[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

18 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

. So lets leave stat buffs in terms of attacking and defending sides, and leave duelers out of the mix when talking buffs in general and the conversations are less muddy.

Well to be fair it was the other person who directed the discussion towards dueling by doubting the effect of 800 stat swings in 1vs1 scene. He was convinced that stats worth 2 ascended rings or 4-5 S-tier sigils surely won't make a difference in a fight. He was the type that thought he would beat people when having no equipment at all.

If that amount of stats has large impact to 1vs1s on open field (>20% damage), it also has large impact to group fights (>20% damage between each player).. Or 1vs1s for camps, which is obviously very important scene since it isn't great for WvW if you always need to be with other players to play it.

18 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Duelers can go to an NPC area on the maps, guild halls, or EotM depending on the their servers.

This would mean whispeng enemy and wasting extra time

This would mean no viewers so no scene

"Closed doors" won't find any new duelers. Obviously if someone duels arond SM, then new players see it and say "OH, THAT IS OPTION TOO, I WANT TO TRY IT". If you are in guild hall, they wont see it. So the scene will slowly die.

This would mean finding next duel takes longer

This means whispering people and having 90% chance they don't want to do it. When someone stands in dueling spot, it is 100% guaranteed to be a duel.

NPC areas are gankzones and EotM dueling spots are extremely far from spawns. The EotM arena is also capped to like 2 duels OR 1 GvG for whole region.

Dueling isn't about "doing it 100% of the time", but doing it during downtime and trying out your builds. The reason why scene was so popular back in the day is because you went to one spot, and you had multiple duels going with multiple viewers. So you had choice... And it only took no time to be fighting.. Other peoples duels inspired you to try out new builds. If  a nice commander or nice fighting activity showed up on map, then you probably stopped dueling. But until then, dueling was by far the most interesting choice.

So being able to be WvW and doing extremely fun competitive activity while waiting for other fun competitiive activities was the perk of dueling scene.

[World Linking 4/26/2024]

Linkings are such a bad system and it is time to get rid of it. 12 solo servers.

It doesn't matter if T4 server has less pop than T1 server because they're not facing each other. People can just transfer to tier 1 if they want more populated server, and tier 4 if they want less populated server. There is no benefit to players from trying, and failing, to make all servers same population.

[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

On 4/22/2024 at 11:32 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

On 4/21/2024 at 4:02 PM, Riba.3271 said:

If you fight against noobs*. It is pretty normal in high level duel for winning player to go below 20% health at some point.  

Since this conversation at the time was about attacking what do you mean? That the attacker probably has skill to not care about defense buff and drop the defender? 

On 4/21/2024 at 2:13 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Anyone who doesnt understand importance of 800 stat swings (~30%) damage in 1vs1 is either terrible at gameplay or math.

Dueling scene flourishes when better player wins most duels, server you are in does not matter (SM/SC ownership) and you can duel same person 2 different days regardless of map state

lol, for any attacking Roamer or Havoc, Auras meant nothing. Just meant you weren't set as a Roamer or Havoc. Stop using that as an excuse. Odds were you had different issues and you aren't stating those out for whatever issue. 

We were discussing about 1vs1 duels in that particular comment chain.. It had nothing to do with attackers or defenders, just fair 1vs1 open field fight. I would post you screenshots of locations where people typically duel at and how they were all contained within objective aura zones... But they removed ability to post pictures on forums.

Also, if you can't feel difference of you having bonus 400 stats or enemy having it. So 800 stat swing (800 stats is worth over 20% damage, sometimes 30%). Then you probably weren't fighting same person very often. And you can see how this causes issues for anyone to find good timezone to play at. Of course if you are claiming that 800 stats doesn't affect outcome of 1vs1 fights much then take 2 ascended rings off (~600 stats) from your build and play the game. Doing this your brain will fill out the fact that 600, or 800, stats affects outcome of a fight a lot, and it would be stupidity to have that disparity in 1vs1s.

