Patch notes up July 7th, Wvw NERFS.

[DeceiverX.8361]

@Zenris.8637 said:

@ThatOtherAlt.2984 said:The Warclaw changes are actually a blessing to small scale and roamers. You can now get rezzed when outnumbered without having to worry about SlowJoe, that lagged behind the blob and shows up, just in time to stomp and seal the deal.

The Warclaw is very helpful for small scale roamers like myself to take on bigger groups with the ability to stomp whilst mounted...

And how are you getting those downs in the first place?

Because no small group is sustaining into a zerg and has an extra person or two to run stomp duty in this meta.

Free spike just made it easier for groups running power soulbeasts and gankers with a sustain support to down someone from 1500 via gank and then get the free spike before the fight even begins. AoE stomp was BS otherwise.

Now if only they'd get rid of the evades and uncapped movespeed bonuses and we'd see small scale actually have an impact.

[ThatOtherAlt.2984]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@ThatOtherAlt.2984 said:The Warclaw changes are actually a blessing to small scale and roamers. You can now get rezzed when outnumbered without having to worry about SlowJoe, that lagged behind the blob and shows up, just in time to stomp and seal the deal.Too bad it's the outnumbering zergling that's downed and being ressed when the slowjoe roamer comes just in time to stomp and seal the deal... no more.

I don't know what kind of small groups you guys run with across the Ocean, but over here we tend to take a more pragmatic approach and small group content is actually a thing on NA. When you have a properly organize group of talented individuals and you all have your roles in check. You can dare tackle larger groups (havoc, side blobs) and achieve profitable results. The warclaw stomp was a major setback when it was introduced.

[KlausKNT.9302]

But good timed warclaw finish can kill well organized group and it was not fun to play against pugs who have warclaw equipped- so it need to be removed to bring back pug farm in proper way (like npc farm in pve- focus fire The Boss) :) Dev job its to "make game fun for the Most of players" and if most players ask for it and post about it- it will be done :)

[MichaelArchangel.7251]

@mixxed.5862 said:

@MichaelArchangel.7251 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@"babazhook.6805" said:The biggest imbalance problem in WvW are numbers, that being the amount of people one server group can muster at any given time versus their competitors. Servers that are always outnumbered generally can not compete .

The only side that a nerf to ACS and siege helps is the side with greater numbers. When AOE spells can be dumped on walls above and do more damage then those people above can do with ACS or cannons then this just more "he who gets there with the mostest" wins.

Given alliances seems to be a pipe dream and years off IF it ever occurs, this nerf to siege was ill timed.

There really is no point to people on an outnumbered server going out to fight the blob so what they generally did was try and defend what they could with thier smaller numbers while using siege to help equalize. What this nerf does is basically tell the outnumbered servers "There no point in going out and fighting those blobs when outnumbered 2 to 1 and now there no point in trying to defend an objective".

Bad move.

Healing overall was reduced by about 33% in the february patch. This change was meant to bring siege back in line with that. In my opinion it was necessary.

lol.... Funny. I see zergs shrugging off siege like they're nerf darts all the time.

Well, you're not supposed to defend an objective with just 5 people sitting on arrow carts hitting 111111. Arrow carts are still a very welcome boon to any defending team. That's the correct balance.

Defending an objective should be easier than capturing it. That's... part of the defensive advantage. We were taught that you generally needed 3 people for each defender if assaulting a position in the military. More if it's a hardened target. Oh... and the defenders typically will stay behind their walls and butcher attackers. Sorties are generally used only to break sieges to allow supplies through.

Or... we could just say f**k WvW as a battleground and just scrap the whole idea and do arena only.

[mixxed.5862]

@MichaelArchangel.7251 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@MichaelArchangel.7251 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@"babazhook.6805" said:The biggest imbalance problem in WvW are numbers, that being the amount of people one server group can muster at any given time versus their competitors. Servers that are always outnumbered generally can not compete .

The only side that a nerf to ACS and siege helps is the side with greater numbers. When AOE spells can be dumped on walls above and do more damage then those people above can do with ACS or cannons then this just more "he who gets there with the mostest" wins.

