Helm's Deep "reverse break out" event idea

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@"oOStaticOo.9467" said:"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.

if people wanna bunker down, fine. but that shouldn't mean an hour long siege fight in which the defending side has a good chance of winning. yeah, that's right. if an attacking force commits itself, it should win within a timely manner. if the defenders don't get a zerg to respond, they should lose. why? because most of the attackers hate siege wars. the wants of 10 people do not outweigh the wants of 50. I would not be saying this if it was true player to player action, but its not. this sort of uninteractive game play makes people not want to play or even log off, and actually avoid fights where people have bunkered up. yes, avoid fights. horrible for the game mode. if you cant see this then agree to disagree (you're wrong btw ;-P).

editnow i'm derailing the thread. this isn't about siege humping.the event doesn't force anyone. its called incentive.

[Arctisavange.7261]

Im pretty certain 80% of WvW playerbase only attacks something not to get extra karma or win PPT. They do it cause they need a way to make enemies group up and fight or to draw someone on other borderland to the map they are on so they can fight.

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

if people wanna bunker down, fine. but that shouldn't mean an hour long siege fight in which the defending side has a good chance of winning. yeah, that's right. if an attacking force commits itself, it should win within a timely manner. if the defenders don't get a zerg to respond, they should lose. why? because most of the attackers hate siege wars. the wants of 10 people do not outweigh the wants of 50. I would not be saying this if it was true player to player action, but its not. this sort of uninteractive game play makes people not want to play or even log off, and actually avoid fights where people have bunkered up. yes, avoid fights. horrible for the game mode. if you cant see this then agree to disagree (you're wrong btw ;-P).The original thread was created by a player who can't stand defenders NOT fighting for their objective once the gates/walls were breached, from outnumbered scenarios to similar numbers on both sides. His biggest beef was that many of them would just flee and he wanted a way to try to promote them to fight...and basically die. I got into the thread to try and point out some of the silliness of that and how hard it would be to change the mindsets of some players, and the quote above has the "10 people should not outweigh the wants of 50". The problem with this and defending is usually 10 would be the defending side, and do you think they want to fight 50 players? Problems such as this were why anet came up with breakouts to begin with! Who remembers servers owning ALL MAPS? That used to be a regular thing, and players had little reason to come out and retake everything and start upgrading it again with their own cash, likewise the owners of those maps had few players on to guard it all cause it was boring as hell.

the event doesn't force anyone. its called incentive.

Incentive was the keyword of my discussions with the OP from the last thread. You have to give incentive without making the event too imbalanced for either side. One of my biggest things was there should be incentive enough in the game mode map wide to NOT incentivize a 50 man squad to begin with unless you are assaulting the last bastion of a server.

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

Yay that last thread and this one is making me learn how to quote correctly, whoop whoop!

Overall this new thread has some of the better minds of the WvW forum, and surprise surprise we all have different ways to look at it, THIS is why we talk about something and try to come up with an idea that maybe 75% of us would like? Hard, yes? Impossible? I hope not!

[Chaba.5410]

Yes, the details of the last thread are lost and no one new to this discussion can go back to read them for context so those are not really worth arguing over in this thread. I'd like to also see a discussion where the participants can provide input/suggestions/throw out the bad parts on an idea that maybe 75% of us would like.

Let's be honest about something: no event is going to force a player to play a way they don't want to. If players want to "siege-monkey" or flee, they are not going to be forced by any event to play a different way. It is useless to use them as a reason for not adding some last stand mechanic because one could say also that there's no reason to have yak escort events. Events in a PvP environment can only ever be incentives to fights and not things that force players to do something.

I personally wouldn't mind having some event that rewards me a little extra for being outnumbered and risking death to pick off stragglers of a 50 man zerg. Notice I feel that the outnumbered buff should be there for the last stand event since not having that buff should mean your server has enough people on a map to defend something. I also don't think the NPC should open doors since that affects objective offense/defense balance and I feel this event shouldn't touch that, but remain dependent upon player numbers.

Dinas, not incentivizing a 50 man zerg in the first place is definitely a whole different discussion.

