The patch was a failure and went in completely wrong direction

[Aeolus.3615]

On 2/6/2023 at 1:19 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

Guys it seems to me that there is a bit of confusion in this post. Anet has made an update that stimulates the attack, and where is the problem, if the rules apply to all servers. Moreover, this does not change anything. because if you show up against my server I will make you spit all the blood I can even to take a simple field if I can. Because this is what this mode provides and a daily or weekly event makes no difference. I'll still do everything I can to kill you and not get you to take anything at all.

And finally, what do you see wrong if the enemy with more numbers, or if the enemy more organized than you takes your facilities. I say fortunately that he takes them, because it would be a deadly boredom if we make sure that this does not happen.

If we want to talk about the fact that your server is constantly outnumbered, then let's talk about something else. This update does not center anything. You should ask Anet to make a move and make sure that players are redistributed correctly, to get better servers and matches, to ensure everyone has fun.

You are bringing this discussion as alliances, a big vegetable soup all together, and it is no longer clear what we are talking about.😉

As much i kinda agree with u in this,  but what i see is that Anet should solve population humongous gap in 1st or at least find a temporary solution for server huge timezone  gap  then see what happens to actually change/balance structures arround those populations, what they are doing is unbalancing even further the current gameplay  and that is what players are experiencing.

Quoting from Anet "promoting more active gameplay" but where in NA and most EU server have 1 blob active and the other servers are outmaned in NA is queue or 2 queues vs empty maps this population issue is a game design fault.

This is a nosense of an update for the current game, just dirt thrown into the eyes of the current players.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Aeolus.3615

[Mabi black.1824]

17 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Your idea doesn't address directly any of the causes of population imbalance.  We didn't get to this state because of how easy or hard it was to take a structure.  We got here because over time players have quit the game for various reasons or bandwagoned around and the server-based teams are completely static.

while I completely agree with you that the difficulty of taking a structure does not affect this mode in any way, because the rules still apply to all servers. I disagree with you for where WWW is now in relation to players who have left the mode. Many have left but many have arrived. The matches I play in the EU I still see a large number of players until late at night.

Maybe you could say that the current state is due to the fact that one team has 3 maps in the queue and the other team does not have players on a single map? So let's start sharing something here. We must try to be honest with each other. at least to define where the problem is.

We also recently saw someone posting a queue on EBG of over 120 players. I can only imagine the other maps that tail presented. while the opposing team fails to put together 30 players? Is this the problem at the moment in this mode?

[Mabi black.1824]

Even just to collect some data or information for Anet, which may be useful in the future. Why shouldn't they take a somewhat active attitude to encourage their players to hand out me? Do we still have 1 year or 2 years for alliances? Ok let's use it to see how the players of this mode direct to a more active attitude of Anet to redistribute the same players. What's the problem here to be able to do that?

[Mabi black.1824]

I really enjoy participating in these reasonings on the forum, sometimes almost like playing GW2. Anet makes an update to stimulate the attack in our mode and many players complain because they have the problem of defending their structure in 10 players since the enemy showed up with a full team of 50 players.

So Anet does an update in WWW, it doesn't mean you have to show up here and complain systematically. Let's wait and see how players react to this new perspective/change. To give a good response to the development we must ask ourselves and consequently Anet the right questions.

Why do you choose to put time and work on this update? You should know that the changes you made to stimulate the attack and force more movement in WWW, still affect 30 players on one server and 3 maps queued on another server. This is the real and only '' problem '' (improper term of a mistake you system in a video-game ) you should concentrate ( if you think it appropriate ) Put some time and work to improve this last aspect. Because everything else you update, falls on the players in the same way. You influence 30 players on one server and influence 3 queued maps on another server.

[Lukasz.9476]

11 hours ago, DeceiverX.8361 said:

 

Precisely.  WvW's inherent intended design of mass-scale campaigns to capture fortified nodes is similarly not compatible with its participation/reward model, while also allowing such campaigns to immediately relocate and shift around the map quickly as a ktrain despite a significant part of the core design of WvW being about logistics management with distributed goals/forces.

