TheGrimm.5624
-
Posts
6,634 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by TheGrimm.5624
-
-
On 5/5/2024 at 4:32 PM, joneirikb.7506 said:
(Oh look, I made a short post, I'm proud!)
Well done!
Don't worry it will get longer. Trying to think if I could just give you a two dimensional picture which is what Anet did or we wouldn't have gone from 100 to 25. Nor would we have all the back and fourth as we do on the forums about attacking and defending. Will be back to this one but I have been trying to figure out if there is a way to qualify this as well. Its not a X:Y factor but more of a X:Y:A:B:C:D:E:F factor to consider. Interesting post and was already trying to think how state some of this. Anet did state they think defenders had the favor but likewise did not provide insight on what type of fight and what environment. So were they measuring just equal size groups being in place for the fight, which mileage there will vary on that happening. Did they also plan on double teaming of two sides breaking into the weakest sides keep at the same time? If you look at number of players to take an objective that isn't defended then I would use 1 for a camp, 1 for a tower, 2-3 for a keep as min and I have seen people solo keeps. So from there you need to add in all the other factors when you try and just think about it in X:Y terms. Additional to considering numbers, defensive and offensive siege, coverage, comms, comp vs pug, third party sides like Green and Blue are fighting and then Red decides to meddle, tactics, Main tag - Havoc - Roamer interactions, focused groups versus clouds, pre-sieging setup for both offense and and defense, supply amount and goes on from there.
Time of engagement is also a question for what was the goal of the changes. How long should the fight be? One and done? Over what sort of time? How many attempts should it take to capture what type and how built up of an objective? I am not certain that this was a balance but more I think they thought time to take was still too long after all the other changes before this set. So even if we tell them numbers, I don't know if that will convey the picture so this might be one for them to give us more insight into the what and why. I agree can be fun to discuss and hope that gives them more insight, but not certain two numbers work when trying to define it. But let me think about that and will be back to ramble more. Need food and its getting into the gaming hours. Good hunting till later!
-
1 hour ago, Mufasa.8415 said:
Tarnished Coast also gets queue locked off prime times.
We're also considered mid tier.The only time wvw is really ever dead imo is oceanic time slots.
Do we have any kind of estimate when the world restructure will be a public implementation?Last update was here if you missed it:
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-world-restructuring-beta-feedback-and-future/
-
5 hours ago, cloudsareyum.8120 said:
I'm clueless and come from pvp so I was hoping some wvw vet would elucidate some stuff for me. So in pvp you get credit for participating. But in wvw it seems like you lose participation for defense (unless you kill an opponent, a lot of stuff doesn't seem to count), fighting ( unless you kill an opponent. damage and dueling does not count), upgrading siege on newly leveled up towers/keeps, any underdog stuff whatsoever
Since I'm clueless so is this like basically they want 0 defense flips all the time? Battles must be ones that are even or winning? Why is the fighting zerg that loses punished so hard? I'm sure it's a game design thing but can someone explain what the intention is here or what they know? Are you not meant to defend or scout? So confused. What is best for roamer players to do when there is no zerg or the zerg is being out fought?
Thanks
- a know nothing about wvw
First off Welcome to the Mist War!
For a direct reference to you question: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Participation_(WvW)
Won't go into roaming versus a roamer. So I am going to assume you mean you were roaming around versus running solo against the world. Best beats if you are new I would say is the following order; Grab a battlebuddy that is familiar with WvW who is in guild or that you just connect with in WvW, find a public tag and join squad, find a havoc group to move with, or in the end find a friendly roamer that doesn't mind to say why they are doing what they do. I do see players on a regular basis that start their night off with are there any [fill in the blank] groups running in team chat.
As far as defending and attacking, odds are better you will get more from attacking in a group since they will probably be active. If you are trying to defend solo odds are better unless you end up killing players you will lose participation unless your actions lead to getting the defense event. There is a lot of back and fourths on the defense events.
As far as just fighting, no only the winner of a fight is paid for that time. Why is that? I think it is fear of farming. If not dueling would become a farming event that wouldn't actually help a side to win the big nothing that we get now for winning.