Given alliances seems to be a pipe dream and years off IF it ever occurs, this nerf to siege was ill timed.

There really is no point to people on an outnumbered server going out to fight the blob so what they generally did was try and defend what they could with thier smaller numbers while using siege to help equalize. What this nerf does is basically tell the outnumbered servers "There no point in going out and fighting those blobs when outnumbered 2 to 1 and now there no point in trying to defend an objective".

Bad move.

Healing overall was reduced by about 33% in the february patch. This change was meant to bring siege back in line with that. In my opinion it was necessary.

lol.... Funny. I see zergs shrugging off siege like they're nerf darts all the time.

Well, you're not supposed to defend an objective with just 5 people sitting on arrow carts hitting 111111. Arrow carts are still a very welcome boon to any defending team. That's the correct balance.

Defending an objective should be easier than capturing it. That's... part of the defensive advantage. We were taught that you generally needed 3 people for each defender if assaulting a position in the military. More if it's a hardened target. Oh... and the defenders typically will stay behind their walls and butcher attackers. Sorties are generally used only to break sieges to allow supplies through.

Or... we could just say f**k WvW as a battleground and just scrap the whole idea and do arena only.

Defending already is much easier. GW2 is a game first and foremost. If you needed 3 times the numbers to do anything on the map it wouldn't be any good.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Svarty.8019 said:I'm sure the gankers will find something to whine about soon, I can't wait to see what it is! I'm all giddy inside, it's like waiting for Christmas! WooohoooO!

I bet there's no WvW livestream this week. The developers always hide when there's discontent on the forum.

if they play 3+ mesmers vs 1 or 3+ thiefs(daze spam) vs 1 they will never complain

Weird enough i got ganked yesterday by 5 torment gankers with noodle melee damage.... i bet those will QQ buf torment since they were expecting to get carried with it.

@"Sovereign.1093" said:My warclaw huhu. Now we have little to no counter against the blob who get downed. :/

Banner warriors ~:) more classes and builds are needed the better becomes the combat.

Also they add more stats to the gameplay, besides presence of the keep and bloodlust, sometimes can be a way to diminuish the gap between presence of the keep on defenders and an ataking stats of the ofenders.

Its 200stats across the board, pitty that affects 10 players (effects 10 after all not 5)It could be a way to core players play WvW.

IF Anet improves elite banner to 10 targets(since we dont have warclaw) i think would be a nice change, and the banner becomes a 10 target on a 180CD warclaw, but 5 is also good IMO.Plus would incentivate players to atack defended strucutres since stats gap were closed due the banner, note vitality banner and healing pwoer would improve barrier and heals as well.

1 Bannerlord for each 10 would be nice.

Just some random fast build made on the editor for stats check.http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKwAc6JlJwUYjMPGJOeP6LLA-z1QY2gHRHrMaqACMBseA-w

The objective would be carrying besides elite banner +1 or 2.

[frareanselm.1925]

@"Bristingr.5034" said:No point in laying siege anymore or defending stuff. Next patch, they'll just remove the disables too. Seriously making me wonder why we still play this game, let alone this mode. They could have gone an entirely different direction in improving the game. What do they do? Nerf the kitties to the point that it's just faster to run on foot, scratch your kitten while you wait for a door or wall to come down while under "siege" fire, and double down on wanting fights with multiple dragon banners.

100% agree. What makes me sad is nobody tries to defend anything nowadays. Its like a pacted I cap then you wait and you cap.If i cap something i have the self honor to defend it, but no, most commanders dont have blood to defend his lands. and now with the siege nerf WvW will be a farmtrain like PvE

[Baldrick.8967]

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:I'm confused. Haven't people been complaining about siege since forever? And now it gets nerfed and everyone's upset?

The WvW community is an enigma. I'd say "the happy ones are playing the game and not complaining", but the people complaining are the same ones that wanted nerfs to these things in the past, lol.

My two cents, all of it sounds pretty okay to me. The removal of Warclaw stomp is 50/50. It had a lot of value in some situations and in others it was obnoxious. So it's both good and bad - I feel roughly neutral about it.

