Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" 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 ;-).

@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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 bothWould 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 intoIsn'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 alliancesThis 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 notIt 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 soonSounds awesome, definately more of what the game mode needs. Hands down, point on. Would love to hear more about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 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 bothWow 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?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Whiteout.1975" 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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Safandula.8723 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:
  • Also, this is just a sudden thought... What would be interesting to me is if the
    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 crap 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...