Thoughts on structures not completely repairing after capture (test week?)

[blp.3489]

The idea of structures not being returned to a pristine state on capture came up in another thread.  I'm curious what people would predict would happen if that mechanism were changed.  Would it be worth running a test week to see?

It seems to me that the complete automatic repair on capture process is yet another example of attacker advantage, if the attackers win they get a pristine structure, if the defenders win they are left with a damaged structure, often with multiple walls down, on which they have to expend significant supply.  Certainly in real siege warfare attackers are left with all the damage they caused with no magic repairs when the lord is killed.  Obviously this is a fantasy game so magic shouldn't be ruled out but what are the advantages and disadvantages of this particular magical effect on game play?

It seems to me that, in addition to the above mentioned "unfairness" for attackers versus defenders, this mechanism encourages zerg/blob karma training with zergs rampaging across the map throwing down masses of siege weapons to rapidly breach defenses and capturing every structure in sight while leaving pristine structures in their wake that then have to be won back from scratch.  Zergs often pick up supply from the captured objectives to fuel their rampaging siege of the next objective.  I'm hypothesizing that this leads to non-strategic so called mindless zerging.  If attackers had to repair, at least partially, structures they have captured they would have to manage their supply more carefully, limiting their ability to throw down several siege at the next objective and, perhaps more importantly, if they don't repair the structures are left either open or if capture triggers partial repair with partially repaired walls that are easier for opponents to break down to recapture.  That makes it possible for smaller groups to recapture structures that a zerg has captured but not repaired.  It also allows smaller groups or even individuals to engage in supply denial by consuming supply before capture.  If zerging forces want to take multiple structures they will have to ration their supplies and likely split their forces to establish supply production and transport.  This would diminish having teams with larger numbers zerging over everyone else and help the outnumbered forces recapture objectives if they are left unrepaired.  Of course small groups and individuals may have a tougher time carrying out repairs on structures they capture, but again, supply chain management and the advantage of coming together to secure objectives.

In terms of promoting quality fighting it seems that having defenders still able to counter-attack after a capture will result in more prolonged fights and there will be fights at breaches of the walls where the original defenders, or third parties, can fight to prevent repairs.  I suspect that there will be more opportunities for smaller groups to attack damaged structures and more need for strategic splitting of attacking forces.  Home forces may gain some advantage fighting invading forces through having more readily available supply to build siege and do repairs with and more time to reach objectives under attack due to the attacker's siege weapons having to be rationed out.  I suspect that fighting around unrepaired structures will give interesting opportunities to use terrain to a players advantage.

Even in a fantasy world the greater realism of destroyed structures remaining destroyed unless repaired appeals to me.  Also the strategic aspects of supply management.

Some of you have been around longer and have more experience can weigh in on whether there are things I'm overlooking or if this was tried before and failed etc. etc.  Of course it's open to personal preference whether there should be supply imposed checks on rampaging zergs.  Not everyone wants to stop to do repairs.  Some people prefer to throw down masses of siege weapons and not keeping the zerg waiting for more than a few seconds for walls to come down.  As I write I wonder why the magical repair mechanism was chosen in the first place so I imagine there must be some good reason for it.

So, do you think there is some merit to at least trying it out?  Perhaps having a week where structures don't magically repair themselves so we can see how it affects play?

[MysteryDude.1572]

So you say , my time escorting dollies , protecting them from enemies , guarding the camp where the come from ,dying for them,  should NOT reward my time investing for the realm with a brand new upgraded structure?????

So , what do I get out of it then????????

Isn't the purpose of dollies->better structure -> higher tick->more rewards????????????????

If not , the what ??????????¿???????????????

And while my friends and family are getting SLAYED in that tower , I'm out there trying to provide with more supplies for them and in the end all I should get is "gg you tried" ? 

??????????????????????????????????¿??????????????????

supply runner's efforts MATTER !!¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 1, 2023 by MysteryDude.1572

[blp.3489]

1 minute ago, MysteryDude.1572 said:

So you say , my time escorting dollies , protecting them from enemies , guarding the camp where the come from ,dying for them,  should NOT reward my time investing for the realm with a brand new upgraded structure?????

I think I'm missing something, escorting dollies will be more important than ever because supply will be less available because it was spent on repairing captured structures.  I'm talking about removing or scaling back the instant repair of all walls without spending any supply that occurs when a capture happens.

[MysteryDude.1572]

ehh, it was full on sarcasm

idgaf tbh i just logg in for fights

you can make dollies fly or go undergwater for all i care.... 😅

 

[blp.3489]

4 minutes ago, MysteryDude.1572 said:

ehh, it was full on sarcasm

Ahh!  I often wonder how people miss it when I deliberately go totally overboard in jest but here I am... 😬🙂

Edited July 1, 2023 by blp.3489

[joneirikb.7506]

Couple of thoughts:
* If captured objectives doesn't repair, we might be left with entire maps just riddled with holes, with no one bothering to repair, open runs directly to the capture ring. It could possibly become pure karma-train like old EotM again?
* It would certainly make supply more valuable, IF people care about defending. That said such a change might also break the will of many to defend?
* I imagine SMC would just be constantly full of holes.
* Might be really annoying with how fond people are to trebbing from other objectives.
* That last point might actually make DBL somewhat more popular, since you can't treb from objectives.
* I foresee a sudden spike in dedication to killing enemy siege, and not letting it stand around for next use...

Could also have that poor chap, the supply guy walk around and slowly repair stuff if not interrupted. Easy to snipe to sabotage, and can be ressed.

Edited July 1, 2023 by joneirikb.7506

[blp.3489]

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

* It would certainly make supply more valuable, IF people care about defending. That said such a change might also break the will of many to defend?