Balista still needs to not do heavy damage to players. It should be for killing siege. Arrowcarts, Cannons and Burning Oil are all perfectly good enough for defense. Why there needs to be something that can cut someone's health clean in half from across the field is beyond me. Sure, it's single target, but it's far too rewarding and easy to be a pest with. It should be doing 5k absolute tops. Ideally more like 3k because again, there are other options for siege to damage players.

Cannon and burning oil do diddly squat as was. Try using a cannon and you are dead then the cannon is. Burning oil does so little damage to rams (plus you will quickly die using it) that it's fairly pointless too unless you have loads of AC support.

Balista's damage was fine- many player skills do more damage than it and on a faster cooldown. Anyone who died to a balista bolt (which you can literally walk away from) just deserved to die. Plus most are positioned so badly you can wipe them before they get more than a couple shots off.

But I wouldn't want anything to slow down the karma train or add some more tactics to the game so blob away and take away these pesky impediments....

[TheGrimm.5624]

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

Regardless of what you like to do in the WvW sandbox these days, the content for everyone is dwindling. It's not like, for example, big zerg enthusiasts are given more really. They just have more momentum to be dissuaded from. I've spoken about that quite often, that the content (and affected players/guilds) that were the first to disappear were those that were involved with more varied content that was more dependent on the health of the game mode. When things are bad it is easier for things like BvB/trains, clouding, ganking and GvG to survive. However, none of the whatever preferred playstyles are thriving.

It is just harder to motivate things like defending, havocing or roaming as playstyles when the mode isn't healthy. Like I said though, for me that has nothing to do with siege and everything to do with things like scoring and populations since defending or havocing is more dependent upon people caring about score and roaming or the more weight-punching side of havocing is more dependent on diversity of group-sizes and playstyles to find matching content.

Obviously, your experience of that can differ based on region, tier and stuff but I would go as far as to say that the trends are rather universal even if the results may appear at different times.

Agree, we lose more and more reasons not to zerg. Everyone's mileage will vary but to me, you want to keep what you kill. The game is about keeping what you have and taking what they have. Score is a measure but we aren't on 24 hours a day so it's about what is controlled or not at that time. Considering that, at times your population might mean you can't do both, and further more it maybe at a time you can't attack then that leaves you with defending. So if your options to defend are removed that leaves you with just objectiveless roaming, which is good to do while moving between targets (defense or offensive ones) but then that translates to ganking in some people's books because your are just killing people trying to get to somewhere themselves. Objectives are meant to be the catalyst of an encounter to spark a conflict, but if ANet continues to nerf defense it just leads to be things that are suppose to be quick caps meaning they never get to be that catalyst because there is no time for the otherside to show up. Its far simpler to attack today because the attacker gets to choose their ground. Is that place defended, how many scouts, time till zerg arrives? Go or no go. When defending or responding to swords or a call out, same question except its how many are outside, where is our zerg if needed and how long IF they will respond, can you slow them down?

To me that's also why PPT needs to always be more rewarding to a your side to defend but PPK should benefit the individual for a fight but score lower for the overall score. Right now a defender gets nothing but a run back if they can't do any damage to the otherside, so why show up? You want people to do all, take, hold and fight, not just take. I disagree with the concept that reducing the ability to defend leads to more fighting, to me it leads to more empty keep takes. Still wonder if the system would be better that an objective has x number of rewards/point built into it and then based on the number you use to take it that value is divided by that number. Use 50 to do something that would require 5, you get rewarded less. Still reward people for their individual actions so if there is a fight you get rewards for your participation in that fight but the capture reward should scale on how many you used to do it versus how many they had. And it should be rewarding to have failed so that the attackers time isn't dimeshed as well. In the end both sides need to have fun and it feel like the time wasn't wasted.

Note I think I am with you, there should be reasons and room for game play and rewards at the roamer, havoc, warband and zerg level. But the more you remove gameplay options for less than zerg level then the game is just who has the most wins and gets paid. Good hunting!

[TheGrimm.5624]

@mixxed.5862 said:

@MichaelArchangel.7251 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@MichaelArchangel.7251 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@"babazhook.6805" said:The biggest imbalance problem in WvW are numbers, that being the amount of people one server group can muster at any given time versus their competitors. Servers that are always outnumbered generally can not compete .

