Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Helm's Deep "reverse break out" event idea


Chaba.5410

Recommended Posts

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

Yes, Chaba is confused about the idea brought up in the old topic that was referenced in the OP.

The deleted idea was...

-Attackers knock on door...

-Defenders say “go away, no soliciting here”...

-Attackers start laughing because they know 3 minutes later mama lord will open the gate anyway and fight them, thus giving attackers an easy way in to the objective and screwing over defenders...

...And if Chaba has a completely different idea, then Chaba needs to clearly lay out exactly what that idea is, not piggy back off the other idea from the thread that was removed.

“It looks like the thread was deleted? I don't know why, but the event idea was constructive, on-topic, and worthy of discussion. I don't see why the idea should get lost.

IIRC the idea was”... to help the attackers, not defenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Swagger.1459" said:...And if Chaba has a completely different idea, then Chaba needs to clearly lay out exactly what that idea is, not piggy back off the other idea from the thread that was removed.

Read my first post where I say exactly what I recall from the old thread. If you have a problem with something from the old thread, go complain to the mods for removing it. No where did I say here that I'm pushing for an NPC boss that opens gates for attackers so stop trying to turn this thread into that. That's your confusion, not mine.

Attackers who outnumber defenders and want to get into the objective are going to "earn their way in" regardless - that's why your point is meaningless. The topic once more is about a last stand mechanic that can help defenders in an "all hope is lost" fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:...And if Chaba has a completely different idea, then Chaba needs to clearly lay out exactly what that idea is, not piggy back off the other idea from the thread that was removed.

Read my first post where I say exactly what I recall from the old thread. If you have a problem with something from the old thread, go complain to the mods for removing it. No where did I say here that I'm pushing for an NPC boss that opens gates for attackers so stop trying to turn this thread into that. That's your confusion, not mine.

Attackers who outnumber defenders and want to get into the objective are going to "earn their way in" regardless - that's why your point is meaningless. The topic once more is about a last stand mechanic that can help defenders in an "all hope is lost" fight.

“It looks like the thread was deleted? I don't know why, but the event idea was constructive, on-topic, and worthy of discussion. I don't see why the idea should get lost.

IIRC the idea was”...

Again, that other idea was to help attackers, not defenders. You should leave out anything from that old thread because you “iirc” incorrectly.

You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

You need to be clearer when posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

The answer is no.

“English is a writer-responsible language. That means it is the responsibility of the writer to make sure the message is understood.”

You should remove references to that thread because it didn’t have anything to do with help for defenders. It had to do with help for attackers. You were mistaken and should clear it up.

And no, defenders don’t need that either right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

The answer is no.

“English is a writer-responsible language. That means it is the responsibility of the writer to make sure the message is understood.”

You should remove references to that thread because it didn’t have anything to do with help for defenders. It had to do with help for attackers. You were mistaken and should clear it up.

And no, defenders don’t need that either right now.

No. You can stay on topic or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:You should change the title to “Last stand mechanic for defenders” and post something like... “That would be cool if defenders got last ditch help by xyz something something”, because that old thread was the opposite of what you are bring up here.

The answer is no.

“English is a writer-responsible language. That means it is the responsibility of the writer to make sure the message is understood.”

You should remove references to that thread because it didn’t have anything to do with help for defenders. It had to do with help for attackers. You were mistaken and should clear it up.

And no, defenders don’t need that either right now.

No. You can stay on topic or not.

I am on topic. You’re the one who misunderstood that thread and used it for reference. You caused the confusion, yet blame others for being “off topic” instead of changing it to be accurate...

Just told you defenders don’t need that either.

@Gop.8713 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

The point I was making is that you have created your own problem by referencing in both your thread title and opening statement a deleted thread that did not in fact espouse the same idea that you are putting forth in this thread. Instead of taking responsibility for that confusion and trying to clear it up you are blaming other posters for being confused. It probably would have made more sense to just start this thread without referencing the other thread at all, and it would make more sense now to edit the OP than to try to individually correct everyone who reads it . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

The point I was making is that you have created your own problem by referencing in both your thread title and opening statement a deleted thread that did not in fact espouse the same idea that you are putting forth in this thread. Instead of taking responsibility for that confusion and trying to clear it up you are blaming other posters for being confused. It probably would have made more sense to just start this thread without referencing the other thread at all, and it would make more sense now to edit the OP than to try to individually correct everyone who reads it . . .

It would be silly to act as if the idea was my own since it was not. Fundamentally the idea was not different, only the details of execution. Credit for the idea should go to the guy who thought of it.

One cannot assume that everyone reading this had read everything in the removed thread without creating confusion. There was a lot I didn't get to read from it either. So I stated in my OP what I remembered of that thread as a starting basis. There is no reason to change it since it captures the big picture of the original.

