Swords shouldn't trigger on keeps unless a siege weapon hits them — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Swords shouldn't trigger on keeps unless a siege weapon hits them

Zefrost.3425Zefrost.3425 Member ✭✭✭
edited April 21, 2018 in WvW

/thread

Keep lord being under attack should also disable the waypoint. And keep lord being dead should keep it disabled also.

This can only be a good change. As it is, you only promote griefing in WvW by allowing otherwise. As Arenanet doesn't play WvW often enough, they have probably not had to experience the griefing of someone contesting the waypoint on a keep all day. That isn't fun for anyone but the griefer. Little things like this don't help the game mode - there are enough frustrations as it is. And no one enjoys this: "Keep????" "Just someone tagging keep and running by" or "Keep????" then having to spend 5 minutes exploring all of the attack points only to find out no one is there.

This way, an individual player cannot grief and annoy an entire server of players. You wouldn't see any other game allowing this type of behavior when it's so easy to fix. It is not beneficial to the game mode to keep it as is.

Really, just make the change.

Comments

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    That's what scouts are for.

    Bite me.

  • Zefrost.3425Zefrost.3425 Member ✭✭✭

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    That's what scouts are for.

    And how are those scouts going to stop any decent thief or any minstrels thief? Or even a mesmer?

    They can't.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zefrost.3425 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    That's what scouts are for.

    And how are those scouts going to stop any decent thief or any minstrels thief? Or even a mesmer?

    They can't.

    They. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Fight. Them.

    But they stop your entire group from running there for nothing

    Bite me.

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @Zefrost.3425 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    That's what scouts are for.

    And how are those scouts going to stop any decent thief or any minstrels thief? Or even a mesmer?

    They can't.

    They. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Fight. Them.

    But they stop your entire group from running there for nothing

    Maybe not... but if you figure out which part they're hitting and lay in wait for them... then pounce as they're engaging the guards they can usually be killed without a lot of serious effort. Just have to hit them at the right time with the right stuff. -- have soulbeast will kill --

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Kiroshima.8497Kiroshima.8497 Member ✭✭✭

    I mean, I dont see why offensive scouts can't build siege to contest waypoints, it isn't that hard. If you start with 25, then flip a camp for 15, you got a ballista to break cannons/oil, or a ram, or a cata. Not too long of a trip. Plus if no one scouts you you get free wall/gate damage, so why not?

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 21, 2018

    I hear talk of thieves doing all the tapping, but very rarely see a thief doing it, what I do see most times are Rangers tapping. Now, considering Rangers aren't allowed anywhere else :) I seriously doubt you want to ostracize them further.

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kovu.7560 said:

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:
    but very rarely see a thief doing it,

    That's because they're stealthed.

    ~ Kovu

    So are the rangers, what's you're point :).

  • DeadlySynz.3471DeadlySynz.3471 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It should have been that way since the beginning, WP's should only be contested if either the door or wall is being hit by siege weapons.. and even then it should take a few strikes to trigger the sword and disable the WP.

    We should be trying to encourage quick turnaround and quick fights, not delaying by promoting people to port back to spawn. The same goes for people asking for scouts or stating thats what scouts are for. We should be promoting active play, not passive play. The only thing a scout should really be good for is notifying the map where the enemies are when your structures aren't leveled high enough yet. After that, it should be heavily frowned upon parking ones behind in a tower with an itchy trigger finger on siege or tactics.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DeadlySynz.3471 said:
    It should have been that way since the beginning, WP's should only be contested if either the door or wall is being hit by siege weapons.. and even then it should take a few strikes to trigger the sword and disable the WP.

    We should be trying to encourage quick turnaround and quick fights, not delaying by promoting people to port back to spawn. The same goes for people asking for scouts or stating thats what scouts are for. We should be promoting active play, not passive play. The only thing a scout should really be good for is notifying the map where the enemies are when your structures aren't leveled high enough yet. After that, it should be heavily frowned upon parking ones behind in a tower with an itchy trigger finger on siege or tactics.