[Thoughts on defence changes as they relate to Keeps]

27 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

56 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

 

You do love your percentages but you don't know how to use it. Slow attackers by 20% based on what number where? 

You can buff wall and gate hitpoints by 25%, then attackers take 20% stronger to breach 1/1.25 *100% = 80%. You can also increase supply costs of some siege.

[Thoughts on defence changes as they relate to Keeps]

You just need more time, right? If you slow down attackers at one objective by 20%, then after they take couple objectives you suddenly have 5 minutes more to build defenses.

Obviously with linking system, it is hard to have ton of players one discord message away from logging in, but it is still doable. Main reason why competitive commanders with numbers didn't tag up to defend was because defending was not competitive environment. Even if you managed to barely defend, it didn't translate to being able to attack due to massive stat swings (1200+ stats, so 45% damage worth, when speaking about keeps)

[Thoughts on defence changes as they relate to Keeps]

You just need more time, right? If you slow down attackers at one objective by 20%, then after they take couple objectives you suddenly have 5 minutes more to build defenses.

Obviously with linking system, it is hard to have ton of players one discord message away from logging in, but it is still doable. Main reason why competitive commanders with numbers didn't tag up to defend was because defending was not competitive environment. Even if you managed to barely defend, it didn't translate to being able to attack due to massive stat swings (1200+ stats, so 45% damage worth, when speaking about keeps)

[Thoughts on defence changes as they relate to Keeps]

You just need more time, right? If you slow down attackers at one objective by 20%, then after they take couple objectives you suddenly have 5 minutes more to build defenses.

Obviously with linking system, it is hard to have ton of players one discord message away from logging in, but it is still doable. Main reason why competitive commanders with numbers didn't tag up to defend was because defending was not competitive environment. Even if you managed to barely defend, it didn't translate to being able to attack due to massive stat swings (1200+ stats, so 45% damage worth, when speaking about keeps)

[Thoughts on defence changes as they relate to Keeps]

You just need more time, right? If you slow down attackers at one objective by 20%, then after they take couple objectives you suddenly have 5 minutes more to build defenses or gather numbers.

Obviously with linking system, it is hard to have ton of players one discord message away from logging in, so that is partly at fault. Main reason why competitive commanders with numbers didn't tag up to defend was because defending was not competitive environment. Even if you managed to barely defend, it didn't translate to being able to attack due to massive stat swings (1200+ stats (45% damage) when speaking about keeps). Now WvW will slowly return to state where commander going for an objective is not hated by most of competitive playerbase anymore.

[Now that passive defenses are at decent level, we need active defense buffs ASAP]

On 4/22/2024 at 12:03 PM, Damian.8127 said:

Attackers get siege too. A ballista will make short work of defences given they will be built in counter locations fast by a larger group with more readily available supply.

Yes, but ballista siege damage was already adjusted in patch where they added 4 skill and reworked 3 skill. So ballista would not be buffed. Indeed, attacker catapults, arrow carts and trebutchets would destroy siege easier, but it isn't necessarily bad to speed up things that attackers actively chose to do.

On 4/22/2024 at 12:03 PM, Damian.8127 said:

attack groups have roughly the same level of supply as a full keep, they may also build and port golem from camps etc, artificially increasing supply count.

Rams make short work of gates. Catas and trebs can often be built with no counter, especially after first breach and clear.

Yes, this is why golems will be nerfed, shield gens reworked to 1 bubble/spot and wall/gate buffed. With siege vs siege damage buffs, this will give you plenty of time to damage attacker siege.

Do note that if siege vs siege damage is buffed by 50%, then rams do 33% less damage before dying to trebs. And if walls/gates are 20% stronger, then same minimum ram setup as in current patch would require 1/(0.66/1.2)=  82% more rams to breach treb fortified gate.

