TheGrimm.5624
-
Posts
6,510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by TheGrimm.5624
-
-
On 4/26/2024 at 10:14 AM, AlphaReborn.1567 said:
Let me illustrate how absurd these changes are. I just had a fight on one of the southern towers of one of the alpine BLs. A group of 3 took down the gate with a ram and cata. I couldn't stop them on siege since, of course, arrow carts are useless. So they come in and I fight them on lord, 3v1.
Careful here this could be read many different ways. Defenders OP, Lord OP versus you played better or had a counter build to theirs or many other things. The attackers complaining to the devs couldn't take and you give an example of they needed more than 3 to take you out. So do we code to the average player or the good defenders?
On 4/26/2024 at 10:14 AM, AlphaReborn.1567 said:I manage to kill them and go back to seal the gate. I literally could not close it in time before they ran back.
I am adjusting to the gate changes and never saw a request for this change here. This justifies the changes to the gates that you were before able to close it while they had more numbers before. Plus you are using an example of a south tower on ABL which is meant to give advantage to an attacker. Yet after the changes you were still able to repulse them multiple times. If I was the one that drew up the changes you raise a good point on why they were needed. I don't think you meant to do that, but that is how it can read.
On 4/26/2024 at 10:14 AM, AlphaReborn.1567 said:And here's the kicker. THEY CAN STILL DAMAGE THE WALL/GATE EVEN WHEN DESTROYED. So after all my running back and forth, even with the gate still open, one of the guys hopped on the siege and did one attack and undid several of my repair runs, basically guaranteeing I could not close it. I killed them again, but the supply depot was out of supply, so I had to let the tower go.
This has always been a thing and was required for any attacker to leave some firing at a breach if they wanted to make sure it remained open while the attackers moved thru the point. By them upping the repair amount they actually dumbed down attacker's tactics since you don't need to do that. They also removed tactful play from defenders knowing when to time a fast repair to cut a force into a smaller amount and allowing them more chance to repel a larger force. They just now require more to coordinate this action which applies more pressure on defenders. Why did you not call for backup versus leave it once depot was empty?
On 4/26/2024 at 10:14 AM, AlphaReborn.1567 said:Even if you wanted to increase the repair percentage needed to rebuild (50% is way too much, by the way), the fact YOU CAN STILL DAMAGE DESTROYED WALLS AND GATES is absolutely insane. I had no idea this was the case and as long as you have one person popping a siege shot every now and then, there is absolutely no way you can close it, ever.
50% does seem high. This is where we have a lot of back and fourth on some threads. Should you have tried to close before killing the siege? This is one of those that I call as an attacker's advantage. They get to decide where and when a fight occurs and how long it lasts. Defenders need to know about the attack, get there and then make it up as they go to figure how to try and stop an attacker. And once you drain the supplies defenders have less options. I think a lot of failed attacks are due to players not considering that but the changes errored on if an attacker can't do it in one go then defenses are too hard. Versus should the attacking side have weakened the objective first or retried the attack.
On 4/26/2024 at 10:14 AM, AlphaReborn.1567 said:EDIT - to the people hitting me with confused emojis. If you are confused by someone winning a 3v1, twice, and still not being able to prevent a capture due to horribly designed game mechanic changes, I'm sorry but you are part of the problem.
By the way I am on the side that attackers had it easier before the changes. But again, wining a 3v1 twice just supports the side that say defenders have it easier. So what worked here for winning the 3v1? Note I am not saying a 3v1 is unheard of but more detail may leave a reader less seeing this as defense is OP and needs further nerfs versus people not knowing what needs to be killed first, the player or the NPC and/or when and when not to chase a target.
-
1
-
-
We are about due for a no downstate week, have to agree there.
-
3 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:
If less defensive siege if being built because of the wall changes, that means attackers are having an easier time... 🤔
I admit, I have been building more offensive versus defensive siege over the last few weeks. Not feeling the need to first stop and prep for a potential attack on one of mine and just let the Havoc side have it's day even more and go and take theirs.
-
5 hours ago, KrHome.1920 said:
EU T5 experience regarding walls:
I like all the changes.
People join the actual fight to get the enemy out of the structure. No one bothers repairing until the fight is over. No one leeches participation by repairing walls while others defend right next to him. No one wastes ressources on walls before the fight is over and no enemy builds siege anymore.