The problem is there is absolutely zero incentive to diverge away from the ktrain approach, because it's always the quickest and easiest way to more loot and the actual gameplay pattern of smallscale in terms of profession balance is just not fun anymore.

The design of the new content within WvW is designed for Edge of the Mists/Open World collaborative PvE, not the experience people were going into the regular WvW/PvP maps with.

This is what Chaba is oh-so-conveniently ignoring.

 

There is no built-in incentive to defend. It's all hinged on player pride, and even that is actively penalized.

 

You defend? You don't keep your participation up reliably. You don't get objective rewards reliably. You don't get Champ bags reliably. You don't get the occasional player bag reliably, because it's a rare case you will have enough defenders around you to actually punch back at the generally numerically superior attacking group. Anyone who's in it primarily for the rewards will just blob for best results to them, at the expense of the team and intended objectives.

 

Blobbing gives you much faster rewards. It's safe. It's reliable.

 

You want to rely on player pride for defense? Then set up support for it in-game. Put in WvW pannel screens with ladders for guilds, if not individuals, listing not just the amount of flips and kills they generated attacking objectives, but for defense. Hell, make guild-claimed locations display increasing amount of flags around the place the longer they hold something. Provide a visual feedback that stimulates this sense of "pride" you think is all that's needed to get people to defend objectives that, mechanically, will penalize them with lower reward trickle.

 

Or you could tie in reward scheme to actually maintaining posession of objectives. Something that was the original approach, until population inbalanced forced changes necessary to maintain the less numerous servers with at least some presence.

 

You don't want people to "sit around" during sieges? In itself a big "what?", because I never lack for things to do, but sure, let's pretend that's all there is to do right now.

 

Add more tools for active participation in siege. Truth is, most are already ignored. ACs can be facetanked in a boonblob anyway, and these were the only real danger to a larger group back when you had to build a shield generator or two just to get through that broken gate/wall. Apparently that was too much effort for the "ktrain" loudmouths, though.

 

So give people some flimsy portable "Canthan rocket" carts that let them fire wide AoE barrage of "fireworks" knocking people down and/or blinding. At a high angle, so it works better against fortifications and can damage ACs on third floor of SMC.

 

Give them a "net thrower" cart that creates a length of AoE field that first immobilizes, and if you don't react fast enough (which should be part of a second) and pop stun-breaker to dodge and/or port away from there, you get pulled.

 

Give them a deployable "siege mortar" that can target enemy siege emplacements at an angle (ballistas have problem with obstructions) with fire fields, and make ALL siege engines (except perhaps the golems) more susceptible to fire damage.

 

Simply put, provide more interactions for both attackers and defenders to use. So you don't "stand around" during siege, you do fun stuff with immediate positive feedback that apparently is the real core of intended gameplay in WvW.

 

Make it possible for smaller groups to at least break apart, if not wipe, larger less organized blobs. Boonstrips should come faster than the omni-present boon vomit that happens now. Target caps have no place in WvW - if some professions get greater damage out of their skills, that's the opponent's fault for bunching up, not an issue with the profession itself.

 

Teach people small unit tactics again, because then you have a dynamic environment where everywhere around you there's some action to jump into. Not just one tag and majority of the active population behind it, doing constant flips that are the best time/reward investment, while ignoring defense of objectives altogether.

 

But first of all, though, fix the goddamn population issue, and constantly linking MAG with another high-pop server is probably not how you should approach it.

 

If a bunch of other servers simply lack continuous presence in sufficient numbers to offer resistance, bunch them up together. We don't need multiple instances of dead maps with ktrains of the dominating server roaming looking for some poor PvE scrubs trying to daily or whatnot. We need maps with similar number of participants on each side at most times.

 

Maybe Alliances will fix that, but they have been coming Soon™ for so long I'd rather see much faster linking job done to address the issue right now, not wait forever till Anet figures things out years on from now.