 

On 4/21/2024 at 8:44 PM, Gorani.7205 said:

The purpose of building towers, castles and keeps is to get an advantage in a conflict in a certain location and control the area around it. The stat buffs via claiming you might refer to as an equalizer are a patch ANet gave to fortified structures because of bad map design that is now removed,  but not replaced by better map design or better defense opportunities.

Siege vs siege damage was nerfed by 50%, attacker golems are affected by boons now, attackers have shield gens available now, keeps/castles upgrade several times faster now, dolyaks are practically invulnerable when escorted, attackers have access to ton more supply and so on.

There are lot of "over the top" changes ANet did to objective balance so it is hard for me to blame bad infrastructural balance to "bad map design". In what world would halving or doubling somethings damage or speed lead to better balance.

 

[Now that passive defenses are at decent level, we need active defense buffs ASAP]

On 4/22/2024 at 4:15 PM, Bigbizz.9406 said:

Buffs for siege vs siege damage is a good idea. It would mean that zergs need to be more careful in where they put their siege. The siege disabler trick should already be doing this but it's difficult to actually get your damage to the siege that has been disabled especially against a zerg that has decided to stick the catapults right up against a tower where line of sight can be a death sentence with the number of pulls available.

It isn't just about buffing siege vs siege damage. It is because trebutchets and arrow carts used to do 2x damage to siege in the past, so one player could make attackers rethink where to attack twice. In the past if you had 1 trebutchet behind gate, you could quite often stop the attackers from just slapping rams there. Currently with halved siege vs siege damage and shield generators, there is very little you can do to force attackers to choose more time consuming strategies.

On 4/22/2024 at 4:15 PM, Bigbizz.9406 said:

 

Golem changes you suggested is also a good idea. A zerg will more likely be giving golems all those buffs for 100% uptime compared to a smaller group, making golems stronger the larger the group is. As mentioned a zerg bringing golems with them artificially increases the total supply they can carry with them. Removing boons from golems can standardize their performance when comparing zerg golems to small group golems.

Yes, golems  are absolutely busted right now. Glad you understand this. They were already usable before patch where they made them affected by boons due to being upfront investment, flexible and having immunity to CC. Their bubble skill and ability to hit arrow carts on walls also added ton of utility.

[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

1 hour ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Anyone who doesnt understand importance of 800 stat swings (~30%) damage in 1vs1 is either terrible at gameplay or math.

Dueling scene flourishes when better player wins most duels, server you are in does not matter (SM/SC ownership) and you can duel same person 2 different days regardless of map state

Duels don't happen near structures for this reason, you are just talking about random 1v1 fights

It seems you are not aware that objective auras zones are same as gliding zones. Meaning it includes all areas around SM, near bay or south camp on borderlands. So the typical dueling spots.

[Now that passive defenses are at decent level, we need active defense buffs ASAP]

I would also suggest following defence adjustment:

•  Keep require 50% dolyaks more to upgrade and Stonemist castle 100%. With release of Heart of Thorns keeps, towers and castles were all made to require same amount of dolyaks. This ment keeps and castles upgrade in less than 1 hour when some towers will still take 8 hours.  The system was oversimplified and it broke the balance with the map design. Keep  and castle upgrading speed was boosted up way too much. With the defense buffs in original post, it is quite reasonable that bigger objectives would require bit more time to upgrade.
• Packed dolyaks only count as 1 dolyak for upgrade but carry 4x supply. Right now packed dolyak just does everything speedy does but better: more supply and more upgrade speed. Right now you can give Packed dolyak superspeed and you upgrade 4 times faster compared to camp with no tactivators or speed boosters. Speedy dolyaks should be about faster upgrading, and packed dolyaks about supply. As intended. I don't think the game should be about having to speed dolyaks to min-max or one tactivator always being better than another.

I put this in separate comment so defence fanatics can love the original post and hate this one.

