The patch was a failure and went in completely wrong direction

[SimplyRed.9378]

53 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Ever try to balance for 5v50?  Whatever you give the small group, the large group gets too.  Never can be balanced like you think.

You are missing my point, my point was about this patch is giving more to the offensive minded players, which in turn make it harder for any number of player to defend an objectives. Objectives like tower or keep should be hard to take even with smaller number of defender because the structure itself is part of the defense, so it should evens out the fight. Smaller number of supplies inside keeps is making it harder to defend anything now. Give more incentive for people to defend is all I'm saying. *Not everything is about offense.*

[Stand The Wall.6987]

siege battles are garbage game play. its fine when the defenders can stall with siege so their people can continually run back and there are actual fights with humans, but that rarely happens. its usually reducing the potential for a zerg v zerg battle into 5 v 5 while everyone else sits around and waits, or plays a run sim with supply.

[Yasai.3549]

Guys hear me out, obviously the right direction is to make Chain Pull 10x the damage it currently does. 

[Yasai.3549]

15 minutes ago, SimplyRed.9378 said:

You are missing my point, my point was about this patch is giving more to the offensive minded players, which in turn make it harder for any number of player to defend an objectives. Objectives like tower or keep should be hard to take even with smaller number of defender because the structure itself is part of the defense, so it should evens out the fight. Smaller number of supplies inside keeps is making it harder to defend anything now. Give more incentive for people to defend is all I'm saying. *Not everything is about offense.*

This point has been misused forever and is never a legit case in the first place. 

1. If you are comparing low numbers on one side vs high numbers on the other, the more populated force will win, it doesn't matter what you do to defensive nature of the objective, you are just outmanned. If the objective does flip eventually, your small number won't be able to break their defenses either since they outman you right? But at least you can force the defenders to gtfo if you drain them out, even with a smaller force. You do this by hitting with trebs, and denying dolyaks. 

2. It should never be possible for a paltry force to defend against outnumbered. History in real life already proves this to be true. What's the point of arguing for the defense narrative when you are purposefully drawing up a scenario where the defenders are going to lose anyway. Be it 10mins or 30mins, the defenders WILL lose simply due to not having enough players in the scenario. 

3. If you compare equal force vs equal force, the Defenders have such an extraordinary advantage it's not even funny. They have terrain advantage, they have objective stat bonus, they have the numbers to push onto the attackers. This is why the nerf was implemented. The idea here is to indirectly weaken the defending side instead of simply slapping away their home-field advantage. If the defending side wants to keep defending, then they would have to send some forces to escort dolyaks to keep the supply chain flowing, not just holing up until the attackers run out of supply and have to try again. 

Incentive for defending? What are you talking about? The incentive is not losing the objectives, and as a result, giving your Team more PPT. That's all the incentive you need. 

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, Dahkeus.8243 said:

Lots of talk about what you identify as the problem.  What is the solution?  What should ANet have done that would have been better?

• Reduce claim buff combat stats by at least 70% returning big fights inside objectives and killing clouds: Attacker buff
• Increase amount of dolyaks keeps and SM require to upgrade by 50% and 100%. They oversimplified the system when they forced all objectives to require same dolyaks without changing map design: Overall more pleasant mapstate for smaller and larger groups to run around and gather their players.
• Increase gate/wall hitpoints by 25%, increase treb, ballista and arrow cart damage to siege by 30%: Defender buff to buy time
• Reduce duration of banner tactics to 5 minutes, make T2 and T3 tactics take longer to be able to be slotted, reduce airship duration, make watchtower only activate when contested
• Reduce dolyak escort buff from 90% damage reduction to 66%: There used to be no dolyak escort buff at all and camp scene was thriving. One day of no way to outplay the unkillable cleanse minstrel boys will just make you quit the useful roaming all together.
• Make golems unaffected by boons: Like it used to be. Guild golems should cost 80 supply.
• Reduce amount supply dolyaks carry to keeps and castles by 10: If you want lot of supply, hold the camps and slot the tactics in
• Rework shield gens to bubbling only around themselves limiting them to only 1 per spot: Easy fix to no-skill perma bubbles: you can still permabubble with catas and golems but it requires coordination from whole group like it should.
• Lord health shouldn't scale off defending players or random blobs around the corner, only from people in combat with it. If you have 20 skilled players fighting 40 man cloud, you shouldn't have to go through lord scaled up to 60 people.
• Edit: Oh yeah, and remove gliding in combat: For obvious reasons since you can always respawn and attackers have feelings too. They rekt you, so they deserve the kill.