 

Anyway, wrote more than I did in years watching this clusterchuckle develop, and probably with the same end result, so back to lurking. Not like I get the feeling of engaging with someone discussing things in good faith, either, when it comes the main opposition to the presented ideas.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Lukasz.9476
iThink

[Chaba.5410]

17 minutes ago, Lukasz.9476 said:

This is what Chaba is oh-so-conveniently ignoring.

Continue to ignore every time in this thread I wrote about sieges from a defender's position.  This what "bad faith" arguing looks like.
 

17 minutes ago, Lukasz.9476 said:

Simply put, provide more interactions for both attackers and defenders to use. So you don't "stand around" during siege, you do fun stuff with immediate positive feedback that apparently is the real core of intended gameplay in WvW.

Or just go read my old linked post on The Long Siege where I put it far more succinctly.  More "bad faith" arguing, as if this idea is something you came up with and your "opponent" didn't or is somehow arguing in opposition to it.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I disagree with you for where WWW is now in relation to players who have left the mode. Many have left but many have arrived.

I recognize this nuance on the population aspect, but left that detail out because I'm not trying to write large essays on a forum.  Excessive wordiness scares readers away.

[Mabi black.1824]

23 minutes ago, Lukasz.9476 said:

Make it possible for smaller groups to at least break apart, if not wipe, larger less organized blobs. Boonstrips should come faster than the omni-present boon vomit that happens now. Target caps have no place in WvW - if some professions get greater damage out of their skills, that's the opponent's fault for bunching up, not an issue with the profession itself.

Actually there might be something interesting in here or something new that could make things more fun. Another player suggested that you might get some sort of amplified area damage when you hit a group stacked on top of each other. The more they give, the greater the number of players stacked. Practically like saying that it is not always obvious or it is not always the best solution to face the enemy stacked one on top of the other. It would put the players in front of a choice, the team would have to open up temporarily to mitigate the damage and then regroup. It would be different to see. although I have no idea where to start for how to get it.

[Chaba.5410]

6 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Actually there might be something interesting in here or something new that could make things more fun. Another player suggested that you might get some sort of amplified area damage when you hit a group stacked on top of each other. The more they give, the greater the number of players stacked. Practically like saying that it is not always obvious or it is not always the best solution to face the enemy stacked one on top of the other. It would put the players in front of a choice, the team would have to open up temporarily to mitigate the damage and then regroup. It would be different to see. although I have no idea where to start for how to get it.

The main problem with taking away target caps to try to make it possible for smaller groups to break apart larger groups is that it's something the larger groups can take advantage of too against the smaller group.  Someone really invested in the subject would recognize this concept, especially when it gets pointed out to them, and try come up with a more serious suggestion than to keep repeating the suggestion to remove target caps.  It just looks like wasting everyone's time otherwise.

How would this anti-stacking mechanism work?  If a smaller group of players is stacked, what happens?  And what happens if the larger group of players spreads out to artificially lower the stacking trigger?

We know from video evidence that certain players on Maguuma prove that a smaller group can wipe a larger, less organized group in those rare times when they happen to not actually outnumber their opponents.  Of course we aren't all capable of pulling that off, but it at least shows it's possible currently.

[Mabi black.1824]

35 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

The main problem with taking away target caps to try to make it possible for smaller groups to break apart larger groups is that it's something the larger groups can take advantage of too against the smaller group.  Someone really invested in the subject would recognize this concept, especially when it gets pointed out to them, and try come up with a more serious suggestion than to keep repeating the suggestion to remove target caps.  It just looks like wasting everyone's time otherwise.

How would this anti-stacking mechanism work?  If a smaller group of players is stacked, what happens?  And what happens if the larger group of players spreads out to artificially lower the stacking trigger?

We know from video evidence that certain players on Maguuma prove that a smaller group can wipe a larger, less organized group in those rare times when they happen to not actually outnumber their opponents.  Of course we aren't all capable of pulling that off, but it at least shows it's possible currently.