Another good section to take a quick look at is: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_Experience#WXP_acquisition
In short you will get paid nothing (which is where some of this ties into defense events) if the player you killed wasn't worth anything. So if the attacker you killed is just coming back from respawning and hasn't done anything since they spawned and gets killed again they aren't worth anything except maybe a loot bag. Its the same as spawn camping.
Note from the wiki: "Player kills will grant more WXP the longer the killed player has been alive. Getting different ranks (bronze/silver/gold) for event completion scales the WXP awarded, while various modifiers (see WXP modifiers section below) will grant a bonus to world experience. (Spawn Camping Enemy Players can give you 0 WXP)".
I think this also impacted the release of the failed attack event since if a zerg broke in and then was wiped how do they determine that the event occurred via the data they use to trigger the events. Most of the zerg that broke in would have gotten 0 WxP from the break in unless they were on the siege doing the breaking, and if they just use that the player has a value to kill them that might have been done on the way to the objective and not due to actions done at the objective itself. But that is theory crafting since they have never come out to state what is what, again due to fear of players then just gaming the system rules to one degree or another.
Hope that helps and all welcome on Forum Wars 2. And as usual, thank you wiki players for qualifying things on the Wiki, links help a lot, appreciate your time!
-
2 hours ago, 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?
I understand the intent but I think this would just favor numbers. I think the goal has always been that the NPCs are not to be the ones to do the fight but it was the players to actually defend. I don't think we need better NPCs personally since again, its about players versus players in regards to attacking and defending.
-
3
-
-
Let me spin this another direction for a second to add in some perspective in regards to revolving populations over a skirmish or across one skirmish to another skirmish. Going to use EBG in this example to paint the picture. If all three sides have WPs in their keeps. Its an equal run to SMC. If one side deploys a tapper then the side tapped has a longer run back. If that side holds SMC it is a positive tactic to delay them. If the side that holds SMC wants to slow the attack they also can employee the same tactic. If a side doesn't hold SMC and doesn't want the party that is attacking to have it either, they can tap the attacking side to slow their attack giving their side more options to engage either the side that holds SMC somewhere else or to allow themselves time to catch their own breath and clean up their own third. If a side has lower population then another tapping a keep gives the side with less more options to slow travel, again giving themselves more time to deal with being underpopulated in a skirmish. Tapping may be annoying but it can be a useful tactic to employee as well. This is one where I will say be careful for what you ask for and look at it from many sides versus just annoying. And if you have never been a tapper, go and fill the role for a bit to see how it can be used and for what purposes.
-
22 hours ago, senftube.6081 said:
I do not care about the namecalling but for real why does ArenaNet not react against guilds like QQ on NA or Hunt on EU. These players are simply sociopathics and jumping, trowing blueprints all over and destroying the game for the crowd. They also love to streamsnipe or abusing bugs . Why does Anet never react? The game has become a toxic slaughterhouse.
I have had a lot of siege thrown on me over a decade plus. It makes me sad and happy. Sad that they lost out on coin I might have paid them to use that siege in crafting. Happy since they seem to have chosen to require their scribes to spend more and it means their side will waste more supply to do more than I will ask of my side. To me, that's a win, so I will delay my release and stay dead while I lol and they waste more and more siege and wait while they expect others inside to rez me. Course after a decade of this working, once they assume I am bluffing, will change tactics, but so far. 🙂
Edit: sorry confused people. If you spend any time as a Roamer and get run over by a Havoc or a Zerg, you might get siege thrown on you. Pro-tip if you are a siege thrower, throw Sup siege, scribes pay more for the blue siege they need to craft guild siege from so stopping wasting money and throw the purple stuff until Anet gives scribes ways to use the superior in the recipes.
-
1
-
4
-
-
First off ouch, if asked this question and got these answers I would be wondering as well.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:The answers given were as follows:
1-You do not participate in the game much.
This is the base reply for when people want to just reply but have no actual answers, I would ignore this one.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:2-Although it is a competitive game, you do not use meta builds. This is why we constantly lose.
I haven't had coffee so I will refrain for the silliness of the meta statements you might have gotten and how it lends itself to various posts on the forums and a lot behind the nerf this and nerf that one.