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

It's incredibly difficult to balance any encounter that wouldn't then make it unfair to the attackers or be easily manipulated by the defenders, but what about a flat change to lords themselves?Alpine/EBG lords add next to nothing to actual combat except for an occasional large aoe/knockback, desert lords actually contribute to the battle somewhat. The lords themselves are typically the target of all enemies at some point during the battle, and any defender being caught in that is dead in a heartbeat. What if the lords themselves were able to mitigate that damage somewhat? What if the lord could actually reduce allied damage by 50%, with the lord himself actually taking the other 50%, from possibly 20 players within 1200 range of him?

Maybe the amount of players the lord can affect would be directly related to the amount of attackers in the vicinity? Lords in general should contribute more in the ways of support at least, that horn blast should do something!

[Svarty.8019]

@Arctisavange.7261 said:Im pretty certain 80% of WvW playerbase only attacks something not to get extra karma or win PPT. They do it cause they need a way to make enemies group up and fight or to draw someone on other borderland to the map they are on so they can fight.

• Except that doesn't happen much anymore.
• Lots of the commanders know each other and can just PM one another if they want to fight.
• If they attack something it's the usual 5+ catapults straight through T3 walls like they're butter.
• The new wall change made it so you never have to fight anybody because they can't come and defend quickly enough!
• Haha, the opposite of what was intended.
• Siegeraiser/Siegecrusher didn't go anywhere.

[Arctisavange.7261]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Arctisavange.7261 said:Im pretty certain 80% of WvW playerbase only attacks something not to get extra karma or win PPT. They do it cause they need a way to make enemies group up and fight or to draw someone on other borderland to the map they are on so they can fight.

• Except that doesn't happen much anymore.
• Lots of the commanders know each other and can just PM one another if they want to fight.
• If they attack something it's the usual 5+ catapults straight through T3 walls like they're butter.
• The new wall change made it so you never have to fight anybody because they can't come and defend quickly enough!
• Haha, the opposite of what was intended.
• Siegeraiser/Siegecrusher didn't go anywhere.

1. It does.
2. Only popular commanders know eachother and there arent many of them anymore. Plus most dont know anyone from national servers.
3. and 4. Tactivators (cant hit wall or gate for 60 seconds, EWP), siege, lots and lots of siege. Siege disablers often applied via stealth. Fast as fuck mounts in your owned territory. Objective stat buff to players.

So yeah, its still pretttttyyyy easy to defend. Gandara is a good example on why many dont like going to their borderland - all the reasons above and they cant properly zerg up to fight, instead they cloud and mosquito your siege down so youre pretty much left without supplies.

People complaining about defending being hard are just bad players.

[Zephyra.4709]

While I don't remember in full the original thread, I do recall OP wanting defenders (outnumbered?) to have a last chance mechanic implemented...

Dinas makes a fair point... DBL has some pretty nasty lords to deal with that actually do something other than stand there like a meat shield. It wouldn't hurt to copy paste some of the lords into alpine BL for defenders if outnumbered side think it will assist them better. Possibly a last stand buff activates once the enemy breaches inner so long as the defenders actually have "outnumbered" on, idk.

At the end of the day the bigger group wins... population imbalance... and who's to say the enemy wouldn't merely wait out the event/buffs then rush lord?

[Chaba.5410]

@Zephyra.4709 said:and who's to say the enemy wouldn't merely wait out the event/buffs then rush lord?

Oh that's a good point!

[Offair.2563]

@steki.1478 said:

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

Like using 500+ supplies and trying to outsustain ACs, trebs and other aoes from freecasters?

1500+ supps if using supp traps and treb cows to da max yes.

[Dhemize.8649]

Perhaps this can be a guild tactical upgrade slot where it basically summons an NPC to charge out similar to "break out". Areas covered would be hard as some siege blobs will be located in different areas and not always face bashing at gate.

Alternatively it can be a tactic that summons an Anet admin to the scene to explain why they do the things they do. As the blob is busy having its mind boggled it gives time for defenders to patch gates and walls.

[Svarty.8019]

I was going to reply but I don't care enough anymore.