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

[Tao.5096]

@Sobx.1758 said:I like playing WvW and I don't play in blobs. Seems to me you're wrong.

Wrong on what?

[Sobx.1758]

@Tao.5096 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:I like playing WvW and I don't play in blobs. Seems to me you're wrong.

Wrong on what?

About no gameplay outside of blobs, seems pretty obvious as you didn't write much more than that.

[Whiteout.1975]

@"Gorani.7205" said: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.

Thanks for the reply. I can appreciate at least trying to balance around idea (like a few others briefly tried).

So, I think currently the server with more players will naturally be able to shift supply as it is today without this change. The main difference is supply going directly into a damaged wall/seige etc. vs a supply depot possibly. Overall... This comes with the cost of time if they choose to instead put supply into the supply depot. Which may or may not be worth it depending on the situation; instead of directly putting supply in like so... Player(s) -> siege/wall/door. This would now go... Player(s) -> supply depot -> Player(s) (again) -> siege/wall/door. Though, if the larger group feels the need to defend against the smaller group... I'm not so sure on how threatening the larger group truly is then, if that's the case. Ultimately, I'm not so sure the possible rates of attackers would be bothered too much by the possible rates of defenders risking leaving their objective to go grab more supply any more than it affects those general situation's as they happen today honestly without this change.

Because some people still bring in supply while under attack today. It just more common the case to find them wanting to immediately invest it into something to help them defend and I just don't see the supply depot on average/overall being the immediate "go-to" method for defense. So I think the whole small vs large perspective is a slight over evaluation in giving a bit too much credit of what could happen... Instead of what would likely actually happen generally speaking. None the less, still is something important to consider and am glad it was mentioned.

Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

[Chaba.5410]

@"Whiteout.1975" said:The main difference is supply going directly into a damaged wall/seige etc. vs a supply depot possibly. Overall... This comes with the cost of time if they choose to instead put supply into the supply depot.

You're still oversimplifying the "main difference". You're ignoring the fact that 20 people dumping supply into a structure's storage means that that supply can now be used by 5 defenders against 20 attackers (siege disablers, repairing walls, etc.) while the other 15 go get more supply or hit an objective of the attackers, etc. With mechanics the way they are right now, 20 people with supply have to be present in order for that supply to be used or saved. Banking supply is a form of "buying more time" for defenders , not costing them time at all. It upsets what offense/defense balance to sieges there is right now.

Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

Those situations don't exist because you're not accounting for how your suggestion bypasses player numbers.

My main point is that allowing players to bank supply would greatly extend siege times and we don't need that. Siege can already take up to three hours between teams of even numbers and is part of the game that no one wants to really do.

[Sobx.1758]

@"Whiteout.1975" said:Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

No, they still won't be. The moment supplies are immedialey needed, you use them. The moment you get "a breather", you fill up the supply depot in case enemies come back in a few minutes. You try to make it seem like there would be some hard decisions to make, but there really wouldn't. And if you don't limit the WP, might as well have some people running defended building depot -> walls, while some would keep WPing -> run one way to depot. Either way there won't be much of a choice instead of a clear optimal behavior in a given situation. That brings nothing fresh to the game and only supports the winning/defending side.

[Tao.5096]

@Sobx.1758 said:About no gameplay outside of blobs, seems pretty obvious as you didn't write much more than that.

I didn't say there is no gameplay outside of blobs.I just said that Anet doesn't want it.Why?See the changes that they do to class specs and overall WvW mode.

[Morgan.4381]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@"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.

No, it gives the choice and the opportunity an organised squad to come and re supply a dry t3 for example. This wouldnt be op since you still have to enter your own sieged fort which is probably surrounded by zergs. Also, you didnt bring this supply from the twisting nether, you had to take it from one of your other structures which is now more vulnerable. High risk / high rewards, see ?If your server suck well thats too bad (and actually anet fault aswell for giving no purpose to actually win rather than the ladder) and it's maybe time to tag up as a commander and teach people basic tactics you know. So yes, this would add depth to the gameplay, factually

[Sobx.1758]

@Tao.5096 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:About no gameplay outside of blobs, seems pretty obvious as you didn't write much more than that.

I didn't say there is no gameplay outside of blobs.I just said that Anet doesn't want it.Why?See the changes that they do to class specs and overall WvW mode.

Can't see it, explain please.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:The main difference is supply going directly into a damaged wall/seige etc. vs a supply depot

possibly

. Overall... This comes with the cost of time if they choose to instead put supply into the supply depot.