People argue that attackers have a too easy time. I don't see that being a result of the wall changes. It is (and has always been) a result of poor balancing (bandwagoning and boonspam), which is something I witness every single week in T5 for a very long time now.
Many issues here. Leeches versus making bad calls are different. Bad calls are trying to close a wall while the siege that damaged it are still up. Bad calls are closing the wrong wall or creating an ambush point that the other side can control. If leeching occurred it was completely removed a long time ago now. Being able to close a wall has been about slowing the tide of attackers or stopping a second zerg in to double team you in an objective that you control. Agree seen a lot of people make bad calls, and have seen a lot of good calls to allow you time to deal with what is already in before having to deal with more inbound.
Players will need to adjust and go from there. Changes are still too new to see trends yet, but am seeing differences, again are they short or long term?
-
One running joke is never log out without max supply. So if you had no camps to start you should still start with some.
-
9 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:
Or eating the yaks, poison the sentries, minefield the ruins and slaughter dredge, ogres and frogs to extinction.
You know I do wonder if we are missing out of a QoL change. Killing Yaks in a camp have higher odds of dropping Cut of Quality Red Meat.
-
10 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:
Reading the topic, I was expecting something about burning bridges, salting supply camps, and just demolishing objectives so hard the enemy couldn't re-capture them for a day or a week. I must say I'm rather disappointed. 😞
Wait, your not putting supply traps around supply dumps and sentries you took as well as target painters? You are missing out on some of the fun.
But I hear you lol.
-
On 4/28/2024 at 9:15 AM, Triptaminas.4789 said:
Not an exploit but a feature.
Fits thief role very well, just think about it.
I unironically think it's great thing, I can do few trick crosses thru walls, they required a lot of practice and lot of skill. It's not easy feet to do even with tutorial vids and kitten like that, rivals SAB tribulation wall jump skips in complexity, yet in wvw only thief's can glitch thru, and I think it fits the role and name of class perfectly.
All people I know that are doing this, are doing this in very low activity times, when maps are empty, so they and few friends could cap few objectives, never I seen anyone doing it while activity is high, all of them have large amount of hours in game and they respect other players.
Stop sperging about objective glitching nothingburger, u see it happen once in blue moon, just let them have it lol
That's a big no. Gratz you found an exploit. Just because others are doing it still doesn't make it not an exploit. Maybe Anet needs a bounty system. Find an exploit, show them where, make gems. And no, not all are doing it at off hours. A good number do it primetime which is why we see so many threads about it.
-
1 hour ago, Gorani.7205 said:
WvW players (of the past, at the hight of GW2 after the launch of HoT) would throw gems/real money at them for customizable guild siege (like the winter's day catas that hurled presents), dollies of guild claimed camps having other skins (like winter's day present dollies), guards wearing the guild armour or are replaced by other races/factions etc.) Or more fancy banners and decoration on claimed towers and keeps...
There was a demand and ideas about cosmetics , they have just never been picked up.
This. I still think they are missing out on gem sales with siege and ammo skins. Said it before and will again. They will get there. But I also still think that gem sales are used too often as a reason for lack of development. Not sure if I fully agree with that since some of the largest whales I know are WvW players.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:
It's starting to feel like some things that were touched upon right as the changes came are starting to sink a bit into the mud, so adding this for my own piece of mind.
A very big part of the problem is the population, coverage and type of players difference on the servers, especially in EU where, as mentioned, the flaws with the system started to become extremely visible after the relink before the changes. With two servers dominating their MUs against almost dead or weak servers to the point people just logged in and out on all three sides due to lack of content. Prime example was WSR being linkless starting in T5 and crawling up the tiers while people just logged out in their MUs. The how and why's have been explained in threads to those that doesn't understand a few times in the recent threads. Nothing mentioned further down has anything to say or helps if server balance is as skewed as it's been lately.
A sense of achievement, or pride of achievement, is important to have fun in a game mode like this as it's the main motivation driver. It's kind of the general definition of having fun in the game mode. Every single debate in these last threads boils down to the simple fact that how you gain this vary. This is both where all the different play styles comes into the equation as well as everything about defending, attacking, balancing, metas, counterplay, countermetas, and so on. And it needs to be understood, or at least addressed, that removing ways to gain this pride or sense of achievement makes the game mode moot to those that gets their fun taken away. Trying to deny others their fun or sense/pride of achievement doesn't help the game mode towards your preferred ways, it just makes them.... leave. And removed your own ways of gaining sense/pride of achievement in process.
