Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Consequences for depleting supplies at structures


blp.3489

Recommended Posts

I was just wondering if the strategic aspect of play would be enhanced if objectives consumed supply and went neutral dropped tiers if they had no supply for a period of time.  So, if your karma-train swooped in and took an objective and depleted the supply down to zero and left, after some period of time, if new supplies didn't arrive, the objective would revert to neutral tier 0.  Ongoing consumption of supplies would simulate one of the core strategies in real world historical sieges, i.e. breaking supply lines and choking off supplies to starve them out.  This would make supply management much more crucial with dolyaks and camps becoming much more important to defend and/or attack.  If an enemy wants to hold one of the north towers on an alpine bl it needs to capture and hold north camp, else the tower won't upgrade and (if it was upgraded) will eventually go neutral drop back to tier 0.  It would thus provide additional opportunities for small scale actions and might reduce the benefit of mindless zerging and make holding far flung objectives more difficult.  You might also want upgrading of objectives to consume supply (from the depot) and be delayed if there weren't sufficient supplies.  Perhaps even downgrade objectives if they didn't receive sufficient supplies.

Sort of related to this, perhaps when you kill a player it should transfer some or all of their supply if you have the capacity to carry it?  That would raise the price of getting wiped and repeatedly returning to a battle.  It would also be a source of supply for roaming attackers.

Edited by blp.3489
Removed neutral old text struck out new text in italics.
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think it should revert to neutral, but I've always thought more dynamic objectives based on activity around them would be good ie the dollys being used as "upkeep" to actually maintain the tiers in addition to upgrading. If you blockade a T3 keep completely it would eventually drop to T2 and continue until it's T0, unless the supplies are secured again.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the structure runs out of supply, the quartermaster should go on strike and disappear. Although nobody would notice.

Killing players for supply sounds kinda funny but I would put some restrictions to stop shenanigans like trolls intentionally feeding. There should be a cap of how much supply you can take from a single player, like 2-3, and players that die too much recently should not give any supply. Outnumbered players should not give any supply but can take more supply for killing enemies.

Also if multiple people hit a player, it should not give everyone that tags them supply. That would be sorta ridiculous. Priority goes to the person with the least supply.

Edited by ArchonWing.9480
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, babana.7521 said:

If enemy doesn't have camp, the objective doesn't upgrade. I see no reason to make the objective neutral since if they do not have camps. What is the purpose of making it neutral? 

 

Ruining the gameplay of others... The big bad boon ball is afraid of seige, it's an equalizer.

Edited by Widebody.5071
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turning neutral was perhaps overdoing it, it just seemed like the natural consequence of being starved of supply, at some point the starving soldiers lose their interest in fighting for the side holding the structure.  Probably just having the NPCs abandon the structure would be more realistic, but really the NPCs don't have any impact anyway.

Dawdler's summary is probably better and more succinct.

I have no idea how this relates to boon balls.

Logically having the structure repair itself on capture should require at  least a little supply, maybe you would pay the quartermaster, thereby giving them some reason to exist, but probably most players would just leave the structures in ruins.  It might curb the urge to throw down six siege weapons if you needed to save some supply for repair though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@blp.3489 I am not sure when you joined the game and if you remember the old days without automatic updates.
At the beginning you had to buy structure upgrades (towers/keeps) with supply in the structures depot. That meant you had to have a substantial amount in the depot to start e.g fortified walls or the EWP. That also meant, if no upgrade was bought, the tower or keep did not get a higher tier. Supply had to be spent. Now, the simple arrival of the dolly means it takes a step towards an upgrade. Now supply is only a repair commodity and no base for actual upgrades.
ANet has devalued supply as a resource with automatic upgrades (+ tactics & improvements) and at the same time, did not give us more means to spend supply (as supply costs for e.g. siege stayed the same.
Returning a tower to a neutral state is a bit much, but we definitely need more ways to spend supply on something impacting the game (other than siege).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2023 at 5:00 PM, blp.3489 said:

I was just wondering if the strategic aspect of play would be enhanced if objectives consumed supply and went neutral if they had no supply for a period of time.  So, if your karma-train swooped in and took an objective and depleted the supply down to zero and left, after some period of time, if new supplies didn't arrive, the objective would revert to neutral.  Ongoing consumption of supplies would simulate one of the core strategies in real world historical sieges, i.e. breaking supply lines and choking off supplies to starve them out.  This would make supply management much more crucial with dolyaks and camps becoming much more important to defend and/or attack.  If an enemy wants to hold one of the north towers on an alpine bl it needs to capture and hold north camp, else the tower won't upgrade and will eventually go neutral.  It would thus provide additional opportunities for small scale actions and might reduce the benefit of mindless zerging and make holding far flung objectives more difficult.  You might also want upgrading of objectives to consume supply and be delayed if there weren't sufficient supplies.  Perhaps even downgrade objectives if they didn't receive sufficient supplies.

