Notes from the latest "Let's Play #GuildWars2 World vs World with the Developers" — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Notes from the latest "Let's Play #GuildWars2 World vs World with the Developers"

Rotten Bones.2391Rotten Bones.2391 Member ✭✭
edited April 6, 2019 in WvW

The last dev stream () had some good info in it. I made some notes with timestamps for those who can't watch the whole 1 1/2 hour video.

00:11:00

  • Time to entry rebalance for keeps and towers (later in stream at 00:55:37 they mention the gates and walls changes will go live in a matter of weeks)
  • Potential restriction to repairs while walls and gates are being damaged

00:14:00

  • Devs are adjusting the time to entry for keeps and towers because they want to incentivize attacking
  • Currently higher tier doors and wall take less damage as well as having more health, devs want just one of those increases rather than both

00:18:35

  • WvW skill balance in GH arena is not currently possible, but it has been looked into

00:25:15

  • Z really wants world restructuring

00:52:14

  • On scoring changes: the resetting every 8 hours will most likely be after alliances

00:55:37

  • Gates and walls changes will go live in a matter of weeks, a few small warclaw changes in a few weeks as well, not too many big changes for warclaw anytime soon
  • Devs want to add rewards for attacking defended objectives instead of win trading, rewards for attacking a defended keep should be better than rewards for an empty keep, rewards should scale with structure level, still in paper design phase and devs hope to start prototyping soon

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

01:20:36

  • Ben created a couple of prototypes, like a skill that would most likely be unlocked with the ability system that throws a spear and dismounts both you and the target, this skill is already working, the question is whether the devs want it in the game or not

Thanks to Ben and Ray for the info shared in this stream and thanks to Z for giving them the go-ahead to be more open with what they're working on. I'm sure I missed a thing or two, please add it in the comments or correct any mistakes I've made.

Tagged:
<1

Comments

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

    kitten I thought the 8h scoring would be there way sooner than alliances. That's a bummer. Interesting stuff though, thanks for posting! I hope that the changes to gates and walls don't just make the winners win harder because even t3 objectives won't be a hindrance at that point. Though getting there is probably already impossible when fighting against a stacked server and this definitely will increase the chance of fighting back or taking an objective while they are busy elsewhere.

    Very passive aggressively chuckling, because I'm totally not mad on the Internet.

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭

    My DD Tempest is excited for dismount skill.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    Apologies if I come off as dry or blunt.

  • ProverbsofHell.2307ProverbsofHell.2307 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Ah thanks for making the effort to post this.

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Rotten Bones.2391 said:

    • Currently higher tier doors and wall take less damage as well as having more health, devs want just one of those increases rather than both

    Wow they really gonna change the exponentially increasing toughness of objectives? Thats actually great.

    For those that dont know, T0 walls have 373K hp while T3 is 612K (towers) and 821K (keeps). This may seem like a nice doubling of strength up the 2 tier upgrades, but actually it also reduce damage by 33% (towers) and 50% (keeps). So double the hp is actually quadrouple the time it takes to bring keeps down.

    On top of this, repair doesnt scale with armor, only hp - and you repair the same amount on T0 and T3. So its much stronger while just being 1:1 to repair.

    The strong T2/T3 is IMO one of the fundamental flaws of the game and what can bring gameplay to a complete halt, because people dont want to fight for 2 hours over them and barely get anywhere.

    With the faster response time of defending zergs now from Warclaw, I could see this being a very positive thing actually. As well as a good reason to promote scouting, as you'll have less time to notice it on the maps.

    Good sign that they are at least trying to consider how the whole functions, and not just balance things as if they existed alone in a vacuum.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Clownmug.8357Clownmug.8357 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    Interesting, so they want to make attacking easier and more rewarding. That's great news if I'm on a well-populated server, or plan to transfer to one. If not, I guess all I get for for my underpopulated server's successful defense is a sense of pride and accomplishment.

  • Clownmug.8357Clownmug.8357 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Clownmug.8357 said:
    Interesting, so they want to make attacking easier and more rewarding. That's great news if I'm on a well-populated server, or plan to transfer to one. If not, I guess all I get for for my underpopulated server's successful defense is a sense of pride and accomplishment.

    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    Ok, thanks for the clarification. I hope the defense rewards will be enough to pull people that right now are only willing to run around in circles recapping the same things in Eternal Battlegrounds.