    Yes. We should give all scouts a stern talking to!

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2018

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:

    @Kovu.7560 said:

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:
    but very rarely see a thief doing it,

    That's because they're stealthed.

    ~ Kovu

    So are the rangers, what's you're point :).

    I've yet to meet a ranger that keeps stealth uptime > 50%. Most wp griefing thieves stealth > 80% uptime. That speaks nothing to the teleports.
    You can kill rangers that tap keeps if you know to expect them. The same cannot be said for thieves (and mesmers).

    ~ Kovu

    Edit- That said I've always agreed that a single tap of a guard is a little too easy as a means for shutting down a waypoint. I'm in agreement with using siege to contest the structure. Sure its fairly easy to do, but it takes more effort than a single tap and that siege can't be pulled away after the fact.

    Ranger, Fort Aspenwood.

  • Tiny Doom.4380Tiny Doom.4380 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2018

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    And no one enjoys this: "Keep????" "Just someone tagging keep and running by" or "Keep????" then having to spend 5 minutes exploring all of the attack points only to find out no one is there.

    Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain that to my wife, who has been doing that for six years, much to the satisfaction and gratitude of many commnders on her various servers. Scouts love doing that kind of thing. Are you saying we should do away with scouting?

    Not to mention every good commander I've ever run with sends someone to tap the nearest waypointed Keep prior to an assault on a structure. Why would you want to remove one of the all-too-limited tactical options from gameplay?

    I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved, tactically, but it could do with more options being added not the few we have being taken away.

    Oh, and just as a thought, has it occured to you that if swords only trigger when siege is used, blobs will simply PVD their way in? This used to happen before swords were added and even now it happens occasionally. It's pretty easy for a full squad to burn through a T1 door and even a T2 doesn't take that long. Next suggestion is going to be to make gates immune to player damage and pretty soon we may as well just have a big flat plain with marked circles to fight in. I'm sure that would suit some people perfectly.

  • apharma.3741apharma.3741 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    And no one enjoys this: "Keep????" "Just someone tagging keep and running by" or "Keep????" then having to spend 5 minutes exploring all of the attack points only to find out no one is there.

    Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain that to my wife, who has been doing that for six years, much to the satisfaction and gratitude of many commnders on her various servers. Scouts love doing that kind of thing. Are you saying we should do away with scouting?

    Not to mention every good commander I've ever run with sends someone to tap the nearest waypointed Keep prior to an assault on a structure. Why would you want to remove one of the all-too-limited tactical options from gameplay?

    I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved, tactically, but it could do with more options being added not the few we have being taken away.

    Oh, and just as a thought, has it occured to you that if swords only trigger when siege is used, blobs will simply PVD their way in? This used to happen before swords were added and even now it happens occasionally. It's pretty easy for a full squad to burn through a T1 door and even a T2 doesn't take that long. Next suggestion is going to be to make gates immune to player damage and pretty soon we may as well just have a big flat plain with marked circles to fight in. I'm sure that would suit some people perfectly.

    If keeps and waypoints only got contested from siege damage it would not depreciate the value of scouts and a scouts function isn’t just to keep an eye out it’s also to keep siege refreshed and rebuild anything taken out. A ballista costs 30 supply so can be easily constructed by 2 people at a far enough location to contest the keep however a scout can now prevent it being contested by using cannons, mortars and other siege.

    The bigger implication is that swords appearing would probably have to be unilateral and so apply to paper towers and other paper structures meaning these would likely be flipped before anyone even realised someone had attacked it. This would require more scouts if you want structures upgraded.

  • Bigpapasmurf.5623Bigpapasmurf.5623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zefrost.3425 said:

    @Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:
    sigh this old song and dance

    I will paraphrase here what I state in every one of these topics.