Your comments are absolutely valid. And I am poorly prepared on this kind of topics, as I wrote I do not know where to start. I don't even know if it's technically possible for Anet to handle these differences while the game runs so fast. A moment before you are 10vs30 a moment later you are 30vs 30 how do you manage it?

[Chaba.5410]

13 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

And I am poorly prepared on this kind of topics, as I wrote I do not know where to start. I don't even know if it's technically possible for Anet to handle these differences while the game runs so fast. A moment before you are 10vs30 a moment later you are 30vs 30 how do you manage it?

I don't know if it's technically possible either.  I ask the questions so we can try to envision something that is practical.

I think in general boonstrips may be lacking compared to how easy it is to reapply boons.  Even then, smaller groups need organization and coordination, something that random smaller groups of pug defenders usually don't do.

The usual tactic against a larger group remains the same.  In the early days of the game, in English, we called it "peel the onion" ("slice the turkey" was another).  The smaller group has to take out the larger group in chunks.  This is the main reason why players even today try to use pull skills.

Again it goes back to a type of organization and coordination that random pugs don't usually engage in.  If we talk about Maguuma players, otoh, a lot of them are "retired" GvG players and other roamers who are well versed in reading fights in order to coordinate their individual actions with those servermates next to them.

[Lukasz.9476]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Continue to ignore every time in this thread I wrote about sieges from a defender's position.  This what "bad faith" arguing looks like.

Because that's irrelevant. Active defense is not a problem. Delaying is not a problem that you make it to be, either. Even assuming population parity, which rarely happens nowadays anyway.

 

Or at least will be less so if you shift reward scheme from its current ADHD implementation that encourages flips at the expense of everything else, including any kind of maintained presence on the objective that gets flipped.

 

The more you devalue objectives by making them easier to flip, the less positive feedback to the player in terms of feeling of accomplishment you create. The fact reward system completely discourages defense aside.

 

Dunno, maybe the difference is as simple as you being a CoD player, while I prefer ARMA. But you admit that current state of WvW is not fun, yet argue against any potential changes to it because it MIGHT have a negative impact on gameplay? Top discussion there.

Quote

The main problem with taking away target caps to try to make it possible for smaller groups to break apart larger groups is that it's something the larger groups can take advantage of too against the smaller group. 

Oh yes, the larger group that will already curbstomp the smaller one anyway, and definitely will do so without any loses in any decent skill parity with current implementation, will be so greatly advantaged by the smaller group capacity for breaking up larger blobs.

 

Nope, better not to give WvW servers with smaller population the opportunity to achieve anything, because that might be exploited by more populous servers that already don't even need that advantage to dominate /s

 

I see you constantly offering (dubious) objections, but no examples of constructive approach to the problem.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Lukasz.9476

[Chaba.5410]

12 minutes ago, Lukasz.9476 said:

Because that's irrelevant.

So now it's irrelevant even though you said I was ignoring it?
 

12 minutes ago, Lukasz.9476 said:

Active defense is not a problem. Delaying is not a problem that you make it to be, either.

But it is a problem like you've written.  Rewards are not aligned with the passive gameplay of delays to fights.  So there's not a lot of incentive to it.

Make up your mind already!

The rewards system also discourages attackers to perform long sieges, not only defense.  The correct solution to incentivize defense or performing a long siege is to align rewards to it.  So stop wasting time with this idea that defenders will be incentivized by making objectives harder to flip.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

20 minutes ago, Lukasz.9476 said:

Dunno, maybe the difference is as simple as you being a CoD player, while I prefer ARMA.

I never played those games.  Maybe it's just you being bad at rhetorics.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

26 minutes ago, Lukasz.9476 said:

But you admit that current state of WvW is not fun, yet argue against any potential changes to it because it MIGHT have a negative impact on gameplay?

Where do you get that from?  I said LONG SIEGES are not fun.

