Where are the „easy-to-defend“ objectives?

[enkidu.5937]

Anet may have already noticed that world pops are far away from being balanced. Especially, at a particular time during off-hours. So, where are the „easy-to-defend“ objectives that you can defend e. g. 10 vs. 30?

Building siege and fortifying walls and gates isnt really an option when the enemy runs karma train. :#

Maybe add a keep with several capture points that have to be taken simultaneously. The attacker has to split, whereas the defenders can focus their forces at a particular point. Comparable to ruins.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@enkidu.5937 said:Maybe add a keep with several capture points that have to be taken simultaneously. The attacker has to split, whereas the defenders can focus their forces at a particular point. Comparable to ruins.

This is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time. it would require some higher level of coordination that would weed out less organized blobby pve groups and be a good defense without powercreeping defenses.

[Dawdler.8521]

The winning side obviously finds the easy way to defend objectives, because its not karma training with a zerg that wins the matchup. Its holding on to your T2/T3 due to the avalanching PPT gains.

Also, objectives are merely there to delay the cap. Give defenders time to respond. Not automatically be safe because defenders have X amount of people inside that meets some criteria on how much is needed.

All that dual caps in keeps would do is cause the defending zerg - which will move much faster inside a held keep - to crush the attacking zerg which is forced to split. They will just ping pong the caps until the enemy is worn down and its generally the attacker, not the defender. And you know what that would ultimately lead to? No one bothering with defended objectives and instead opt to nightcap when no one is defending.

[Yasai.3549]

Realistically, if yur side has lesser players than the attacking number, and it's by a large amount (10vs30 as yu mentioned) yur gonna lose either way.

This solution is also bad for attackers, because if yur playing on a server with far less players, taking Keeps will essentially be off the table because yu don't even have the numbers to split.People will end up just capping when the defenders go to bed.

The only real solution, is for Devs to fire whoever did the current linking and then actually look at player activity numbers before deciding to link.(Like who on earth decided to link big server populations together and then place them in the same matchup with links which are basically dead links or low population who can only field around 15-20 players per time zone)

They probably won't care though, because there is a new alliance system being proposed and I can't wait for that to be a mess as well.

[Suraci.1642]

Great idea, it's impossible to defend keep when a dense zerg stacking on top of lord and you dont have enough people to penetrate, if anet add like 4 capture points at each corner and 1 at the center where lord is then it would be easier for the defenders to brawl out, definitely much more fun to play, a mighty keep falls when the enemies stack at the center just doesnt make sense, they will have to destroy other critical points as well, also add mini lords at mini capture points. This would prevent keep sniping cause they have to be everywhere to entirely capture the keep, not just by stealthily digging a hole through obscure gates and walls, people that are slacking and sleeping inside keep would have a higher chance to spot the perpetrators and people on other maps or outside keep would have a longer time window to react.

[Svarty.8019]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:Maybe add a keep with several capture points that have to be taken simultaneously. The attacker has to split, whereas the defenders can focus their forces at a particular point. Comparable to ruins.

This is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time. it would require some higher level of coordination that would weed out less organized blobby pve groups and be a good defense without powercreeping defenses.

I believe this originally appeared in ESO and has been suggested over and over for GW2, so don't hold your breath, but it remains a great idea.

@OP the devs made it even easier to capture T3s last year. They want people to fight inside the buildings, so at any time other than off-peak it's tends to be a story of boring unstoppable karma trains.I think Anet haven't recognised that many have become bored and left because there is nothing difficult to accomplish in WvW. From an attackers perspective, a tough objective is DESIRABLE! it leads to a sense of accomplishment upon success! Where's the glory in capping something the enemy couldn't defend or that we only captured because the devs nerfed walls?!I don't mind having weaker walls on SOME objectives but at least ONE objective should be super difficult to capture (whether by layout design or tough walls), as a symbol of your team and a point of pride, something that you shouldn't want to lose - but the fact is, people don't CARE because;

1. they feel there is "nothing we can do" etc. Why bother defending? We can't stop that megazerg.
2. objectives just upgrade themselves, it doesn't seem like we put lots of effort into upgrading it.Fix that if you can!

[enkidu.5937]

@Dawdler.8521 said:All that dual caps in keeps would do is cause the defending zerg - which will move much faster inside a held keep - to crush the attacking zerg which is forced to split. They will just ping pong the caps until the enemy is worn down and its generally the attacker, not the defender. And you know what that would ultimately lead to? No one bothering with defended objectives and instead opt to nightcap when no one is defending.+@Yasai.3549 said:Realistically, if yur side has lesser players than the attacking number, and it's by a large amount (10vs30 as yu mentioned) yur gonna lose either way.