  • displayname.8315displayname.8315 Member ✭✭✭

    None of this matters much when there is a big numbers problem... like most of the time.

    Until the mishmash of old servers goes away its kinda meh.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    it would be nice if defenders could actually stand on walls and shoot at the attackers without getting pulled/ aoe'd to death in seconds ;-).

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    it would be nice if defenders could actually stand on walls and shoot at the attackers without getting pulled/ aoe'd to death in seconds ;-).

    I would still argue that the purpose of GW2 walls is not to provide a platform for defense. Its merely a delay mechanism for combat inside and outside the objective, keeping the objective safe from people just running in to cap. They arent useless as such and you can stand on it, but if you stand in circles, you get killed by circles.

    IMO there is no problem there. The only problem is lingering necro AoE marks allowing zergs to light up walls for a long time with no effort, which has nothing to do with walls themselves.

    I would argue only that the same option was provided to both: if you can be hit on a wall, you should be able to hit from the wall.

    Same class, same weapon etxc.

    This conflicts with the idea that AoE is... well, AoE. The circle will always hit things the LoS projectiles cant.

    Besides, its not a false statement that you can hit people from the wall just as good as a they can hit from below. Just reverse the scenario. If 50 people are standing on the walls and say 3 people are below with a cata, are those 50 people going to be unable to hit the cata and die to AoE from those 3 people?

  • @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    it would be nice if defenders could actually stand on walls and shoot at the attackers without getting pulled/ aoe'd to death in seconds ;-).

    You realize that when you stand on the wall you are really going 1v30 (or # ranged players in zerg). How do you really expect that to end? Unless what you are really wanting is to be able to hit them without them hitting you...

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:
    I am fine with reducing the toughness of walls.

    But at the same time we MUST have a way to defend from that walls. At the moment, going on a wall is nothing but suicide, thanks to broken scourges. If they don't get you, the insane amount of pulls will take you down in the attackers midst, where your hp just evaporate.

    So.. make people on walls immune to condis, or give perma stability. Best would be both.

    Mark this day. For once we agree 100%.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Nebilim.5127Nebilim.5127 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Clownmug.8357 said:
    Interesting, so they want to make attacking easier and more rewarding. That's great news if I'm on a well-populated server, or plan to transfer to one. If not, I guess all I get for for my underpopulated server's successful defense is a sense of pride and accomplishment.

    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    Imo, defense should be rewarded way more greatly than attacking, and it should be easy to setup rules to avoid leeching or trading. Like minimum amount of people killed or hit by your siege. This way 1 guy defending against someone autoing the door won't gorge you out rewards, but if i somehow kill 5 people inside a keep and fix the doors, i should be swimming in rewards.

    Actually it would probably be best if we had unique rewards for attacking and taking and unique for defending. Let's say badge of offense and defense. And they can be traded for their own stuff. This way it incentive people to keep what they have and take what they don',t

  • Hitman.5829Hitman.5829 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Clownmug.8357 said:
    Interesting, so they want to make attacking easier and more rewarding. That's great news if I'm on a well-populated server, or plan to transfer to one. If not, I guess all I get for for my underpopulated server's successful defense is a sense of pride and accomplishment.

    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    My god, when will you Devs learn. "Combat" at objectives only benefits the attackers due to the awful game designed where walls block your attacks if you are a defender.
    If you guys had any motivation to improve WvW, then you will make the following to encourage COMBAT.

    • WvW enemies have a 0.000001% chance to drop cosmetic infusions
    • WvW enemies have a 0.000001% chance to drop WvW exclusive content.

    It is so simple, but you guys refuse to work.

    Charr Warrior Master Race!
    Black Gate Beast Roamer chicken chaser!

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    If skill when on walls ignored that annoying lip or edge the walls have so u could use ranged skills without having to expose urself to 50scourge aoe's or annoying pulls by standing on the very edge things would be atleast slightly better

  • mixxed.5862mixxed.5862 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    it would be nice if defenders could actually stand on walls and shoot at the attackers without getting pulled/ aoe'd to death in seconds ;-).

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    it would be nice if defenders could actually stand on walls and shoot at the attackers without getting pulled/ aoe'd to death in seconds ;-).

    I would still argue that the purpose of GW2 walls is not to provide a platform for defense. Its merely a delay mechanism for combat inside and outside the objective, keeping the objective safe from people just running in to cap. They arent useless as such and you can stand on it, but if you stand in circles, you get killed by circles.

