Nothing will change

[Balsa.3951]

Those patches are all just some fog 

WVW still lacks meaning its a circle run. Alliance ? many will not even notice the change. Rewards always welcome 

Update Que bugs I almost fall asleep, mode is 10 years old

WVW need dynamic events, Short open battle fields with Hero call

Game modes Defend the castle, Zombie mode and and and 

Im tired of this get mats build run to lord 

U dont change anything with ur alliance all that tech bla bla 

If u really want make wvw great increase the intensity of the battle field. Force people to split up make roaming meaningful 

increase rewards and gold per hour by a lot

[Ben K.6238]

The idea of providing more rewards for attempting to defend is a good one, as it could make the existing game mode more interesting to play. But I'll agree that the existing game mode is stale even at the best of times, and could use something to break up the routine.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

it's nearly as if the servers don#t siege hug inside their objectives enough, i don't think that this should be rewarded higher, ngl

 

i agree that the rewards increase should come far before alliances, as they talk like "3+ more betatests" which means idk... 2077 alliances yes? and then we look into reward improvements? yes?

 

heavy disagree to force people to split up even more into smaller groups. roaming is dead anyways, its gankers left and right. why?

 

easily answered: warclaw, roamerpacks of insecure players or plain gankers who want easy kills or to annoy the other server - alone these two aspects are a huge problem, as the wvw maps are not designed for warclaw, leading it to easy ganking options way too often. so idk how u can make a basic numerical imbalance meaningful. alliances tries to fix this, if it ever comes

[Balsa.3951]

54 minutes ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

it's nearly as if the servers don#t siege hug inside their objectives enough, i don't think that this should be rewarded higher, ngl

 

i agree that the rewards increase should come far before alliances, as they talk like "3+ more betatests" which means idk... 2077 alliances yes? and then we look into reward improvements? yes?

 

heavy disagree to force people to split up even more into smaller groups. roaming is dead anyways, its gankers left and right. why?

 

easily answered: warclaw, roamerpacks of insecure players or plain gankers who want easy kills or to annoy the other server - alone these two aspects are a huge problem, as the wvw maps are not designed for warclaw, leading it to easy ganking options way too often. so idk how u can make a basic numerical imbalance meaningful. alliances tries to fix this, if it ever comes

I agree that ganking might be not a good idea, since it could repel new player. Perhaps some smaller objectives.

In starcraft u have fog of war and getting a certain tower tech under control would improve map information. This could be a nice small group job

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

it's nearly as if the servers don#t siege hug inside their objectives enough, i don't think that this should be rewarded higher, ngl

 

i agree that the rewards increase should come far before alliances, as they talk like "3+ more betatests" which means idk... 2077 alliances yes? and then we look into reward improvements? yes?

 

heavy disagree to force people to split up even more into smaller groups. roaming is dead anyways, its gankers left and right. why?

 

easily answered: warclaw, roamerpacks of insecure players or plain gankers who want easy kills or to annoy the other server - alone these two aspects are a huge problem, as the wvw maps are not designed for warclaw, leading it to easy ganking options way too often. so idk how u can make a basic numerical imbalance meaningful. alliances tries to fix this, if it ever comes

 

What!? Ok, a bit late in the night to address this now. Teach me to read forums at this hour, back in the morning when I can recheck for sarcasm. 

[Luthan.5236]

1 hour ago, Balsa.3951 said:

If u really want make wvw great increase the intensity of the battle field. Force people to split up

That is what I would prefer as well. It would mean making the objectives/structures more meaningful. For the team and for the personal rewards (also defending - so you can't prefer capping and losing to recap) - higher tier should give more rewards when defending.

But in some other thread someone called this "roleplay" if you like to upgrade and defend for points (like WvW was meant to be played). People prefer the "tactics" ... and the big zerg vs. zerg and the "action".

I would prefer the "strategy" - where it is already important how you split up. Where people actually would want to win the matchup and a close matchup would be decided by who can hold and defend more T3 camps (getting more ticks from them). Which needs clever movement and splitting up. Defenders have the advantage by structure (in the ones with walls - like towers and better) and sieges ... if they prepare. Attackers should have an adantave by moving there first (unless there is a waypoint and/or emergency waypoing) where the scouts need to counter this.

But camps ... nowadays ... are just flipped countlessly. Even towers are lost - if they are only t0 or t1 ... if t zerg has "some good fight" elsewhere.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Luthan.5236

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, Luthan.5236 said:

That is what I would prefer as well. It would mean making the objectives/structures more meaningful. For the team and for the personal rewards (also defending - so you can't prefer capping and losing to recap) - higher tier should give more rewards when defending.