This solution is also bad for attackers, because if yur playing on a server with far less players, taking Keeps will essentially be off the table because yu don't even have the numbers to split.People will end up just capping when the defenders go to bed.

Just to be more clear: I just thought about an easy-to-defend structure as a kind of last refuge if the map is already overrun. Doesnt mean that every keep or tower should have 2 or 3 caps.

My main intention is to create fair 10 vs 10 fights, even if the enemy has 30 ppl on that map / in that keep. So you may win that 10 vs. 10, or at least make some kills and delay the cap until the attackers focuss more troops on that cap. The keep may fall regardlessly, but at least, you were not overrun by a brain-afk blob ^^

Sure, with equal numbers on the map, this last refuge would never fall, unless the attacker is much more numberous. But its not that bad imo, if an overrun server still holds 1 keep or tower, even if outnumbered 10 vs 30, as a supply depot and for the morale.

@Svarty.8019 said:@OP the devs made it even easier to capture T3s last year. They want people to fight inside the buildings, so at any time other than off-peak it's tends to be a story of boring unstoppable karma trains.I fear so :#

[acidic.4356]

wouldnt adding capture points stop solo caps...or even duo or trio caps... essentially you would create a situation where u would need more players just to cap an objective.. kinda forcing ppl to play in a group..the bigger the better... just another step toward forcing zerg style play...

its a no from me. but it fits with anets direction of late . ( mounts ). making small scale / solo play less feasible.. slowly but surely..

This actually ties into my understanding of what the proposed alliance system is going to be, instanced wvw where guilds/players join an instanced wvw map until that map is full, and then a new map would open for anyone else joining - in essence creating full maps except for the last opened.. which to me sounds like a laggy/zergy mess of a game... thats if it ever gets implemented ofc... i guess its why im not excited about alliances.. not that i know for sure this is how it will happen.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

@enkidu.5937 said:Maybe add a keep with several capture points that have to be taken simultaneously. The attacker has to split, whereas the defenders can focus their forces at a particular point. Comparable to ruins.

Kitten GENIUS!

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

It's not about what objectives are easy to defend in a 10 vs 30, what it comes down to are how good are those 10? 10 people off my friends list and sorry, that 30 isn't getting close to getting in (maybe a very skilled guild group will). We know siege placement, we know what siege and counters to use, 1-2 will constantly be suiciding into the zerg with disablers for their shield gens etc etc. Now, 10 pugs vs a 30 man tag? I often run into a keep being attacked and will see 6+ people standing around on walls watching/pewpewing, while ACs, trebs, catas, mortars, canons etc all still intact and not being used. I have run into a situation like this where the people inside are screaming we are going to lose keep, but tag is on another map, so they are asking for them to come back, I solo disable shield gens, pop RF to get back inside, hop on the door treb no one was using, kill rams, cow most of what supply they have left etc all before tag is able to WP back with the zerg. THIS IS COMMON FOR ME.

Really, not trying to sound like I am some great player or anything, it's simple understanding siege and the tools you have and how those are used and what they counter. The problem is very few people do this or know what to do. I can't even say how many times I see a keep etc with full tactics, and no one pulls the fortifications tactic and they are almost inside inner. There are SO many defending options available, so much siege that can be used etc.

If people (not just you) can't work together and use the tools available, you deserve to lose the structure, even if you are not out numbered. As I find in most situations when I am running solo, no one else will listen or help, I have to do everything myself. And in many cases I have to build the siege myself, disable and use the siege I built, when this happens, it's a 50/50 chance of me pushing them off and really comes down to how fast I get there in the attack.

[joneirikb.7506]

The idea about multiple capture points, while I don't like it as much in general as I think it would just make most objectives super boring. There is an argument for using it in Home-Garrison, a own extra capture circle or two, that only activates when held by the home map owner.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

I think three caps for a keep, two for towers is a good goal to aim for. Anything above three is a bit too stringent.

It would encourage having more numbers to infiltrate a keep successfully sure... but I think it heavily favors strategy and coordination over just bringing more numbers, and I think that’s what’s important here.

On a personal note I run with a guild group that can pretty much take keeps with 15-20 people...and it’s not even a challenge to get to lord on inner. As a blob it’s even less challenging.

[Shroud.2307]

You don't need multiple capture points to split up a zerg, you just need players confident and aggressive enough to cut away the outliers.

The problem is that much of the time people prefer to sit inside their objective until the last minute spamming as much siege and tactivators as they can instead of going outside to wear the group down. Of course there are times you are so heavily outnumbered that no amount of clouding will work, but those times shouldn't mean that defensive siege or upgrades will. The fact of the matter is that there will always be down times for every server and things will be lost. Making siege, buffs, upgrades or tactivators strong enough to push off significantly larger groups would make attacking anything a pointless effort.