    IMO there is no problem there. The only problem is lingering necro AoE marks allowing zergs to light up walls for a long time with no effort, which has nothing to do with walls themselves.

    I would argue only that the same option was provided to both: if you can be hit on a wall, you should be able to hit from the wall.

    Same class, same weapon etxc.

    This conflicts with the idea that AoE is... well, AoE. The circle will always hit things the LoS projectiles cant.

    Besides, its not a false statement that you can hit people from the wall just as good as a they can hit from below. Just reverse the scenario. If 50 people are standing on the walls and say 3 people are below with a cata, are those 50 people going to be unable to hit the cata and die to AoE from those 3 people?

    put 50 on the wall and 50 down. The 50 on the wall are screwed. They can't defend against the marks&wells, their eles can't drop meteors and lava on the zerg below, because of broken LoS. They can be pulled down and killed one by one, the 50 down don't need to worry about that.

    50 on a wall vs. 50 down doesn't exactly sound like a fun game. I rather the defenders need to make a sortie to create a distraction while their archers rain down hell from the battlements! Oh this is GW2 in 2019, whoops, let's all just run through that gate then while our Scourges gloriously press through all of their buttons faster than the enemies'. Do you have your wood planks ready? Charge my fearsome Warriors Scourges!

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    it would be nice if defenders could actually stand on walls and shoot at the attackers without getting pulled/ aoe'd to death in seconds ;-).

    It would be nice if defenders could not stack 20 acs as well as siege like trebs, catas and ballistas in 1 tower and hide behind a wall all day.
    Oh and then there is SMC where u can have like 5 acs on 3rd floor, right above the gate, and 5+ acs on ground lvl behind the gate, as well as cannons, mortars, balistas, catas and trebs on the 3rd floor......

    The objective defense vs offense in the game sways HEAVILY in favour of defenders. Not being able to clear acs on the walls would make any T3 object unflippable.

  • floppypuppy.5789floppypuppy.5789 Member ✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    what I want is to have walls be an advantage instead of a disadvantage. not being able to stand on walls cuz aoe is garbage.

    Ok thats a fine thing to want, but why should the top of a wall have an advantage? By nature it makes you visible, exposed, and restricts your movement options. Standing on the ground in range of a zerg is going to get the same aoe and cc dropped on you, what makes the top of a wall different?

    Maybe I am overthinking this and it's just a vague general desire.

    Edit: Oh, I just realized the wall does have an advantage: it prevents the melee train from getting to you. Should there still be more?

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vova.2640 said:
    It would be nice if defenders could not stack 20 acs as well as siege like trebs, catas and ballistas in 1 tower and hide behind a wall all day.
    Oh and then there is SMC where u can have like 5 acs on 3rd floor, right above the gate, and 5+ acs on ground lvl behind the gate, as well as cannons, mortars, balistas, catas and trebs on the 3rd floor......

    The objective defense vs offense in the game sways HEAVILY in favour of defenders. Not being able to clear acs on the walls would make any T3 object unflippable.

    encouraging defenders to actually attack the besiegers is better then encouraging them to man siege, which is actually the only alternative.

    @floppypuppy.5789 said:
    Ok thats a fine thing to want, but why should the top of a wall have an advantage? By nature it makes you visible, exposed, and restricts your movement options. Standing on the ground in range of a zerg is going to get the same aoe and cc dropped on you, what makes the top of a wall different?

    Maybe I am overthinking this and it's just a vague general desire.

    Edit: Oh, I just realized the wall does have an advantage: it prevents the melee train from getting to you. Should there still be more?

    historically, walls have always had a vast advantage vs attackers. maybe its this fact that throws me off so much. anyway, as I said above, the only alternative for defenders is to man siege. most people hate siege wars, and anything that helps to curtail this is good in my book.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:
    put 50 on the wall and 50 down. The 50 on the wall are screwed. They can't defend against the marks&wells, their eles can't drop meteors and lava on the zerg below, because of broken LoS. They can be pulled down and killed one by one, the 50 down don't need to worry about that.

    Except the 50 on the wall literally have all the advantage by being equal size in a defensive scenario. They got the ability to jump out of the objective anywhere, they got the portal, they can choke the enemy at the wall or the door, they can go out when the enemy go in, if it's an objective closer to their home they also have quicker return, they might have EWP, they have tactivators, etc etc. If they instead stand on the edge of the wall and all die to a predictable bomb... well there is a reason we have the Darwin Awards.