I will ask people to stay on topic if they spend their posts providing only criticism of another's writing style and I will point out the irrelevance to the big picture when they are assuming readers had read some detail from the deleted thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:Attackers need to earn their way in and claim an objective.

They already do. This thread is about a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders.

And my point still stands. Earn your way in the gates and beat the defenders to claim the objective.

Your point is not relevant at all to the topic. Attackers are in. What last stand mechanic can help the defenders? Please stay on topic.

I think that may be the cause of the confusion. The thread you reference in the OP was about finding a way to encourage defenders to come out of an objective without the attackers having to break in. If the topic of your thread is different then the ppl who read the first thread are going to be confused . . .

Yes, it was about encouraging defenders to come out before a breach. See my OP. My point in my response is that in a situation where defenders are outnumbered, attackers who want to get in will do so. So getting hung up on "earning their way in" is meaningless to the topic. An NPC that helps defenders sally forth before a breach is there to help the defenders put up a last fight, not necessarily change the outcome of what happens to the objective. The NPC could help after a breach and the outcome could still be the same. What a difference such an event would add is to help defenders possibly get more kills. Deaths already do not count towards ppk if outnumbered.

The point I was making is that you have created your own problem by referencing in both your thread title and opening statement a deleted thread that did not in fact espouse the same idea that you are putting forth in this thread. Instead of taking responsibility for that confusion and trying to clear it up you are blaming other posters for being confused. It probably would have made more sense to just start this thread without referencing the other thread at all, and it would make more sense now to edit the OP than to try to individually correct everyone who reads it . . .

It would be silly to act as if the idea was my own since it was not. Fundamentally the idea was not different, only the details of execution. Credit for the idea should go to the guy who thought of it.

One cannot assume that everyone reading this had read everything in the removed thread without creating confusion. There was a lot I didn't get to read from it either. So I stated in my OP what I remembered of that thread as a starting basis. There is no reason to change it since it captures the big picture of the original.

I will ask people to stay on topic if they spend their posts providing only criticism of another's writing style and I will point out the irrelevance to the big picture when they are assuming readers had read some detail from the deleted thread.

Up to you, I was just pointing out how you could make it easier on yourself :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Eliren.4985 said:If you want PvE go to PvE gamemodes. Its already bad enough with the groups only focused on PPT that refuse to fight so adding even more PvE would just make things worse.

Don't you think this refusal to fight has something to do with the vastly different power levels? I mean, if I see our typical zerg with high tendencies for clouding trying to tackle a full fight zerg on a server with more tight focus on fights several times and fall apart upon first touch of the enemy zones, if I watch the enemy zerg sustain through our bomb without noteable damage, what would you expect people to do? Keep running into this fight, that you cannot take, that you get nothing out of - hell, if things run that badly, many people are not even getting participation.

I do realize that this has a lot to do with L2P - but these large-scale issues have a lot to do with overall player and mindset structure on the whole server, it has to do with server population in WvW and with the guilds active in WvW. These are things, that you cannot change over a short time, possibly not at all.

So if you get nothing out of these fights, no lootbag, no participation, no feeling of success, what else is there to do, but PPT?

This is why I keep re-iterating that WvW needs some kind of handicap system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nthmetal.9652 said:

@"Eliren.4985" said:If you want PvE go to PvE gamemodes. Its already bad enough with the groups only focused on PPT that refuse to fight so adding even more PvE would just make things worse.

Don't you think this refusal to fight has something to do with the
vastly different
power levels? I mean, if I see our typical zerg with high tendencies for clouding trying to tackle a full fight zerg on a server with more tight focus on fights several times and fall apart upon first
touch
of the enemy zones, if I watch the enemy zerg sustain through our bomb without noteable damage, what would you expect people to do? Keep running into this fight, that you cannot take, that you get
nothing
out of - hell, if things run that badly, many people are not even getting
participation
.

I do realize that this has a lot to do with L2P - but these large-scale issues have a lot to do with overall player and mindset structure on the whole server, it has to do with server population in WvW and with the guilds active in WvW. These are things, that you cannot change over a short time, possibly not at all.

So if you get
nothing
out of these fights, no lootbag, no participation, no feeling of success, what else is there to do, but PPT?

This is why I keep re-iterating that WvW needs some kind of handicap system.

Yes and no, i agree that there needs to be a "carrot" for the people who continue to go around and just get their asses handed to them but adding a "boss" that helps to take objectives i dont see being a solution, if anything it could cause more issues. I fully agree there needs to be something for the less fortunate people but i have to say imo this isnt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:That said, the original idea in the deleted thread was a last stand mechanic for outnumbered defenders that had nothing to do with what tier/upgrades a structure had. It could be a paper tower that just was captured 10 minutes earlier. The point was to give outnumbered defenders an incentive to stay and fight with a fighting chance.

