Why Are We Not Able to Deposit Supply into Towers/Keeps?

This one has seemed to have slipped my mind on asking over the years, but I would be a bit surprised if it wasn't brought up before. So, we can take supply, but not help restock? That is, besides waiting on the fat yak to get there (generally speaking). Something about this just feels... So unnatural to me. The reason I'm bringing it up is I think it could add a certain level of "risk" to the gamemode. For example, "Do I help restock this Tower/Keep now and help it progress further (use your imagination)? OR... Do I use this supply to help take another Tower/Keep via siege?" Also, I'm leaving out "Camps" because that's where supply is generated in the first place, but other objectives (as mentioned) I could see it making general situations occasionally more interesting.

Love the idea... Hate the idea... Don't really care. Just thought I'd mention it. Have a wonderful day <3

Because that would be too easy?

If it would be capped by a certain amount...sure? 'Otherwise IT would be for the millionth patch 'the allready stronger side would be even stronger, since they could move the supply'

@Sobx.1758 said:Because that would be too easy?

lol, well it's an easy action yea. How dare I be able to pick up supply, but not put any back. Hmmm... ?

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:Because that would be too easy?

What I mean is that leveling up structures would be too easy and fast. Hoped that would be obvious.

In an attrition game for objectives, you can't see how unbalanced that would be? It would greatly increase siege lengths.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:Because that would be too easy?

That wasn't so obvious to me because I already made mention to this in the "risk" example I gave... "help it progress further (use your imagination)" piece of it in the OP. So I just thought you were referring to the actual action of doing so. Anyways, I've already given the possible price to pay in that very same example... "OR... Do I use this supply to help take another Tower/Keep via siege?". If your're busy with helping out a walled objective progress somehow... Then you're not actually busy taking one because your doing that instead. Or helping a force on your side take one.

At the end of the day. It's too weird to pretty much completely rely on a yak, pick up supply from a tower, but not help replenish it by putting some back. If you can simply pick supply up... You should be able to set some back. Also, you still can't go past tower supply caps and must wait/rely on the workers to pick the supply up and make use of it. If they need to tone the worker speed down... Well, I don't see why that wouldn't be an option.

@Chaba.5410 said:In an attrition game for objectives, you can't see how unbalanced that would be? It would greatly increase siege lengths.

You have to rely on the speed of the workers at the end of the day. That would be the issue if anything, not so much the action.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:Because that would be too easy?

The thing about "risks" you've listed in your first post is that they're not "risks" at all. Camps rarelly are missing supplies and the moment they get new ones, they'd be transfered to more valuable objectives. Not much of a hard choice to make here, seems pretty one sided to me.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:Because that would be too easy?

Idk about that. I've had to wait for Camps to replenish plenty of times in my years. Seems like it would depend on the situation (maybe even server population). That's not a risk I pointed out or was referring to however. The point was... Taking supply over to Tower/Keep vs possibly having the option to take another enemy Tower/Keep. There are times were this will be a risk and times were it won't depending on your forces.

You can take supply, but not return it. Something doesn't seem right about that. If anything the problem would be the mechanics that surround the action as opposed to the action itself. And initially... Like I said, you gotta rely on the speed of the workers at the end of the day no mater the supply you have. That can be easily adjusted if need be.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Chaba.5410" said:In an attrition game for objectives, you can't see how unbalanced that would be? It would greatly increase siege lengths.

Huh? What does "speed of the workers" even mean? Sieges have always been a supply attrition game.

yeah lol this seems like one of those common sense things. if you deposit supply for defense, obviously you can't use it for offense. sounds like a good trade off.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:yeah lol this seems like one of those common sense things. if you deposit supply for defense, obviously you can't use it for offense. sounds like a good trade off.

Hahaha Ikr? How dare we wish to have the choice to deposit supply in the supply depot! Absolutely absurd, blasphemy!

Sure but you have to activate an event at a supply camp first which then causes you to mount on warclaw but can only move at yak speed while putting an icon on the minimap that any side can see. If you succeed the mini event you get wexp or if someone kills you they get it.

As cool as this idea sounded to me, it is still the problem of zergs...

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:yeah lol this seems like one of those common sense things. if you deposit supply for defense, obviously you can't use it for offense. sounds like a good trade off.

Yes, how dare a defending zerg get out of combat safely behind their walls in order to waypoint to another T3 keep and come back to deposit a ton of supply back into the attacked structure so that a handful of defenders are ready to prolong the siege defense while the defending zerg just bought time to go do something else.

My finely crafted reply: Pls no more siege.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:yeah lol this seems like one of those common sense things. if you deposit supply for defense, obviously you can't use it for offense. sounds like a good trade off.

Wait what? If the an entire Zerg teleports from defending a keep being attacked because they moved out of combat. That makes it easier on the attackers to take it while they're away. Then... If they if they did make it back somehow to still defend and end up losing that keep... They just lost all that supply instead of choosing to hold onto it. Then... If the attackers choose to attack the very keep they just pulled supply from... Well, now that "t3 keep" has lesser supply to defend with for itself. Sounds like it could be risky... I like it :)

TL;DRWe would never be able to drain T3.

Brilliant.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:yeah lol this seems like one of those common sense things. if you deposit supply for defense, obviously you can't use it for offense. sounds like a good trade off.

LOL. OK, you tell yourself that giving defenders a way to bank their supply at an objective they are defending is in any way equal to attackers not having that ability at the objective they are attacking.

Because Anet doesnt like depth. and this apply to every aspect of this game. Rather milking people with gemstore init ?

Nope.Because it would create gameplay outside of blob fights, and that's something Anet doesn't want in WvW.

It would make strong servers exposentionally stronger. As such it is a very very bad idea.

@"Morgan.4381" said:Because Anet doesnt like depth. and this apply to every aspect of this game. Rather milking people with gemstore init ?

How would this add any kind of "depth"? If anything that would simplify it and boost the defenders, which isn't needed at all. OP pretending that there would be some "hard choice" or tradeoff in this whole thing is just false -it would be just another change that would support a winning side. Awful idea.

@Tao.5096 said:Nope.Because it would create gameplay outside of blob fights, and that's something Anet doesn't want in WvW.

I like playing WvW and I don't play in blobs. Seems to me you're wrong.

As long as Anet does not bring back "supply" as a strategical resource (back in the old days, when we had a choice, WHAT & WHEN to upgrade) of some sort, I think a 1:1 transference of supply from tower/keep to tower/keep will allow the stronger (more players, more structures held) server to shift supply quicker than a weaker server, making it even stronger in comparison.The concept could work with some restrictions, like:

• only being able to transfer personal supply to tower/keep supply in a 2:1 ration (e.g. you spent 20 and deposit 10)
• way-pointing on the map (like from Garri to Bay) gives you a small de-buff (like one or two minutes) in which you can't deposit (just call it "trans-special-quaratine"), so you can't ferry supply via way points to much.
• map jumping across maps should give you a larger de-buff, so you can't just drain your "safe home world keeps" in favour of disputed fortifications on other maps.