Riba.3271
-
Posts
1,835 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Riba.3271
-
-
WvW was fixed, not murdered. Try tagging up and organising if your unorganised commanderless cloud cant defend.
-
1
-
1
-
8
-
1
-
-
Funny part about this thread occurs when defenders say they are extremely outnumbered all the time while representing majority.
At least make some sense.
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:
obviously. It's why you would have castles and keeps to begin with, as said earlier by someone else
Castles and keeps are there to offer incentive to fight and strategies you wouldnt be able to otherwise experience.
It is true those strategies (siege, time to implement, amount of different tier of objectives, supply count) are rather weak in current balance and should be adjusted. But relying on passive stats is akin to fixing a hole in spaceship with duct tape prior to landing: Not a great idea
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Lagniappe.4869 said:
Control when and where they are attacking: e.g. attack an objective when they know the defender is engaged elsewhere and there are few defenders around
This is just time issue. If walls are so weak defenders dont have time to walk from spawn, then buff them.
8 minutes ago, Lagniappe.4869 said:Kill siege from a distance with ballies and trebs
Killing some of the Siege and proceeding to have no siege yourself when you push in, is not an advantage. Defender will still have more siege on the fight.
10 minutes ago, Lagniappe.4869 said:Tap keep to keep defenders from arriving too quickly
Both teams can do this. This is basically same as point 1. If defenders need more Time to arrive in time, then nerf fastest ways to get inside lord room (boon golems, shields gens), dont add stat buffs that won't give defenders More time.
-
2
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, Lagniappe.4869 said:
Defenders don't get to choose where the attack happens or who and how many people they have to defend
So you are saying much weaker or smaller group should be able to hold an objective. This would mean defenders has the advantage.. I understand that 20 people will propably be able to kill 30 with siege, respawns and tactivators, but what you guys are asking is 15vs40 to be doable.
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, urd.8306 said:2 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:
(Siege, gliding, portals, timing, tactivators)
You must be very new to this game if you really think Defenders were at an advantage in any fight of the last 7 years. You sure that you played WvW before?
Then list something that attackers could do to win fight that defenders cant.
-
1
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Aeolus.3615 said:
The advantage comes to whom has more boon spam and players nothing more, usually it is actually the offending force, strucutures were already easy to take lol.. now they are mega easy.
That doesnt mean attackers were given an advantage. They were just better or more players. Defenders have more options what to do in and when to take the deciding fight. Attackers have no combat advantages, defenders do (Siege, gliding, portals, timing, tactivators) in addition to several respawns if they arrive early
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:
But...the advantage was with the the attackers
It wasnt. Defenders always had better access to combat siege, respawns, tactivators, mounts/gliding and first engage. If attacking group was organised and pushed in at same time, it doesnt mean you couldnt so same as defender... As long as you timed it. Attackers had to wait for defenders to be exposed and gates in between being down. Defenders could engage anytime.
-
1
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, Damian.8127 said:
The most efficient defence vs a stronger enemy at this point is to just leave and play PPT train on enemy border/structure. Avoid all interaction. Something i assume neither side will want - or do, i cant say for sure.
If anyone on balance team reads this, consider different perspectives from players. These changes heavily favour boonballs. how would you advise structure be held when 50+ come knocking?
Buffs are a big deal, leave slightly larger spaces between the territories - no-mans-land. The ONLY structure that could do with its aura reducing is SM as its a large tactical advantage over the map.
Yes. Buffs are a big deal, which is precisely why they ruined fights between similarly populated groups. If you give defenders buffs to hold 20 vs 50 every time then 50 people have bad time due to unfair experience they cant do anything about against enemy that focuses only on defending
what defenders should use are active defences: Siege, tactivators, respawns, first engage. Things that arent available to attacker that has to push into lord room. Do defenders need More Siege vs Siege damage and Time to gather numbers/ use active defenses? Absolutely.
Does this need to be at expense of killing every 1vs1, 5vs5, 20vs20, 50vs50 for an objective? No. Winner should be the smarter and stronger group. Objective auras were just too strong while being impossible to make best decision against.
Defenders had to do nothing to win with weaker group. So what do you suggest attackers were supposed to do? ... Bring even stronger group? And that is exactly why super stacked servers and groups were born. They might have failed to take T3 keeps sometimes, but they absolutely had 0 challenge to take every tower and openfield fight on the map. This might sound bad to you, but do note that they had More numbers, brain and skills than your server while being 10 Times more organised. Your server just doesnt deserve to stop the enemy that point... If you could, then keeps and towers cannot be spots for good fights
-
2
-
15
-
-
This was absolutely necessary change and good for WvW. Objectives were not a spot to fight in, making players stack more and more to servers that are so strong that they can go inside objectives without it being trolling. Guilds were avoiding objectives and dueling scene died, because objective auras were just too strong. Ofc not everyone knew why enemy objectives were unfun to fight in, but they still felt it and avoided them.