People are like locusts. They ignore the camps until they are drained of supplies and then go to another map. They can come back later and retake anything they lost.

1 hour ago, Luthan.5236 said:

But in some other thread someone called this "roleplay" if you like to upgrade and defend for points (like WvW was meant to be played). People prefer the "tactics" ... and the big zerg vs. zerg and the "action".

Yeah a lot of people just like to zerg around and cap stuff, while behind them the enemy does the same. Perhaps there should be more incentive to keep objectives and not just to cap them. 

1 hour ago, Luthan.5236 said:

I would prefer the "strategy" - where it is already important how you split up. Where people actually would want to win the matchup and a close matchup would be decided by who can hold and defend more T3 camps (getting more ticks from them). Which needs clever movement and splitting up. Defenders have the advantage by structure (in the ones with walls - like towers and better) and sieges ... if they prepare. Attackers should have an adantave by moving there first (unless there is a waypoint and/or emergency waypoing) where the scouts need to counter this.

I would prefer the strategy as well, though it's more difficult to accomplish this I think. You're right though, as the defender you don't have the advantage now. Attackers can basically blow everything up you can get on the walls (siege) and you can't use skills that need los from there unless you go to the very edge of the wall where you can be pulled off. Especially when the zerg outside the wall is bigger than the defenders. All the aoe's that are dropped are just immense and make walls unsafe for the defenders. This in particular is odd when you think about it.

Also the attackers can hit multiple walls with a siege weapon which increases the supply drain. All very tactical options, but people don't care about them because they don't  have to. They just have a zerg fight and either it's a standoff that takes very long or one side wins and then it starts all over again because the supplies are drained and it's back to the zerg fight. And if you lose a keep you can just retake it in 5 minutes. And so few people actually build up siege weapons in structures. Why? Because the zerg rules.

1 hour ago, Luthan.5236 said:

But camps ... nowadays ... are just flipped countlessly. Even towers are lost - if they are only t0 or t1 ... if t zerg has "some good fight" elsewhere.

Yeah I've seen this trend but it's a simple matter of supply denial. Take an alpine homeland map. The home team essentially has 3 camps: north, west and east. When an enemy keeps flipping them on cd, and kills any dolyaks that might come through, they deny the home team supplies. And while this is happening they zerg towers and keeps and the home team can defend but after one round the object is without supplies.

So strategically it makes sense to deny supplies. I mean some servers even camp those camps, in order to deny roamers the chance to recap them. However, this doesn't seem to bother the zergs. As above, they tend to be just locusts and go around the map capping things and using up all the supplies of a map. And by the time it's all drained they either stop or go to another map.

 

-----

 

I think the solutions may lie in how many points you can get of capping a camp in terms of war score. Another thing might be adding more objectives on the map. Something in between a camp and a tower (like an outpost) that has significance enough for people to want to hold them, but too much for a couple of roamers to just walk in and take (like a supply camp) aka a structure that requires siege to take down. Just thinking out loud here. Also towers should be more significant, I feel. A t3 tower will usually get the attention of zergs, but now it's just a smaller objective than a keep with just one layer of defensive walls to go through. I bet that if they contained wp's like keeps people would be more interested in them.

Right now a zerg just doesn't seem to have too much to do. What I mean with that is that there's no need for them to split up at this time. Maybe the north camp of each homelands map should be a structure that you have to take down with siege rather than just walking in like the outpost idea. Perhaps you should get a bonus towards the war score for how structures that you hold for an extended period of time. Again just thinking out loud. The issue now is that when you have T3 towers and keeps for a while, people will choose not to defend them because it gains them more to recap them. Not sure why actually, but that's what they say. Maybe it's because it gives them more wvw rank xp and at some point that becomes more important than holding on to things. Also the participation timer needs work. There are too many things that don't reset that timer but are tactically important. 

Now, to split up zergs you need to give good enough incentives to the attackers as well as the defenders and doing that takes different things. That's why I have the idea of outposts because they could be useful if not vital to an attacker to hold, as well as a defender, for example, because they give a certain bonus to keeps/towers nearby. Think of extra defense and ability to build siege weapons. Or even repair tactivators that can repair 10% of walls. Again just thinking out loud, but the maps should have something new added to increase the tactical options a side has and requires splitting up a zerg.

Another thing I've noticed on my server is that there's enough activity up to and including Wednesday night by which time most people have met their personal objectives and then they stop playing WvW until reset on Friday. That means that if you play on Thursday and most of Friday, you'll be confronted with lots of "Outnumbered" maps and the enemy can just steamroll you.

Anyways, just lots of ramblings from me. Hope some of it made sense. In the end it's just an opinion.

