[Suggestion] Drop supply on death

Dunno if this was suggested before but i could not find in a quick search so...

What if players could drop their supply when killed? Something you just pass by and collect if you are not already full on supply.Maybe add a wvw mastery/ability that reduces how much supply you lose on death or that lets you hold a little more than your limit if gathered from other players.Edit 1 : Let players return their remaining supply to Tower/Keep storage to avoid losing supply in defense fights.Edit 2: Outnumbered players don't drop supply.Edit 3: Dropped supply is only available to players that participated on the kill and disappears if not taken in a few seconds, players of the victim's team can try to recover the lost supply.What are your thoughts on this?

yaks drop supplies. this makes sense actually.

Great idea, love it.

Yeah this is a great idea and dunno why I haven't heard this one!

I believe we already have something like this in a sPvP map (Battle of Champion's Dusk) so the idea is already implemented in the game, just bring it to wvw with some tweaks :#

This would make gaps between weaker and stronger sides even larger. Imagine defending vs stronger group and they do not even need to go to resupply. [same goes for bloodlust by the way.]

@HolyWood.7853 said:This would make gaps between weaker and stronger sides even larger. Imagine defending vs stronger group and they do not even need to go to resupply. [same goes for bloodlust by the way.]

Yeah i thought about this, but i don't think this would be a game changing mechanic just a feature that makes sense to be there. As for the defense side, if you are really outnumbered i see no problem in improving that outnumbered boon to also stop you from giving supply on death as we already don't give points when outnumbered.If you are not outnumbered this mechanic will just force players to think a little more about hanging around mindlessly with supply, and only take when necessary.The gap between weaker and stronger as you call it is already too large, this single feature would not change anything, actually it would give a chance to the defense side, when players know how to defend and use siege, to empty enemy supply and finish the battle even faster.

@Hynax.9536 said:

@HolyWood.7853 said:This would make gaps between weaker and stronger sides even larger. Imagine defending vs stronger group and they do not even need to go to resupply. [same goes for bloodlust by the way.]

Just imagine a simple T3 keep siege. You attack it with 800+ supps... You have 500 supply left and so does the keep. The enemy zoneblob with 30 more players arrives and fight you off. They took 300 supplies from you, have free repairs of the keep and can countersiege your T3 with ease. Your zerg has 200 supplies left and heaven forbid you actually want to engage them in open field after this because then you have 0 supps as you will most likely loose. So you cant do shit now whereas in a pre-supps-taken scenario you'd have the same 500 supps whether you fight them or not and they'd have to spend supps on keep repairs.

So no. I find the idea to be bad.

@Dawdler.8521 said:Just imagine a simple T3 keep siege. You attack it with 800+ supps... You have 500 supply left and so does the keep. The enemy zoneblob with 30 more players arrives and fight you off. They took 300 supplies from you, have free repairs of the keep and can countersiege your T3 with ease. Your zerg has 200 supplies left and heaven forbid you actually want to engage them in open field after this because then you have 0 supps as you will most likely loose. So you cant do kitten now whereas in a pre-supps-taken scenario you'd have the same 500 supps whether you fight them or not and they'd have to spend supps on keep repairs.

So no. I find the idea to be bad.

First, ty for you comment. ^^

I really can't see why is this changing a lot, like i said if you are outnumbered enough to be completely overwhelmed by a 30 players zerg we can just protect you from supply lost using the outnumbered buff. If you are not outnumbered you surely can group a decent zerg and fight them and, in this scenario, both zergs would just kill enough of each other so that none of them is getting a great bonus of supply. Now if you are gonna point the fact that it is not about numbers, then that T3 Keep would be lost anyway (regardless of outnumbered or not) and this would just get to the result faster. The fault is not of this simple feature, but the entire server structure we have for WvW.

Like i said this system would just force players to think about how they use supply, why are you fighting in openfield and losing supply while you should be inside your tower/keep building siege to weaken the zerg from far and waiting to only hit them face to face when they are weakened.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Hynax.9536 said:

@"HolyWood.7853" said:This would make gaps between weaker and stronger sides even larger. Imagine defending vs stronger group and they do not even need to go to resupply. [same goes for bloodlust by the way.]

This.

People don't like pushing out on a zerg attacking as it is, people sit on walls and siege. The zerg out side has been countered, their siege destroyed and they have no supply left to build more, well, forget people pushing out, because if they did and lost, they just gave the zerg the supply they needed to rebuild siege and start over without having to reset.

People already hate on others for "feeding them bags", I can only image map chat after this, "we would have pushed them off if yall had just not kept on jumping out and feeding them supply."

I agree with Dawdler, no way. Don't do this.

Horrible idea. Just don't.

I think it is a reasonable idea to discuss. Nicely phrased as well - short, sweet and to the point. I can understand that some people have reservations about tipping things in favour of a group that dominates the open field. At the same time, a game does not necessarily get more engaging by letting a losing side just haul up in objectives and sit there, requiring resources. That only works if the attackers are not interested in flushing them out.