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    historically, walls have always had a vast advantage vs attackers. maybe its this fact that throws me off so much. anyway, as I said above, the only alternative for defenders is to man siege. most people hate siege wars, and anything that helps to curtail this is good in my book.

    You know, arrowcarts that shoot like automatic machineguns straight down from the heavens throws me off instead, if I where to look at GW2 sieges from a real historical viewpoint. Or catapults with such short range an archer on a wall can shoot further. And also historically, you would starve out the defenders without a fight. This game isnt exactly grounded in reality.

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 5, 2019

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    historically, walls have always had a vast advantage vs attackers. maybe its this fact that throws me off so much. anyway, as I said above, the only alternative for defenders is to man siege. most people hate siege wars, and anything that helps to curtail this is good in my book.

    You know, arrowcarts that shoot like automatic machineguns straight down from the heavens throws me off instead, if I where to look at GW2 sieges from a real historical viewpoint. Or catapults with such short range an archer on a wall can shoot further. And also historically, you would starve out the defenders without a fight. This game isnt exactly grounded in reality.

    Except if the walls were safer, instead of the cata being right next to it, you'd have to build outside the range of the players on the wall. Arrow carts don't shoot that far (max range 2500). Cata's shoot 4000 baseline and yes, max Balista Range is 3500 with the Mastery. Effectivly less depending on that player's PC limited draw distance. So to stop your catas they'd have to gasp come out and fight you on the fields.

    Isn't that what you actually want or not? Cause with knowing that, it sounds like you just want an empty field with easy bags.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    You know, arrowcarts that shoot like automatic machineguns straight down from the heavens throws me off instead, if I where to look at GW2 sieges from a real historical viewpoint. Or catapults with such short range an archer on a wall can shoot further. And also historically, you would starve out the defenders without a fight. This game isnt exactly grounded in reality.

    well I don't care much for siege. I want walls that work is all.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 6, 2019

    Renaming the qoutes to reflect that my comments are not towards the OP, but in general. A citation-comment structure makes sense so I'm keeping it.

    @ArenaNet said:

    • Time to entry rebalance for keeps and towers (later in stream at 00:55:37 they mention the gates and walls changes will go live in a matter of weeks)
    • Potential restriction to repairs while walls and gates are being damaged
    • Devs are adjusting the time to entry for keeps and towers because they want to incentivize attacking
    • Currently higher tier doors and wall take less damage as well as having more health, devs want just one of those increases rather than both

    Would be nice to get more of a motivation than incentivizing attacking. It's not like it's hard to take stuff, why are resources being put on this now and is there anything specific they are looking to achieve (like shrinking the differences between larger and smaller groups when sieging)?

    @ArenaNet said:

    • WvW skill balance in GH arena is not currently possible, but it has been looked into

    Isn't the Armistice Bastion arena WvW physics? We're not fussed, we will settle for any kind of reasonably sized arena with WvW physics that lets the "owning" side control and decide who gets to come in with a functioning interface and programming to sluice squads in but keep griefers, lag-spammers and other uncouth individuals out. Even something barebones. Talk to the tournament organizers about it.

    @ArenaNet said:

    • On scoring changes: the resetting every 8 hours will most likely be after alliances

    This too would be interesting to get more information on, what and how exactly they aim to make this impact the mode. It is a wonderful idea to address scoring but the community has been talking about this for years upon years with different subsets of the community having different expectations, reservations, concerns and questions. This is far less fleshed out than many player-suggestions on the topic right now and only really raises questions about how mindful the developers are of the discourse(s) that has already taken place.

    @ArenaNet said:
    a few small warclaw changes in a few weeks as well, not too many big changes for warclaw anytime soon

    • Ben created a couple of prototypes, like a skill that would most likely be unlocked with the ability system that throws a spear and dismounts both you and the target, this skill is already working, the question is whether the devs want it in the game or not

    It is likely wise to keep Warclaw changes under wraps and not rush into too many changes. The changes being discussed raises questions though. I have no direct personal interest in the matter but it is a sensitive topic for many and while alot of discussion has focused on the HP etc., the real divider is the larger discussion about how the mount takes the form of a force-variation tool, eg., how it affects smaller groups when interacting with larger groups. Ideas like "it dismounts the opponent and you" clearly affects differently sized groups very differently. It is a fair approach to a 1v1 but how does it affect a 1v5 with 5 players chasing an escaping or force-dividing opponent? If the developers are interested in encouraging attacking maybe they should not keep pushing the mount in the direction of a homecourt advantage or a further advantage to superior numbers that risk discouraging agressive, small or disavantageous play.