The only side that a nerf to ACS and siege helps is the side with greater numbers. When AOE spells can be dumped on walls above and do more damage then those people above can do with ACS or cannons then this just more "he who gets there with the mostest" wins.

Given alliances seems to be a pipe dream and years off IF it ever occurs, this nerf to siege was ill timed.

There really is no point to people on an outnumbered server going out to fight the blob so what they generally did was try and defend what they could with thier smaller numbers while using siege to help equalize. What this nerf does is basically tell the outnumbered servers "There no point in going out and fighting those blobs when outnumbered 2 to 1 and now there no point in trying to defend an objective".

Bad move.

Healing overall was reduced by about 33% in the february patch. This change was meant to bring siege back in line with that. In my opinion it was necessary.

lol.... Funny. I see zergs shrugging off siege like they're nerf darts all the time.

Well, you're not supposed to defend an objective with just 5 people sitting on arrow carts hitting 111111. Arrow carts are still a very welcome boon to any defending team. That's the correct balance.

Defending an objective should be easier than capturing it. That's... part of the defensive advantage. We were taught that you generally needed 3 people for each defender if assaulting a position in the military. More if it's a hardened target. Oh... and the defenders typically will stay behind their walls and butcher attackers. Sorties are generally used only to break sieges to allow supplies through.

Or... we could just say f**k WvW as a battleground and just scrap the whole idea and do arena only.

Defending already is much easier. GW2 is a game first and foremost. If you needed 3 times the numbers to do anything on the map it wouldn't be any good.

How is defending easier? I am a Warrior on a wall with dual axes and there are 50 below with half at least with range. I step out, I am dead, I stand on wall I am dead. I throw siege disabler, its blocked I am pulled and am dead. I bring a ranger instead. Ranger, get some shots off, pulled of wall, dead. Fire into mass, its healed, I am potentially dead. So unless you have equal numbers then holding the structure does nothing more and more. A defensive point should have options to defend. Standing on walls are death traps already, they don't add a defensive or offensive bonus for just being a wall. You can upgrade the objective to have some boons but the wall by itself does nothing to help a defender. And when there are equal numbers, yes the edge should be to the defenders. The defenders can't just up and move the objective to somewhere else, where as the attackers hold all the cards. I want to fight them in the open, ok let's move here to draw them out or hit this other wall that has less defenses built up.

Zergs are more easily dissuaded from their goals, but the answer to that isn't to make it more of a cake walk for them to take things but give them more incentive to face opposition and continue. ANet's answer so far is just give the defenders less reason to show up for the fight. You also have to remember it's already easier for an attacker to choose where they are going to fight and if it's more rewarding for a group to attack, why would a group switch from attacking to defend when their members will get more rewarding gameplay continuing what they are doing and keep attacking. Ktraining should not reward more than:

• Taking something that is defended
• Attempting to take something that is defended and losing
• Losing while defending

You need to create an environment where engagement is the end goal, people from both sides can and will show up and fight and feel it was worth their time. Be that thru fun, reward or progression of goals.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

These are great changes for the blobbers and zerglers. Anet does like to support blob play.

[MichaelArchangel.7251]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@MichaelArchangel.7251 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@MichaelArchangel.7251 said:

@mixxed.5862 said:

@"babazhook.6805" said:The biggest imbalance problem in WvW are numbers, that being the amount of people one server group can muster at any given time versus their competitors. Servers that are always outnumbered generally can not compete .

The only side that a nerf to ACS and siege helps is the side with greater numbers. When AOE spells can be dumped on walls above and do more damage then those people above can do with ACS or cannons then this just more "he who gets there with the mostest" wins.

Given alliances seems to be a pipe dream and years off IF it ever occurs, this nerf to siege was ill timed.

There really is no point to people on an outnumbered server going out to fight the blob so what they generally did was try and defend what they could with thier smaller numbers while using siege to help equalize. What this nerf does is basically tell the outnumbered servers "There no point in going out and fighting those blobs when outnumbered 2 to 1 and now there no point in trying to defend an objective".