No I believe the original idea was having the lord open the gates and attack the zerg at 3 mins into a contest. It wasn't to give defenders an incentive to stay and fight (they already have that by being in the structure especially if it's upgraded and sieged), it was to force the defenders out with the lord to the attack force of over 15 players. Then apparently a bunch of ideas got thrown around and then it looked like two people going back and forth on something, why a complete delete instead of a closed I have no idea.

Now, wouldn't having pve defense of this type be in the same category of having too much siege or too powerful siege or t3 upgrades or tactivators helping carry servers higher in ranks than their normal rank because lack of coverage? Wasn't this what we were debating for months about the siege issue being too powerful months ago? and that a lot of people agreed that if you don't have the population or your players refuse to or not at all respond to hold something, you should lose it, then siege and walls and gates got nerfed.

A lot of times people don't push out because they're waiting on reinforcements, or there's no commander or group to push with and running into a zerg over and over is not productive and in some cases a long run back, so yes people wait until they're closer in numbers to push. Yes there's even people that don't want to push at all and just sit on siege, but I believe that to be a small minority of players, and doesn't require a forced mechanic, that is not in any way going to convince those people to make a push unless it's extremely powerful to defend them.

I think it's fine having help from siegerazor to take something back because they lost everything, because usually when that happens people leave or there really isn't anyone around, but attacking or defending should largely be left up to players and the optional tools available, not something automatically forced 3 mins into a zerg attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm pretty sure Chaba has the right of it (cant be totally certain unless the OP chimes in here).

I think I realize why some of you are confused. the OP said "the lord opens the gates and sallies forth" but the over arching content of the post was about giving defenders a "last ditch effort". so I don't think that the OP meant that the lord would actually let attackers in, it was poor wording. anyways its totally irrelevant since Chaba's post is a better scenario if indeed the original idea meant to let the attackers in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:Neither scenario is a good scenario. It's a horrible idea. Let people play the way they want to play and stop trying to force others to play the way you want them to play.

if the lord can get back to the lord room with full hp it doesn't really matter. what does matter is to prevent siege monkey-ism since its probably the worst type of game play possible in the game mode. 0 player to player interaction is garbaggio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:Neither scenario is a good scenario. It's a horrible idea. Let people play the way they want to play and stop trying to force others to play the way you want them to play.

if the lord can get back to the lord room with full hp it doesn't really matter. what does matter is to prevent siege monkey-ism since its probably the worst type of game play possible in the game mode. 0 player to player interaction is garbaggio.

What does it matter? A door forcibly opening by game design means free access to a structure for attackers, and the new tactic becomes extra stealth groups with Mesmers turning objectives into swiss cheese because they are given free entry... That's what matters.

Siege is part of RvR games... DAoC, ESO, Crowfall, CU... and I'm sure bunch other gamers all have siege as part of gameplay. If you play those warfare games are you going to complain about siege? Why do you think these games have siege weapons in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:A door forcibly opening by game design

@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:i'm pretty sure Chaba has the right of it (cant be totally certain unless the OP chimes in here).

I think I realize why some of you are confused. the OP said "the lord opens the gates and sallies forth" but the over arching content of the post was about giving defenders a "last ditch effort". so I don't think that the OP meant that the lord would actually let attackers in, it was poor wording. anyways its totally irrelevant since Chaba's post is a better scenario if indeed the original idea meant to let the attackers in.

there you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:A door forcibly opening by game design

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:i'm pretty sure Chaba has the right of it (cant be totally certain unless the OP chimes in here).

I think I realize why some of you are confused. the OP said "the lord opens the gates and sallies forth" but the over arching content of the post was about giving defenders a "last ditch effort". so I don't think that the OP meant that the lord would actually let attackers in, it was poor wording. anyways its totally irrelevant since Chaba's post is a better scenario if indeed the original idea meant to let the attackers in.

there you go.

Way to avoid the point of the post with a meaningless comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1- You don't even know what was in that other thread.

2- The defenders can make a last stand at the lord in the lord room, so the idea is moot.

3- This, and the other, thread were designed because some of you have a tough time with siege. Case in point by comments from you and chaba and the other thread maker... You want fights, fine, but this is an RvR mode where the devs coded in siege to be used for offense and defense and players will use them, so get use to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@"oOStaticOo.9467" said:Neither scenario is a good scenario. It's a horrible idea. Let people play the way they want to play and stop trying to force others to play the way you want them to play.

if the lord can get back to the lord room with full hp it doesn't really matter. what does matter is to prevent siege monkey-ism since its probably the worst type of game play possible in the game mode. 0 player to player interaction is garbaggio.

"Siege monkey-ism" May not be fun for you, but does not mean that it isn't fun for others. Again, you are trying to force people to play the way you want them to play. People have a right to play this game however way they feel playing it. If that means bunkering down on Siege behind walls for hours at a time then that is their right to decide. There are many different ways to play this game, if the Devs didn't want it to be that way then they wouldn't have given people that choice.

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...