    @ArenaNet said:

    • Devs want to add rewards for attacking defended objectives instead of win trading, rewards for attacking a defended keep should be better than rewards for an empty keep, rewards should scale with structure level, still in paper design phase and devs hope to start prototyping soon

    Sounds awesome, definately more of what the game mode needs. Hands down, point on. Would love to hear more about it.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm a Roamer. I would Havoc occasionally... So I generally like to be out in the open just fighting players as is overall. Though, I can appreciate the initial defense of a tower and alike; simply by having walls and gate(s). However, I do believe bulk of the defenses should reside on the players. Not nearly as much as the tower (etc.) itself existing in whatever state it may be in.

    I like to think of it like this... Imagine if you could Not stand on walls at all... Then it would be pretty much a waiting game till the walls or gate goes down. Unless you have a group big enough to actually push back. And sometimes this may as well be the case because as other's said: "AoE's" and what have you that works.
    So it would seem important to have an effective enough means to repel attackers in the process of being attacked still. And IMO that's player driven as opposed to mostly just objective driven.

    • For example: I would consider Cannons "player driven". They can't be useful unless they are in use... by players. Even though they are apart of the structure/objective.

    So In short... I'm for reducing Wall HP or Toughness for sure, but allow players to defend such objectives in a generally effective manner as well. All things considered.

    • Also, this is just a sudden thought... What would be interesting to me is if the https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Outnumbered buff increased the defenses (Preferably the "Toughness" of such objectives)... Maybe this would help delay a otherwise "swift" steamroll for those "Outnumbered"?
  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 6, 2019

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Rotten Bones.2391 said:

    • Currently higher tier doors and wall take less damage as well as having more health, devs want just one of those increases rather than both

    Wow they really gonna change the exponentially increasing toughness of objectives? Thats actually great.

    For those that dont know, T0 walls have 373K hp while T3 is 612K (towers) and 821K (keeps). This may seem like a nice doubling of strength up the 2 tier upgrades, but actually it also reduce damage by 33% (towers) and 50% (keeps). So double the hp is actually quadrouple the time it takes to bring keeps down.

    On top of this, repair doesnt scale with armor, only hp - and you repair the same amount on T0 and T3. So its much stronger while just being 1:1 to repair.

    The strong T2/T3 is IMO one of the fundamental flaws of the game and what can bring gameplay to a complete halt, because people dont want to fight for 2 hours over them and barely get anywhere.

    On the other hand, players don't want to defend things whilst upgrading them and then lose them without having a chance to to defend. This is why it's important that the developers change time-to-entry at the same time.

    I worry that giant zergs will STILL cap things way too quickly to get people to the objectives. Whilst I appreciate emergency waypoints, I think five (or more) catapults can be through two of these new, weak walls before people can teleport to defend them, and what can be faster than waypoints?!

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 6, 2019

    @Svarty.8019 said:
    I worry that giant zergs will STILL cap things way too quickly to get people to the objectives. Whilst I appreciate emergency waypoints, I think five (or more) catapults can be through two of these new, weak walls before people can teleport to defend them, and what can be faster than waypoints?!

    You cant ever change that. In theory a zerg can come with 25 golems and chew through current T3 in seconds. Its only a matter of organization and preparation. Even practical siege levels, I've seen 8 rams on a gate with our server having zero chance to even react before they where on the lord.

    Plus, we dont know what this even means. I just short stated the current model (ignored the varying hp). I could easily imagine all walls having the same baseline, for example 500K hp at T0/T1, 700K hp at T2, 900K at T3. This would result in all objectives being stronger at T0/T1, sligthly weaker (keeps) and slightly stronger (towers) at T2 and much weaker (keeps) and about as strong (towers) at T3. It would up the costs to repair as a bonus.

  • Safandula.8723Safandula.8723 Member ✭✭✭✭

    >

    • Also, this is just a sudden thought... What would be interesting to me is if the https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Outnumbered buff increased the defenses (Preferably the "Toughness" of such objectives)... Maybe this would help delay a otherwise "swift" steamroll for those "Outnumbered"?