Of course you are right that they should still buff defenders by increasing siege vs siege damage, removing boon golems and multiple shield generator bubbles in same spot. Defender should be at least able to buy some time with siege so they can build some numbers.
But no one can deny that objective auras were killing whole WvW experience when for any sized group difference between any friendly and enemy objective was 30% damage worth of stats. When optimal gameplay is to wait for your enemies to be stupid, the game isn't very good.
-
3
-
2
-
32
-
2
-
-
Best WvW patch ever
Wow, big wow, they finally reduced the objective auras to level they should be at (~3% more damage worth of stats). You can't understate how much this will change WvW. Dueling will be return and not be a meme anymore, guilds can fight each other inside towers and keeps,, small scale fights aren't decided anymore by who owns nearby camp, regular servers will be more fun and stacked servers less fun
Everything else in the patch is pretty minor. After all, if you get to point where you have to rely on contesting ring to keep an objective, then there are bunch of things you could have better before. The 50% repair chance is bit weird, but occassional well timed stealth repair did feel like uncounterable tactic
The 5 following changes should also be patched in
- Link servers deleted and players there granted free transfer. Only solo servers now
- All 3 servers will have same borderland (3x alpine 3 weeks a month, 3x desert 1 week a month)
- Golems shouldn't be affected by boons anymore
- Shield gen bubbles should only occur around themselves (limiting bubbles to 1/spot)
-- Keeps/Castles should require more dolyaks to upgrade (+50%/+200%)
-
1
-
1
-
7
-
-
If you have a boon ball as well, the defending boon ball will win the fight 99% of the time. So there is easy means of defence.
Should gates/walls be stronger and siege do more damage to siege? Yes! Should defender win every fight? No!
So it is just that balance is bad. Boonballs beat boonballs. Of course while defending, even something like group of staff catalysts usually suffice to hold an objective. It just feels boonballs are unstoppable because 1 good player isn't enough.
-
On 4/7/2024 at 1:33 AM, Zok.4956 said:On 4/3/2024 at 2:25 PM, Riba.3271 said:
Bad infrastucture leads to destructive player behaviour.
That's a cheap excuse. Destructive player behavior leads to destructive player behavior.
Somehow the playerbase can understand that if developers make a game p2w, it isn't worth playing. But they still haven't realised that if most fun available way to play the game is 50 experienced players vs 30 noobs, it is also developers fault. Even if a commander went to normal server and built a competitive zerg, there would be nothing to fight in half the matchups and 90% of the timezones. Of course you could try to force fights by going inside keeps/castle but by now every experienced guild, player and commander knows that SM or keep is 100 times easier to defend than take. So everyone outside pip farmers just log out the moment they have to take a keep. The only way to force enemy to fight you, just doesn't provide you any real fights.
-
..... Or just skip WR and go back to monoservers. Multiple discords and getting players in voice already a problem with linking system. Last WR beta my server had like 3 Silent Woods discords, EU Alliance discord and some commanders using their own discord (Even alliances of the admins of EU alliance discord weren't using EU alliance discord but their personal alliance discord so EU has failed at their attempt to collect people already).
-
4 hours ago, urd.8306 said:
Bad player behaviour isn't tied to the developers.
It is. If there is no way to have fair fights or stable community, then people seek unfair fights and environment that doesn't require dealing with people to succeed. Some people are just not smart enough to see part illogical systems and truly believe it is fine: Just look at some systems in certain country at west side of atlantic, and compare them to any civilized country. They aren't being bad, but just unaware: "Me transfer, me have better time" is all they need. Being on balanced server is just not most fun way in current balance: which is something that developers can change.
4 hours ago, urd.8306 said:I'm not playing that long, but as I started playing everyone with a brain cell told players, and especially WSR players, that they should stop hugging their 100 friends and start spreading out or having no content in the near future.
Issue is, if they leave and seek fair environment then they cannot take objectives anymore. The casual playerbase becomes completely useless when attacking due to suboptimal builds and inability to make decisions that allow you to survive multiple enemy respawns. Statwise combat is also completely skewed towards defenders up to a point where there is no guild that can take objective from equally strong guild.
So if you want to log in and play the game whenever you want, you have to be on stacked server that is stronger than opponent. After all nobody will want to log in 5 days to see opponent come outside their towers only 1 of those. WvW Infrastructure being at so much worse state than at release of the game, or for 5 years after that, is obvious to anyone.
Also people have been saying they will run out of content for past couple years. They won't. They will farm PvE Rangers and 5 signet builds for foreseeable future.
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
I want to understand how this is possible in a team game, where the teams are controlled by Anet
Because it isn't controlled. Servers are open through links, full population is reached earlier, transfers to places are cheaper than it should be.
Only reason Whiteside Ridge grew as populous as they are, is because They were full but open through link. So they had hundreds of players transfer to their next link despite being full. So they outnumbered opponents for years and result is that they grew bigger and bigger. Proof of this is that they had several Full+Full link combinations... Something that no other server has reached before (maybe Gandara?). Now of course, there are other servers that have done the same stacking, but there are only 2 other servers that are empty of PvE pugs pushing population up everytime there is activity. You also cant find infinite amount of players that are content with always winning and no challenge.
