessary to wear the structure down before finally breaching and getting down to the direct toon v toon pvp, which might also require repeated attempts before the fight is finally decided. Skipping to the end does not make the fight more fun . . .

    I stopped scouting bc ppl stopped answering calls. Discussion of why ppl stopped answering calls in wvw would likely be derailing . . .

    Watchtowers only limit the map if you are trying to avoid fights . . .

    As I said, watchtower change would change the whole way how WvW would play out. More scouts, more lordfights, more siege, more small groups, less getting blobbed down, less attacking failing before it started. The pluses are stronger than minuses. You can have good fights even with the reworked watchtower (which will still scout enemies so it won't reduce the amount of fights just response time!!! <-- see this?)

    And as I said, the watchtower is not responsible for reduced scouting. Reducing the effectiveness of watchtowers would not make ppl suddenly care about answering calls, it would only make it less likely those interested in defense would arrive in time, which would result in more flipping without fights (which I think is bad, ymmv), and fewer opportunities to create protracted sieges (which I also think is bad, ymmv) . . .

  • Lauren.3061Lauren.3061 Member ✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Threather.9354 said:
    Increase dolyaks required to upgrade objective to 25/50/100, a small 25% increase. Not too unreasonable considering you can get bay upgraded all the way to t3 under 2 hours now.

    My issue with this suggestion is that applying it across the board will make things very difficult upgrading certain objectives. Specifically, northwest and northeast towers in the alpine borderlands. Unlike all the desert borderlands towers, and the southern towers in alpine, the northern towers do not receive yaks from the side camps (northwest/northeast camps). Their only yak source is north camp. If north camp is 100% uncontested and allowed to upgrade to T3, with speedy yaks, I've been able to upgrade the north towers in ~3 hours. But that's almost never the case and it usually takes 6-7 hours minimum. So tacking more time onto that wouldn't be fair. I'd be okay with adding the extra time if ANet could change north towers to get side camp yaks as well.

    Also in regards to your keep buff point, I wouldn't mind seeing that deleted entirely in all honesty. If not that, then dropped to +25, doubled to +50 in keeps.

    Nerf watchtower tactic so that it only detects siege weapons. Key points of roaming like Danelon, Rogues quarry and Pangloss rise are completely covered by the towers. Not to mention you can't have small fights near enemy tower because soon cavalry will arrive due to the red dots. Scouts would regain some of the importance of the job back as camp defenders rather than relying on the tactics too much.

    I agree that watchtower radius is too large and discourages small fights. What I'd love to see instead, however, is that the "marked" effect only triggers once damage has been done to a gate or wall. I believe it should continue to mark players, but only under that condition. Maybe that's not even possible to do, but I think it's a fair substitution.

    1. Siege Generators
      Well they counter everything from omegas (up to a point where using alphas/guild golems is better), trebs, catas, ballistas, acs. Attacking is too simple, build 6+ golems and build shield gens, you will be in objective, no brain necessary.
      How to fix: Make the bubble pulse protection in addition to stability in area and not block siege projectiles. Protection is enough to protect from AC fire. You should be able to still be able to treb rams behind bubbles. Ballistas will be relevant again. Shield generator should become a tool to block disablers and projectiles while providing boons. It doesn't need to be counter-of-all-siege in addition to that.

    I hate shield gens so much. They so badly need more reworking. Another fix I'd like to see is for ANet to increase that radius around the shield gen that prevents it from "shielding itself or another generator." Right now it's WAY too small, and the curved edge of the dome still can easily cover the generator and protect it.

    I agree with a lot of your suggestions. I really can't offer an opinion on the desert borderlands issue because it isn't a huge problem in the way you're describing for my server (currently in tier 3-4 NA). My biggest issues with desert BL that make me less interested in playing it are how difficult everything is to navigate, especially the side keeps. Alongside that, they designed the towers to be WAY too large, with far too many breakable walls. They feel like keeps, and are a total pain to siege up. I stopped bothering with that ages ago, since siege never gets refreshed, but also because they so seldom ever get attacked by anything.