    I don't like this idea. Sneaky keep rush is a good way of act, and it's in scouts job to pull other ppl to the border. Defenders shouldn't get any help just becouse they are lower in numbers

  • UmbraNoctis.1907UmbraNoctis.1907 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Clownmug.8357 said:
    Interesting, so they want to make attacking easier and more rewarding. That's great news if I'm on a well-populated server, or plan to transfer to one. If not, I guess all I get for for my underpopulated server's successful defense is a sense of pride and accomplishment.

    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    Most objectives discourage combat by design and this isn't going to change by making siegeing or defending more easy and/or rewarding. Siege, walls, tactivators, guild buffs, narrow spaces, npc - all those things tend to make combat less fair and fun. There are good reasons, why those players who actually want to fight, prefer to do so open field. And i don't see anything wrong with this. Killing enemies open field prevents them from taking objectives just as well as killing them inside a lord room. Just like off-point kills in sPvP are as valuable (sometimes even more valuable) than on-point kills and neither of those need to be artificially encouraged or discouraged.
    Additionally players would have to spread out to actually fight for objectives, because there are so many different objectives per map and a single zerg can only cover one at a time, so naturally this leads to PvDoor. But based on balance and design choices it seems, anet wants player to stack in one huge blob ...

  • ProverbsofHell.2307ProverbsofHell.2307 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Desert Borderland has a nice solution with the light bridges that extend out from the wall. Its still dangerous but being cautious and fast, you can deliver some damage this way because the enemy can't hope to cover all of the wall and the walkway.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 6, 2019

    @Safandula.8723 said:

    >

    • Also, this is just a sudden thought... What would be interesting to me is if the https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Outnumbered buff increased the defenses (Preferably the "Toughness" of such objectives)... Maybe this would help delay a otherwise "swift" steamroll for those "Outnumbered"?

    I don't like this idea. Sneaky keep rush is a good way of act, and it's in scouts job to pull other ppl to the border. Defenders shouldn't get any help just becouse they are lower in numbers

    The defenders should certainly gain a powerful Lord to make the attackers' lives difficult. On Eternal Battlegrounds, Alpine and The Desert Earth Keep/Stalwart Bastion/Garrison-Equivalent, the lords are too kitten to contribute to the defense.

    I fear that the current route will send us into an ever circling karma train gamemode because when it's too difficult to defend, people will just backcap. Round and round we go.

    Make no mistake, the powerful Lords on desert map are great levellers that make "epic defenses" a thing.

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Shala.8352Shala.8352 Member ✭✭
    edited April 6, 2019

    Nice you played the game with us, you should mention more the true problem you encountered in your own stream. The fact that in 1 hour and half, you never had a real fight. You just run around with a 50+ blob, and opponent never fight you, they stayed in cover beyond the walls using siege and you wasted more than 90% of the time running around doing nothing. The truth is, the map is too big and there is no fun fighting the siege and the fortress environment. The game mode itself discourage fighting.

    Actualy my best experience in wvw was during the warclaw lanch day, where i had queues everywhere and i fortunately ended in obsidian sanctum. Now, normaly obs is just a gvg map with no purpose in the game mode, but thanks to the warclaw day it was full too. I had no fun with the warclaw, i had no fun in the blob siege gameplay, but in obsidian sanctum was such a fun experience! Constant fight, constant reset, and immediate run in the next fight since the spawn locations are so close to each other. When i look at that experience, i think we no need fortress or walls, you just need little maps with narrow entry and los structure the more you go closer to opponent spawn location, and becoming more opened the more you get close to the 3 ways centre. Obsidian sanctum is not perfect, since you put the arena not in the centre of the 3 spawns, but i think that's the dimension of the map you should aim for.
    You see the problem in eotm too, the problem is not in the gamemode, but in map design. So you can change whatever you like, make the alliance system, give rewards for conquering or defending the tower, give us warclaw to run faster, the real issue is that your maps are too big and are not made for big group fighting, wich unfortunately is the only thing fun in this gamemode. There is just too much verticality, too much open space and too much way to avoid opponents, and especialy, TOO MANY OBJECTIVES. You should have only 4 objextives: the centre and the 3 spawn locations.