    This is a L2P issue and I will explain why

    A scouts job is to tap structures to divert the enemy groups / attention away from other structures or even maps. It helps with both offensive strats as well as defensive.
    A scouts job is also to locate enemy groups and to to watch important points for other scouts/tappers....etc
    This has been their job since the beginning of WvW

    If you are a scout and don't know how to properly do these...L2P a scout
    If you are a commander complaining about these, obv you don't have proper scouts or you haven't ensured you had proper scouts...L2P as a commander
    If your server or linking doesnt have dedicated or proper scouts, or constantly gets fooled and leaving for said objectives (keeps/towers..etc)...L2P as a server/Linking

    The longer the tapper keeps the objective sworded...the more L2P is present.

    Call it what you will, however it will lead back as a L2P for someone somewhere. Obv the opponents scouts are doing their job.

    Tell you what. Tell me what server you're on and I will make a minstrel thief and play it whenever you're in WvW. Really, tell me what server. I have a second copy of the game and haven't used it for anything yet.

    I could use more 1v1 fights so sure. Im in BG, Lemme know your guild tag so I know its you :p

    Red = Dead...or someone runs away. Either way it's gone.
    twitch.tv/TRMC
    Lover of Jumping puzzles, Squirrels, WvW, and Taimi
    Co-Leader of SOmething inAPpropriate {SOAP}

  • @Kovu.7560 said:

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:

    @Kovu.7560 said:

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:
    but very rarely see a thief doing it,

    That's because they're stealthed.

    ~ Kovu

    So are the rangers, what's you're point :).

    I've yet to meet a ranger that keeps stealth uptime > 50%. Most wp griefing thieves stealth > 80% uptime. That speaks nothing to the teleports.
    You can kill rangers that tap keeps if you know to expect them. The same cannot be said for thieves (and mesmers).

    ~ Kovu

    Edit- That said I've always agreed that a single tap of a guard is a little too easy as a means for shutting down a waypoint. I'm in agreement with using siege to contest the structure. Sure its fairly easy to do, but it takes more effort than a single tap and that siege can't be pulled away after the fact.

    and then you would never ever be able to take T3 keeps. Because before you get the siege up, the enemy zerg would port in (no need for ewp, yay) and then it is game over. Or a 2h trebuchet match. Fun!

  • @Kro.7984 said:
    I blame the guards. A complete lack of communication with the rest of the stronghold. One of them needs to speak up and provide an update to map chat. Make it a special color.

    Hey, this is joe at South Bay. We got 2 thief’s here. They killed guards bob and frank. The sentry, Dave is dropping fast and the dolly cutie pie is not going to make it to the keep. Looks like just a tap at this point, and I will update as needed.

    Anet, please install this much needed version.

    that... that would be awesone...

  • Celsith.2753Celsith.2753 Member ✭✭✭

    I do wish you at least had to touch the keep to contest it. As it is, you just have to aggro outlaying guards. And you don't have to hit those either, just stay stealthed and throw a siege blueprint at them ;) You're welcome to everyone whose been doing it a harder way.

    This become much less of an issue when you don't die much and don't burst a blood vessel on the rare occasion your keep is ninjad.

    950k+ WvW kills
    Diamond No Life
    [HUNT] Predatory Instinct

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    And you don't have to hit those either, just stay stealthed and throw a siege blueprint at them ;) You're welcome to everyone whose been doing it a harder way.

    be careful not to hit them with the blueprint tho as it will deal a little damage and reveal you.

  • Bigpapasmurf.5623Bigpapasmurf.5623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    And you don't have to hit those either, just stay stealthed and throw a siege blueprint at them ;) You're welcome to everyone whose been doing it a harder way.

    be careful not to hit them with the blueprint tho as it will deal a little damage and reveal you.

    And here ive been contesting them like a sucker...attacking the guards myself. Im such a scrub :p

    Red = Dead...or someone runs away. Either way it's gone.
    twitch.tv/TRMC
    Lover of Jumping puzzles, Squirrels, WvW, and Taimi
    Co-Leader of SOmething inAPpropriate {SOAP}

  • Iozeph.5617Iozeph.5617 Member ✭✭✭

    @Zefrost.3425 said: Swords shouldn't trigger on keeps unless a siege weapon hits them

    Much as I agree with some of the reasons in your post it also opens keeps/towers up to abuse by off-prime blobs willing to go PVD with just weapons skills to stealth flip. Not saying it would happen all the time but it'd no fun either for anyone logging into find everything lost that way.