I think alot of people who enjoy defending or who play PPT games underestimate how much their tactics are enabled by disinterest. I'm not sure if tedium, disjointing and disinterest are good ways to balance a game. That is the upside of the suggestion, making PPK and PPT more interactive. That's how things should be as far as I am concerned, they should reflect upon one another as they are both part of the WvW mode.

The mode is not helped by pulling them apart and letting PPT be a thing because no one cares or because people find it boring to do or find it counter-productive to do (because it can break the spirit of a side in a matchup). I'd rather the two things transpire naturally and simultainously. I think that can end up breaking the spirit of matchups far less since laying siege to a boxed-in side doesn't become such a definitive- or commited choice and rather something that happens through playing.

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Hynax.9536 said:

@"HolyWood.7853" said:This would make gaps between weaker and stronger sides even larger. Imagine defending vs stronger group and they do not even need to go to resupply. [same goes for bloodlust by the way.]

Then Just dont pick up supply if you dont have to?

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Hynax.9536 said:

@"HolyWood.7853" said:This would make gaps between weaker and stronger sides even larger. Imagine defending vs stronger group and they do not even need to go to resupply. [same goes for bloodlust by the way.]

So now no one picks up supply, because they might give it to the enemy, and supply can't be dropped, so you now avoid the fight because you have supply.

This is adding more complication that doesn't need to be there, and further punishes player on player combat even more for something that will more often than not, further prop up the stronger side.

Attacking is not easy as it is, and attackers will often wipe more than once to take a keep. Now in the new system, even if the larger zerg is defending and wont fight (pretty common), once the other side is in full AC showers and they push out and wipe them, they now have full supply to repair everything and rebuild siege, when the other zerg comes back, they have to start all over again, yet the defending server didn't use any keep supply. The attacking zerg either has to give them supply, use golems only or show up with no supply and PvD.

Rolling a map queue and steamrolling everything? Hey, no need to manage supply or have anything to slow you down, now you can cap everything even faster! Want to slow them down by starving supply etc? Nope, they just need to blob down more people and good to go. It makes the game even more passive for the stronger groups.

i really like this idea ;Dit gives me as a roamer a new playstyle : )farming zerglings and steel their sups.

+1 for this amazing idea

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:Attacking is not easy as it is, and attackers will often wipe more than once to take a keep. Now in the new system, even if the larger zerg is defending and wont fight (pretty common), once the other side is in full AC showers and they push out and wipe them, they now have full supply to repair everything and rebuild siege, when the other zerg comes back, they have to start all over again, yet the defending server didn't use any keep supply. The attacking zerg either has to give them supply, use golems only or show up with no supply and PvD.

Rolling a map queue and steamrolling everything? Hey, no need to manage supply or have anything to slow you down, now you can cap everything even faster! Want to slow them down by starving supply etc? Nope, they just need to blob down more people and good to go. It makes the game even more passive for the stronger groups.

So one is saying that this makes life easier for the attackers, other is saying that it makes life easier for the defenders, what then?

This system favors the map blob? Yeah well it does considering there will be no other blob to fight, situation that does not matter how much supply you have cus that blob will paint the map anyway. Again people are pointing out problems of the game mode like if it were problems of the idea itself, it is already this way.

@Hynax.9536 said:

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:Attacking is not easy as it is, and attackers will often wipe more than once to take a keep. Now in the new system, even if the larger zerg is defending and wont fight (pretty common), once the other side is in full AC showers and they push out and wipe them, they now have full supply to repair everything and rebuild siege, when the other zerg comes back, they have to start all over again, yet the defending server didn't use any keep supply. The attacking zerg either has to give them supply, use golems only or show up with no supply and PvD.

Rolling a map queue and steamrolling everything? Hey, no need to manage supply or have anything to slow you down, now you can cap everything even faster! Want to slow them down by starving supply etc? Nope, they just need to blob down more people and good to go. It makes the game even more passive for the stronger groups.

It doesn't help attackers or defenders, it supports and further snowballs the stronger side, be it defending or attacking.

Your last statement is the same as saying "forget balance, they are going to take the whole map anyway, might as well make it easier for them.". As someone who often sticks around for the hard fights and in many cases pushed off the other far greater numbered zerg just by the skin of our teeth, no thanks. We do not need less balance, because "the side with the greater numbers is going to win anyway".

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:It doesn't help attackers or defenders, it supports and further snowballs the stronger side, be it defending or attacking.

Your last statement is the same as saying "forget balance, they are going to take the whole map anyway, might as well make it easier for them.". As someone who often sticks around for the hard fights and in many cases pushed off the other far greater numbered zerg just by the skin of our teeth, no thanks. We do not need less balance, because "the side with the greater numbers is going to win anyway".