 

[Svarty.8019]

5 hours ago, Balsa.3951 said:

Those patches are all just some fog 

WVW still lacks meaning its a circle run. Alliance ? many will not even notice the change. Rewards always welcome 

Update Que bugs I almost fall asleep, mode is 10 years old

WVW need dynamic events, Short open battle fields with Hero call

Game modes Defend the castle, Zombie mode and and and 

Im tired of this get mats build run to lord 

U dont change anything with ur alliance all that tech bla bla 

If u really want make wvw great increase the intensity of the battle field. Force people to split up make roaming meaningful 

increase rewards and gold per hour by a lot

Heaps of people are hanging in there, hoping that alliances will change things.

 

When the populations are more even, the worst team will lose, then we'll go back to square one again where people leave because nothing has been done about the SNOWBALLING advantages that are ubiquitous in WvW.

Ask yourself, are you a person who thinks;

1. "That team's losing, I'm going to join them" or 
2. "That team's winning, I'm going to join them"

You're 2. Everybody is 2.
It's natural. Don't be ashamed. The system needs to adjust for that fact. We need dynamic handicapping, we've always needed it and we always will need it. WvW's woes won't go away by player actions. If Arenanet don't fix it, it'll remain broken. I don't think they have the willpower or intention to fix it.

Example: Powercreep has made guards trivial. They're 10 years out of date. They won't get updated. It's too much effort. The whole mode needs refreshing.

[Zyreva.1078]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

I would prefer the strategy as well, though it's more difficult to accomplish this I think. You're right though, as the defender you don't have the advantage now.

Defenders usually do have quite some advantages. How often have you tried to take an upgraded and defended structure against superior numbers? There is a reason attackers tend to outnumber defenders (as for most there would be no reason to even try and attack anything otherwise) and it's mostly large zergs that go for structures. Every advantage you give to defenders has to be compensated by the attackers in some way - and that typically means bringing more numbers.

Quote

So strategically it makes sense to deny supplies. I mean some servers even camp those camps, in order to deny roamers the chance to recap them. However, this doesn't seem to bother the zergs. As above, they tend to be just locusts and go around the map capping things and using up all the supplies of a map. And by the time it's all drained they either stop or go to another map.

Supply used to be much more relevant, because there used to be less (and it was required for upgrades). Nowadays zergs have such an abundance of supplies aviable to them, there is no need for a strategical approach. This applies both offensively as well as defensively. Draining a keep means nothing when it can get restocked within minutes.

Quote

Something in between a camp and a tower (like an outpost) that has significance enough for people to want to hold them, but too much for a couple of roamers to just walk in and take (like a supply camp) aka a structure that requires siege to take down.

So basically a ... tower? Because that's exactly what you are describing.

Quote

Just thinking out loud here. Also towers should be more significant, I feel. A t3 tower will usually get the attention of zergs, but now it's just a smaller objective than a keep with just one layer of defensive walls to go through. I bet that if they contained wp's like keeps people would be more interested in them.

More waypoints mean less player interaction. Players already can get arround too fast and it's already too easy to avoid any PvP.

Quote

Right now a zerg just doesn't seem to have too much to do. What I mean with that is that there's no need for them to split up at this time. Maybe the north camp of each homelands map should be a structure that you have to take down with siege rather than just walking in like the outpost idea.

You don't discourage zerging by making stuff harder to take - quite the opposite. If you make something harder to take - either larger grps of attackers show up or none at all. It's the smaller grps and solo roamers that would suffer the most.

Quote

Perhaps you should get a bonus towards the war score for how structures that you hold for an extended period of time.

You already get more war score for upgraded structures. Also "holding" structures often isn't the result of active defense, but simply a sign of lack of enemies. Especially at times of lower activity.

Quote

The issue now is that when you have T3 towers and keeps for a while, people will choose not to defend them because it gains them more to recap them.

It does not gain them more. Players simply don't want to engage in PvP combat and rather take the easier PvE route.

Quote

Now, to split up zergs you need to give good enough incentives to the attackers as well as the defenders and doing that takes different things. That's why I have the idea of outposts because they could be useful if not vital to an attacker to hold, as well as a defender, for example, because they give a certain bonus to keeps/towers nearby. Think of extra defense and ability to build siege weapons. Or even repair tactivators that can repair 10% of walls. Again just thinking out loud, but the maps should have something new added to increase the tactical options a side has and requires splitting up a zerg.

Again, you don't split up zergs by making taking structures more difficult and tedious for smaller grps. You don't make players more willing to engage in fights involving structures by adding more passive buffs, automatisms and similar. The main problem is that most players don't want to fight each other unless they have superior numbers and can steamroll their opposition regardless of structures or not, because the game provides absolutely no incentive to engage in fair or even outnumbered fights. Even less so arround objectives.