I argue against potential changes that increase defense because, like I've already written, it causes attackers, especially ktrainers, to have to bring BIGGER BLOBS.  Not that it might, but that it actually does.  It's what was seen when Desert BL was first released.  The capture of objectives by smaller groups was destroyed.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Xenesis.6389]

Back in the day we also use to have front line, back line, pick team formations, this left it open for weaknesses to exploit between groups. But with squads and more mobile support, boon spam, now everyone squishes into a ball to make that all more efficient.

 

Could increased caps help with smaller groups fight bigger groups? sure. We could argue it could also work in reverse and hit those smaller groups even harder, bigger caps but still more players to throw aoes as well, the smaller groups would have to be much more mobile to avoid taking all that damage, although stealth and portals would play into their advantage as well.

 

It's possible for higher caps and probably to make them dynamic with their damage, I still wouldn't go over a 10 cap though. But probably wouldn't be a good thing for performance either though... we think... or so they say... but they increase boon spamming every year and performance seems the same, so.... not much of an excuse.

 

They could also just increase the radius of the aoes, to make sure the big groups get hit with them, make everything meteor sized. 🤭

 

We could also make aoes shorter duration, and more effective per tick. 5sec duration ground aoes really blow these days unless you catch the group in a choke. Most aoes should only last 1-3 sec, and no backloaded effects (Hi terribad chrono wells).

 

Maybe instead of increasing caps they should start getting rid of ground aoes? and upgrade to targeted aoes which pulse around the target instead, we already have the pulsing on caster with scrapper gyros. So essentially cast Well of Corruption onto an enemy player, and it pulses to 5 random targets in range around it for 5 secs. For bigger ball groups this will most likely get it's full effect and duration, for smaller groups it would be easier to those players to spread and deny it's effect, basically anything looking like the cloud. Although this would definitely take pin sniping to another level, but then again some commanders like running 10 yards ahead of everyone too. 🤭

 

The game has become extremely mobile and defensive, that ground aoes are becoming less effective(especially the 5 sec duration ones), with every passing defensive upgrade they give to specs(superspeed, aegis spam, stability spam), and continued nerfs to boon strips. The biggest weakness for ground aoes is getting players to stand in them long enough to be fully effective, which means the use of immobile, chill, cripple, stun, which is easily countered with cleanse and stability spam 99% of the time for those big groups. The only real thing to rely on is hoping players are dumb enough to not move in combat.

 

So either we increase caps, increase radius, shorter but more effective durations, or make them player targeted to be more effective to bigger groups

 

Reality check though, moot subject anyways, anet doesn't want counters to the ball they run in. 🤷‍♂️

[Lukasz.9476]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Could increased caps help with smaller groups fight bigger groups? sure. We could argue it could also work in reverse and hit those smaller groups even harder, bigger caps but still more players to throw aoes as well, the smaller groups would have to be much more mobile to avoid taking all that damage, although stealth and portals would play into their advantage as well.

How exactly? If your group is below 10 people, removal of target caps won't affect it.

 

If your group is above 10 people, it'd encourage you to split. Now you're presenting two targets for enemy AoE, while they eat it all.

 

Smaller groups will always be at a disadvantage. They should. But removing target caps would allow teamwork and cooperation to increase their effective damage against a less organized blob. This means that, even outnumbered, it would encourage participation.

 

Realistically, right now you can't do much against a boonblob without corresponding numbers on your side. This does exactly the opposite of encouraging fighting, and making it fun.

 

The fact that objectives are too easy flipped, and have no realistic value from a player's perspective to commit loss of effective reward stream,  is a side issue. But it would help if smaller groups could hold off larger ones, because it - again - encourages participation even against the odds. Which now is pointless, because you're just feeding without changing the inevitable outcome. That boonblob will still flip, and you are unlikely to even delay them (pulling invul or managing to sneak a siege disabler, something very rarely seen nowadays as well, aside).

 

Participants grouping together to take higher value objectives because the gameplay implementation demands it is not a problem. Gameplay implementation actively encouraging blob action, and penalizing everything else, is. Especially when it comes at the expense of the very objective-based game mode it takes place in.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Lukasz.9476