Sort of related to this, perhaps when you kill a player it should transfer some or all of their supply if you have the capacity to carry it?  That would raise the price of getting wiped and repeatedly returning to a battle.  It would also be a source of supply for roaming attackers.

I think these changes would just support a side with more numbers. The goal should always be to encourage fights, you want less penalty to people running back to a fight to keep it going. I think you are picturing this aiding a smaller group but when you look at it from the direction of a smaller side trying to hold back a larger one till they might get assistance its a much bigger determent to defenders, especially ones that can't both hold and objective and keep their camps clear and supplies running.

People today via roamers and havocs already drain supply from objectives before a larger group comes in to take the main structure. How organized they are is in questions but most old school roamers and havocs know if they see a tag moving in the direction of a keep their job is to get a head of, take the camps and start damaging walls to trigger defenders to start draining supply. If there is no tag on map and they can pre-do this all the better. Likewise if they know they can't hold the camps the next job is to burn the supply there so once it's retaken its empty for the other side to try and fill up with. This is also a good tactic to slow an attacking zerg. Get the camp before they, bring it to zero and then get out of the way so its win-win. If you can create some golems from it for later use (offense or defense), all the better. Supply management is already an important part of attacking and defending today. I will agree if people are just jumping into game to join a tag they may not think about it, but others are including (hopefully) the tags as well. It's already part of the gameplay occurring daily.

As far as structures going neutral, if you have a side pinned in already that they are stuck in their keeps and towers, no you have enough to dig them out since they can't be everywhere, you probably don't need an attacker having more advantage. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

Logically having the structure repair itself on capture should require at  least a little supply, maybe you would pay the quartermaster, thereby giving them some reason to exist, but probably most players would just leave the structures in ruins.  It might curb the urge to throw down six siege weapons if you needed to save some supply for repair though.

Two interesting test weeks would be, when a structure flips it doesn't get repaired. Want to punch holes everywhere. Well once it flips its still in the same state so you will need to get to repairing. A milder note as you pointed out would be to deduct from the supply there all the supply that would have been needed for the repair to occur. Granted that's the same as making sure you drop a sabotage depot buff into the objective if it looks like you are going to lose it.

Before they nerfed repairs adding to the defense event, supply did seem to be at a much higher premium which was an interesting turn of events and how it impacted offensive supply numbers as well. During the time was seeing less 'oh lets drop 6 cats here' moments. There was also a lot more people willing to fight off attacks at camps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the feedback and ideas.  Rather than structures going neutral I'm starting to like the non-repair aspect and the idea of maintenance cost.

I like the idea that you need to allocate supply to maintaining higher tiers.  If you just think of dolyaks as carrying 60 supply, 50 of which goes in the depot and 10 goes to maintenance/upgrade then you wouldn't be making a radical change but without dolyaks coming in you eventually start to downgrade, stopping at tier 0.  If you cut off supplies from a tier 3 keep it eventually loses its waypoint and so on.  In terms of generating fights that allows guerilla actions against supply lines, and of course countering protection of supply lines, and increases the importance of holding camps.  I have to admit that I can rarely bring myself to escort dolyaks but I will defend one against an attacker if I have the opportunity or or escort if I'm really desperate for supplies to repair a wall in a structure with no supply.

I haven't thought through the downsides but I also like the idea of obtaining supply when you kill a dolyak, or being able to grab supply from your own dolyaks.  (Although in the later case I guess spies could hijack supply.)  And maybe even the ability to drop supply you have at a depot.  That would provide an excuse for the existence of quartermasters.  Maybe you could even ask quartermasters to do wall repairs and relieve a little of the tedium of players having to do it.

