Disabling waypoints by damaging a guard? Why?

[TheGrimm.5624]

18 hours ago, Alsandar.7420 said:

This is another example of a newish player complaining publicly about something they don’t understand. We’ve all done it. 

 

That's a creative take. You might infer a player being new by a low post count but that is an assumption just as a high post count would be assumption of an active player. Both could be used directionally sure but I wouldn't assume that. Its like assuming a player with a high WvW rank can solo another player. I also wouldn't take the post as a complaint but as a review of is there appropriate level of effort to eliminate a WP and is there a balanced counter play to the action. I think we have seen enough, 'WvW bad I leave posts' complaint posts and I wouldn't take this as one. A lot of people have posted easy ways to also block the WPs, so the original posters point is worth discussing. Is there enough counter play against easy ways to block the WPs? Now bear in mind I am saying this as one that does also tap keeps and have used all the methods mentioned above as well and would agree with its pretty easy to do so.

As Strider pointed out its risky because response time is considered lower and alpine didn't take long to get across back in year 1, so is that balance enough? I think going to 'siege would need to do damage or be destroyed' might be too much. The 'siege let guard kill it throw walmart siege at guards' I don't think should trigger without any supply being put into either and rarely if ever use because its kind of cheesy to me but that my choice not to use it though it is a valid option as the mechanic stands. 

To exeggcutter, currently you have to spend scouts to stop the tapper and yes that may mean more than one. There were arguments for both for and against making mount speed the same for everyone within territory you own. I think that discussion/decision was a key factor in why you may need to spend more than one. If you don't think that its of value to use scouts to counter than its a matter of getting scouts on the borders to counter them as they come in or ask people to spread out before they regroup to where they are going to aid the scouts in clearing them out. I would agree it is already easy to get people to squirrel off versus get back on task when you need numbers at a location so I see your point there even if I may be one of those trying to get your people to squirrel off. 

Other options might be to review the time the contention lasts being equal the disruption of the event versus the flat timer. One that hasn't come up as much is potentially a structure upgrade option that acts similar to the watchover but for the keeps, but these are different topics in themselves.  

[GutterRat.1269]

I had no issue with the tagging until the mounts came along. Thanks to mounts you can easily tag a keep on any class without having to worry about getting in combat. Even if you manage to screw up to the degree that you get caught and killed, it's faster than ever to run back. In the olden days you could at least try to intercept the tagger unless they were a p/d thief or something, and discourage them from repeated tagging by killing them. That's over now. There is effectively no counterplay to it and just increases the already thankless workload of the scouts.

[Svarty.8019]

On 11/8/2022 at 4:05 PM, exeggcuter.8394 said:

TLDR: DISABLING WAYPOINT TOO EASY, MAKE HARDER PLEASE THANK YOU

This has been requested a zillion times and there's NO argument against it.

 

Anet seems to apathetically ignore this request. We get no explanation, no one liner stating that it's too hard or on the list - remember that list they talked about way back when? Hahaha that didn't exist either. More lies.

 

NOTHING WILL BE DONE.

[Strider Pj.2193]

2 hours ago, msalakka.4653 said:

I had no issue with the tagging until the mounts came along. Thanks to mounts you can easily tag a keep on any class without having to worry about getting in combat. Even if you manage to screw up to the degree that you get caught and killed, it's faster than ever to run back. In the olden days you could at least try to intercept the tagger unless they were a p/d thief or something, and discourage them from repeated tagging by killing them. That's over now. There is effectively no counterplay to it and just increases the already thankless workload of the scouts.

Actually the mount is why I think it’s ok now.  Response time has already been ramped up so much by mounts.  Anything to slow that down (including cheap waypoint tagging strats) is/are welcome.

[Strider Pj.2193]

To the OP:  what would be ways to make it harder?  
-  killing a guard is easy.

[Karagee.6830]

On 11/8/2022 at 6:29 PM, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Psst..  you don’t even have to damage the guard.. just throw down a piece of siege in view of one of the archers and they’ll peeped it until it’s dead.  In fact, pop a bit of supply in it to make it last longer.

Yeah that's what I do: kill the guard half build something so that when they respawn the keep will get contested again even if you are not there.

[adammantium.8031]

To me, an objective being contested should indicate that it's "under attack".

A single player on an objective does not constitute a serious attack.

Guards are too sensitive/low risk to constitute any serious attack worthy of a reaction from players, wasting a defender's time.

As suggested by others:

only contest an objective when walls and/or gates are damaged.

I'd suggest a threshold of 98% before going contested. This would mean either multiple players attacking the gate, or at least some siege damage.

I'd hope the outcome of this would actually:

- encourage sneaking of objectives, as the attackers won't know you're there until you're already damaging doors.

- make scouting more valuable, as you can be more certain something is there.

- make objectives flip more easily, encouraging more fights over objectives.

 

I believe this would be a really low-hanging fruit for the quality of life of WvW, but we've obviously seen no changes to this system in years and years, so not holding my breath.

[Riba.3271]

Context

In the past not even hitting the lord contested the keep and if all nearby inner gates were at 0%, contesting keep was very hard.

Q: Why guards were included when lord was enough?

A: I believe it has to do with invulnerable fortifications tactic being able to keep waypoints open 1 minute longer

Q: How it should have been done?
A: Hitting lord contests the objective and when invulnerable fortifications are pulled, contest timer should increase by 1 minute . Dead lord also keeps it contested.

You are welcome. It is obvious they just took the easier solution of all guards contesting it because I don't think the Guild Wars 2 engine allows you to increase timers since I don't remember a single PvE event where this is the case.