PvP is a part of WvW, if you want to defend your objectives you need to learn to deal with larger groups with options other than siege or gimmicks.

[Diku.2546]

Hmm...

Easiest "Objective" to defend that I know are the following:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Green_World_Citadelhttps://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Red_World_Citadelhttps://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Blue_World_Citadel

Instead of asking for easy to defend "Objectives"....we should be asking for better Match-Up mechanics.

Raiding of Green & Blue - Weekly Picked by Players:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1064950/#Comment_1064950

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

[RedShark.9548]

I dont get why ppl always want easy to defend objectives, you do realize that if you can stop the attackers in a 10v30 it will be IMPOSSIBLE to take anything in a 30v30 scenario.

The results will be that absolutely nobody will attempt to take a keep with equal numbers. The only ones that are going to attack are zergs with yet even more ppl. So you will have 30v60, well done, great idea.

And why are some ppl so against stealthy tactics? Its part of the game and even in reallity grounded. If you have no scouts positioned and are busy on another strategic objective fighting large forces with your own, then expect the other group to send out smaller assault teams to strike while you are not watching. Its a mode thats basically a war simulation, for those who still havent realized.You will remove just another option of playing the mode, which will result in less tactical decision making.

All those complaints about not being able to defend root in the unbalanced servers, not wvw objective mechanics.

[MedievalThings.5417]

The easy to defend objective is called spawn. The problem is all the bandwagoning/stacking/population imbalance. The game can't fix that without cutting into gem sales, so it isn't gonna happen.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"enkidu.5937" said:My main intention is to create fair 10 vs 10 fights, even if the enemy has 30 ppl on that map / in that keep. So you may win that 10 vs. 10, or at least make some kills and delay the cap until the attackers focuss more troops on that cap. The keep may fall regardlessly, but at least, you were not overrun by a brain-afk blob ^^Thats not how reality works. Maps have a cap of ~80-100 players per side. If there are 10 people on one side and 30 on another, you cant just say you're not allowed to be 30, you're only allowed to be 10! It goes against the very core foundation of WvW as a game mode - bring allies to fight in large battles.

Is 10v30 balanced? No, but it is literally unavoidable. You are supposed to request reinforcements. Is 20v30 not enough? More. Did you beat them with 30v30? They are bringing 50 the next time. Now you are 30v50. You need more.

And thats how you get WvW. Still dont have enough people? Thats how you drop in tier and someone else get a chance to compete.

Asking to fix such an "imbalance" is akin to fixing a flat tire on a car by removing all the wheels so that its uniform.

[subversiontwo.7501]

Before I make myself unpopular again, let me just say that I don't mind the thread. I think it is a fair and potentially good discussion. With that said ...

The issue@OP mentions how population balance is an issue and how existing advantages for a defender is insufficient in examples of 10v30. The problem with the example and the conclusion is that it only takes the factor of numbers into the conclusion while there are other factors that affects how the conclusion is reached. In fact, walls and siege are perfectly sufficient for letting 10 deal with 30 with no other factors taken into account.

The problem is that @OP mentions one factor but takes norms into account. In those norms an objective-defending group of 10 dealing with an attacking group 30 is also often less organized and less experienced. They rarely have a purpose-built composition or unified tactics, often they even lack a tag and a squad. Among those 30 players following a typical pre-organized group there is not only often a veteran commander but usually also a veteran core among the 30. If there is an equal organisation, tactics and representative experience it is fully possible to defend objectives with 10v30. If there is better organisation, tactics and experience among the 10 it is also more than possible to defend 10v30.

The suggestionThe suggestion then comes from an errenous conclusion or position. If you assume that you defend at a 33% manpower at all times then the suggestion makes alot of sense. It is a good suggestion at surface value. However, what happens to balance if you instead assume a norm of 100% manpower? If a 30 man group that is attacking something will have to split up in 10's and fight a unified 30? What happens if you attack with 33% manpower so your 10-man group has to split up and attack in 3's vs. a defender who can put 30 in one place? If you take all these different scenarios into account it easier to see why things are balanced the way they are. A system that is heavily in favour of defenders quickly becomes very stale, stops rewards from flowing and makes things like undefended captures (population imbalance: night capping) even more impactful. In that sense, it makes the population imbalance worse.

Why is that a problem?The map in EotM is a perfect example of where the same logic was applied. Leading up to the release of EotM population balance was already a known issue in the community. People were already speaking out about it (2013-2020 this has been a defined and aknowledged issue). With the map Anet looked for ways to create force multipliers. One way to do that is to create chokes. So, they littered the map with chokes. The problem with that approach is that it lets 10 fight 30 more easily. However, it makes it more difficult to fight 10v10 or 30v30. It stopped people from trying.

