TheGrimm.5624
-
Posts
6,640 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by TheGrimm.5624
-
-
57 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:
For some reason I read that as applying cryptocurrency to allied players.
That would be marginally more useful.
lol. On pull of the tactivator each defending player in the objective will receive coin every pulse so that they might have money to buy siege to retake the structure.
...2 weeks later ...
Ecto gambling up ten fold.
-
9 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
Might as well give up defending then sigh.
Haven't most of us already done that?
-
1
-
-
On 5/5/2024 at 4:32 PM, joneirikb.7506 said:
Just a simple question to start a conversation:
Because the one thing I've been sitting back with watching the last two weeks discussions about the latest changes is that no one seems to be on the same page regarding this, and I think this is probably the most important basic thing that we'd need to agree on to have any kind of relevant discussion about defence in general. I don't want to do a poll, because I want people to answer with their own numbers, and talk about it. This might also change depending on the whole size of the encounter, so the ratios might work differently at 80vs40 and 20vs10 etc, but here's a couple of ratio examples to start off with:
- 1:1 (example 50 vs 50)
- 2:1 (example 20 vs 10)
- 10:1 (example 40 vs 4)
(Oh look, I made a short post, I'm proud!)
A boon group versus not is going to win in a 1:1 or a 1:2 and might in a 1:3. Attackers are more likely to win against a sieged structure since they can attack and breach before defenders can reach. I tested this via a 20 v 120 on two maps. 20 could breach and take multiple targets before the 120 could split and respond. Now imagine if the 120 did the same? Now granted splitting up is a factor of why win? And it makes it even worse when 20 try and hold 60. The more defense is nerfed, why try and hold? So if Anet continues this route then they need to up the ante to defend else why do so?
-
17 hours ago, Paleglider.2407 said:
Can somebody explain to me what the requirements are for recieving the reward?
Kill a player of value.
-
5 hours ago, cyberzombie.7348 said:
I'd say 1:1 would be ideal. After that it should boil down to whomever best at strategizing siege placement.
Siege was a mental game before it was nerfed, after it's nerf its even less of a factor.
-
7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
How would you maintain that?
If you logon normally at 18:00 but suddenly you have a day off work and log on at 09:00 instead you are greeted with a “YOU CANNOT ENTER WVW AT THIS TIME DUE TO WRONG TIMESLOT” message when clicking on EBG that’s cried for more players the last hour as they are being double teamed even though it’s otherwise a perfect 1:1 population balance?
They are already at that level when they account for average play, just the sorting logic needs to account for it at the same level if you want to account for coverage. Take any restaurant, they are accounting for expected number of diners and when to manage staffing and food production rates.
-
Anet an update on this would be helpful. What is being done on this front? We lose players due to this, would probably rank it higher than WR.
-
1
-
-
So trying to defend in T3 with full siege against 2 v 1 attacker versus defender, does no good. Still seeing paper most places. If a side outnumbers, odds are good they are going to steam roll. Does this allow players to practice old school of use less to do more, yes. Does it create more paper everywhere, yes. Does it create more fights? No.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
I agree with you. The best, most engaging, funniest expression of WVW is when the 3 sides have similar numbers available. But now in this post I don't know what we're talking about anymore. it's literally derailed on everything. Just complain to Anet about something.
A big part remains the same. What is the balance in defense versus offense. The last patch was stated as defense was in favor, a lot of posts were about but under what instances?
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Stegus.4285 said:
We play atm against baruch-bay. What is the meaning in wvw if servers having another timezone or y they r playing against us? we cap their things at daytime, they overwhelm us during night? no serious content for both. nice one.
Coverage is a serious point in servers. Hence why the WR needs to account for it. Just balancing numbers does no good unless it accounts for time of play as well. Its also why I say no mins to take. Had 20 v 120, needed to jump around and split a lot to just try and keep them in 2 groups across maps. Removing mins from takes would just mean zerg wins versus allowing some containment while requiring smaller groups to play smarter and allowing for counter tactics to zerg it down.
-
4
-
-
7 hours ago, UNDEAD.6108 said:
I don't use any PvP builds when i don't play PvP.
I wouldn't recommend filling the role of a Roamer than since its going to be one of the roughest if you aren't used to WvW and don't do sPvP. I would recommend finding a tag instead and running with the main group. You will also to keep participation max and achieve your goal of acquiring the materials you were looking for that way faster than if you run alone. Hope that helps.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, UNDEAD.6108 said:
I have been grinding WvW bit mainly for mystic clovers when WvW is only place to grind mystic clovers without needing to spend hundreds of gold to buy mystic coins but i have huge problem is that i constantly get one shotted in 1 vs 1 battles and no matter how i do damage to enemy player, the enemy always gets their hp to 100% every second no matter what kind build i use.