This is more for readers, run builds that you can be effective in for the type of play, size of play, style of play and one that matches your reaction time and connection speed. Even better if it has group support unless you are in full Roam mode where there is no one on your side around. But even in full roam those same group support may help yourself so consider that.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:3-You don't play in groups and you don't join discords.
Ah the fabled we lost because you weren't in voice. Love that one. On paper voices comms are a better choice. In reality it can lead to extremely better movement but also range to you might as well be listening to a World Cup Football match that can be even more distracting. Mileage varies.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:I have joined many groups, in most of them they do not accept you without entering the discord, but in some they do.
To be fair this up to each group and is fine, up until the point that they handicapped themselves and blamed others that they were the problem versus it was their requirements if they don't get enough.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:In many discord servers, we are asked questions to become a member when entering, for example. In a server I joined, they asked me my real name and age. They required a video call for me to verify.
Tell them once the admin shares their admin rights and login then you might consider it.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:To summarize, everything in the game depends on meta builds and those who require this are the old players of the game.
Ok let me play the otherside for a second. Too many people use meta in different ways. Even websites that claim to declare meta do that in different ways. So the word is used in lazy terms which is why I don't like it myself. For a tag for example they might be asking you to bring something that they can assume they know what capabilities you have and make guesstimates in their tactics about what your build might be able to do. In other game modes this is not the same since there is not another mass group game mode as WvW is.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:2-If a game is an MMORPG, when the number of players decreases, even if you have the best items, it has no value. Did you know that you are actually harming yourself by forcing other players to use meta builds and causing them to quit the game? What's the point of traveling alone in WvW with the stuff you bought with so much effort if no one else plays with you?
This is a group by group culture. Personally I think everyone should run in large scale, small scale and Roam so that they can create builds that work in all three and understand differing roles and goals which leads to a better understanding of the builds they make. If players find themselves not thinking for themselves then something has gone wrong.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:I have not seen any commander organizing the defense on the walls.
Walls are death traps for the most part. A lot of tags don't get as much practice defending since a lot of fights are over before they start. The better odds are hoping you have players that preset defenses in ways that are understandable to a player that wasn't involved in that setup. This falls more to the scouts and havocs versus main tags. Main tags might be more concerned with keeping their players in motion since if they are idle too long players will wander away.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:There may be more than one commander, for example, there may be a commander who draws the main force of the enemy away and a commander who captures the castles while they are away.
Mileage varies group to group, server to server and region to region here. I think the biggest issue you have here is a lack of reason to win. With no reasons to win why does it matter if you 50 that instead just needed 5 to do.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:4-Have you ever read a book, for example The Art of War - Sun Tzu? I did. This book is more important than the meta builds that will be useful for WvW.
Agree this one applies a lot to this type of gaming.
1 hour ago, eriniy.8607 said:5-Why aren't specific groups used to monitor the enemy's main forces? While a group is constantly reporting the location of the enemy, even if they are stronger than us, the main force can easily move on the map. In other words, scout forces. We even had spy players for the enemy forces in some games.
If you don't have scouts, then a better question might be why not and what type of environment lead to that. How do you change that. Its like servers that don't have tags, what lead to that. Find those aspects and start being a counter voice to them.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:
Do you "feel better" about attacking objectives?
Do you "feel better" about defending objectives?
Do you "feel better" about lord room fighting?
Can't really vote in this one, too many option left out personally. I think you will be missing answers since there is no options for counter options.
-
11 hours ago, Izzy.2951 said:
You guys are stuck in 2012, this gamemode is irrelevant. (even GW2 is kinda irrelevant too)
No just a lot of us still find it fun and want to make sure various points are covered while we also want changes.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
I think I would have left this alone as an opinion piece if you hadn't added so much subjective points and considered your choices in attacking other posters so you made it fair game. Welcome to Forum Wars 2.
2 hours ago, Kyon.4810 said:Obviously now wvw requires active defense rather than passive 5-6 defenders pew pewing with siege.
So how were 5-6 driving you off with subpar siege? How many were you using in your attacks?
2 hours ago, Kyon.4810 said:As for me now wvw looks better, because organized groups able to take objectives with weak defense.
Organized groups could always take objectives. Sometimes it came down to how long it would take.