You can't make people like the same things you do. Simple as that. Making rules and strategies that servers "have to/should do" catering to your preferred type of fun and "explain away" what these last changes have done and how to get around it 👏does 👏 not 👏work 👏. And then I am not even touching upon the discrepancies in server population and coverage. Any perceived power over a server is a construct. If you think the communication is kitten, be an example. If there's anything you think should be done on a map, go kittening do it. Don't expect others to, don't blame others for not doing it. If you aren't able to yourself, get better.
By getting better I mean in ways that fits your way to play, style, level of skill, ability and effort invested - for some it's to time when to try to take a camp or a tower while things are happening other places, for some it's understanding what the skills do and how the synergies work, for some it's cooking up builds able to 1v3, for some it's how to have a main objective like EBG keep ready for an all out assault, for some it's building a comp that work in the intended or certain way, for some it's becoming a better commander in their preferred content, for some it's figuring out where to place siege so watchtower can't see you, for some it's learning to play other classes or builds, for some it's learning how to follow a good commander better, for some it's how to organize, for some it's how to help commander with callouts in fights, for some it's building up a core guild group, for some it's being able to swap builds on the fly, for some it's how to scout in a way that's helpful, for some it's to learn what's actually helpful to bring to a voice squad, for some it's being able to adjust to new balance or meta changes, for some it's when or how to use tactivators, for some it's just basic understanding of what other players and/or commanders can or cannot do due to game, player or map limitations.
It's not a sin to be carried nor a detriment to you, but not understanding that people can't be carried if there's no one to carry is on you. You might not like people doing battles on south camp, but the people doing that is what will carry you in another setting be it defending a keep or have a zerg rampage on a map. You might not care about tiering and sieging up a keep, taking camps or putting in the right tactivators but people doing that is what make them able to scout and stall things until you can go get a fight. Being a commander not understanding how players often doing other content are carrying you in the type of content you offer is kind of shameful if it takes too long to sink in, though.
If it doesn't matter what you do because the end result will be the same no matter what, why would you? Why would you repair or try to defend a keep if you aren't even getting kills, participation or ticks for defending? Why would you try to become a better player if it doesn't matter as it's just about hitting any skill that's cooled down? Why would you try to become a better commander if tactics and strategies are moot as long as it's about getting numbers and boons up? Why would you go voice to command to time the squad better and help new people learn if it doesn't really make a difference?
If you like it or not, actual living people is the main content in this mode. They're not NPCs, neither on your side nor the enemy sides. Even if you prefer PlayerVsDoor other people is your main content as someone else have to take the objective so you can too. And killing the diversity kills the population, which then kills your content, no matter what you want it to be. And it will affect your rewards, WxP, loot bags, kills, k/d ratio, PPT, PPK, weeklies, dailies, server population, pool of recruits, pugs, roamers, available commanders, whatever floats your boat or is more important to you.
You can't build the mode and classes/builds/skills based on a dream scenario with balanced server population, coverage and content because nobody has the same dream scenario and servers and links are currently nowhere near any balance. Be it devs or players with "good ideas". I don't pretend to have any quick fixes or some super insightful knowledge on how to do it, but that much I know. But I do expect people getting paid to do it doing it better than I or any other regular player would.
Well said and worth the repost.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:
I'll ramble a little more 🙂
(Nope not talking about balance, because that's handled by a different team)
If you look back at ANet and WvW, you can see that every time they spot a problem and tries to fix it, the same patterns follows. They identify the problem as it is as that point, they come up with ideas and plan out a solution, they start working on it, and when they finish it and release it, well the situations changed because of the time it has taken.
On launch the problem was massive queue's, so they identified the problem, through out a solution, and started working on EotM. By the time it was released, the queue's wasn't nearly as big a problem any-longer, because it had already taken a good while and the situation had changed.