  • Shala.8352Shala.8352 Member ✭✭

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @Shala.8352 said:
    Nice you played the game with us, you should mention more the true problem you encountered in your own stream. The fact that in 1 hour and half, you never had a real fight. You just run around with a 50+ blob, and opponent never fight you, they stayed in cover beyond the walls using siege and you wasted more than 90% of the time running around doing nothing. The truth is, the map is too big and there is no fun fighting the siege and the fortress environment. The game mode itself discourage fighting.

    Actualy my best experience in wvw was during the warclaw lanch day, where i had queues everywhere and i fortunately ended in obsidian sanctum. Now, normaly obs is just a gvg map with no purpose in the game mode, but thanks to the warclaw day it was full too. I had no fun with the warclaw, i had no fun in the blob siege gameplay, but in obsidian sanctum was such a fun experience! Constant fight, constant reset, and immediate run in the next fight since the spawn locations are so close to each other. When i look at that experience, i think we no need fortress or walls, you just need little maps with narrow entry and los structure the more you go closer to opponent spawn location, and becoming more opened the more you get close to the 3 ways centre. Obsidian sanctum is not perfect, since you put the arena not in the centre of the 3 spawns, but i think that's the dimension of the map you should aim for.
    You see the problem in eotm too, the problem is not in the gamemode, but in map design. So you can change whatever you like, make the alliance system, give rewards for conquering or defending the tower, give us warclaw to run faster, the real issue is that your maps are too big and are not made for big group fighting, wich unfortunately is the only thing fun in this gamemode. There is just too much verticality, too much open space and too much way to avoid opponents, and especialy, TOO MANY OBJECTIVES. You should have only 4 objextives: the centre and the 3 spawn locations.

    Now the meme is reality. The so called 'fight guilds' just want an empty square white box PvP mode to fight in all day.

    How bout no?

    Yes what fight guilds want is pretty obvious. Still i am not suggesting an empty square as you defined, you still need LOS objects and narrows as i mentioned, so especialy the more you get close to the spawn points, i don't mind a tower with walls and defensive tools (cannons or whatever). The problem is still there and you can't deny it: maps are too big and with too many objectives. Also, many of these objextives have too much defensive advantage (alias garrison, EB keeps...) wich turn this game mode in a karma train, since opponents will turn their attention to other empy objectives, since they can win the match up points in that way aniway.
    Still is not obvious what the "no fight guilds" want.... i mean watch at this video in twitch i only get one thing: wvw is boring as hell, it discourage fighting and turn wvw in another pve map like.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Sorry but people shouldn't be 100% safe on walls, not when you can have any amount of people on the wall. If you can throw an aoe or cc down on a group they should be able to also target aoes and cc's in your area. If you don't want to get pulled then don't stand on obvious spots to bomb, such as a clump of allies on top of the stairs or standing around siege, or don't be a hero trying to tag 30 people by yourself on the wall cause really no one is going to die to give you a bag.

    Walls and gates are there to delay entry for attackers, when you upgrade them it delays them longer, this is the incentive to upgrade your structures. Point of the delay is to give your side a chance to respond, if they won't or can't respond then you will lose it, simple. If defenders get free reign on walls then attackers will just stop attacking gates and attack from range, or attack you in dead times. That isn't good for anyone or the game mode.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @Shala.8352 said:
    Nice you played the game with us, you should mention more the true problem you encountered in your own stream. The fact that in 1 hour and half, you never had a real fight. You just run around with a 50+ blob, and opponent never fight you, they stayed in cover beyond the walls using siege and you wasted more than 90% of the time running around doing nothing. The truth is, the map is too big and there is no fun fighting the siege and the fortress environment. The game mode itself discourage fighting.

    Actualy my best experience in wvw was during the warclaw lanch day, where i had queues everywhere and i fortunately ended in obsidian sanctum. Now, normaly obs is just a gvg map with no purpose in the game mode, but thanks to the warclaw day it was full too. I had no fun with the warclaw, i had no fun in the blob siege gameplay, but in obsidian sanctum was such a fun experience! Constant fight, constant reset, and immediate run in the next fight since the spawn locations are so close to each other. When i look at that experience, i think we no need fortress or walls, you just need little maps with narrow entry and los structure the more you go closer to opponent spawn location, and becoming more opened the more you get close to the 3 ways centre. Obsidian sanctum is not perfect, since you put the arena not in the centre of the 3 spawns, but i think that's the dimension of the map you should aim for.
    You see the problem in eotm too, the problem is not in the gamemode, but in map design. So you can change whatever you like, make the alliance system, give rewards for conquering or defending the tower, give us warclaw to run faster, the real issue is that your maps are too big and are not made for big group fighting, wich unfortunately is the only thing fun in this gamemode. There is just too much verticality, too much open space and too much way to avoid opponents, and especialy, TOO MANY OBJECTIVES. You should have only 4 objextives: the centre and the 3 spawn locations.