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2018

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @Kovu.7560 said:

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:

    @Kovu.7560 said:

    @HazyDaisy.4107 said:
    but very rarely see a thief doing it,

    That's because they're stealthed.

    ~ Kovu

    So are the rangers, what's you're point :).

    I've yet to meet a ranger that keeps stealth uptime > 50%. Most wp griefing thieves stealth > 80% uptime. That speaks nothing to the teleports.
    You can kill rangers that tap keeps if you know to expect them. The same cannot be said for thieves (and mesmers).

    ~ Kovu

    Edit- That said I've always agreed that a single tap of a guard is a little too easy as a means for shutting down a waypoint. I'm in agreement with using siege to contest the structure. Sure its fairly easy to do, but it takes more effort than a single tap and that siege can't be pulled away after the fact.

    and then you would never ever be able to take T3 keeps. Because before you get the siege up, the enemy zerg would port in (no need for ewp, yay) and then it is game over. Or a 2h trebuchet match. Fun!

    If you have any number of allies with you it doesn't take long to throw down a piece of siege, build it, and damage a structure.
    If the enemy is able to port in its because there was a scout -- they were going to port in anyway, regardless. My suggestion doesn't affect that one way or the other.

    But eh, it's hardly 'my' suggestion. We've all come up with plenty of ideas over the years, the management has already decided that the status quo is acceptable.

    ~ kovu

    Ranger, Fort Aspenwood.

  • tagging important objectives to confuse enemies is a strategy, scouts need something to do, too

  • Shining One.1635Shining One.1635 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm somewhere in the middle on this topic. I don't think siege should be necessary in order to contest a structure, but it should require a bit more effort than it does now. Maybe we should have to kill a few guards.

  • DeceiverX.8361DeceiverX.8361 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2018

    The siege damage part has a bit of a problem which I'll highlight below, and I've always suggested this compromise to both sides of the argument of tap vs no tap WP contesting:

    It should be based on dealing a certain amount of damage to a part of the structure based on its current HP in a short amount of time; this allows havoc groups intending to cut off respawns in a major fight to do so, but will require a much more concerted effort and longer time spent attacking the structure such that a single minstrel's stealth build cannot just permanently keep a WP contested while surviving an onslaught from multiple people. This also makes movespeed hackers less effective and generally increases the risk of a non-siege tap; you'll need to really attack at a gate for a bit to get the swords. It also makes it easier to pop swords on an objective that is at an increased risk of actually being taken (gate is low on health, etc.).

    This also helps alleviate the other problem that siege-only doesn't address which is the PvDoor scenario; as suggested by the OP, if it were to only proc on siege damage, a zerg PvDooring would never generate swords which would thus only be detected by scouts. And given how few people really check areas like watergate or tunnels, this has pretty big implications on defense and would probably make things too-easily exploited.

    You sure that Sniper idea is as good as you thought it was gonna be?
    Because I think my original idea is better.
    Quit/Inactive. No, you can't have my stuff.

  • Moonlit.6421Moonlit.6421 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    And no one enjoys this: "Keep????" "Just someone tagging keep and running by" or "Keep????" then having to spend 5 minutes exploring all of the attack points only to find out no one is there.

    Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain that to my wife, who has been doing that for six years, much to the satisfaction and gratitude of many commnders on her various servers. Scouts love doing that kind of thing. Are you saying we should do away with scouting?

    Not to mention every good commander I've ever run with sends someone to tap the nearest waypointed Keep prior to an assault on a structure. Why would you want to remove one of the all-too-limited tactical options from gameplay?