Now these are not optimal solutions but they are easy solutions that adress issues within WvW. For example the shield gen and claim buff would need bigger rework, but I doubt those things will ever be healthy for the gamemode so making them have minimal impact is just easiest way to deal with it.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Riba.3271

[kash.9213]

3 minutes ago, Yasai.3549 said:

This point has been misused forever and is never a legit case in the first place. 

1. If you are comparing low numbers on one side vs high numbers on the other, the more populated force will win, it doesn't matter what you do to defensive nature of the objective, you are just outmanned. If the objective does flip eventually, your small number won't be able to break their defenses either since they outman you right? But at least you can force the defenders to gtfo if you drain them out, even with a smaller force. You do this by hitting with trebs, and denying dolyaks. 

2. It should never be possible for a paltry force to defend against outnumbered. History in real life already proves this to be true. What's the point of arguing for the defense narrative when you are purposefully drawing up a scenario where the defenders are going to lose anyway. Be it 10mins or 30mins, the defenders WILL lose simply due to not having enough players in the scenario. 

3. If you compare equal force vs equal force, the Defenders have such an extraordinary advantage it's not even funny. They have terrain advantage, they have objective stat bonus, they have the numbers to push onto the attackers. This is why the nerf was implemented. The idea here is to indirectly weaken the defending side instead of simply slapping away their home-field advantage. If the defending side wants to keep defending, then they would have to send some forces to escort dolyaks to keep the supply chain flowing, not just holing up until the attackers run out of supply and have to try again. 

Incentive for defending? What are you talking about? The incentive is not losing the objectives, and as a result, giving your Team more PPT. That's all the incentive you need. 

That's not true in real life. That's also not true in game, or there wouldn't be tiers of structure upgrades and shield gens and other defensive siege wouldn't be a thing. Not every group is thinking through the same filter. They're likely to be waited out if they're on the other end of prime time but that also depends on what that other side is trying to hold elswhere and the third server.

Edited February 1, 2023 by kash.9213

[Yasai.3549]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Ever try to balance for 5v50?  Whatever you give the small group, the large group gets too.  Never can be balanced like you think.

Actually they can, and it already somewhat exists. It's called Outnumbered. 

Anet could experiment with an Outnumbered buff when defending objectives to hilariously small amount of defenders. It won't make them automatically match the enemy tit for tat, but at least it would give them some time to execute strategies, which would make outnumbered fights more interesting than just getting steamrolled. 

Stat buffs? Probably useless in the face of a force 10x your size. Something like giving them a defiance bar? Idk. Up to Anet to experiment. 

[Yasai.3549]

2 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

That's not true in real life. That's also not true in game, or there wouldn't be tiers of structure upgrades and shield gens and other defensive siege wouldn't be a thing. Not every group is thinking through the same filter. They're likely to be waited out if they're on the other end of prime time but that also depends on what that other side is trying to hold elswhere and the third server.

Just google and you can find dozens of real life sieges spanning months. The defenders are usually smaller in number with limited supply and the attackers are starving them out. Since that can't be replicated in WvW, the supply can be used instead as a proxy in comparison. 

Point here is that if you have a smaller force you will be starved out eventually since you can't break the siege with your smaller numbers. People arguing for "DEFENDERS ALREADY HAVE IT BAD WHEN OUTNUMBERED" aren't even debating the core of the issue, and that is population difference. 

Like I said, the whole "small number of defenders" talking point is grossly misused in the talk of defending vs attacking objectives. 

[Yasai.3549]

8 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Increase amount of dolyaks keeps and SM require to upgrade by 50% and 100%. They oversimplified the system when they forced all objectives to require same dolyaks without changing map design: Overall more pleasant mapstate for smaller and larger groups to run around and gather their players.

You can already fix this without changing the number of yaks to tier up by nerfing/removing yak upgrades. Those yak upgrades are the most disgusting thing I've seen in WvW period, especially Invul Yaks. 