Bad move.

Healing overall was reduced by about 33% in the february patch. This change was meant to bring siege back in line with that. In my opinion it was necessary.

lol.... Funny. I see zergs shrugging off siege like they're nerf darts all the time.

Well, you're not supposed to defend an objective with just 5 people sitting on arrow carts hitting 111111. Arrow carts are still a very welcome boon to any defending team. That's the correct balance.

Defending an objective should be easier than capturing it. That's... part of the defensive advantage. We were taught that you generally needed 3 people for each defender if assaulting a position in the military. More if it's a hardened target. Oh... and the defenders typically will stay behind their walls and butcher attackers. Sorties are generally used only to break sieges to allow supplies through.

Or... we could just say f**k WvW as a battleground and just scrap the whole idea and do arena only.

Defending already is much easier. GW2 is a game first and foremost. If you needed 3 times the numbers to do anything on the map it wouldn't be any good.

How is defending easier? I am a Warrior on a wall with dual axes and there are 50 below with half at least with range. I step out, I am dead, I stand on wall I am dead. I throw siege disabler, its blocked I am pulled and am dead. I bring a ranger instead. Ranger, get some shots off, pulled of wall, dead. Fire into mass, its healed, I am potentially dead. So unless you have equal numbers then holding the structure does nothing more and more. A defensive point should have options to defend. Standing on walls are death traps already, they don't add a defensive or offensive bonus for just being a wall. You can upgrade the objective to have some boons but the wall by itself does nothing to help a defender. And when there are equal numbers, yes the edge should be to the defenders. The defenders can't just up and move the objective to somewhere else, where as the attackers hold all the cards. I want to fight them in the open, ok let's move here to draw them out or hit this other wall that has less defenses built up.

Zergs are more easily dissuaded from their goals, but the answer to that isn't to make it more of a cake walk for them to take things but give them more incentive to face opposition and continue. ANet's answer so far is just give the defenders less reason to show up for the fight. You also have to remember it's already easier for an attacker to choose where they are going to fight and if it's more rewarding for a group to attack, why would a group switch from attacking to defend when their members will get more rewarding gameplay continuing what they are doing and keep attacking. Ktraining should not reward more than:

• Taking something that is defended
• Attempting to take something that is defended and losing
• Losing while defending

You need to create an environment where engagement is the end goal, people from both sides can and will show up and fight and feel it was worth their time. Be that thru fun, reward or progression of goals.

Just going to highlight this:"ANet's answer so far is just give the defenders less reason to show up for the fight. You also have to remember it's already easier for an attacker to choose where they are going to fight and if it's more rewarding for a group to attack, why would a group switch from attacking to defend when their members will get more rewarding gameplay continuing what they are doing and keep attacking."

Spot on. Walls are generally able to be splattered silly with necro hell and ranger crap. And I agree. The rewards for capture outweigh any for defense.

[SWI.4127]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:How is defending easier? I am a Warrior on a wall with dual axes and there are 50 below with half at least with range. I step out, I am deadDefinitely not true. In fact, this is what you should be doing. Not stepping out directly into their stack, mind you, but getting off the walls.

I stand on wall I am dead.

Yep, get off the walls.

I throw siege disabler, its blocked I am pulled and am dead. I bring a ranger instead. Ranger, get some shots off, pulled of wall, dead. Fire into mass, its healed, I am potentially dead.

If you do any of the above from a wall, yes, you are probably dead. However if you jump off the wall around the corner, maybe equip signet of might for unblockable attacks, pop balanced stand, endure pain, and throw that same siege disabler, you probably achieved your goal very easily. What are we learning here? Think outside the box and GET OFF THE WALLS.

So unless you have equal numbers then holding the structure does nothing more and more. A defensive point should have options to defend. Standing on walls are death traps already, they don't add a defensive or offensive bonus for just being a wall. You can upgrade the objective to have some boons but the wall by itself does nothing to help a defender. And when there are equal numbers, yes the edge should be to the defenders.