World Restructure is probably the most extreme example of this. Back when they held polls and actively asked on the forums etc, and they narrowed things down to a couple of things that needed fixing and they set population as the top one, and started working on it (and then got pulled off, put on pause a few times, and then started again with a skeleton crew etc. Usual stuff). So bunch of years later, while WR is still going to be useful (for the background systems if nothing else), the situation has changed, and other things are affecting the game-mode/player-base more.
So if I was to point out the main problem with ANet regarding WvW development: They're reactive and their work-flow is too slow to keep up a constantly changing player-base. This could be because of various reasons, examples:
* Awkward/complicated tools/programs
* Low priority/resources (money and devs for ex, being told no by bosses)
* Company philosophy/design restrictions (overdevelop and only released mostly polished content).At the same time, if they constantly tries to re-consider their priorities, then the long development process will work even harder against them, and nothing would ever get done.
I'm not sure how they can change that. I'd make a guess that the thing that separates a veteran "realm vs realm" team from the rest is honestly just experience enough to be able to spot which direction the player-base is "roughly" heading, and start building counter measures before hand. From what I've seen ANet seems to change people around too much for anyone to be allowed the time to build up that kind of experience.
----
The only thing I'll say about balance is that it feels more like a conflict of departments. You have the balance team, and they're ordered to prioritize X over the rest, and only make small numerical changes for Y and Z when needed. And when you then put a bunch of mostly system-engineers on the other teams (like WvW) that might not be very versed in actual combat and balance, it will be near impossible for them to come with meaningful input or to argue against the balance team.
As I've suggested before, the WvW devs should still be able to make changes to Siege without interference from the balance team (Assumption on my part, since Siege is WvW only), so they could potentially use those to make sweeping/drastic changes (like mass boon-rips, big damage, etc). But in that case you got to realise that chances are high that the WvW devs are unlikely to be very good at balance, and those numbers would probably be all over the place, and they'd have to go by trial-and-error to find some good numbers for things. I'd expect anything from 3-6 months of highly random changes.
----
One related point, changing participation, is the single most powerful way ANet has to change player-behaviour at this point. If you got plenty participation for defence, players would defend. If you got participation for dying to another player, players would happily suicide into each others.
A lot of good points.
Take the conversation about boonballs as well. We have had boons since forever. What impacted them along the way. The Hammer (read melee) meta. Players that weren't in groups reacted to it as range it down which potentially lead to more boons. Which lead to more strips and conversions which moved us to the pirate meta. More range and less hammer trains. Which lead to projectile hate meta to counter the pirate meta and again potentially increased the boons. Then they looked at pirate meta and said the issue is the boon removal so nerf the strips and counters which leads to the current boon meta.
Joined a squad recently that wasn't doing well against another, their complaints were there were too many boon removal on the other side and they couldn't counter that even if I also say there is not a good balance to boons versus antiboon. So I get it, there are a lot of sides to the conversation. Balance is a moving target.
Still go round and round. The thing that keeps running through my head is the balance team stream where it was said that more strips and conversions were removed due to what melee wants to be hit with that when engaging and moving into a fight. Which is not the same as what melee wants to jump into another side while they have all those boons waiting to receive their melee attack. Boon vs antiboon balance is another point to juggle.
Some of the changes are reducing range AoE targets which lead to more boons. Should ranged AoE be 3 and Melee range be 5 and meet in the middle? Ideally the end goal is melee, ranged and support all being needed and the challenge is finding the right mix. That applies to small and large scale. For roamers, you want CC options to combat them both but not be OP that there is no reason for groups nor to allow a group to CC lockdown a smaller group. It's not easy.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
We are all children of Latin. We are all children of Rome. 2000 years later.😉
lol. De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
Not wrong.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:
As an example, this used to be the case with Mag and SMC (and perhaps still is, my server hasn't fought them in several months so I can't say for sure). With most of a map population sitting in SMC with tiered walls, fixed siege and placeable siege on every gate, many servers ignored the place altogether.
Going to pull this bit out. If any of these changes were made due to a Mag issue, it was a mistake. Rule#2. If in doubt attack the side that holds SMC. It's a three sided game. If two sides decide to ignore the side that holds more than the issue is the game mechanics rewards the sides to go for an easy win versus targeting the side that is in the lead or holds a stronger objective. A better change might have been to remove the WP from SMC all together. A side can still own it to gain its value but not gain the advantage of fast travel outside of EWP.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:
Numbers = Advantage
Organized = Advantage
Meta = Advantage
Voice = Advantage
Revive skills = Advantage
Target Caps = Advantage as you get more numbers, throw more aoes, mitigate more aoes.