The idea of needing to repair walls after capture also appeals to me, if only for the symmetry.  If you have a successful attack you end up with a pristine structure, if you successfully defend you have walls that need to be repaired.  Does everything have to favor attackers?  That also makes it easier for the initial defenders to carry on the fight after the capture.  And in a way, structures with walls are more interesting terrain for fights than intact structures.

To Grimm's point, whether this would encourage fights, my initial thought is yes, at very least it allows fights to carry on after an objective is taken and gives opportunities to attack people doing repairs.  I think SMC invites fighting in part because the outer walls are often (usually?) down until a capture.

To Grimm's other point, does it favor larger groups?  It certainly doesn't solve the "problem" of larger numbers prevailing but it does cramp their ability to cycle around maps taking structures without regard to supply.  As Grimm pointed out this creates a route for smaller groups to stifle larger groups by depriving them of supply.  Even more so it will be difficult for two zergs to cycle around the same map taking structures without necessarily fighting.  If zergs leave behind down or barely repaired walls it will be easier for smaller groups to move in and recapture the objective.  And I think it strengthens home advantage to the extent that the home team can retake and hold camps.  I think zergs might have to split up more.

P.S. @Gorani.7205 No, I haven't been around long enough to have had experience with the old upgrade system so it's useful to hear about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

I haven't thought through the downsides but I also like the idea of obtaining supply when you kill a dolyak.

If you don't mind, can we clarify here? Are you addressing new mechanics or the ones in existance. When running havocs or just roaming aginst camps I have players asking why I ask them not do something. For havoc/roamers in groups, I ask them all to allow everyone to tag a yak since its a seperate roll for each hit that might receive supply from killing  a yak. It's a quick way to resupply a group.For a zerg its even faster if all hit. This is an advantage that a havoc might have over a zerg since the zerg might be over-eager to just kill. 

And blp, keep the suggestions going. When I looked at my open replies I saw a number of them to you, take that more as I found the ideas as interesting and made me say, hmm. Keep the ideas rolling. We have a great sandbox that has a lot of potential in my opionion. Ideas are the price of life that may get us more changes in the future. Players often complain that ANet doesn't listen, but over a decade I have seen ideas that started on the forums show up in game updates. May not be for postings that were made, but better say them then don't in my book. Besides that's why I have friends to keep me in check and make me say hmm, let me think about that. Still appreciate you all.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

If you don't mind, can we clarify here? Are you addressing new mechanics or the ones in existence.

I had actually forgotten that you could already get supply from enemy dolyaks. 😬

I will quite likely continue to inflict my brainstorming ideas on the forums 🙂  There have been several occasions where people whose experience goes back farther than mine explained that something was already tried and the problems it caused which is always interesting.  I tend to post more often when I am getting burned out grinding for legendary items, the number of claim tickets needed for War Bringer is insane! 🤯

I'm sure that Anet decided to implement open world legendary armor based on the logical brilliance of my prior posts with arguments for why it would be a good idea, despite how vociferously some people on the forums were against it.  😉

Btw Grimm, I saw you online for the first time a couple weeks ago, alternating between SW camp and S gate of Bay.  I have been keeping an eye out for you since I saw that you were on SBI.  Happy hunting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

Btw Grimm, I saw you online for the first time a couple weeks ago, alternating between SW camp and S gate of Bay.  I have been keeping an eye out for you since I saw that you were on SBI.  Happy hunting!

/wave, we have a number of SBI forum goers, and a number of us are stubborn kittens, so all the more the merrier. We also have some people that remind me to not think so onesided to think from a number of angles, which I appreciate I admit. So again, if I am group thinking, let me know here or send me a /SMH in game. Good hunting and will have to do a Charr dance when we connect! May your bags be full!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheQuickFox.3826 said:

Supply piles now are part of the critical structure of WvW buildings. Taking away the last supply will cause a structural collapse.

🤭

I think spies might like that a little too much! 🙂  Maybe something like NPCs at the objective will refuse to fight and perform a sit-down strike while there are no supplies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horrible idea. Defense already gets nerfed regularly with the latest being the invul fortifications change. Seems like when a karma train 60 man blob gets stopped by a handful of defenders Anet must get deluged with complaints, so defense gets nerfed. Even the supply camp changes which were touted as being helpful hurt defnse, makes it impossible to drain camps before the enemy can take them. So in order to deprive enemy of supply you need to slot sabotage, thus locking yaks to one delivery at walking speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...