Workaround would be reworking invulnerable fortications to walls/gates taking and healing 1 damage from hits after it is pulled.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Riba.3271

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

If 1 person locking a waypoint is too effective, you are depending too much on said waypoint. My guild is havoc in enemy bls, where we have just the spawn and only if things go really well do we get a chance for a waypoint before we log for the night. The rare times we show up in the home map feels like easy mode with just ONE waypoint, let alone 2 or 3 that you can feed supply from nearly immediately. 

 

I wish they went back to one waypoint per server based on which structure it was and not t3 based(I even liked the enemy invader ones being the southern towers instead of keeps).

 

Mounts changed alpine big time as people have already stated in this thread. I would be happy to see all waypoints go by this stage

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

On 11/9/2022 at 11:48 AM, Biermeister.4678 said:

I like to do a short dance at water gate then jump off the side 

I do the exact same thing lol. Let guards tap me and jump over into the water and do a professional 360 swanton dive and swim away.

Theres some places at garri (well 1 at least) you can build an ac or bali or something thats outside anyones view (unless they know what to look for) and its close enough to trigger watergate guards, however not close enough for them to attack it. They aggro and deaggro in a matter of 1s

[MedievalThings.5417]

They should just make it so siege damage is what contests the structure.

This benefits the attacker too, as you have time to get siege built despite guards being aggro'd, unless they have a scout.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Ubi.4136

[Gotejjeken.1267]

On 11/11/2022 at 11:19 AM, Riba.3271 said:

Context

In the past not even hitting the lord contested the keep and if all nearby inner gates were at 0%, contesting keep was very hard.

Q: Why guards were included when lord was enough?

A: I believe it has to do with invulnerable fortifications tactic being able to keep waypoints open 1 minute longer

Q: How it should have been done?
A: Hitting lord contests the objective and when invulnerable fortifications are pulled, contest timer should increase by 1 minute . Dead lord also keeps it contested.

You are welcome. It is obvious they just took the easier solution of all guards contesting it because I don't think the Guild Wars 2 engine allows you to increase timers since I don't remember a single PvE event where this is the case.

Workaround would be reworking invulnerable fortications to walls/gates taking and healing 1 damage from hits after it is pulled.

 

Half agree--I think either siege hitting the outer guards OR hitting the INNER guards (or lord obviously) should contest the keep.  This way you eliminate random warclaw nike tapping on 'I have every block, evade and invuln in the game' builds, and also allow for contesting keep from inside if you leave a mesmer or thief in there.  

To go with this, there should be better ways to sus out a hidden mesmer or thief without full on reveal on structure capture, but that's a separate discussion.  

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

1 thing ive suggested before (despite being on offender) is when something is tapped within an NPC's view (whatever range) it pings on the map where the tap was (like the guard saying HEY....the water gate was tapped in garri)

[Longpoke.8290]

I like the idea! 

How about a general map warning, like the pvp version "Your keep is under attack" (voiced) for when a guard or siege is tapped, without blocking the way point? 

 

[Sahne.6950]

On 11/9/2022 at 9:52 PM, exeggcuter.8394 said:

This reminds me a lot of the philosophy behind the Blue Shell in Mario Kart. Which also has little in the way of counterplay.

you sir.... never did brake, so your brother does overtake you, just so he has to tank the blue shell and you ride off into the sunset /laughing, while he is contemplating life.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Sviel.7493]

It's not great, but changing it to siege damage only is probably going too far in the other direction.

Honestly, the system should probably be reworked from scratch.  There should be a way to declare a false alarm that doesn't allow people to just open waypoints at will--Perhaps if no/few guards are dead and there are no breaches or recent siege damage?  Perhaps there should be more information available than just white swords, even if it has to be player generated.

 

I'm all for scouting, but no one should be condemned to run in circles around a keep just to constantly reassure everyone that it is not under attack.  In a full tilt setting where everyone is trying their hardest to win, this is going to burn scouts out with unceasing and pointless work instead of anything approaching engaging gameplay.

[Strider Pj.2193]

On 11/11/2022 at 11:19 AM, Riba.3271 said:

Context

In the past not even hitting the lord contested the keep and if all nearby inner gates were at 0%, contesting keep was very hard.

Q: Why guards were included when lord was enough?

A: I believe it has to do with invulnerable fortifications tactic being able to keep waypoints open 1 minute longer

Q: How it should have been done?
A: Hitting lord contests the objective and when invulnerable fortifications are pulled, contest timer should increase by 1 minute . Dead lord also keeps it contested.

You are welcome. It is obvious they just took the easier solution of all guards contesting it because I don't think the Guild Wars 2 engine allows you to increase timers since I don't remember a single PvE event where this is the case.

Workaround would be reworking invulnerable fortications to walls/gates taking and healing 1 damage from hits after it is pulled.

So, help me understand RIBA, only damage to the lord should contest?  I don’t believe that’s what you meant, but it looks like that is what you are saying.  

[Riba.3271]

5 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

So, help me understand RIBA, only damage to the lord should contest?  I don’t believe that’s what you meant, but it looks like that is what you are saying.  

Gates and walls too of course. Why else would I suggest mechanic where walls and gates take 1 damage during invuln walls?

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Gates and walls too of course. Why else would I suggest mechanic where walls and gates take 1 damage during invuln walls?

That..  wasn’t part of what you said would contest it in what I quoted.

 

But thank you for the clarification.

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

That..  wasn’t part of what you said would contest it in what I quoted.

 

But thank you for the clarification.

Its the last line in my comment how to fix the issue that invuln walls and gates are invuln to being contested and would allow waypoint to be open in keeps.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Riba.3271