Anet's intention of nerfing supply cap but increasing supply per yak is correct but not enough. They need to make the supply macro game more yak centric in order to put more "mini objectives" on the map, specifically along supply routes so that scattered skirmishes can occur. This will also indirectly break deathballing due to the need to allocate some forces to yak sit. Indirect side-effect is more value and healthier eco system for roamers and roam-builds. 

[Riba.3271]

8 minutes ago, Yasai.3549 said:

19 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Increase amount of dolyaks keeps and SM require to upgrade by 50% and 100%. They oversimplified the system when they forced all objectives to require same dolyaks without changing map design: Overall more pleasant mapstate for smaller and larger groups to run around and gather their players.

You can already fix this without changing the number of yaks to tier up by nerfing/removing yak upgrades. Those yak upgrades are the most disgusting thing I've seen in WvW period, especially Invul Yaks. 

Yes, the weirdest thing is that Packed Dolyaks counts double for upgrade and carries more supply, making it always superior than speedy since you can speed it up. What they should do is make Packed dolyaks only count as 1 for upgrade but carry 3 times supply, so there is a choice. You should choose one for supply and another for upgrading, instead of Packed always being superior.

You would also half the potential upgrade speed since at the moment packed + superspeed build = 4 times faster upgrading.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Chaba.5410]

47 minutes ago, SimplyRed.9378 said:

You are missing my point, my point was about this patch is giving more to the offensive minded players, which in turn make it harder for any number of player to defend an objectives. Objectives like tower or keep should be hard to take even with smaller number of defender because the structure itself is part of the defense, so it should evens out the fight. Smaller number of supplies inside keeps is making it harder to defend anything now. Give more incentive for people to defend is all I'm saying. *Not everything is about offense.*

No, I got your point well.  When you say an objective should be hard to take, you aren't putting any parameters around it other than "any number of player to defend".

Should it be hard to take at even number of defenders to attackers?  Should it be hard to take at attackers needing 2x the number of defenders?  Should it be hard to take at attackers needing 3x the number of defenders?  What are you talking about here?  Because no one would agree that 5 players should make an objective "hard to take" against 50 (10x).   Why?  Because if there's 50 defenders then attackers would need 500 to even have a chance!  It's absurd.

If a map queue is about 70 players and they all show up to defend a keep and defenders are given a 2x advantage, then attackers would need 140: 2 map queues, to have a chance to take a keep.  Two whole full map queues would be the other 2 servers in the match.  If you are getting beyond a 2x advantage, you're operating in fantasy land.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Goglak.2591]

This is an utter failure. Now we got people standing around wanting SMC to flip and not even helping just to get there weekly. This needs to go !!!!

Quote

Achievements

• New weekly achievements have been added to World vs. World. Completing these will award up to 35 additional weekly WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets and other WvW rewards. Additionally, a reward of 8 gold can be earned each week for completing the new meta-achievement. These achievements will reset every Sunday at 11:30 p.m. Pacific Time (UTC-8).

 

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Biermeister.4678 said:

10v10 good fight 10v50 not even a speed bump objective is gone in three minutes. The whole idea of door trebs and cata's was to slow the assault until reinforcement could map in. 

I might be mistaken but you were one of the first people to place door counter siege to knock people off the ram's and slow them down 

No, I was the first one to call being able to CC players off siege despite them having stability an exploit.

I didn't understand your post about smaller groups taking objectives.  In most cases I've experienced, it's a small group taking an undefended objective or where there's only 1 or 2 scouts while the rest of the defending players are either unresponsive or distracted by a larger fight elsewhere.  Thanks for clarifying that you meant a small relatively even numbered fight for an objective.

 

[Nidome.1365]

Every patch to WvW that has been made for a while has rewarded and promoted mindless blobbing while handicapping and discouraging defence.

Before this patch it was often touch & go whether you could delay an enemy attack for long enough for your allies to arrive to defend, with the changes they are through the outer and halfway through the inner before someone gets there to investigate if the contested marker is a genuine attack or just a tagged guard, By the time they reach the EWP lever the inner is down and they are being swarmed with the EWP being camped.