Boon/Support spam Game Mechanics = Should not be an advantage one set of players get to take full advantage of, applying infinite boons should have a proper counter of removing those boons. Some classes fart and spam out boons. If you don't want counters in the game for that, then you have to place better/strict restrictions.
Snow ball mechanics are not fun, especially in a pvp setting, unless you're bad and want all the advantages in a game to carry you through everything, like using cheat codes in a single player game. Then you are just a pathetic player that doesn't actual enjoy sport or competition or challenge, stop saying you want competition when you roll up on a map with 50 players.
Stop being biased and do your jobs as a developer, and balance the game properly to all players and groups. There's no excuse that it's too hard, it's too much work, you can only bother balancing to big fat 50 squad groups. It's pathetic and sad it's gotten to this point, not everyone wants to play in 50 squads. Everyone should have the opportunity to play the game how they wish, whether that be a scout, roamer, havoc, defender, builder, dueler, zerger, blobber, as whatever they wish but that means all 9 classes and not shoehorned same support into 4 out of 5 for every single group.
Not be hampered because some meta blob decided to break everything because nothing stops them but another meta squad of 50, it's pathetic that you think only those players should "feel better" about playing the game, pathetic you continue to destroy the morale of defenders every single patch, it's pathetic when you nerf boon strips every single patch when I see groups in game calling for more boon strips, it's pathetic you continue to punished the little guy so "your friends" can "feel better" about rampaging through maps. All this wouldn't be a problem if the game was matching groups up in instances, but it doesn't, it's a mismatch across 24/7 in open pvp zones.
Maybe start playing the game outside of your blobs and walk in others shoes before you continue down this pathetic nerf parade because you still think somehow in someway boon blobs are still not strong enough and breaking into T3 objectives in less than 5mins is somehow still too slow. The game still extremely fun from 1-25 sizes, but above that it "feels like a slog with little payoff" fighting those groups.
Your small rings did not promote more pvp interaction, it chased it away, your tactical game play now is more players using siege to hit those circles in smc and run away as soon as the ring goes up. More often than not an objective will flip without defense counter because guess what, more objectives are paper and players have less time to respond! especially if they're caught in a 2v1 on them which is happening even more on the weakest side, so congratulations on continuing to make the game mode worse.
This is kind of still the question. What were the groups that were failing to take structures using as tactics to take it? Were they just just leaving a bread trail straight to the objectives? Were they not draining its supply first if it was full? Were they not employing their sides Roamers and Havocs? Not doing hit and runs to soften it? What it seems like is they were expecting to take it in one shot. How many servers leave more than 1, at best, in objectives when there are no fights around it? All servers should use defensive scouts. But that's part of the issue, scouts take time to get the word out and defenders take time to arrive. What I also question is how often are there equal population in a given time zone, across all maps in a matchup outside of perhaps reset? Given that at reset even odds might be good that there will a 2 v 1 against a weaker side that is down at the moment even during equal population times.
Appreciate changes in the game mode and development time, but groups that wanted to break into T3's were already doing so before this. Add the failed attack event as discussed to help the sides that were trying and failing if it was an issue of players feeling that the time was not well spent. If this was an issue of a tag not informing their squad that this was a hit and run or weakening to drain supply though, that's kind of a tags fault personally of not being honest with their group. Even worse if they didn't use all their resources to get a thing done. We have large scale, small scale and roamers. Any side should be at a disadvantage if they are just using just one of the three versus using all three.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, DarkK.7368 said:
Reading a bit in this topic, is a bit heartbreaking. When I play with my friend, she usually says "I love that I can disconnect my brain and relax and kill and do stuff and get rewards", specially when finding a commander. She tries hard to play good, of course. But we are in the zerg with no responsability, just spam aoe stuff, and if you go down, wait to be revived.
Ouch. I Roam, Havoc and Pugmand. Part of the no responsibility is the tag just using too many to do a thing. This is also what I call tag dependency and it makes players stand in towers when there is no tag since they should already know what needs to be done without one.