So this made me wondering how i able to do +20k damage every hit and have infinite hp like 99% of players i ended up with 1 vs 1 battle.
So are you using a build similar to your sPvP build?
-
4 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:
That's the point--I don't want less than 20 taking a keep. It's a keep, in a realm vs realm mode, and they are currently flippable by 1 thief glitching in and fighting the lord for 5-10 min. That's ridiculous.
Needs to be a hierarchy, big groups for big objects--small groups for small ones. Everything is currently the same, any size group can flip anything--thus nothing means anything.
But you only aid the side that is zerging in that aspect, why? Mind you I am on the side of efficiency should be more important. Use as few as you can and do as much as you can. If 50 want to take a keep that takes 2, ok. But its also fair game if 2 retake it. Post tournaments a lot grow lazy in using less to do more and then regrouping to fight. Lets not remove more tactics to the fight. If it takes just 1 to take a keep, then let them take it if no one comes to defend.
-
1 hour ago, Razi.6031 said:
What I would also really like is maybe quickslots for wvw. Maybe somewhere near the skills ui or the map ui.
Max 3 slots to keep it balanced. But you can slot in either siege or tactics. For e.g 1 slot supply removal, 1 slot ram, and 1 slot disablers.
It's annoying to stay having to open the inventory everytime.
Honestly I don't know how this wasn't implemented from day 1. It puzzles me that actual game designers don't think this far ahead when designing a system.
Would be a good change. I think a lot of players have just fallen back on shared inventory spots which is funny since Anet is missing out on WvW sales by not allowing more than we have now.
-
2 hours ago, adammantium.8031 said:
Thankfully, a majority of players seem to realize that exploiting into towers/keeps is not fun, and the rewards for a cap aren't enough of an incentive. God forbid we ever do proper tournaments or a new reward structure though.
We are hoping to get back to those after they were left behind in in the 2014ish time frame. Mind you, Anet has added a lot of invis walls to spots over time but there is a lot left.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:
Lord should turn into a raid boss--well maybe not quite raid boss but be very hard to kill and then go with the idea of only the team in the ring can fight it.
Forget scaling it, just make keeps so only 20+ can take them--towers can be 5-10 man groups and then camps just still solos.
Maybe have multiple capture zones outside lord room that activate and holding those debuffs the lord or something; players can fight over that.
No scaling purposes is to deal with exactly that. If you try and fix in place all that will mater in the end is size of the group.
-
On 5/6/2024 at 12:52 PM, Erysium.4501 said:
Hello folks!
I have a WvW post that to my knowledge has never been introduced.
I hope it is understandable as it was translated from German.There are training bots of every class in the PvP lobby (Heart of the Mists). The fighting style of the bots is exciting, but a little weak. I could well imagine such bots as protectors of the lord of the fortress in wvw. The protectors could appear when the lord of the fortress is attacked or maybe only has 50% life left. if you give them the strength of an elite rank and they do a lot of damage, it could make the wvw boss fights more exciting. the feeling of defeating a lord of the fortress is then a greater challenge in the fortresses.
I assume that it would be easy for Arenanet to implement.
What do you think?
Let me go back to your first idea. There are a lot of forums threads on changes and we also tend to end up with changes that posters aren't sure where they came from. I appreciate the ideas of changes to the sandbox as well to keep things fresh. But what is your intended environment here. Is this to change the way that zerg on zerg fight around a lord? Havoc size, or Roamer or just when a side breaches a keep and they only have NPCs to fight?
Don't get me wrong I have seen where WvW style game modes have used NPC events to induce more pvp interactions and could see that here. I just question it based around a keep lord versus somewhere else like an open area in the map. Personally I could still them adding Steve (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Labyrinthine_Horror) running around the inner and outer walls in SMC during the Halloween event as a reference.
-
3 hours ago, Erysium.4501 said:
to be honest, i find your idea exciting. in order to try something like this out carefully as a developer, you could do a very short wvw beta. after the beta, arenanet could throw in a questionnaire afterwards asking how we found it.
You do realize that they already nerfed DBL keep lords due to large scale having issues with them while others were not?
-
7 hours ago, adammantium.8031 said:
It's dishonest and no fun to play against, and feels like cheating. But it's not breaking the rules of the game, and no player should be punished for it.