[Now that passive defenses are at decent level, we need active defense buffs ASAP]

So now equally numbered groups can fight each other in semifair environment regardless of location. It was great patch, but it obviously very lacking in keeping defense interesting

What is not so great is how siege weapons are a joke. There were some questionable changes in the past to siege balance, and now siege does nothing to slow down the attackers. Golems supplied with boons and Shield generators will still crack any outnumbered defense with 100% success rate.

Active defense buffs required:

• Siege vs Siege damage increased by at least 50%. In patch July 2016 siege damage to siege was halved because of an oversight that siege does not crit. This was never returned to reasonable levels. Oil, cannons, mortars and ballistas have been adjusted since and shouldn't be included.

Quote

Siege weapons can now be affected by conditions and critical strikes. In addition, their base health has been doubled. (July 2016. Patch notes)

• Golems unaffected by boons again. For a long time Siege Golems were unaffected by boons. Then it was changed. This means right now siege golems deal 70% more damage (quickness + might) and take 33% less siege damage (protection). This is too strong and they just outperform all other siege options. If they were underpowered before, then maybe they need small buff to conpensate, but adding potentially 50% more health and 70% more damage was an overkill.
• Guild Golems cost should be raised to 80 supplies. Obviously 50 supplies is too little for better ram that can destroy multiple gates. Guild golems supply cost should match other guild siege.
• Shield generators: Force Dome (Bubble skill) should only occur around the shield generator and shield generators should be limited to 1/spot with separate siege cap. This would still keep shield generators usable, but limit them to 1/spot and make them more vulnerable.
• Wall/Gate hitpoints increased by 20%. Even though fights are fair now, people still need more time to run from spawn to respond to attackers actions. Since HoT attackers have had easy access to guild siege and +10 supply allowing them to build much more siege and be in lord room faster. Response time given need to match the powercreep of siege cost and supply carry capacity.

Intent of these changes is not to make keeps and towers impenetrable. They're just slight buffs that defenders might be able to fend off stronger attackers once or twice. Eventually you will run of supply and lose it if you're still much weaker than the attacking group, but at least you would have time to do something before that. This will translate to massive difference in experience as a defender: You will have viable actions to help your team available and time to implement it.

[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

18 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

If you're good, guild auras doesn't mean anything, and they didn't before either.

If you fight against noobs*. It is pretty normal in high level duel for winning player to go below 20% health at some point.  

[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

2 hours ago, Vasdamas Anklast.1607 said:

Said by the guy who blamed guild auras for killing dueling scene.

Anyone who doesnt understand importance of 800 stat swings (~30%) damage in 1vs1 is either terrible at gameplay or math.

Dueling scene flourishes when better player wins most duels, server you are in does not matter (SM/SC ownership) and you can duel same person 2 different days regardless of map state

[WTF is Anet doing to WvW?]

7 hours ago, Bunny.9834 said:

On 4/19/2024 at 7:02 AM, LordHT.8297 said:

They know that the WvW player base is shrinking and they are afraid that blobmmanders stop playing the game and taking their hordes of zombies with them. So, they are being blackmailed by these guys and anet is making all the changes that these easy mode lovers demand.
Arenanet needs to trust in their player base and their game. If the lazy dinosaurs and their giant boomblobs leave the game other guilds will grow and take their places. We still have many medium and small guilds looking for a place in the sun even with the anet working hard against them. Just trust that the game tends to renew itself we have a fair and balanced and fun  environment that didn't  punish smallers groups and individual players.

Expand  

What these changes are doing are just continuing to kill servers that don't have a lot of blob guilds.  

Every time I see blobs on other servers, I just automatically log out of the WvW.

Do note that these blob guilds have much easier time now. So they will either be bored and disband, become weaker or opponents will finally adapt and become stronger.

What this patch did was actually make the game more fun for non-stackers since they can fight each other in objectives now, rather than balance being disorganised inexperienced people being able to defend against organised experienced people. 

[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

7 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You can for example attack an objective and every roaming group cant faceroll over you anymore.

You were being face rolled by roamers and Havocs? What numbers were defeating your Squads?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

And enemy roaming groups will be more willing to attack.