Now we're talking. Walls have never been an advantage in WvW at least for the 3 or 4 years I've been playing. The problem is 80% of pugs will just stand on the walls or behind the gate staring at the zerg complaining about how they can't do anything instead of getting off the walls and clouding the attackers like they should be doing. This game mode hasn't changed in years, and people still sit there making the same mistakes when they really have a lot of options to slow and stop an attacking force. If you do have equal numbers, you actually have a really big advantage, and should not be losing things. Keep buffs, respawn advantage, tactivators, ability to surround the attacking force, ability to cut off reinforcements, ability to build siege that cannot be hit. There are a lot of advantages for defenders. The problem is that your average pug has no idea what to do and instead of taking some initiative, they will sit there and do nothing or complain. If you are outnumbered by a map queue attacking and you have no organization, then just accept you're probably going to lose the objective, and that's how it should be. Otherwise if it were so easy to defend while outnumbered with no organization, why would anyone ever bother to attack anything?

Zergs are more easily dissuaded from their goals, but the answer to that isn't to make it more of a cake walk for them to take things but give them more incentive to face opposition and continue. ANet's answer so far is just give the defenders less reason to show up for the fight. You also have to remember it's already easier for an attacker to choose where they are going to fight and if it's more rewarding for a group to attack, why would a group switch from attacking to defend when their members will get more rewarding gameplay continuing what they are doing and keep attacking. Ktraining should not reward more than:

• Taking something that is defended
• Attempting to take something that is defended and losing
• Losing while defending

You need to create an environment where engagement is the end goal, people from both sides can and will show up and fight and feel it was worth their time. Be that thru fun, reward or progression of goals.

This, I mostly agree with. The only thing I think you are off about is that it is somehow more rewarding for people to attack. In fact there is very little incentive already for a group to try to attack a T3 keep for instance. All you get out of it is maybe some karma and WXP. There is incentive to defend as a pug because you actually have a fighting chance against a group that's inside your own keep. The main problem is, 80% of pugs go about it the wrong way, as I mentioned before. You should be surrounding an attacking group and clouding them. You can freecast on them 95% of the time, and when they turn to look at you, just run away, then go back to freecasting. Pick off stragglers 1 by 1, bait squirrels out who can't resist running after the first shiny object they see. Don't follow the zerg into chokes and get baited into their bomb. Cut off reinforcements and whittle their numbers down. The only time this doesn't work is if the group actually knows what they're doing with proper comp and builds, and they are big enough. There aren't even that many good groups left in this game, and even if they are good, if they don't have enough people they will eventually be overwhelmed. The tools are all there to defend, the problem is that they are not properly utilized.

[kash.9213]

@SWI.4127 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:How is defending easier? I am a Warrior on a wall with dual axes and there are 50 below with half at least with range. I step out, I am deadDefinitely not true. In fact, this is what you should be doing. Not stepping out directly into their stack, mind you, but getting off the walls.

I stand on wall I am dead.

Yep, get off the walls.

I throw siege disabler, its blocked I am pulled and am dead. I bring a ranger instead. Ranger, get some shots off, pulled of wall, dead. Fire into mass, its healed, I am potentially dead.

If you do any of the above from a wall, yes, you are probably dead. However if you jump off the wall around the corner, maybe equip signet of might for unblockable attacks, pop balanced stand, endure pain, and throw that same siege disabler, you probably achieved your goal very easily. What are we learning here? Think outside the box and GET OFF THE WALLS.

So unless you have equal numbers then holding the structure does nothing more and more. A defensive point should have options to defend. Standing on walls are death traps already, they don't add a defensive or offensive bonus for just being a wall. You can upgrade the objective to have some boons but the wall by itself does nothing to help a defender. And when there are equal numbers, yes the edge should be to the defenders.

Now we're talking. Walls have never been an advantage in WvW at least for the 3 or 4 years I've been playing. The problem is 80% of pugs will just stand on the walls or behind the gate staring at the zerg complaining about how they can't do anything instead of getting off the walls and clouding the attackers like they should be doing. This game mode hasn't changed in years, and people still sit there making the same mistakes when they really have a lot of options to slow and stop an attacking force. If you do have equal numbers, you actually have a really big advantage, and should not be losing things. Keep buffs, respawn advantage, tactivators, ability to surround the attacking force, ability to cut off reinforcements, ability to build siege that cannot be hit. There are a lot of advantages for defenders. The problem is that your average pug has no idea what to do and instead of taking some initiative, they will sit there and do nothing or complain. If you are outnumbered by a map queue attacking and you have no organization, then just accept you're probably going to lose the objective, and that's how it should be. Otherwise if it were so easy to defend while outnumbered with no organization, why would anyone ever bother to attack anything?