2 hours ago, Kyon.4810 said:All the whinners are just ppl which plays solo with arrow carts or longbow rangers or trebuchet, and they should be reduced from cooperative mode
Or consider that organized groups don't defend as much and it might be more scouts, havocs and pug groups that do defend. You also missed out on the people that build defenses. So how much do think a light defense takes to setup? If you are using superior siege in those calculations you might not consider replying since you just spent more supplies then you should have and wasted resources for your side. That said an organized group wouldn't have cared if you set it up with all guild siege since they would attack it anyway if that was what they were looking to do.
If it is a pug group then its up to the tag to weigh moral, entertainment and/or impacts by Havocs for against the action as well as how many are not on tag that might also need to factor into the consideration of go or no go. But again if your tags weren't trying it when there was jus 5-6 that's a tag issue.
2 hours ago, Kyon.4810 said:thats why arena net makes wvw really great now with all these updates.
Here you are sounding like a ktrainer.
2 hours ago, Kyon.4810 said:Ofcourse u still able to protect objectives if build sieges properly and before the moment when enemy already at the gate (or gate already at 5%) and use it wisely.
Again an organized group wouldn't care since they would hit it while you aren't there.
2 hours ago, Kyon.4810 said:At this moment most of cases when I see defences - ppl are building normal siege and catas (which does 0 damage and doesnt knockback) opposite the gates instead of superior sieges and trebuchetes (heavy damage to siege + cows draining supplies + knockback) opposite gates, also there is millions of examples of bad gameplay from whinners.
So these are the people you were losing to before all the defense nerfs?
2 hours ago, Kyon.4810 said:If u want play with saving objectives probably u need to play with ppl in squad or at least with party instead of whinning in map/team chat about enemy. If you don`t want play with your team - ofcourse no one will help you defend objectives.
Sure, when was the last time you saw a squad message saying we are opening a tag for just defense? And how many times before all these changes did you see bad scout reports? And tags saying I need more info? Or outright saying we won't make it in time? The window on the last just gets smaller and smaller.
As a friend pointed out to me after I spent an hour setting what I call light defenses on a keep it all means nothing if people can't get there to use it. Wasn't wrong. See that happen on a regular basis.
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, pukish.5784 said:
Btw celestial/minstrel gear or nothing, blobbing, boon balling, always on strong server/community, transfer if you are not on, waiting for 50+ queue, that's the correct way of WvW.
If you refuse correct way then you will be punished by perma que'd servers.
lol.
Let me tell you a tale of EotM. EotM being an overflow drew peeps when maps were full. Players played it versus wait in PvE. Players sought to game it when not full queues which drew players to hunt them on EoTM. The same will happen in WvW. Even with the nerfs to Outnumbered, there will be some to hunt larger sides.
Should there be more reason to do so, yes. Will they still not face stubborn peeps without out it, yes.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Ronin.4501 said:
I actually considered that when I made the suggestion, as 75% of my current play is done with a havoc-sized group (anywhere from 5-15 players), but the reality is havoc-sized groups rarely if ever throw down 5 catas/rams;
I admit I usually use 2-6 and match the cats to players. So if we have 4 we build 4 though it may take 2 runs.
-
1 hour ago, ascii.1369 said:
The numbers are probably too high, but other than that YES. It should probably be "if you have done this activity during the current tick, you get x additional pips when the actual tick happens". Maybe that's what you meant, because getting pips every time you do this rather than adding it once to the total amount seems excessive.
Please for the love of god Anet, you finally need to introduce rewards that encourage active gameplay. Especially giving rewards for stomps (not kills) would be amazing. This would finally encourage people to actually play the game rather than afk in spawn until a tag shows up. As someone who roams almost exclusively and never on EBG I have to say, it feels like 95% of WvW players don't actually like PvP. It's pretty much impossible to get randome pugs to help capture a camp that has 2-5 defenders.