21 hours ago, DarkK.7368 said:No compared to small scale fights where you get almost all responsability, and if you fail, you lose. Here people talking about strategies... Indeed something that long time I don't see and it hurts. I guess that's why I'm more into PVP. It would be nice indeed to experience that type of big commander groups with experience and strategies in WVW again, and not the called "boon ball"... But I almost never experienced another thing, I thought it did not exist in WvW XD
Large scale can play like small scale but most tags don't try it these days since there is no reason to win. But I agree the reason I like to Roam and Havoc is it ups the ante. How much can you do with how few. And if you have a lot, how much can do at the same time across an area and regroup when you need to.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:
All structures being reset to T0 doesn't say anything about content.
This is a question to most. During your servers' prime time now, are most of the keeps T0 or T1? Personally that is what I am seeing. What are you seeing from your side?
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, ZTeamG.4603 said:
The pessimist in me wonders if that's the point of the way changes have been going. It's a shame that WvW has never really received much developer attention over the years, which is probably in no small part due to it not really having anything directly monetizable (just warclaw skins I guess) aside from the indirect effects of it being fun and keeping people playing the game long-term.
Not sure I agree here. Example, I have 33 toons. All were added due to WvW when we had lots of different, interesting and fun build options and wanted a variety of toons that had different roles and goals. I go on about the Feb 2020 nerf patch since a lot of those toons still remain shelfed. Is that balance? Don't know. To me haven't seen as much depth in build options as before so haven't seen any need to add more. With character spots come bags and other things. I think using gem store sales as a reason for lack of development is over used personally.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
I would rather the watchtower tactic be a "sentry patrols" tactic with multiple patrols where the combo contains an actual tougher sentry type guard with longer range than normal. That way they would move around the area and spot people. You could counter and disable this "watchtower" by killing them, giving you some time before it's up again. And defenders would have to react to threats showing up even within tower proximity instead of having the equivalent of wallhacking from across the map.
In general I think we could use some more tactics in general and this could be a new type that I agree I could see value in. I also think we should be able to upgrade road sentries with tactics and move camps back to allowing more than one level personally. We are at the point that most things are paper already during active hours.
-
1
-
-
Power reaper is still solid and you have a mix melee and range options and good pull options. Also does well against its newest sibling Harbi.
-
2
-
-
Don't get me wrong, Harbi gives a number of my melee toons an issue. But they are melee. Are they the same against range or mixed builds. No.
But using old posts in the WvW forum. You are just creating counter commits that are no longer current after balance changes over time and other changes and lead to mis-posts. Create a new thread or take it to the class forums versus create the misposts here.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 4/26/2024 at 8:44 PM, Vavume.8065 said:
They probably won't.
Vavume, add feedback please. I was grumpy with myself for being irked for defense nerfs. But they were changes. Disagree with them but they were time spent. We need that. So to all, add feedback and change suggestions and don't be grumpy as I was. We all could use more dev time. Our sand in the sandbox needs some cleaning. Post feedback and whys and change requests.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Zepoolpe.9217 said:
don't think it was really a conscious choice 😄
I mean, I think their might be, how many ducks does each side weigh and is there a stake near by to deal with the imbalance?
-
46 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:
I remember that well. If watchtower were nerfed today, there would be so much negative feedback here about it too despite how it had nerfed the smaller groups from attacking.
When I wrote about sieging T3s, I had keeps in mind because they don't have watchtower.
WT is a boon to small scale. This is one of those issues. Same as sentries.
Those that want WT to be removed haven't tried to use it to their advantage and just want roamers to stand in towers.
Been going old school on peeps to use these to their advantage. I fear we aren't prepping players if we get tourneys back. WTs are boons to those that are not thinking it thru and a boon to those that are. Same as sentries. There is art in deception. Small scale gains in multiple ways with WT and sentries.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, kondo.9537 said:
He meant that ROF getting another week of dead servers linked to us.
We already liked that for 2 months or more idk anymore...
ROF kinda dead and got farmed as non active players.
NA, so thanks, trying to get perspective.
[Fun Question] What if all of your server territories get claimed. How can you retake it with no supply (Supply Camp get camped by enemies)
in World vs. World
Posted
Its what I call rule #5. Always have supply.