If all other servers had no links, they could organise and build extremely strong timezones even without incoming transfers. But then relinks come along bringing worse queues, new trolls, language issues, low discord server ratio and overlapping commanders. Now Whiteside Ridge had problems with same things, but they had no native population and they were always outnumbering opponents, so those problems became minor thing. After all, having 50% discord ratio is a minor thing if you have 100% more players in a fight.
-
Kill an enemy that would get capture contribution from capturing that objective: (They either used siege or killed a guard/player)
-
My advice if you care is.... Make a youtube video about the exploits with clickbait title and pleasant sounds. Reports and WvW subforum posts/comments don't do anything. (They do seem to listen in PvP and Profession subforums).
Overall, only thing to get anything changed about WvW is complaing on a platform that might reach people who don't have the game already. WvW team doesn't care (does it even exist?), but sales and marketing team will. -
While I wouldn't claim WSR is the optimal server because their scoring potential is quite weak, the combat strength of WSR is direct consequence of introducing linking system. They're all united and in average more experienced by being transfers. And most of them paid 500 or 1000 gems for it. All other servers are divided by differing values, languages or being connected to other servers.
What you should take from this is that state of WvW is the developers fault. Bad infrastucture leads to destructive player behaviour.
-
1
-
-
Get rid of linking system.
-
5
-
1
-
-
No reason to create GW3 right now. Wait 3-5 years and you can develop it twice as fast with help of AI sofware.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:
I think we see this different based on region or server. If your side is avoiding DBL, that's on them.
Every server is less active there. I have already posted numbers several times about it. Regardless if you're NA or EU, alpine map is 50%+ more popular in average. This applies to enemies and allies, meaning even if you have large group willing to play that map, there won't be nearly as much enemies.
2 servers having alpine map and 1 desert is akin to playing ping pong with one guy having tennis racket and other guy having badminton one. Even if one side wins, you don't know if they were better or if they had better racket. So all 3 servers in same matchup should have same borderland... Which in this case happens to be alpine because it is visibly more popular. Maybe you can rotate 3x Desert in every 3 or 4 weeks. 2 servers in same matchup shouldnt have different home borderlands
-
1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:
- Boon golems removed
They added new siege? Cool, got to remember to build one of those.
Since you're old school, you should remember how original design of golems was that boons weren't applied to them. This applies to 33% damage reduction of protection and 50% damage increase of quickness. In addition to this Resistance and Might are strong boons for golem to have.
To top it off siege damage to siege was reduced by 100% in patch where conditions and crits were allowed to affect siege.
So the original golems took 200% more damage from siege and did 33%+ less damage. Also gates have less hitpoints these days. Now of course bad groups don't apply protection and quickness to the siege, but any group that put any thought into WVW will.
I get your feelings after reading this. Yes, they have no idea what they are doing. There is no way the design of golems after 5 years was so bad that they needed such massive buffs.
-
On 3/26/2024 at 9:56 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:On 3/26/2024 at 8:31 AM, Riba.3271 said:
Again this sounds like a number of your fixes, nerf defense to allow more ktraining versus defenses. How is that a good change?
? My list consists of both attacking and defending changes? Have you ever red it? I will list it here again
- Objective auras combat bonuses -> non combat (Passive defending nerfed and more fighting incentivised) - Defending nerf, combat buff, dueling and gvg buff
- Stronger gates and walls (More time for defenders to get numbers/commander -> Better fights) - Defending buff, combat buff, scouting buff
- Boon golems removed and shield gens reworked (Using siege to defend possible again) - Defending buff, combat buff
- Gliding in combat removed, mount shares endurance bar with walking form - Defending nerf, combat buff
- Siege 40-60% more damage to siege (for the unintended 100% increased siege health vs siege)- Defending buff, scouting buff
- Keeps and castles require more dolyaks (2x, 4x) - Defending nerf (for certain situations in keeps/castles), Roaming buff, Guild raid buff
- Links removed (reduced servers) - Buff for coordination and activity (More enemies -> More fun -> More allies -> More fun -> More Enemies ->)
- Desert map removed (Matchup outcome fair, no"dead weeks" on home bl) - PPT buff, guild buff, scouting buff
As you can see, the list removes Passive defences that are always on (Gliding, Mounts, Objective Auras) and buffs active defences (Time to use active defenses or build numbers to fight, active defenses like siege). Also big buff to defence-minded players since people will be attacking more with combat being fair inside the objectives.
Overall, I dont like how you're putting words into my mouth (like everytime). I have never promoted attacking type gameplay. What I am doing is promoting interactive WvW where both people make decisions and don't win just because bonuses they have from being at a certain location or just because they're defenders instead of attackers.
WvW Changes April 16th 2024
in World vs. World
Posted
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