Edited June 25, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Strider.7849]

5 hours ago, Balsa.3951 said:

I agree that ganking might be not a good idea, since it could repel new player. Perhaps some smaller objectives.

In starcraft u have fog of war and getting a certain tower tech under control would improve map information. This could be a nice small group job

I imagine fog of war in WvW operating like removing swords and anything that shows orange dots on the map. They would need to definitely buff defenders rewards though because it would pretty much turn WvW into a giant train of cycling objectives. 

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Defenders usually do have quite some advantages. How often have you tried to take an upgraded and defended structure against superior numbers?

Nothing is going to work against superior numbers, except if they're a rag tag bunch and you're an organized group. That has nothing to do with the keep. You can stand outside the keep and get the same results.

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

There is a reason attackers tend to outnumber defenders (as for most there would be no reason to even try and attack anything otherwise) and it's mostly large zergs that go for structures. Every advantage you give to defenders has to be compensated by the attackers in some way - and that typically means bringing more numbers.

Not in my experience. Defending zergs are often equally big or bigger as attacking ones. The bigger zerg wins no matter what. The reason I want defenders to have a little better (not a lot mind you) situation is because then smaller groups actually stand a chance against bigger groups.

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Supply used to be much more relevant, because there used to be less (and it was required for upgrades). Nowadays zergs have such an abundance of supplies aviable to them, there is no need for a strategical approach. This applies both offensively as well as defensively. Draining a keep means nothing when it can get restocked within minutes.

How does a keep get restocked in minutes? You can't put it in there yourself and when the dolyaks aren't running there's nothing coming in. Maybe there's something you know that I don't?

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

So basically a ... tower? Because that's exactly what you are describing.

Perhaps more towers but with a different function and perhaps not upgradeable.

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

More waypoints mean less player interaction. Players already can get arround too fast and it's already too easy to avoid any PvP.

I was thinking for the homeland maps two more waypoints for the two towers of the home side. And it wouldn't make player interaction less that way. In fact it would make it faster, but like I said just thinking out loud.

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

You don't discourage zerging by making stuff harder to take - quite the opposite. If you make something harder to take - either larger grps of attackers show up or none at all. It's the smaller grps and solo roamers that would suffer the most.

I don't necessarily want to discourage zerging. People will do that regardless, but I do want sides to have reasons to split off smaller groups. Basically there should be sensible choices. Zergs eat through walls as it is. Making it a little harder won't make that much of a difference, though it might take a little more time when there's not a lot of defenders. 

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

You already get more war score for upgraded structures. Also "holding" structures often isn't the result of active defense, but simply a sign of lack of enemies. Especially at times of lower activity.

Yes, but I was talking bonus points for keeping hold of them longer. This could be a prime time thing only.

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

It does not gain them more. Players simply don't want to engage in PvP combat and rather take the easier PvE route.

Well then that's the gain they get out of it.

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Again, you don't split up zergs by making taking structures more difficult and tedious for smaller grps. You don't make players more willing to engage in fights involving structures by adding more passive buffs, automatisms and similar.

You're putting words in my mouth. I've not spoken about passive buffs automatisms or this elusive "similar'.

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

The main problem is that most players don't want to fight each other unless they have superior numbers and can steamroll their opposition regardless of structures or not, because the game provides absolutely no incentive to engage in fair or even outnumbered fights. Even less so arround objectives.

At least here we agree but you offer no ideas for such incentives. I also see that you agree with me when you say "regardless of structures or not". For me that's the problem to begin with. Structures don't play a big enough role when it comes to zergs.

They did say in a recent blog though that fighting against a bigger group would be more rewarding but that would not be much help if you aren't able to defend with smaller groups. And that's why I want to improve the situation for smaller groups defending a structure because when they're outnumbered it doesn't really matter at this moment. And those improvements would just change the tactics of zerg v zerg as I see it.

[zengara.8301]

8 hours ago, Balsa.3951 said:

Those patches are all just some fog 

WVW still lacks meaning its a circle run. Alliance ? many will not even notice the change. Rewards always welcome 

Update Que bugs I almost fall asleep, mode is 10 years old

WVW need dynamic events, Short open battle fields with Hero call

Game modes Defend the castle, Zombie mode and and and 

Im tired of this get mats build run to lord 

U dont change anything with ur alliance all that tech bla bla 

If u really want make wvw great increase the intensity of the battle field. Force people to split up make roaming meaningful 

increase rewards and gold per hour by a lot

I agree that it could be fun with new events, the zombie stuff and maybe even some kind of forced roaming group for a week every year/half year or something. But the whole "wvw still lacks meaning" makes me think you don't really like wvw at all as a big PvP field, and is somewhat trying to fill it with a lot more pve stuff constantly rather than the pve stuff actually being a side thing/once a year stuff? Or maybe im just reading it wrong

[Zyreva.1078]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Nothing is going to work against superior numbers, except if they're a rag tag bunch and you're an organized group. That has nothing to do with the keep. You can stand outside the keep and get the same results.