No, i'm not saying "forget" , i'm saying stop criticizing the idea based on poor arguments like "it will only give power to the already strong side". It's really cool how everyone just says "strong side" like if there was a powerful server dominating everything and everyone right now. No, the strong is just the best prepared team to fight at a given moment, that will learn how to use this as anything else that comes to wvw in its favor, so it is hard to take serious when someone says that something is just making the stronger stronger.If you were able to push off a "far greater numbered zerg" them who is the strong, you or them? Who would be favored by this? This "stronger" entity is not something you can just point out and use as argument. The "stronger" is the one that knows how to use this, not the one to be favored by this.

@Hynax.9536 said:

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:It doesn't help attackers or defenders, it supports and further snowballs the stronger side, be it defending or attacking.

Your last statement is the same as saying "forget balance, they are going to take the whole map anyway, might as well make it easier for them.". As someone who often sticks around for the hard fights and in many cases pushed off the other far greater numbered zerg just by the skin of our teeth, no thanks. We do not need less balance, because "the side with the greater numbers is going to win anyway".

And I can't take you serious if you are going to make a statement that balance and favoring the stronger server is a "poor argument", that is the end all be all of arguments, not a poor one. A bad idea SHOULD be criticized, and many people criticize ideas posted here because they are often not thought about beyond the idea in a vacuum.

Yes, we have strong servers, but I guess everyone who had to deal with BG for years were just wrong and they just needed to get better right? BG was only stuck in T1 because they were the most skillful, not because of numbers and coverage or anything like that...

And yes, being more skillful vs a larger/stronger group can win a fight or push off a zerg banging at the gates, we are already fighting greater numbers, we don't need yet another thing to overcome. Or, maybe in a given case, we ARE the stronger server, why should we get another advantage? There are already enough things in the game that favor the stronger side and balling up, we need less of this, not more.

Though an interesting idea I think this would lead to less fights versus more. As stated above there is already reasons for a side with less not to engage and I fear this would be an addendum to reasons why not to engage. Today we have no mechanics for a player to deliver supply to an objective nor anyway for a player to exchange or drop supply and would need that before there was a way to take supply from a downed player. Add in a way that players can deliver supply from one point to another and then lets review options.

@"TheGrimm.5624" said:Though an interesting idea I think this would lead to less fights versus more. As stated above there is already reasons for a side with less not to engage and I fear this would be an addendum to reasons why not to engage. Today we have no mechanics for a player to deliver supply to an objective nor anyway for a player to exchange or drop supply and would need that before there was a way to take supply from a downed player. Add in a way that players can deliver supply from one point to another and then lets review options.

This is a good comment TY, yeah since players would fear more the fight as dying would only "feed supply" to the enemy a good option would be to let players return their supply back to the tower/camp/keep storage. This way the player can just drop its supply and drown in the fight without fear.

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:And I can't take you serious if you are going to make a statement that balance and favoring the stronger server is a "poor argument", that is the end all be all of arguments, not a poor one. A bad idea SHOULD be criticized, and many people criticize ideas posted here because they are often not thought about beyond the idea in a vacuum.

Yeah i agree any idea SHOULD BE CRITICIZED, CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM just like the comment above. It was not simply saying "OH NO PLEASE, IT WILL DESTROY THE GAME MODE", it was a comment pointing a problem and a possible solution or other things that should be thought together to make the idea better. I'm not here selling a product and hoping you to buy, i'm giving an idea and expecting you to say what could be improved in it to a point it fits in the game.If you think it will favor the "stronger server" (again with this), then lets think together if there is a way so it does not favor...

@Hynax.9536 said:

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:It doesn't help attackers or defenders, it supports and further snowballs the stronger side, be it defending or attacking.

Your last statement is the same as saying "forget balance, they are going to take the whole map anyway, might as well make it easier for them.". As someone who often sticks around for the hard fights and in many cases pushed off the other far greater numbered zerg just by the skin of our teeth, no thanks. We do not need less balance, because "the side with the greater numbers is going to win anyway".

You cant "use" it. You cant just decide that your zerg will win against the enemy zerg so you can take their supplies. WvW doesnt work like that. If your zerg wipe because it got steamrolled by a larger and stronger enemy zerg then this idea punishes you for wiping while favoring the ones that did the wiping, far beyond simple score. It literally gives winners an advantage in coming battles, be it for sieging or defending.

We do not need this and I fail to see where you have made any argument about how this would do any good for WvW.

If you dont believe that the stronger server in a matchup exist, well I dont know what to say except do not look at WvW matchup scoreboards. It might shatter your reality beyond repair.

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Hynax.9536 said:

@"HolyWood.7853" said:This would make gaps between weaker and stronger sides even larger. Imagine defending vs stronger group and they do not even need to go to resupply. [same goes for bloodlust by the way.]

I said that shit as clowning talk, gw2 is allready a stackfest of people

i see no logic for this not to be the way. because dolyaks bring supplies and drop them. players bring supplies and should be treated like dolyaks and drop them too.

this is the way

No. This makes strong sides even stronger. We need HANDICAPPING mechanics, not SNOWBALLING mechanics.