Now that I'm thinking about it, while the above suggested changes to rewards would be a massive step in the right direction, I think the most pressing issue to solve would be that people refuse to play if there is no tag around. While there is no tag on borderlands it seems those three maps are just EBG waiting rooms. While encouraging active gameplay through rewards is the direction WvW should move in more generally, it really would be great if we could have significant rewards that encourage players to venture out there without the protection of a 35 people zerg. Admittedly, I can't think of any other good ideas of how to encourage small scale gameplay right now, other than the already mentioned rewards for stomps. But than again, there are people at Anet whose full time job it is to design the game, I'm sure you can come up with something.
The wizard vault is close but still a passive system. Again to have an active system they need to have something more like a bounty system. Example Destiny 2. You have bounties that are defined upfront and then random ones. All payout if completed, all cost something to buy into and all have expiration dates. Risk and reward rolled into one.
A potential other I have been pondering is a friendly heat map view of the map for your side. Roamers are going to Roam, Havocs are already going to be active. The players that are looking for a tag are waiting for someone to create content and they don't know if there is already content going on unless that is shared via chat. This isn't always done for various reasons. So outside of spying I wonder if a view of overall map activity might help those tagless. It might also help in the whole debate of open and invis tags as well. To be clear I still support both open and invis tags for various reasons so this is just a secondary point that it might help a main tag to be able to see the various Havocs and Roamers moving around the map if it didn't create too much extra latency to the game while aiding the tagless see that there are things going on that they could move to.
-
2
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Woop S.7851 said:
Edge of The Mists (before Pips were nerfed long ago):
- Motivation: Roamers and Zergs aimed to capture structures much more than chasing down players
Going to spin this some as a player that enjoys the map then and now when I do go there. Roamers and Havocs like the map since it also allowed for areas where smaller numbers could counter larger ones due to choke points
9 hours ago, Woop S.7851 said:-
Roamers can split-up & counter play to capture non-wall objectives for handicap buffs & points
Roamers and Havocs still try and counter larger groups by breaking up and hitting various targets, this just isn't in as much practice now as it used to be, nor is for large scale to practice the same maneuvers. Personally that comes down to why try since there is no reason to win. But we might get back to those times.
-
20 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:
is to lower the amount of siege that can be placed in one area. I would suggest reducing it from 5 siege pieces in area to 2 siege pieces.
I think this would hurt havocs and defenders more than it would to impact large scale play personally. When the attackers group siege up its also easier to destroy in mass. I understand your point but I think the solution hinders smaller play more than it does larger scale.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:
I'd hope not. As for me, player skirmishes have little to do with 'attacking' or 'defending' as you can 1v3 in the middle of the road if you want. That's more a gear / class balance issue and determining if the 3 were just bad/new/whatever or the 1 is using a build that is super busted.
Agree or that the other 3 had builds that weren't up to the task for whatever reason.
20 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:Where attacking/defending comes in is the siege warfare aspect of things. It theoretically should be harder to get into structures, and more rewarding when you do. That's the balance, you can't just let defenders siege up like in the old days and never be able to flip anything as long as they refresh it, and you can't just have attackers like now be able to throw down 5 cats per 3-man PUG and steamroll keeps in ~2 min.
All this is probably a function of the mode is really meant for zerg vs. zerg, something that only routinely and reliably happens on EBG. So, you have at least three different fires: ZvZ, havoc / roaming (guild and individual), and siege vs. siege warfare (at any sizing).
I think we all agree making it impossible for the little guy to do anything meaningful and reducing circles to 'increase engagement' is probably the worst way to go about this.
I agree. Especially on the smaller circle bit. So far this just leaves defenders, which might often be smaller and less organized less options to contest which decreases the overall fight time.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:
How does running give more opportunity for fights?
In the south spawns maybe, as you could get spawn camped. But north? I don't think I've ever run into a fight trying to get to a keep from north spawn, there's not enough roamers left for that.
It creates tactics for smaller sides to slow down a larger one allowing for a more even fights at the cost of the smaller side to use resources to do said slowing, aka tapping. Else the fight would be over more quickly as the larger side can just overwhelm the other. There is also the third side that may choose to aid server 3 over server 1 and interfere in servers 1 return to the fight. I know that is more rare but it does happen.
-
6 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:
It's really really simple, in 2014, even the best comped players died 5-10-20 times in hour. In 2024 the best comped players often die 0-1 times in 3 hours. Anet has really messed everything up with way way way way too much sustain, and other tools that allow people to stack advantages too high.