You're still oversimplifying the "main difference". You're ignoring the fact that 20 people dumping supply into a structure's storage means that that supply can now be used by 5 defenders against 20 attackers (siege disablers, repairing walls, etc.) while the other 15 go get more supply or hit an objective of the attackers, etc. With mechanics the way they are right now, 20 people with supply have to be present in order for that supply to be used or saved.

Banking supply is a form of "buying more time" for defenders

, not costing them time at all. It upsets what offense/defense balance to sieges there is right now.

I mean... You can think I'm "oversimplifying" here and I'll just return the favor by saying I think you're over-analyzing resulting in a bit of a exaggerated outcome. Sounds fair to me. Anyways, I'm literally not "ignoring" this... I just disagree with how extreme you're making this situation sound. If "20" players show up deposit supply (assuming they need to) and leave "5" behind as defenders... Well, this can already happen today. Also if you're "Banking" supply then it's not being used initially/immediately. Though, if those "5" want more supply to use themselves they gotta hop off of whatever siege they're using because they're otherwise "defending". Which, means they're (or some portion of defenders) are not actively on siege because they are busy fiddling around with more supply for whatever the specific cause. The main difference is still a Zerg showing up and pumping supply directly into whatever is damaged (as it happens today still) vs pumping it into a Supply depot which still has to make it's way to whatever is damaged if that's the intention.

Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

Those situations don't exist because you're not accounting for how your suggestion bypasses player numbers.

My main point is that allowing players to bank supply would greatly extend siege times and we don't need that. Siege can already take up to three hours between teams of even numbers and is part of the game that no one wants to really do.

I don't care much for too much siege ether at the end of the day. So we can agree on that at least. However, the choice here, considering your example, is still this... "We can put supply directly towards siege (siege in this case) OR... Empty out our supply, leave our defenders to defend, have to go restock on supply, x amount of defenders choose to get off siege to pick up supply (since it doesn't magically appear in their hands) and go from there." And hope the rate of doing ether option is enough to deter attackers with maybe some attackers going back to get supply from the nearest supply camp as well (for ironically "more siege") since this happens incredibly often already from the attacking side.

[Chaba.5410]

@Morgan.4381 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@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.

No, it gives the choice and the opportunity an organised squad to come and re supply a dry t3 for example. This wouldnt be op since you still have to enter your own sieged fort which is probably surrounded by zergs. High risk / high rewards, see ?If your server suck well thats too bad (and actually anet fault aswell for giving no purpose to actually win rather than the ladder) and it's maybe time to tag up as a commander and teach people basic tactics you know. So yes, this would add depth to the gameplay, factually

Yes, resupply a dry T3 structure to leave all that supply to a handful of defenders who can keep the attackers delayed while the "organized squad" goes to get more supply so that the siege takes hours longer. That isn't depth.

[Tao.5096]

@"Sobx.1758" said:Can't see it, explain please.

Here you go: >Link<

[Sobx.1758]

@Morgan.4381 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@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.

No, it gives the choice and the opportunity an organised squad to come and re supply a dry t3 for example. This wouldnt be op since you still have to enter your own sieged fort which is probably surrounded by zergs. Also, you didnt bring this supply from the twisting nether, you had to take it from one of your other structures which is now more vulnerable. High risk / high rewards, see ?

"Choice"? As I already said, that wouldn't be a "choice", that would be an optimal thing to do that would favor a winning side. And what do you mean it would be "surrounded by zergs"? It's never "surrounded" by zergs, because there's no point in that and there are always muliple entrances. You're just making up fictional situations that would have no place in the game to pretend this change would have any kind of "depth" instead of being an obivous buff to the side that shouldn't get buffed.

If your server suck well thats too bad (and actually anet fault aswell for giving no purpose to actually win rather than the ladder) and it's maybe time to tag up as a commander and teach people basic tactics you know. So yes, this would add depth to the gameplay, factually

Uh, oh, so cheeky I can do the same though: if your server suck so much that you can't see how it would be terrible for the balance in wvw, then too bad, not a lot to say here, keep making up fictitious situations that don't happen in the game.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

No, they still won't be. The moment supplies are immedialey needed, you use them. The moment you get "a breather", you fill up the supply depot in case enemies come back in a few minutes. You try to make it seem like there would be some hard decisions to make, but there really wouldn't. And if you don't limit the WP, might as well have some people running defended building depot -> walls, while some would keep WPing -> run one way to depot. Either way there won't be much of a choice instead of a clear optimal behavior in a given situation. That brings nothing fresh to the game and only supports the winning/defending side.