    ^^^ This. Tappers should not be that big of a problem. They can be an annoying inconvenience, but so can most anything in WvW. A enemy blob rolling over a map, the zerg waypointing right as I run across the BL to get to them, being repaired into a wall, that thief ganking you for the 3rd time on your way back to the zerg. All of these things can be annoying, but that does not mean they should just be removed. Tapping is a tactic in WvW, and not a hard one to figure out. Don't try and take one of the interesting elements out of WvW to dumb it down just because you personally find it annoying.

  • samo.1054samo.1054 Member ✭✭✭

    Agree with op. Single players contesting t3 keeps by just attacking guards is quite stupid and shouldn't be possible.

  • aspirine.6852aspirine.6852 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Moonlit.6421 said:

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:

    @Zefrost.3425 said:
    And no one enjoys this: "Keep????" "Just someone tagging keep and running by" or "Keep????" then having to spend 5 minutes exploring all of the attack points only to find out no one is there.

    Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain that to my wife, who has been doing that for six years, much to the satisfaction and gratitude of many commnders on her various servers. Scouts love doing that kind of thing. Are you saying we should do away with scouting?

    Not to mention every good commander I've ever run with sends someone to tap the nearest waypointed Keep prior to an assault on a structure. Why would you want to remove one of the all-too-limited tactical options from gameplay?

    ^^^ This. Tappers should not be that big of a problem. They can be an annoying inconvenience, but so can most anything in WvW. A enemy blob rolling over a map, the zerg waypointing right as I run across the BL to get to them, being repaired into a wall, that thief ganking you for the 3rd time on your way back to the zerg. All of these things can be annoying, but that does not mean they should just be removed. Tapping is a tactic in WvW, and not a hard one to figure out. Don't try and take one of the interesting elements out of WvW to dumb it down just because you personally find it annoying.

    Tapping should stay in. But with the current thiefs it is a bit too easy for such a high reward. It should take more than just a simple tag and hide. Just my opinion.

  • starlinvf.1358starlinvf.1358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I find the bigger issue to be the whole WP set up in WvW. Its intentionally created 2 problems...... First, the reinforcement waves are slowed so defenders can't just Zapp Braniggan their way to victory. Secondly, it takes attackers out of play if they're finished. Both of these are good in theory, but made a mess due to how battles in WvW are actually executed.

    What do I mean by this? Well, for starters, we roll over terrain too easily. The nature of open field fights in this game tend to boil down to who can plow down the opposing side faster. If you look at the Meta evolution for as long as I can remember, has always boiled down to whats going on with Stability, Stuns and AOE in general. Theres literally no way to hold an open field position once the groups get to a certain size, because of how quickly they will collectively deliver damage.... and thats already counting for the target cap for skills. Its still a war of attrition, but it doesn't behave in a way that can reward a defensive strategy. Fights are also way too mobile. Now on its own, this would work good enough.... but its when you start applying this to Structure defense that the whole thing goes very stupid, very fast.

    Garrisons and Keeps are the only places this kind of player combat "appears" to function, because there is enough open space in them to serve as an open field location. Once you get to Towers and Camps, the siege process, and if the team decides to defend, results in barely interesting fights. If anything, its just acting as a beacon to condense zerg activity long enough for another group to respond, and have a fight in the field around it. If you stop and think about it for more then 3 seconds, Keep battles work because they're the most compatible with the requirements that make open field fights function. But when you scale that down by any amount, the siege process demands too many people for a space too small to have a good fight in.

    This brings us to issue with Spawns. Its not obvious, because of the way everything flows..... but Spawns are supposed to operate as reinforcement waves. This happens almost naturally at Keeps due to proximity of the Spawns. However, any distance further out, and the people respawning are too exposed to coalesce into a wave; unless there is a commander there to meter their movement. The fights in Keeps are actually pretty bad... but we don't notice it as much, because of how fast we can rejoin the fight. More importantly, Keep sieges are a multi-phase assault, and thus drawn out long enough for more then 1 reinforcement wave to occur. And even if the Attackers are mopping the floor with the defenders, the capture still doesn't occur in barely the time it takes to walk from spawns to the keep.