Not neccessarily. It's not uncommon for our small grp to win outnumbered fights and still be unable to take objectives against the very same players due to direct and indirect defender advantages.

Quote

The reason I want defenders to have a little better (not a lot mind you) situation is because then smaller groups actually stand a chance against bigger groups.

That's already the case. Defending IS easier than attacking. The problem is that every advantage you give to defenders applies regardless of numbers, and do defenders that outnumber the attackers really need those? You don't fix the innate imbalance of WvW by adding more imbalance.

Quote

How does a keep get restocked in minutes? You can't put it in there yourself and when the dolyaks aren't running there's nothing coming in. Maybe there's something you know that I don't?

Dolyaks can be hard to stop nowadays. Unless you bring a zerg ofc ...

Quote

I don't necessarily want to discourage zerging. People will do that regardless, but I do want sides to have reasons to split off smaller groups. Basically there should be sensible choices. Zergs eat through walls as it is. Making it a little harder won't make that much of a difference, though it might take a little more time when there's not a lot of defenders.

But you aren't giving any reasons to split into smaller groups, because you aren't adressing why players stack and zerg to begin with. More numbers = less risk and effort with far more rewards. Also what won't make much of a difference for zergs will have a much bigger impact on smaller grps.

Quote

You're putting words in my mouth. I've not spoken about passive buffs automatisms or this elusive "similar'.

Then what do you mean with "extra defenses" or "repair tactivators"? They have already added stat buffs, invulnerable walls, stronger guards, banners, watchtower, ewp and all that guild aura stuff, has it impoved anything? No, not at all. Because it mostly affects smaller grps and makes sigeing and fighting for objectives less fun.

Quote

At least here we agree but you offer no ideas for such incentives.

Probably because i'm tired of repeating the same stuff, knowing that it's never going to get changed, because the game is all about pleasing the large crowd of not so good players, now even more than ever.

Better small scale balance, adjustments to combat mechanics that favour larger grps (downstate/target caps), guild auras/tactivators removed/reworked, rewards split between players instead of getting multiplied - just a few things that come to my mind.

Quote

They did say in a recent blog though that fighting against a bigger group would be more rewarding but that would not be much help if you aren't able to defend with smaller groups. And that's why I want to improve the situation for smaller groups defending a structure because when they're outnumbered it doesn't really matter at this moment. And those improvements would just change the tactics of zerg v zerg as I see it.

But if a smaller grp could defend easily vs larger zergs, how is anyone ever going to take stuff, if there are defenders present? And where do you draw the line? How many attackers should 10 defenders stop? 20, 30, 50?

Look, i get where you come from. It sucks to lose structures against much larger forces, unable to do anything. But you are completely disregarding the consequences for scenarios, where the defenders are not the ones heavily outnumbered. It also sucks, when you are trying to get some action with a small grp, but everyone camps their walls and siege despite superior numbers. And that happens a lot too. Ultimatively winning (outnumbered) should be a matter of playing better than the opposition, not about having artificial advantages, even more so if those advantages apply regardless of numbers.

Objectives should be a focus of player engagement, not a safe haven. That's what the spawn area is for.

Edited June 25, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[subversiontwo.7501]

9 hours ago, Balsa.3951 said:

WVW need dynamic events, Short open battle fields with Hero call

Game modes Defend the castle, Zombie mode and and and

Friend, you realize that the biggest problem with WvW is that they never spend sufficient time and money on it, right? If it takes them years to do anything they're already do on and off, how many years do you think it would take them to implement any of those things that you are suggesting? :)

[pallas.8150]

I love how they think one semi-meh weapon set is going to take WvW by storm when they regularly **** out weapon sets everywhere.

[Karagee.6830]

52 minutes ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Not neccessarily. It's not uncommon for our small grp to win outnumbered fights and still be unable to take objectives against the very same players due to direct and indirect defender advantages.

That's already the case. Defending IS easier than attacking. The problem is that every advantage you give to defenders applies regardless of numbers, and do defenders that outnumber the attackers really need those? You don't fix the innate imbalance of WvW by adding more imbalance.

Dolyaks can be hard to stop nowadays. Unless you bring a zerg ofc ...

But you aren't giving any reasons to split into smaller groups, because you aren't adressing why players stack and zerg to begin with. More numbers = less risk and effort with far more rewards. Also what won't make much of a difference for zergs will have a much bigger impact on smaller grps.