Is dumbing down WvW really going to get more players into the game mode, or just drive the veterans away? The more they dumb it down, the quicker people get bored and leave.

If you want to improve the game mode then you need to make it more interesting and that means making it more tactical rather than less so.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Nidome.1365

[Draygo.9473]

The only weekly I would change is the SMC cap weekly. Its a bit toxic as if your server controls it, it incentivizes losing it, and if your server is too weak to take it, it ends up incompletable. Replacing it with flipping 20 sentries or something might be better. SMC caps can count for the keep capture cheev instead. 

[RedBaron.6058]

The WvW changes reflect the current state of the game and the knowledge of the people running it.

[Chaba.5410]

45 minutes ago, Nidome.1365 said:

Before this patch it was often touch & go whether you could delay an enemy attack for long enough for your allies to arrive to defend, with the changes they are through the outer and halfway through the inner before someone gets there

Seriously, how?
Gate and wall HP wasn't lowered.  Ram/cata/treb damage wasn't increased.
Supply changes?  Local area siege capping isn't changed.
Because ram HP was increased?  How was it "touch and go" previously?
Or are you referring to the small seconds of exploiting the knockback through stab which wouldn't matter anyway in your example since this all supposedly happens "before someone gets there"?  What am I missing here?

Use more Emergency Waypoints if you want defenders to show up fast!  Literally the tactical choice...
 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Luthan.5236]

Not really motivated to get the weekly. And I don't care about the other changes that much - unless they make big changes and/or add new stuff or change the style of the game mode.

When trying to play a bit to get some weeklies done I still got reminded of the annoying participation system even more.. Just losing participation when you actively try to play (but get nothing to kill cause others kill it faster) ... is discouraging. Even though I don't really need the rewards. (Main reason to play should be fun. But it isn't. + the gift of battle. Legendaries I have enough mats from PvP for armor.) So I guess ... it is time to move this out of my weekly routine - instead of trying to play more (to get the weekly done) I take a break completely. (Let's see if they really bring regular updates over the next few months.) I used to play on reset to get the wood chest done for the +1 pip following week (should I ever decide to play more so I can get most out of it).

But then again: Logically it makes sense to go only there if a gift of battle is needed. (And there you can just quickly go to tier 6 participation and then recap camps every 10 mins while doing something else in between. Since the reward tracks do not need the pips.)

I sometimes wonder if removing rewards completely ... would be more fun. I know you can just decide to ignore rewards ... trying to look for tun stuff to do in the game mode. But that is not easy. Always knowing there is a counter ticking down (participation) ... makes me wanna keep it up. On the other hand: Constantly running around to do this ... feels boring. And doing fun stuff ... will make one lose participation. (If you try to defend and the battle is at stalemate and no one gets killed.)

So ... good idea of them to plan to make other changes. I think it is the best time to watch this ... and take a break- returning when (and only if) they removed the currently existing participation system completely. Move all the tickets to events (reward them on event completion) and scrap the weekly  pip reard track + set a cap there. Maybe daily limit or diminishing returns to get people to play on multiple days.

And yes: The stonemist ... is a problem. Annoying if your team has it at tier 3 and not wanting to lose it. 😄 Keeps also are annoying though at borderlands they regularly get capped and recapped. Still waiting for rewards for playing defensively where you even get them when a kill is not registered. (So you can scout and build sieges and repair and fight ... and the enemy flees and you don't need to desperately hunt them down to get the kill to keep the participation up.) Take out the pressur ... add the fun. Then more people might play it ... I guess.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Luthan.5236

[Dawdler.8521]

18 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Seriously, how?
Gate and wall HP wasn't lowered.  Ram/cata/treb damage wasn't increased.
Supply changes?  Local area siege capping isn't changed.
Because ram HP was increased?  How was it "touch and go" previously?
Or are you referring to the small seconds of exploiting the knockback through stab which wouldn't matter anyway in your example since this all supposedly happens "before someone gets there"?  What am I missing here?

Use more Emergency Waypoints if you want defenders to show up fast!  Literally the tactical choice...
 

A while ago someone speculated that the enemy zerg was heading hills, because they had just been on bay and they where heading south and east. We had been 50+ clouding them back at bay for the past probably 20 minutes. There is no other enemy zerg on the map, its just them.