Zergs are more easily dissuaded from their goals, but the answer to that isn't to make it more of a cake walk for them to take things but give them more incentive to face opposition and continue. ANet's answer so far is just give the defenders less reason to show up for the fight. You also have to remember it's already easier for an attacker to choose where they are going to fight and if it's more rewarding for a group to attack, why would a group switch from attacking to defend when their members will get more rewarding gameplay continuing what they are doing and keep attacking. Ktraining should not reward more than:

• Taking something that is defended
• Attempting to take something that is defended and losing
• Losing while defending

You need to create an environment where engagement is the end goal, people from both sides can and will show up and fight and feel it was worth their time. Be that thru fun, reward or progression of goals.

This, I mostly agree with. The only thing I think you are off about is that it is somehow more rewarding for people to attack. In fact there is very little incentive already for a group to try to attack a T3 keep for instance. All you get out of it is maybe some karma and WXP. There is incentive to defend as a pug because you actually have a fighting chance against a group that's inside your own keep. The main problem is, 80% of pugs go about it the wrong way, as I mentioned before. You should be surrounding an attacking group and clouding them. You can freecast on them 95% of the time, and when they turn to look at you, just run away, then go back to freecasting. Pick off stragglers 1 by 1, bait squirrels out who can't resist running after the first shiny object they see. Don't follow the zerg into chokes and get baited into their bomb. Cut off reinforcements and whittle their numbers down. The only time this doesn't work is if the group actually knows what they're doing with proper comp and builds, and they are big enough. There aren't even that many good groups left in this game, and even if they are good, if they don't have enough people they will eventually be overwhelmed. The tools are all there to defend, the problem is that they are not properly utilized.

So you're saying you agree with him and that he should fight open field instead?

[Aeolus.3615]

@Blockhead Magee.3092 said:These are great changes for the blobbers and zerglers. Anet does like to support blob play.

Actually those are the players complaining with the changes :\ cause they cant stack that much scourge aoe, since its looses its efectiviness.The current changes give a litle more space for melee combat but since most zerglings are range they dont like the change.

Warclaw pund was very idiotic, dmage is nice... if one wants to finhish players get a banner warrior :) now makes sense to play one.

Meta will adapt as always, a meta with variaty and options on players build is good, mount was not helping and overshadowing other classes possibility.

[Talindra.4958]

you can never please everyone. there is no point trying to change and tweak skills, over so many years every changes I see that as waste of time. new game mode is what the game should be working on. improving existing game mode is minimal as the game is already so old, why would you bother to waste time to improve old game mode.. move ahead and work on AMAZING new game play for wvw or pvp. some area so lack of improvement.. find some talent people work on this area. there are significant players are still hanging on to wvw. weldone on all the addition for pve, pve raids, pve fractals.. the update for personal story progression and so on. don't waste time on tweaking stuff for old game mode.. give us something new in this game mode. a new game play in wvw.

[ConorT.5396]

These changes have just rendered small-scale focus WvW Squads useless in most cases.

No longer can towers be defended against larger blobs by 10+ focus Squads.

No longer can focus Squads break larger, un-organised groups & finish them with the Warclaw.

The has just reverted WvW game play to how it was 5 years ago. The largest blob wins.

[ConorT.5396]

Skill-less.

[Sovereign.1093]

3 healer 2 damage = the common group comp now

I.e.

Fb scrap shout spell zerk rev zerk necroHealer Fb scrap tempest damage zerk spell zerk necro

Healer fb scrap rev damage zerk warrior necro

This is for you 50 man blob. Yes, you can just boon stack and one push the hardest pirate sheep by baiting and then pushing fast and hard with superspeed.