    Now the meme is reality. The so called 'fight guilds' just want an empty square white box PvP mode to fight in all day.

    How bout no?

    "fight" guilds will overstack (completely by accident, its not as if they dont want to fight each other) and have a field day against pugs. EXACTLY what wvw needs.

  • Bort.8647Bort.8647 Member ✭✭✭

    I hope they make attacking T3 keeps/smc significantly easier soon. With the addition of mounts, fighting zergs as a cloud has become ridiculously powerful. When attacking some objectives, it is nearly impossible to kill enemies who cloud around the ring/boss room fast enough to capture it, since they can run back and stall faster than ever. Even if they have to run from spawn, its still not enough to slow the constant flow of reinforcements. Combine this with down sniping people in the zerg stack with the mount, and you end up with an incredibly frustrating experience. Defending keeps/smc is already easy enough with the amount of siege you can have. I understand that mounts allow for faster travel and therefore more frequent fights, and i support that, but something needs to be done to make attacking heavily defended objectives less one sided. Its not good for the game to have some keeps sit at T3 all week.

  • Tiny Doom.4380Tiny Doom.4380 Member ✭✭✭

    I have always found defending hugely more exciting and enjoyable than attacking. The glory days of epic Garrison defences lasting all Sunday afternoon! Last ditch fights that somehow turn into improbable saves. I really miss bannering the Lord or combat rezzing him after banners were nerfed.

    The only time attacking structures is really fun is when they are very heavily defended and it takes mutiple attempts and several hours to wear the defences down. That used to be fairly common back before HoT, when I would often get home from work and spend 2-3 hours doing nothing but trying to take Bay (we had some very determined commanders back then). Even if we failed I went to bed happy after a great evening trying.

    Anything that shortens any aspect of structure siege, offense or defense, is a retrograde move in my book. That said, it's also pointless to have structures sitting at T3/Full supply for days at a stretch. I'd be all for removing the automation of upgraders so we had to go back to players running supply to raise the tiers. A lot of the current issues come from that automation.

  • aspirine.5839aspirine.5839 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    The current design includes rewards for defense as well. I probably misspoke on stream. We we want to encourage combat at objectives, both defending and attacking.

    it would be nice if defenders could actually stand on walls and shoot at the attackers without getting pulled/ aoe'd to death in seconds ;-).

    I would still argue that the purpose of GW2 walls is not to provide a platform for defense. Its merely a delay mechanism for combat inside and outside the objective, keeping the objective safe from people just running in to cap. They arent useless as such and you can stand on it, but if you stand in circles, you get killed by circles.

    IMO there is no problem there. The only problem is lingering necro AoE marks allowing zergs to light up walls for a long time with no effort, which has nothing to do with walls themselves.

    Why is there space to walk on the walls in that case? Why is there defensive siege if the game is not made for it? Not saying anyone using it should be invulnerable or anything, but it seems that walls are a bit more than just keep baddies out for a bit longer.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I agree defenders on walls should be engaged from below and vice versa but as scourge literally ruined the fun of zerg battles for me and alot of my buds that left solely because of them they also are ridiculous way the aoe spam the walls like they do literally cutting off access to the area. The spec is rediculousely oppressive in wvw.

  • reddie.5861reddie.5861 Member ✭✭✭

    @Rotten Bones.2391 said:

    01:20:36

    • Ben created a couple of prototypes, like a skill that would most likely be unlocked with the ability system that throws a spear and dismounts both you and the target, this skill is already working, the question is whether the devs want it in the game or not

    Thanks to Ben and Ray for the info shared in this stream and thanks to Z for giving them the go-ahead to be more open with what they're working on. I'm sure I missed a thing or two, please add it in the comments or correct any mistakes I've made.

    "throws a spear, massive slow animation they dodge and huehue u just lost ur +10k HP advantage"
    "throws a spear, mini little bump in the map, cant see target" huehue u just lost ur +10K HP advantage.

    why not just lower mount HP to 2k? what the big deal with it?

©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.