I port to garri. 
I run to hills. 
I spot them on the outside of south gate with rams up and write in chat.
No one but me has arrived yet. 
When they are inside I write in chat they are heading toward north inner.
No one but me has arrived yet.
I write they have rams up on inner north.
No one but me has arrived yet. 
I write they are heading to lord. 
1 other person finally arrives at inner and I can see 1 more dot just heading through outer.

But more arrive in eventually and after a 15m clash in lords with us being unable to really push through the corridor (although I took like 5 rounds around the balcony and some trips in and out) because not even half of us that was on bay is there, they finally cap it.

Port to nc that has a minute or whatever timer left, 15+ of us standing there waiting.

Clearly, failure to defend is all this patch fault!

Edited February 1, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Zikory.6871]

13 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Guilds and best fight commanders fought inside objectives, since there was no stat boosts for defender. Having +800 combat stats inside keeps and tactivators is a lot of combat advantage. These are the real issues why everyone hates attacking, not some weird 20% more ram hp or little bit of maximum supply. Yes, groups still attack things, but they only attempt once or twice. Sieging attempts that last more than 15 minutes and have multiple good fights are extinct.

Legit spent our whole 2 hour rally inside or around enemy objectives. We fought mT and FTL while they had their keep buffs. We won some, they won some. Traded our home tower and south ruins a few time. #weeklies

We may be endangered but not extinct. Any group over 25 that is worried about the keep stat buff is a joke. Its an issue for roamers and duels, not zergs. 

PS: Thank you Kaineng for saving t1! Fights have been a lot of fun this week. 

[Zok.4956]

1 hour ago, RedBaron.6058 said:

The WvW changes reflect the current state of the game and the knowledge of the people running it.

All changes, of course, reflect the current state of the game and the knowledge of the people running it. 😉

[Dahkeus.8243]

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Yes, the weirdest thing is that Packed Dolyaks counts double for upgrade and carries more supply, making it always superior than speedy since you can speed it up. What they should do is make Packed dolyaks only count as 1 for upgrade but carry 3 times supply, so there is a choice. You should choose one for supply and another for upgrading, instead of Packed always being superior.

You would also half the potential upgrade speed since at the moment packed + superspeed build = 4 times faster upgrading.

I never realized this!  FML, why don't they mention that it counts as 2 for upgrades in the tooltip?  I had to look up the wiki page to verify that this was the case.

[Xenesis.6389]

9 minutes ago, Dahkeus.8243 said:

I never realized this!  FML, why don't they mention that it counts as 2 for upgrades in the tooltip?  I had to look up the wiki page to verify that this was the case.

Huh me neither, it doesn't say on the description, kind of an important thing to not state.....

It double dips as that is pretty much what speedy yaks should be for...

Edited February 1, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[Biermeister.4678]

10 minutes ago, Dahkeus.8243 said:

I never realized this!  FML, why don't they mention that it counts as 2 for upgrades in the tooltip?  I had to look up the wiki page to verify that this was the case.

You did not know about Fat Yaks, you put them on the closest camp to your objective and Fast Yaks on the further camps 

[ilMasa.2546]

Here is your avarage WvW "siege war": blobs come in,stacks unders the wall,builds 5 catas on the same pixel and thats it.

Here the problems:

• Attackers on the ground can clear a wall from any defensive sieges in a matter of 15 seconds with AoEs
• Attackers on the ground can turn walls into a deathtrap with the same AoE spammage
• Attackers on the ground while AoE spamming,are behind those walls,being defacto Out of Sight,they just need to aim to the highest point of the wall to cover the whole catwalk.
• Defenders on the other hand,have to survive the catwalk first then have to lean from the wall to siege disable,to AoE or use any kind of attack or you just get a "blocked " message
• Indistructible walls are often exploited and used as cover for siege placement: they just have to aim for those steps 8 meters away from doors or walls...the CRAZY splash dmg will reach anyways...
• You cant be extremely precise with your defensive sieges either,if the attackers are stacked behind your outer wall,there is noway to land a precise hit (lets say with a mortar),unless u move to an other Tower. Most of the Time your shots will land on your wall,too far over your wall or just nullified by the bubbles of those 5+ catas right under your wall.