Then what do you mean with "extra defenses" or "repair tactivators"? They have already added stat buffs, invulnerable walls, stronger guards, banners, watchtower, ewp and all that guild aura stuff, has it impoved anything? No, not at all. Because it mostly affects smaller grps and makes sigeing and fighting for objectives less fun.

Probably because i'm tired of repeating the same stuff, knowing that it's never going to get changed, because the game is all about pleasing the large crowd of not so good players, now even more than ever.

Better small scale balance, adjustments to combat mechanics that favour larger grps (downstate/target caps), guild auras/tactivators removed/reworked, rewards split between players instead of getting multiplied - just a few things that come to my mind.

But if a smaller grp could defend easily vs larger zergs, how is anyone ever going to take stuff, if there are defenders present? And where do you draw the line? How many attackers should 10 defenders stop? 20, 30, 50?

Look, i get where you come from. It sucks to lose structures against much larger forces, unable to do anything. But you are completely disregarding the consequences for scenarios, where the defenders are not the ones heavily outnumbered. It also sucks, when you are trying to get some action with a small grp, but everyone camps their walls and siege despite superior numbers. And that happens a lot too. Ultimatively winning (outnumbered) should be a matter of playing better than the opposition, not about having artificial advantages, even more so if those advantages apply regardless of numbers.

Objectives should be a focus of player engagement, not a safe haven. That's what the spawn area is for.

As someone almost permanently outnumbered in wvw, I get no tangible advantage from the outnumbered buff, now not even in terms of pips. And a flat boost to stats stacking with how much you are outnumbered isn't even enough, because the inherent advantage from being able to access more boons and cc in a larger group and because of limits to how many targets a skill can affect. Also downstate is stupid when one side is outnumbered, as securing kills is much harder when not impossible. Down state should disappear for whoever is fighting an opponent with outnumbered buff.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Zyreva.1078]

5 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

As someone almost permanently outnumbered in wvw, I get no tangible advantage from the outnumbered buff, now not even in terms of pips. And a flat boost to stacks stacking with how much you are outnumbered isn't even enough, because the inherent advantage from being able to access more boons and cc in a larger group and because of limits to how many targets a skill can affect. Also downstate is stupid when one side is outnumbered, as securing kills is much harder when not impossible. Down state should go if your opponent has the outnumbered buff.

When i'm talking about outnumbered i'm not talking about the outnumbered buff. The outnumbered buff is not indicative for a specific situation and therefore should never impact gameplay in any way.

[Karagee.6830]

17 minutes ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

When i'm talking about outnumbered i'm not talking about the outnumbered buff. The outnumbered buff is not indicative for a specific situation and therefore should never impact gameplay in any way.

So you are talking about the situation in which your 50 man tag is attacking a camp on your border and you and 9 others are left to defend your keep on the other side of the map against 60 opponents? 

If the buff does not indicate that one side has a very tiny percentage of players on a map, then what is it indicative of exactly?

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[subversiontwo.7501]

Also, it feels like this thread is drifting past one thing that constantly seems to get overlooked: The main appeal of fighting outnumbered (as Umbra refers to it) is that it is better from a strategic standpoint. It is already better to spread out and use objectives as force multipliers and if you can take outnumbered fights you free up more of your own numbers elsewhere. The only problem with it is that worlds are so differently sized and winning matchups is so detached that no one really cares about those strategic aspects. They are diluted in all the population balance issues, but many worlds that are "good" are so because of stuff like this. It will get more attention when worlds become better balanced and players begin to value matchups and outcomes more.

Edited June 25, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[Karagee.6830]

1 hour ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Also, it feels like this thread is drifting past one thing that constantly seems to get overlooked: The main appeal of fighting outnumbered (as Umbra refers to it) is that it is better from a strategic standpoint. It is already better to spread out and use objectives as force multipliers and if you can take outnumbered fights you free up more of your own numbers elsewhere. The only problem with it is that worlds are so differently sized and winning matchups is so detached that no one really cares about those strategic aspects. They are diluted in all the population balance issues, but many worlds that are "good" are so because of stuff like this. It will get more attention when worlds become better balanced and players begin to value matchups and outcomes more.

What you say is impossible if you are truly outnumbered because while you split in 5 groups of 10 your opponent will have a group of 50 and 5 groups of 20. With this your chances of taking anything of value are next to nothing. So people will stick to 1x50 blob fighting 1x50 blob, while the second 1x50 blob or several smaller groups do some capping. 

Bottom line splitting in smaller groups is tactically and strategically irrelevant at the moment, because there are no balanced matchups (on EU) not in T5 and not in T1. If the stars align you can have a truly balanced matchup in a middle tier once or twice a year.