And the "like-minded" players who "want to win" all bunch up together in certain timezones and certain servers, instead of spreading out, and creating content for each other.
Not wrong lol.
-
9 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:
The primary reason organized groups don't fight (in NA), is that most groups know their place in the pecking order. And very few of them want to take fights they know they'll lose more than 1-3 times per play session.
If anet really wants to incentivize the large groups to fight, then they need to make the pecking order less important, and/or return to a segmented matchup system where the high pecking order groups are all locked away in 1 tier away from the gen pop.
When a player pugmands they get a lot of whispers. Questions, comments, suggestions, do this, don't do that bits. Been on both sides of that fence. When pugmanders bring the fights they also have to mind those not in squad. Do you want to out them, try and appease them or what. It adds politics into the mix. Some guild groups run unopposed since they don't have pug groups that will fight them. This is also an issue.
-
8 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:
The primary reason organized groups don't fight (in NA), is that most groups know their place in the pecking order. And very few of them want to take fights they know they'll lose more than 1-3 times per play session.
If anet really wants to incentivize the large groups to fight, then they need to make the pecking order less important, and/or return to a segmented matchup system where the high pecking order groups are all locked away in 1 tier away from the gen pop.
Yet if no one challenges that is it the case?
-
8 hours ago, Dediggefedde.4961 said:
The "wall closes at 50%"-patch felt almost directly targeted at our guild. ^^'
As a guild of around 15, we like to stealth-repair walls while the enemy-zerg passed to cut their numbers in half.
Didn't always work, but often gave us the chance to actually win against 40.
Now we usually withdraw then, still checking for strike opportunities, but most of the time the objective is basically lost.lol. Yup was only you that used this tactic. 15? 🙂 to tap a wall closed?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, HnRkLnXqZ.1870 said:
No downed state disables an entire skill-type/category. It is about as lame as disabling crowd control or stealth for a week. If your class uses the mechanic, joke is on you. If you do not, you could not care less.
The game was built around having downed-state. Upon removing it, even temporarily, we create a massive imbalance. In short, you have to basically re-write the entire combat & stat system from scratch to get a balanced/fair approach. We know from the past events that there is no compensation, it is just disabled. Which usually results in a lot of players going full GC, turning WvW into a Heaven or Hell mode (dmc series) for a week.
Given the amount of trolls and other jerks in the game mode, I'd rather be happy about a friendly-fire week. Where you can kill allied players if you ... let's say hold CTRL while attacking. Even if you cannot get any loot from those kills, it would be a lot of fun.Helldiver detected! If in doubt, leap in and yell for Democracy! And charge fourth! We will win this for Lib-er-ty!
-
On 4/25/2024 at 8:15 PM, MedievalThings.5417 said:
It had the exact impact Anet intended, fewer players defending. At least before, you could troll a ring some until more defenders showed. Now, you have zero room to stand in, so it is pointless to defend...just as Anet wants.
This is actually an interesting one to see if we get an answer on. Was the thought behind the rings changes to lower the fight, standardize the ring or did they think it would increase fight time. So far it seems to decrease time to take when looking at this as a defender and as an attacker. But was that the actual intent?
-
22 minutes ago, bq pd.2148 said:
i think the problem with the old pips was also people just participation farming on outnumbered maps instead of putting in some effort so the map would fill up with mostly useless numbers.
That's the biggest reason for the nerfs I would say.
22 minutes ago, bq pd.2148 said:one could however add the pips to more active engagements while outnumbered for example:
+2 pips on capturing a camp
+4 pips on capturing a tower
+8 pips on capturing a keep
+1 pip on stomping another player (stomp, not kill)
ofc those are just example numbers but it would encourage people to do something or as much as they can on the map but not just passively reward for being about.Not sure on the numbers, those are a bit high but agree tying it to active activities is key for both attacking and defending.
Riddle me this....
in World vs. World
Posted
Then let them implement the failed attack versus reducing fights and decreasing time to take. I could go on more but am already looking at how to use these changes and if that is their goal, use that to aid your side. If that is what they want, then change and use that to your advantage. May not lead to what they think.