That's one of the major reasons why people started hating EotM and stopped playing it. The idea behind the map wasn't representative of the majority of possible content. This meant that the map devolved into a map that was only played without defending. Defending it was too easy, so easy that it got boring and people stopped. Even when organized groups did some tourism onto that map (when they waited in queue or whatever) they simply crushed all the karma trains in there so easily that it quickly got boring. Groups that initially had a good time choking the trains out 10v30 by fearing them off bridges or whatnot, they also rather quickly got bored of how easy it was. It presented little to no challenge for a relatively decent pre-organized group.

All of that begs the question: If there are groups who fight 10v30 (or similar) open field, why are there no groups left that specializes in defending like that? It certainly isn't because it would be more difficult to use the advantages already given, because then they could just sally forth and take to the field. It is more likely that it already in the existing EBG/BL balance is too easy to do, isn't impactful or rewarding enough to do (given all the possible undefended captures due to population imbalance). So it isn't too difficult to defend, it is too unrewarding or pointless.

[Celsith.2753]

Actually the numbers you mentioned, 10v30 is quite do able at towers and keeps, provided those 10 don't sit on the wall using badly placed walmart ac's.

Once those 10 are facing 50 or more is when you tend to be able to do nothing and honestly, at some point you just have to accept that it is unreasonable to expect to win. The problem I feel is less that defense is hard, but more that defense can be so over powered with a handful of people that know what they are doing. This is resulting is nothing being attacked and no large scale hours longs fights anymore, because it's so unfun that servers just wait until the enemy has the outmanned buff and ktrain with massive zergs.

[Junkpile.7439]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"enkidu.5937" said:My main intention is to create fair 10 vs 10 fights, even if the enemy has 30 ppl on that map / in that keep. So you may win that 10 vs. 10, or at least make some kills and delay the cap until the attackers focuss more troops on that cap. The keep may fall regardlessly, but at least, you were not overrun by a brain-afk blob ^^Thats not how reality works. Maps have a cap of ~80-100 players per side. If there are 10 people on one side and 30 on another, you cant just say

you're not allowed to be 30, you're only allowed to be 10!

It goes against the very core foundation of WvW as a game mode -

bring allies to fight in large battles

.

Is 10v30 balanced? No, but it is literally unavoidable.

You are supposed to request reinforcements

. Is 20v30 not enough?

More

. Did you beat them with 30v30?

They are bringing 50 the next time

. Now you are 30v50.

You need more

.

And thats how you get WvW. Still dont have enough people? Thats how you drop in tier and someone else get a chance to compete.

Asking to fix such an "imbalance" is akin to fixing a flat tire on a car by removing all the wheels so that its uniform.Game could kick 90 out of map if one side have only 10 and devs could motivate players to try. Now there isn't any reason defend or do anything. Much more fun just one hit some elite spec players and ask why they lose against core spec player. You think that somebody would play moba games if teams wouldn't have same amount players in match?

[ArchonWing.9480]

The defenders already have a large advantage in being able to run from respawn with mounts and should win by attrition.

Defense cannot be that strong; if 10 vs 30 can easily defend a keep, then people will just hide in keeps because there is zero incentive to attack, even when it's 30 v 30. There is like no remotely competitive game that rewards turtling because that encourages people to not do anything.

It can easily be flipped. Let's say the other server takes your keep overnight and camps it with 10 people. Do you want it so that 10 people can keep your server locked down? So now they can easily nightcap and hold stuff?

If a problem is resulting from population imbalance, then the solution is to fix population imbalance. Creating imbalances to offset other imbalances results in nonsense.

[enkidu.5937]

As I mentioned severel times: its just one last refuge that has 2 or 3 cap points, not the whole map.

10 vs. 30 is just an example. Of course the same situation can occur with 20 casuals vs. 20 elite players.

joneirikb.7506 already added that these multiple cap points should only occur when the home faction owns their home keep. That would prevent superior invaders from camping an enemy home keep for hours.

Pop imbalance can also occur with two well-balanced servers that can have a 30 vs. 60 at 4pm and a 60 vs 30 at 7pm, so I would very much like to see a mechanic that allows to have some equal fights, even if outnumbered at that map or keep. PS: even k-train blob ppl get bored because of the lack of fights sometime, so I would expect that this could be fun for both sides :)

[XenesisII.1540]

So what happens when those 30 manage to take your t3 keep anyways, and now you're faced with having to take it back with those 10 people now with 30 camping enemy who can easily spread out and defend the small cap points?

It's easy to defend with 10 if preparations are done, or if the players there can react quickly with counters, sometimes all it takes is one disable or invul structure with counter siege in place to chase a zerg off.

Only idea I think may work is having to capture multiple objectives first before being able to attack or disable the main objective, warhammer online and eso did this. If a zerg is already in your keep without being able to muster up a defense to respond during that time, then you should lose it.