If you are permanently in T5 because you are full and unlinked, getting out of T5 and avoiding playing against the same people over and over for 2 months does matter.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[TheGrimm.5624]

10 hours ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

it's nearly as if the servers don#t siege hug inside their objectives enough, i don't think that this should be rewarded higher, ngl

 

The purpose of siege is to add to game complexity, variety and to allow for counter siege and/or allow for a smaller side to try and hold back a larger until more numbers can show to defend if they are willing to. The goal of objectives is to create an area where conflict can occur and siege is just a mechanism to allow for this point of concentration to have an extended life. Right now it's far easier to just attack than to hold which then reduces conflict because when a larger force can just roll thru an objective there is no reason for a defender to fight versus just get out of the way. And since defenders receive nothing except a quick respawn for their effort what's the point, which means less fights. That's what people have been saying on the forums each time that we take hits to defense, if you reduce the odds of a fight, if you reduce the value of the effort, if you reduce the options for defenders to defend, if you just favor numbers then you will end up with less fights and end up with more karma-trains. If you have 2 people on cata's attacking and 48 standing around, all 50 will get paid. Where as 10 defenders getting pulled from walls and run over while trying to get at those 2 will get 0.  

 

10 hours ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

i agree that the rewards increase should come far before alliances, as they talk like "3+ more betatests" which means idk... 2077 alliances yes? and then we look into reward improvements? yes?

 

This is a mixed bag. Yes we need to rethink this, but it doesn't need to be after nor before but maybe as we go and adjusted further after. One thing defending does need more is a reason to win. Stacking being right or wrong, winning the week needs to have value and that will help in the case of defending. As I said before the change to make objectives that are held longer be worth more was needed and has shown to be of value. This logic needs to be extended though. Defenders need more incentive to rank up objectives to make them have value and they need to be less attractive as simple karma-train targets. Example a T0 should be worth less for an attacker to take and more for a defender to rank up. An example of this might be logic that attacking force is paid little for a T0 take but be paid more once their side can rank it up to T1. Picture an inverse curve where as something gets bigger attackers are paid more to take it because they might have a harder time. Marry this with week end rewards for winning and tools and incentive for defenders to hold it and you end up with more large scale fights. Again we have just moved to attacking is the end all be all.

 

10 hours ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

heavy disagree to force people to split up even more into smaller groups. roaming is dead anyways, its gankers left and right. why?

 

Efficiency should have value. Why should 50 people doing what 3 could have done have the same value. Having no reason to win just encourages people to mass about. There should be all levels of game play from ganker, roamer, group, havoc, warband, zerg. Size should be appropriate for the objective. A ganker's job is to slow people getting back to reinforce the other's side and scout numbers. The role of the roamer is to do the same but also take out targets of opportunity camps, towers, ninja keep. Groups & Havocs, same as roamer but can take on more. Warband should be there to counter those groups and take on larger objectives and those that are defended. Zergs to do what the warband would but be there when the other side has just amassed. The problem is the counter to zerg play should be more efficient play, and we keep removing that. Zerg play should have its place but if the other side doesn't have one that then their other option should be to fight smarter and hit more objectives and force that other side to then also have to react to more. Where as we keep moving in the direction of just zerg more. There should be all levels of play, that's what keep things fresh. But in order to get there we need reasons to fight smarter and reasons to win. 

 

10 hours ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

easily answered: warclaw, roamerpacks of insecure players or plain gankers who want easy kills or to annoy the other server - alone these two aspects are a huge problem, as the wvw maps are not designed for warclaw, leading it to easy ganking options way too often. so idk how u can make a basic numerical imbalance meaningful. alliances tries to fix this, if it ever comes

 

I don't get this point that anyone else that isn't running with 50+ players are just gankers. When 50 jump 10 who is ganking who?

No we need to stop the defense nerfs, we need to pay the karma-trains less, we need to create more reason for efficient play. We need to reward the attacker and defenders for fights aka reward the player for their efforts even if they lose. We need to reward the server for winning so that there is more reason then just blobbing empty structures, playing smarter should help everyone for the week.

Alliance will not fix coverage unless they address playtime which they have yet to say they have figured out so these will all still be issues. Alliances are just going to show the imbalance between the organized and those that get the random draws. Without changes for efficiency zerging will still be the one answer. For a healthy sandbox there is needs to be reason for all levels of gameplay.

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I don't get this point that anyone else that isn't running with 50+ players are just gankers. When 50 jump 10 who is ganking who?

Yea, wanting easy kills isn't exactly exclusive to any particular group. Squads chasing me across half a map definitely want a challenge.