    For me, a major issue as a defender that makes WvW unfun is how completely and utterly unsafe the walls of a keep or tower are for defenders against even a modest-size attacking force of around 25. If you so much as peek over the edge of the wall, it's insta mesmer pull spam, scourge shades, ele bomb, and can I just say how much I hate the changed ranger longbow #5? I love how they change ele's Dragon Tooth so it can't do that zero-LoS hitting siege thing anymore but then add this instead. Ugh.

  • Jugglemonkey.8741Jugglemonkey.8741 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:
    1. Defenders advantage is overtuned
    This one is quite obvious, defending was already quite easy pre-HoT but now defenders get 800 extra stats within keeps (400 in towers), perma 25% movement speed, tactics (EWP), gliding, faster upgrading, permanent supply etc.

    I'm kinda indifferent to this one. Yeah, it is a big advantage in some circumstances, but I do think the defenders should have some kind of advantage, and I feel that if they addressed your second point correctly this should become a non issue.

    1. Metabuilds are too braindead and have too short cooldowns
      Well it doesn't take a sherlock to notice that scourges and firebrands are obvious downgrade from fun of reapers and guardians. We have moved from meta which included 2 semi-dps guardians (celestial) in party to a party system where there is 1 healbot firebrand that spams skills (and falls asleep during combat). Stability used to not only require awareness of when your party member uses it but also it was possible for 1 person to cover for the flaws of the other. This made 1 good guardian worth more than 2 bad ones. And don't get me started on scrapper, it heals and cleanses too much.

    Totally agreed. Power creep has gotten ridiculous, supports are very difficult to kill and if you can kill them it probably means your DPS build is overtuned too. You have to be able to punish mistakes to make good gameplay meaningful, and a lot of the stuff introduced in PoF just covers bad plays without much thought.

    1. Desert map
      Well the map is reducing WvW activity. Not only the existance of it makes some matchups completely pointless because there exists servers that completely loathe the map and don't play it (f/e whiteside ridge), but it also has half the kills of any existing map ON ANY MATCHUP. This means people spend approximately 5-6 times more time on alpine maps and the active hours would actually increase by giving these people more options rather than catering to 2-5 headed minority on each server that prefers the empty desert.

    Kinda neutral on this. I don't often go to desert border, but that's mostly because I'm looking to fight over small objectives and you only ever run into karma trains there, if anything. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the map now (not like there was at release), it's just a community thing.

    1. Watchtower tactic
      Unfortunately the tactic has too large of a radius up to a point where it kills roaming and makes people lazy. Current iteration also punishes new players and guilds too hard.

    Not really bothered about its effect on roaming, even as a deadeye, as most watchtowers still have routes you can use to get to your objective unmarked. What does annoy me is the laziness factor, but that's simply as less people scouting ultimately means less people for me to kill.

    1. Siege Generators
      Well they counter everything from omegas (up to a point where using alphas/guild golems is better), trebs, catas, ballistas, acs. Attacking is too simple, build 6+ golems and build shield gens, you will be in objective, no brain necessary.

    This one also makes sense, it's a similar logic to what I said on point 2. There needs to be counters to strategies and a cost for making mistakes, and if possible they need to make having a bigger group (so more supply, for more golems and shield gens) be an advantage but not a win strategy. I'd also be happy if they just straight up nerfed the health of shield gens, to give havok teams a purpose in defending. Don't build them in smart places and don't defend them, and you won't have them for long.

    Critical Kit, Deadeye.
    “If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” - John Steinbeck

  • Blackarps.1974Blackarps.1974 Member ✭✭✭
    1. Definitely needs to be adjusted. Logging into everything being T3 is just lame. To do that every single time you login is even more lame.
    2. Power creep is here to stay. There isn't really an easy way for them to fix it at this point. The specs are so easy to just spam boons or conditions that there is no real skill anymore. You can just mash buttons at this point and be okay.
    3. The map is still boring. The whole AIR keep is just so horrible to navigate through. Most people just let guilds/zergs get to lords because its the only place you can really fight. Fire keep is mostly the same too. Trying to push in some locations just isn't a thing because its going to frustrate people because of camera angles, falling to your death, etc.
    4. There is 0 counter-play to the watchtower. Its been one of the most powerful upgrades since it came into play. Along with the aura buffs from claiming an objective, watchtower needs its radius heavily reduced. If people want to be lazy with scouting, drop painter traps.
    5. I wouldn't mind seeing a shield gen just giving the same AOE size buff. 50% damage reduction from siege, damage, and conditions would be nice. The domes just block everything. Protection isn't going to help because if you're a competent group, you should already have most boons on your bar as you attack a structure.
  • DAN.7314DAN.7314 Member ✭✭