This was already happening. I don't understand what you were facing. You didn't have Havocs attacking you?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You just have to wait for yourself and opponents to get adjusted

Smaller organized groups were already attacking larger groups, was this not happening on your server?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

to new balance where disorganised small groups have to at least Express some teamwork

Ah so you were losing to clouds versus adapting to them. If you were NA I would say to Mag, +1 on that score. Mag I think you killed too many Anet Devs here, so I blame you peeps though I look forward to the next fights. 

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

to deal with larger organised groups and you can attack way more objectives yourself and get better fights.

Um, if your groups weren't balancing their attacks, that's on them. Use the right level of group for the right objective. Zerg less, spread more, hit multiple targets and its not an issue.

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

It isnt that you have nothing to fight or defend against on maps. You are just too stubborn to organise to fight the big group in front or go find reasonable opposition. You arent entitled to stop bigger, stronger and more organised players.

Lol, zerg more, check. So again to counter this play. If they bring their map zerg and you don't have the boons to counter, let them ktrain, take everything else and allow your roamers to snipe their tailfeathers. Anet, when do we get reasons to win?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers less

 

So you are all for 50 v 5. Check. Zerg less maybe? Stop attacking empty structures and use more to do less. Take the time to engage and use tactics to take. Stop looking for a 5 minute fight. Use tactics and wear things done, play smarter and pre-siege, pre-take camps, wear down a defense. Take the time it takes to defeat an objective versus complain it took time to take it. 

If I need to take 2 hours to wear down a structure to allow my side better odds to take it. As a Roamer or in a Havoc, it was time well spent. Use more resources and zerg less.

I was replying to a roamer. The fact that you assume I only do zerg fights is disrespectful considering I have been in highest rated sPvP lobbies every time I play sPvP. I am also a scout and roam a lot.

You are very rude when painting me to be zerg only player. All I wanted was good 1vs1s and 50vs50s.

I would stay away making baseless assumptions as living within falsehood will prevent you from becoming good player. I have made various suggestions for defense, solo scouting and roaming buffs in the past (evident from my comment history) so you arent exactly on right track. 

 

I cant really respect anyone who lies about others so blatantly, so all you did was lose all credibility

[WvW Changes April 16th 2024]

28 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

That wasn't the point they were making. They were saying that the attacker can decide WHERE to attack, and WHEN

They said my point was wrong when I literally referred to engaging in my comments. It had nothing to do with easier and harder objectives existing. He misinterpreted what I was saying, then I explained what I ment and now you misintrepeted why I quoted him. 

 

If attacker can take easy objective (f/e anzalias), it still means they have to be stronger to take it even if it is one of the easier objectives on the map < - This was my point

How he quoted me: "Riba is wrong because attackers have advantage because they can choose which objective they can take". No. If each individual objective is defenders advantage, then attackers dont have advantage. They are just better players if they take it

[WvW Changes April 16th 2024]

On 4/18/2024 at 12:07 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

When Riba mentions the first signing, it is actually the striker who decides it, because he is the one who defines where and when. The defender is forced to give an answer to that first engagement.

If 2 groups are in same objective and inner wall is still up, attacker cant engage on defender. Defender can always choose which angle and when to engage.

My point wasnt about which objective, since there are obviously harder and easier ones on map, but the fight between 2 groups . 

Sometimes I wonder what are you guys thinking... Attacker does not choose when to engage... They walk to the gate or wall, then defenders choose direction and time to approach... Maybe with some siege and tactivators.

Engaging occurs when 2 groups are fighting each other, not when one group arrives at enemy tower.  For engaging you need 2 groups and If defender chooses to not come or fight, no engaging occurs. So engaging only occurs once fight begins... Cant believe I have to give you guys English lessons here.