It is absolutely incumbent on Anet to prevent these scenarios. Unfortunately, they seem to have no appetite to do so.
Its called an exploit and you can be banned for it.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Erysium.4501 said:
would it be an improvement for you if the lord of the fortress were to move more? Then the zerg would also have to adapt regularly.
Couple of issues here.
Space is one. There are more options for AI changes in SMC and EBG keeps as well as the DBL keeps but the keeps on ABL are already pretty small of an area and doesn't really create any area where that would change. Combine that with the smaller ring sizes and that limits it a bit more.
Second is scale of play. As a roamer fighting a lord there is already plenty of movement. In Havoc size play that movement is further decreased but there is some already occurring as players move in and out of melee range. For large scale there is less movement. In large scale even if they change it there would still be little movement. In all three regards again the NPC shouldn't be the factor that determines the fight. Making the NPCs stronger just impacts smaller scale play and doesn't impact larger scale at all. Larger scale is just going to wear down the lord if there are no defenders regardless.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:
What the recent changes did was lower the floor for attacking structures. People are punished less for making tactical errors (preventing disablers), and are rewarded less for moving more dynamically (not having to block repairers to allow reinforcements in).
It's not really as much as a commentary of nerfing organized groups, but rather that the requirement for organized groups be higher. But instead the standards are lowered and options are removed, because the devs like to do that instead of doing anything interesting.
Meanwhile the cost of defense is so high with having to repair to 50% to keep stuff up, especially when siege can hit multiple walls, it is not worth the supply to do so during an ongoing attack and the best method is simply to kill the attackers first or flip something back.Having a excessively low floor for attacking structures also means that structures will flip too fast and the effort to defend them will not be worth it, or even if it's physically possible to get to it in the first place. The result is the loot train phenomenon where all sides simply backcap because it is more efficient than spending resources into defense. And such a thing has already prevalent in WvW, because the incentive to WvW was already fairly nominal.
This is also further pushed by the power creep to the point where certain siege becomes completely ineffective due to their inability to outpace player sustain. And the guards haven't gone any stronger either. I guess they tried power creeping the lord but I can't really observe any effects
It should also be known that this is also partially because of population imbalance which makes matters look a lot worse. And personally I don't view players in terms of attack or defense, but rather the game validating various decisions and options. And I think it is rather hard to justify actively defending objectives in this current state of the game without a decent group of our own. So in the end it really boils down to that.
tl;dr Dumbing the game down for everyone does not make things equal.
Well put.
-
1 hour ago, Heibi.4251 said:
ANET,
Is this true? There is a warning in the reporting section in game when you report a player. Some people are saying that ANET is going to start terminating the accounts of people who report players like wall runners in EBG. Can you confirm or deny such a policy?
You are better off to create a ticket if you want to ask Anet this policy. As Chaba pointed out there has always been a policy that if you try reporting in bad faith you might face action yourself. So consider this, why would Anet terminate an account that is active enough to use a report feature since it means that the player is not wall running and therefore more likely to be using it's services?
-
38 minutes ago, Alabastrum.9361 said:
Did not have time to read the whole threat. But there are plenty of jumping puzzles that you can skip or partialy skip with mounts. Bunny is one of the best as you can get above a no mount zone then drop in. I can only imagine how much easier it is for skscales.
So you agree they should fix the spots where players can exploit into structures versus worry about node locations?
-
I think where Anet misses out is in players posting spots on youtube and not taking action in the spots proven. Players are trying to help them but they don't know or don't address them.
-
2
-
What numbers should Offence vs Defence be balanced for/against? And why?
in World vs. World
Posted · Edited by TheGrimm.5624
Edit: Outside of tourney
They do, use that one as well, it depends on how mixed their groups are. It works better if the group you are flanking has less Roamers and Havocs intermixed. This again relates to tag dependency. Roamers and Havocs joining tag may less likely wait for a tag to request a terminate and deal with it. A tag that knows they have the mix might asks for a number of players to deal with it and return. That's before you consider Off-Havocs that are running with a tag not in a squad that will deal with side issues like this and other issues like slowing sups, reinforcements and other tasks to keep the most focused on the tag's target.
I use the term light siege these days since its just an hour of building siege in a keep. During tourney days it would be three hours to build siege up. Which is why its funny to see players still complain about standing in light siege and after it was already nerfed.
Edit: One of the reasons I could see getting back to winning and tourney is smarter game play. Not just zerging but spreading out to handling more everywhere. Reason to take and reasons to hold. How to do more with less versus just run it over.