Well, supply must be used where it is needed specifically in order to be effective. If you/defenders get a "breather" then so do the attackers... If you resupply... Then so can the attackers. Aside from that, you're welcome to your opinion at the end of the day... I'm gonna go enjoy life. The main take away from this post could be best summed up in this video as 1 example starting at 4:08... Something this guy call's "Internal Realism". What I feel from the lack of this action in WvW/GW2. Just what he calls it take it or leave it. If there is a problem, like I said in an earlier reply that this will because of the mechanic's that surround the action (of depositing supply) as opposed to the action itself. Have a nice day.

[Chaba.5410]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:The main difference is supply going directly into a damaged wall/seige etc. vs a supply depot

possibly

. Overall... This comes with the cost of time if they choose to instead put supply into the supply depot.

You're still oversimplifying the "main difference". You're ignoring the fact that 20 people dumping supply into a structure's storage means that that supply can now be used by 5 defenders against 20 attackers (siege disablers, repairing walls, etc.) while the other 15 go get more supply or hit an objective of the attackers, etc. With mechanics the way they are right now, 20 people with supply have to be present in order for that supply to be used or saved.

Banking supply is a form of "buying more time" for defenders

, not costing them time at all. It upsets what offense/defense balance to sieges there is right now.

I mean... You can think I'm "oversimplifying" here and I'll just return the favor by saying I think you're over-analyzing resulting in a bit of a exaggerated outcome. Sounds fair to me. Anyways, I'm literally not "ignoring" this... I just disagree with how extreme you're making this situation sound. If "20" players show up deposit supply (assuming they need to) and leave "5" behind as defenders... Well, this can already happen today. Also if you're "Banking" supply then it's not being used initially/immediately. Though, if those "5" want more supply to use themselves they gotta hop off of whatever siege they're using because they're otherwise "defending". Which, means they're (or some portion of defenders) are not actively on siege because they are busy fiddling around with more supply for whatever the specific cause. The main difference is still a Zerg showing up and pumping supply directly into whatever is damaged (as it happens today still) vs pumping it into a Supply depot which still has to make it's way to whatever is damaged if that's the intention.

As a defender, you actually WANT all the supply to not be used immediately. The essence of the siege attrition game is all about delaying the outcome in hopes that the outcome changes due to players logging in and out or going to do something else. With that in mind, there is no difference between a zerg pumping supply directly into whatever is damaged vs. pumping it into a supply depot and going to get more supply while the defender's advantage allows a smaller group to use the supply dump to delay the attackers. Both are delay tactics. That isn't over-analyzing. That's measuring your suggestion against how much delay it gives or doesn't give because that's the core essence of how you "win" at a siege when you are a defender: the rate of attrition of supply of the attackers vs. the defenders. And I'm saying that it gives more delay time than what we have now because it doesn't require all the defenders to actually be present to cause delays.

Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

Those situations don't exist because you're not accounting for how your suggestion bypasses player numbers.

My main point is that allowing players to bank supply would greatly extend siege times and we don't need that. Siege can already take up to three hours between teams of even numbers and is part of the game that no one wants to really do.

And hope the rate of doing ether option is enough to deter attackers with

maybe

some attackers going back to get supply from the nearest supply camp as well (for ironically "more siege") since this happens incredibly often already from the attacking side.

Attackers will always run out of supply faster than defenders because defenders would have a way to share their supply with other defenders while the attackers would not. Did you know that the most efficient use of supply and defender numbers is to use a supply trap? Start thinking about this change from there... Defending isn't always about repairing walls or building siege engines. Those are less efficient delay tactics.

Your suggestion would need to be balanced against how much delay it gives. At it's most basic form, it would be unbalanced.

[Sobx.1758]

@Tao.5096 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:Can't see it, explain please.

Here you go:

>Link<

I know where to find patch notes. Elaborate what you meant in your previous post with examples, because at this point it's just an empty claim.

[Aeolus.3615]

Eheh can u guys imagine if asuran elite skills actually could carry more supply and drop on keep/tower pools.

[Sobx.1758]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

No, they still won't be. The moment supplies are immedialey needed, you use them. The moment you get "a breather", you fill up the supply depot in case enemies come back in a few minutes. You try to make it seem like there would be some hard decisions to make, but there really wouldn't. And if you don't limit the WP, might as well have some people running defended building depot -> walls, while some would keep WPing -> run one way to depot. Either way there won't be much of a choice instead of a clear optimal behavior in a given situation. That brings nothing fresh to the game and only supports the winning/defending side.Something this guy call's "Internal Realism". What I feel from the lack of this action in WvW/GW2.

That's what I understood from the beginning of this thread -"we can pick it up so why can't we put it down?".But since when is "internal realism" a valid argument for "balancing" (more like disbalancing) a multiplayer game? It's not. And your idea wouldn't bring much positives into wvw, if any at all. It's also highly doubtful that the devs didn't think about that possibility while/before introducing dolyaks.