    @Calisanna.8732 said:
    I actually prefer desert map and know many guilds and roomers that do as well. “Pointless” is the opinion of some, not all. Mounts have helped some traverse the map quicker. The problem is that most people don’t take the time to learn the map. People get lost or hate defending it. I’ve had many fun fights on red bl.
    I would actually enjoy one of the alpine maps to change to something different. Variety is always nice.

    I prefer the desert map myself too. However, I think the desert map is much more difficult to defend, and generally puts whatever server is red BL at a disadvantage.

    I would either make weeks where every map is desert (or alternatively all alpine), or completely randomize which server gets the desert BL. I even think giving the server in the top (green) position for the match up the desert BL would make the match ups more even as they generally have a numbers/skill/coverage advantage as is.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The scourge class (too many condi types too much power dmg and way too many offsite targets effects on a support class) and maybe the rev class (never fun to to be one shot by a culled skill).

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Gop.8713 said:

    Thinking about this did lead me to another change that might be worth considering, which would be reducing or eliminating the score advantage of having a tiered objective. This would leave the structures for the players who enjoy attacking and defending prepared points while those who prefer to move through objectives with less resistance would have the rest of the map to play in without worrying about the cost of ignoring those more difficult objectives . . .

    A lot of people pushed for this change years ago and it brought some life back to defending when WvW was even heavier into k-train runs which lead to even less fights. The extra scoring is a good change and should remain else why even hold a structure. It needs to have more value the longer you have it for both sides of the fight. For incentive for the defender to defend and more of a reason for an attacker to take it out.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Threather.9354 said:
    I am suggesting them to change to 3 same borderlands because the whole system of having 2 different borderlands, out of which 1 is unpopular, is messed up, not the maps itself. As I said 3 alpine borderlands or 3 desert maps is what I ask because it messes up the competitiveness and adds way too much variety of how servers act between matchups.

    In ideal world we would have already had more maps and each week they would rotated in and out without warning which would keep the fights fresher. Baring that we should have 4 unique maps which would also add in variety and freshness. We bleed a lot of players overtime by having the same 3 stall borderland maps. We need to lose another alpine map and have it replaced by another map. People should have to adjust topics moving from map to map. There are people today that don't go to the alpine maps either that stick to others like EBG. Does that mean we should just put 4 EBGs in place instead?

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    imo. id like to get credit for the commanding i do thru my guild in our server. so, i do hope anet develops a system where we are recognized. (outside of team alliance).

    rankings within the server x link x other servers x tiers would be nice.

    since wvw is 24/7 and 7 days a week spanning 2 months a link, guilds should be recognized.

    stroke our egos anet. in the least beside being the top server, we can now work on having a decent guild ranking.

    we already have a system in place. the guild missions. those who can do the most get the most points.

    im sure even pve players would learn this mode, and join the frey. queus will be back and eotm will be alive again.

    tldr. guild rankings (true to its name: guild wars 2)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:
    I am suggesting them to change to 3 same borderlands because the whole system of having 2 different borderlands, out of which 1 is unpopular, is messed up, not the maps itself. As I said 3 alpine borderlands or 3 desert maps is what I ask because it messes up the competitiveness and adds way too much variety of how servers act between matchups.

    In ideal world we would have already had more maps and each week they would rotated in and out without warning which would keep the fights fresher. Baring that we should have 4 unique maps which would also add in variety and freshness. We bleed a lot of players overtime by having the same 3 stall borderland maps. We need to lose another alpine map and have it replaced by another map. People should have to adjust topics moving from map to map. There are people today that don't go to the alpine maps either that stick to others like EBG. Does that mean we should just put 4 EBGs in place instead?