    Its too big of an overhaul to lay down without having to change a number of fundamental things about the combat system...... the spawning and map layout issues can be partially addressed by looking the hand full of games that utilize Logistics as a play concept. And No.... the supply system this game uses is clunky at best. If you look at Planetside 1, despite being somewhat streamlined, the logistics game play facilitated a very clear flow that transitions from Expelling attackers, re-securing the inner and outer areas of a structure, transitioning to open field combat, and then having a traditional ground war where either side gained or lost ground, measured in meters at a time. With WvW, you just go until one side loses too many people, and their group collapses completely. That gives the winning side an uncontested path to their next objective. And its in this particular situation where I find WvW fails the hardest, when everything else about the design suggests this should be its strongest feature. Simply put..... we can't form front lines, and thus have nothing to reinforce. The maps are designed for Pre-WWII territory conflicts, but the combat system and capture process promote vietnam guerrilla warfare; aka, no benefit to defending anything other then the Keeps, because they don't contribute enough to territory defense, and are much easier to recapture after the fact. And for all the kitten people were giving Edge of the Mist, it got this concept of progressive campaigns across a large territory half way right. But like the borderlands, it starts to fall apart in light of how reinforcements/respawns are handled.

    There should be a concept of push and counter push between locations.... not just those occasions when two groups catch up with each other. I think open field siege supposed to be their solution to that end. But we all know how bad open field siege performs in light of player mobility, and siege's lack of stopping power. Since we can't fix this without massive overhaul to the whole thing..... what we can do is address the problem with how reinforcements get around the map. And to that end, it can be addressed with very low effort by simply introducing the equivalent of troop transport that can operate on some semblance of a schedule. The idea is that people respawning (or recalling) will coalesce into a wave, and that wave moved to certain midpoints in the map at regular intervals. This immediately gives additional value to Towers as a reinforcement rally point, so a bunch of players are naturally grouped up before moving out. To prevent back capping from being exploited, a team will have to capture and maintain ownership of a chain territories to the tower to get this reinforcement option; and explained away as clearing air space for Troop transports from the staging area. If we wanted to, we can even integrate war gliding to theme it after a Paratrooper drop as the airship flies routes through friendly territory. It then becomes a choice of which method would be faster to get where they're going, and the level of safety. If the next pick up is too far out, and the destination closer, you can opt to run your way back. The further out from the Spawns a tower is, the more appealing an air ship drop off is without changing the time it takes to get there. This even works in the same scaling for defenders, and incentivizes large groups holding positions for flanking potential. So the final aspect, and the one that would need extensive tuning, is the frequency of a drop off.

    However, the result of this helps to develop hot zones and ant trails. Simultaneously increasing the surface area roamers/scouts need to cover, and increases the difficulty of ganker and tap squads trying to shut down a reinforcement line. And out of this change, you immediately find an increased value in holding forward positions, and a big risk in skipping past towers.

  • Quench.7091Quench.7091 Member ✭✭

    I don't get why people defend solo players being able to tap a keep. Whenever I see it happen I think about the NPCs scrambling, locking down the whole garrison, and sounding the alarms because a guy with no muscle scratched a cannon barrel. I see people saying that doing anything about this subject would ruin scouting, but I think we all know that something else would just fill the void. A negative to scouting would be a positive to small group play. Does WvW need more small group play or more solo play?

  • intox.6347intox.6347 Member ✭✭✭

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    I do wish you at least had to touch the keep to contest it. As it is, you just have to aggro outlaying guards. And you don't have to hit those either, just stay stealthed and throw a siege blueprint at them ;)

    exactly..... i think you must be brain damaged to keep structure contested for longer time... coz its so fun yeah.
    But when i see activity on objective... like taking something... then its time to to tap it... with perma stealth deadeye... you dont even try with siege.... just one shot from nice place... and restealth, never get killed...

    It should be triggered by siege or damage made to structure... coz this is nonsense

    Multiclass WvW player
    Theorycrafted builds tester

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.