[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

2 hours ago, Random dude.5089 said:

your forcing people to play with organized groups  is not how open world pvp should be , this is not fixed , its leaving out solo players or small groups that scout for you and have fun roaming arround calling out defenses and trying to catch people off group to minimize the size of the blob and helping their defenders out , thats whats fun about wvw , is not being forced to play in groups , i have a roaming guild and all of them do this , everyone logs in play as a small group or solo , thats what we enjoy , remember that gw2 is not optimized enough , lot of people i know struggle with group zergs with so much fps drops , even if u got a good end game pc u can still see a bit of lag , there is humans behind the pc my guy , but net doesnt realize that and clearly u don't too  , they are busy implimenting changes nobody asked for

If you cant defend against blobs anymore, then you can get better fights against attacking roaming groups. You can also attack yourself now. It is net positive for you that you dont have to wait for Enemy stacked blob to be online to experience competitive environment. You can for example attack an objective and every roaming group cant faceroll over you anymore. And enemy roaming groups will be more willing to attack.

You just have to wait for yourself and opponents to get adjusted to new balance where disorganised small groups have to at least Express some teamwork to deal with larger organised groups and you can attack way more objectives yourself and get better fights.

 

It isnt that you have nothing to fight or defend against on maps. You are just too stubborn to organise to fight the big group in front or go find reasonable opposition. You arent entitled to stop bigger, stronger and more organised players.

Now this is exactly like other games: If you are bad, you lose. If you lose, you are bad.  So try to focus on winning or getting better and blame developers less

[Does anyone think reducing the circle size for camps was good?]

I havent managed to play this week since I am on a trip, but to me my experience was that some camp circles needed adjusting since there were too many spots behind buildings to contest from.

 

Now If they just reduced all of them signifantly, then that seems like an overkill. For example I thought alpine north or NW camp were fine, just that defenders had too many stats.

[Dear Anet Developers]

There are only 2 functional systems: 

1. Randomized matchmaking. The team you queue with gets placed into team and plays in that team for short period. Matchmaking relies on good algorithm

 

Alliances (Restructuring) tries to do this, but the teams you can queue with are too big and teams dont change regularly enough. There won't be any server attachment or choice in this system, so regular matchmaking (every day or every skirmish) is just more optimal.

2. Server system: You have a stable server with no links and changing your team is expensive and limited to lower population servers (not tier 1). Fair matchmaking relies on your servers tier and your team stays relatively same for even longer periods.

 

If you are older player, you probably remember server system and it was glorious until launch populations dropped and there were too many ghost town servers. It also failed by opening overpopulated servers in middle of night and placing servers 2-3 tiers apart in same matchup. Now with weekly population status updates and 1-up-1-down matchmaking, the system would be perfect as long as server count is halved.

[Thoughts on defence changes as they relate to Keeps]

The changes werent bad, they just need to give defenders more tools: higher wall/ hitpoints and increased siege vs siege damage. Also attacking shield gens need big nerfs and quickness from golems removed.

This would mean defenders can maybe stop 1 attack, so get time to gather numbers, but eventually run out of supply and lose the keep If they are still weaker  in combat.

There is no reason to have competitive gamemode where weak players win: PvE and single player/coop games exist for that

[WvW Changes April 16th 2024]

3 hours ago, urd.8306 said:

And by strategy you mean putting 4 catas on a wall and bruteforcing into a keep because defensive siege can't hit you and if it hits, it won't hurt you.

If you have time, you can always do multiple attemps of killing enemies, try to build siege behind the catapults, try to kill catapults, drain supplies, setup defensive siege, log in builds that outreach enemies/can cast from walls or assemble More numbers through communication channels. If you have never done anything else than stay on your current build and suicide casting from the walls, you probably dont have very good understanding of all options available.

 

Even Guild shield gen (40 supply =2 players) outside Tower has like 4000 bubble range and will force attackers to leave catas undefended.

Lot of you guys just need to think more. Era of free wins is over

[New MMOs Now That WvW Was Murdered?]

WvW was fixed, not murdered. Try tagging up and organising if your unorganised commanderless cloud cant defend.