    No, having 3 different borderland maps is fine if they rotate from 1 week to next instead of having all of them simultanously.

    If you read, I am not asking Desert border to be removed because of it's lack of popularity, I am asking 3 of the same borderlands because currently one of the biggest flaws within unbalanced matchmaking is the unpopularity of 1 particular map within matchup and the unnecessary variance of server activies from 1 week to next. Alpine map is just better choice because it has 5-6 times more popularity than desert.

    Unfortunately the reasonable solution isn't to ask the playerbase to start magically playing the map so ANET has to step in to fix this player-caused inbalance.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Threather.9354 said:
    I am sorry but you are putting words to my mouth, I never said defensive sieges are the problem, I said inequal fighting grounds and monodimensional attacking are unfun and unfitting for competitive gamemode. I never suggested nerf to defensive sieges or that they're too strong. Shield generator, the only siege I talked about, is 90% an offensively used siege at higher level of WvW. Not a single time did I mention that any of the defensive siege does too much damage or fend defenders off too well.

    I obviously used a wrong word there. I didn't mean "siege" - I meant "objectives", as in structures. I am telling you, those stat points, in reality they don't make a difference. See my examples. And I have countless of these examples, when objectives are lost despite these buffs. I have countless examples when objectives are lost, despite the use of siege. I have countable memories from the last three months, where we had huge fights (1h+) inside an objective we held or an enemy held! According to you this cannot happen, because the siege and objective buffs provide so much of an advantage. How then are we able to hold out inside an enemy bay for two hours? How can enemies keep attacking and fighting in our own home bay for two hours? How is it possible ff the advantage is soooo overwhelming?

    Or maybe that is your issue, that some fights take so long? Well, I can assure you that most fights do not take nearly that long. Usually you walk up to an objective and take it, no matter what tier it is. If it is sieged up and defended, most objectives can still be taken in a few minutes. Obviously well-armed and defended enemy keeps take longer, but even those rarely take over half an hour from start of the assault to the point they are taken. And it's a keep! A defended keep should take longer!
    If a fight takes really long it is typically, because both sides decide to bring a full blob. And even in this case it isn't the structure or the siege that makes the process of taking a keep so long and tedious. Rather it's simply the presence of an enemy zerg.

    If both zergs facing in and around an objective structure are of equals strength, all these thigns do make a difference of course - as they should - but usually the bigger factors are ability and size of the zergs facing each other. If the presence of the buff and defensive siege is an issue for you and your server, maybe you and your comms need to play the game differently. Maybe you need to attack at two places at the same time. Maybe you need to be more mobile. The same tactic that works against one server, might not work against another one. I have never had real issues in taking enemy structures, once we get our stuff together. Getting it together traditionally is the bigger issue for my server.

    Sorry but I am still going to believe that these 5 changes will make WvW a lot better place by giving access to more meaningful decisions to all groups while reducing variance caused by fighting location and fixing server activity between matchups.

    For you they might seem like small changes that don't do anything but if you look at any other competitive game, small changes like these are actually huger than seem at first glance. I mean the shield gen change would be huge no matter how you look at it.

    I mean for you these changes don't seem to be bad either...? Just you don't seem to think they do anything. Maybe you're just in an outlier group for which changes within WvW doesn't matter. I mean it isn't perfect obviously, so what would you like to be changed? What do you think are perfect stats from the claim buff, more or less? Would you like blobs to not be able to rush in objectives with shield gens while immune to any siege defender can build? Would you like certain tactics to be changed because they're useless/overpowered? Do you think anet should stop working on WvW balance and focus only on big updates instead of small balance changes like these they can do with snap of fingers?

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 8, 2019

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    tldr. guild rankings (true to its name: guild wars 2)

    Yea I think guild rankings would be nice QoL, it could list the total kills, active total hours in WvW, members, objectives captured (maybe only representing people included?). It could have 3 leaderboards for different sized guilds like (1-20), (21-100), (101-500) and update every 2 hours. Obviously it should show ridiculous amount of guilds, like top 100, and your own guild compared to them, so that each server could have their most active guild in there.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

©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.