There is no difference between the fully comped guild group delaying the lord kill and farming the same 10-15 defenders, vs the fully compared "roaming" group that goes after outnumbered pugs, vs the "duelist" that only duels clearly new or pve players. And I have been on all sides of these equations. It gets boring regardless.

As for people that  get constantly get picked off getting to a zerg, well, don't be such an easy target xD Warclaws all run at the same speed now and you don't have to run down the same road everyone else does. Honestly, before warclaws, it was actually pretty scary running around, but with a warclaw I can just run in and out around enemy zergs without too much to worry. Being immune to initial CC and able to hit a 5k hit or so helps if you're actually forced to fight.

I'd almost say it's a non-issue. Yea sometimes you go try to take a camp or sentry and get killed when you don't pay attention. Such is WvW.

Edited June 25, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Kozumi.5816]

Nothing will change because the devs sit in their Discord echo chamber of the same biased players who only play boon balls instead of talking to the other 99.99% of players.

These same biased players ban or mute anyone who disagrees to ensure the echo chamber is functioning  perfectly.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Kozumi.5816

[Gehenna.3625]

5 hours ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Not neccessarily. It's not uncommon for our small grp to win outnumbered fights and still be unable to take objectives against the very same players due to direct and indirect defender advantages.

That's already the case. Defending IS easier than attacking. The problem is that every advantage you give to defenders applies regardless of numbers, and do defenders that outnumber the attackers really need those? You don't fix the innate imbalance of WvW by adding more imbalance.

Dolyaks can be hard to stop nowadays. Unless you bring a zerg ofc ...

But you aren't giving any reasons to split into smaller groups, because you aren't adressing why players stack and zerg to begin with. More numbers = less risk and effort with far more rewards. Also what won't make much of a difference for zergs will have a much bigger impact on smaller grps.

Then what do you mean with "extra defenses" or "repair tactivators"? They have already added stat buffs, invulnerable walls, stronger guards, banners, watchtower, ewp and all that guild aura stuff, has it impoved anything? No, not at all. Because it mostly affects smaller grps and makes sigeing and fighting for objectives less fun.

Probably because i'm tired of repeating the same stuff, knowing that it's never going to get changed, because the game is all about pleasing the large crowd of not so good players, now even more than ever.

Better small scale balance, adjustments to combat mechanics that favour larger grps (downstate/target caps), guild auras/tactivators removed/reworked, rewards split between players instead of getting multiplied - just a few things that come to my mind.

But if a smaller grp could defend easily vs larger zergs, how is anyone ever going to take stuff, if there are defenders present? And where do you draw the line? How many attackers should 10 defenders stop? 20, 30, 50?

Look, i get where you come from. It sucks to lose structures against much larger forces, unable to do anything. But you are completely disregarding the consequences for scenarios, where the defenders are not the ones heavily outnumbered. It also sucks, when you are trying to get some action with a small grp, but everyone camps their walls and siege despite superior numbers. And that happens a lot too. Ultimatively winning (outnumbered) should be a matter of playing better than the opposition, not about having artificial advantages, even more so if those advantages apply regardless of numbers.

Objectives should be a focus of player engagement, not a safe haven. That's what the spawn area is for.

You keep putting words in my mouth being very liberal indeed with your interpretations of what I say. So I'll bow out here. Just as you are tired of repeating yourself (which beggars the question why you would even respond to my comments), I'm tired of people putting words in my mouth. Let's save each other time and annoyance and just leave it at this.

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

3 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Efficiency should have value. Why should 50 people doing what 3 could have done have the same value. Having no reason to win just encourages people to mass about. There should be all levels of game play from ganker, roamer, group, havoc, warband, zerg. Size should be appropriate for the objective. A ganker's job is to slow people getting back to reinforce the other's side and scout numbers. The role of the roamer is to do the same but also take out targets of opportunity camps, towers, ninja keep. Groups & Havocs, same as roamer but can take on more. Warband should be there to counter those groups and take on larger objectives and those that are defended. Zergs to do what the warband would but be there when the other side has just amassed. The problem is the counter to zerg play should be more efficient play, and we keep removing that. Zerg play should have its place but if the other side doesn't have one that then their other option should be to fight smarter and hit more objectives and force that other side to then also have to react to more. Where as we keep moving in the direction of just zerg more. There should be all levels of play, that's what keep things fresh. But in order to get there we need reasons to fight smarter and reasons to win.

This really is what the game used to be about prior to the tournaments and really everything else. All the WvW specific gameplay revolves around supply, and when supply was actually important and somewhat scarce was when you had much more fighting of all scales from 1v1 to 10v10, because the camps had real value. TheGrimm, thank you for this post!

Edited June 25, 2022 by Dinas Dragonbane.2978
I hate these forums because....argh