What's your thinking there?  It seems to me that defenders would be the beneficiaries if attackers didn't have magical rebuilds.  They are also in a better position to carry on the fight and retake if the attackers don't manage to repair the structure.

 

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

* If captured objectives doesn't repair, we might be left with entire maps just riddled with holes, with no one bothering to repair, open runs directly to the capture ring. It could possibly become pure karma-train like old EotM again?

That's possible.  I wasn't around for the EotM karma trains so I'm not sure how it worked.  The current bonus rewards for capturing a structure might even encourage that.  On the other hand, an open structure would certainly make a tempting target for small scale groups and that would lead to fights between opposing small groups.  Part of the idea is that supply will constrain the ability to mow down numerous structures, especially if defenders clear it out before capture.  You won't need supply to build siege if everything is open there should be motivation to repair walls even a little so that siege is required.  Of course with only slight repairs one or two siege weapons would suffice so...

In the end, I can't predict whether players will want to hold their objectives or take turns passing structures back and forth like camps, which wouldn't actually be anything new, it would just happen a little faster without having to wait for siege weapons to do their work.  What might be different is whether people would stay in a zerg in that situation or spread out to take multiple open objectives at once.  My bet is that if an objective can be taken easily by a small group that there will be enough small groups that will do it despite any collusion between sides to leave objectives open.  And of course you could add rewards for rebuilding structures to ensure that there will be a lot of players that don't want to participate in collusion.  And you could reduce rewards for capturing an open objective - but then you reduce the incentive to take them so...

Maybe you have to kill the lord and close the walls and gates to complete a capture?  (close rather than fully repair)

I definitely think it would be interesting to try it for a test week and see what people will actually do.

Edited July 1, 2023 by blp.3489
Add 2nd last para

[TheGrimm.5624]

Adding strategic play to me is never a bad idea. We have plenty of mechanics where people can just play and not consider and that's good as well, its a game, it's meant to entertain. These don't have to be mutually exclusive.

So by going with the idea that walls do not auto repair people may instead have to consider where they attack from if they want to retain the structure after, or choose to attack more places since they consider they will not be able to retain after. That's adds complexity and strategy to the decisions. One breach or punch lots of holes so no one hold its. 

That said, yes with this mechanic I think they would need to fix the defense mechanic that was added that seems questionable. With that aspect fixed I think you would see enough incentive that people would repair if there was more value in holding an objective. Add into that week end rewards they are talking about and that might be more of an incentive to repair so you can upgrade and hold. That does increase the value in supply management which also leads to more open field fights people ask for as camps again have more value especially if they can upgraded. In light of that we go back to asking if camps shouldn't go back to have tiers 2 & 3 re-added which opens the door to other options.

So its a domino effect in some cases. Plus it adds into a concept that ANet seems to be nudging people to which is fighting within objectives. 

[joneirikb.7506]

@blp.3489

 

Quote

What's your thinking there?  It seems to me that defenders would be the beneficiaries if attackers didn't have magical rebuilds.  They are also in a better position to carry on the fight and retake if the attackers don't manage to repair the structure.

A zerg can spend 5 minutes to tear down a wall or two and take the lord down. And just leave the autorepaired walls to run to the next objective. Without the autorepair this doesn't change, as they usually don't care about objetives they've taken, looking for the next.

A home defence group have to generally spend more time taking down and taking back that objective, say 15 minutes. And then the auto repaired walls lets them go and take camps, and start working after the zerg, retaking objectives. 

If they then have to spend a lot more time running supplies from camps to repair possible multiple walls, this might take up to another 15+ minutes depending on situation, and other enemies about. It might result in defenders just saying kitten.it and stop bothering, because it simply takes too much work/time. That zerg might have captured their entire homeBL by the time they got the first keep back up with walls again.

Quote

 I wasn't around for the EotM karma trains so I'm not sure how it worked. 

It was just dumb. They added better rewards (in terms of Karma, WXP and normal XP iirc, but it's been a while) that normal WvW, and the main problem was that if you have a zerg that rapidly took objectives it was faster XP than most PVE.

So you had own guilds that arranged and spread out commanders until they had 1 on each side in an EotM instance. Then they ferried people in using party system (forgot if squad system was there at the time or not, but not important).

And then those 3 commanders on each side arranged and timed things between them, so they could rotate clockwise at roughly same speed, taking objectives, never meeting each others, because it was more lucrative to just rapidly take down objectives. This became known as one of the best XP farms in the game.

This also resulted in WvW players trying to fight them, or siege, or defend, or rally their side against them: Only to be shouted out of the map for ruining their Farm. Which naturally made this the very meaning of life to some havoc and zerg busting guilds at the time. (Which just made this guild disperse, and dig up a new map instance).

----

Would make for an interesting test week. No idea which direction it would go.

It might need longer RI after capture.

Edited July 1, 2023 by joneirikb.7506
Kitten I hate this forums quote system

[disForm.2837]

@joneirikb.7506 I wasn't here at that time so I have a question.

I play WvW every day and even ppt commanders take fights if they are easy. 

Did PvE players just jumped into WvW zones to farm, how it was sustainable? Because that sounds like a wet dream for any WvW guild, easiest bags ever. I've seen what an organized 15-20 players can do to a random blob, and that's in WvW, where at least some players have suitable builds/equipment. Against random PvE players with whatever equipment, massacre.

[MedievalThings.5417]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:00 AM, MysteryDude.1572 said:

So you say , my time escorting dollies , protecting them from enemies , guarding the camp where the come from ,dying for them,  should NOT reward my time investing for the realm with a brand new upgraded structure?????

So , what do I get out of it then????????

Isn't the purpose of dollies->better structure -> higher tick->more rewards????????????????

If not , the what ??????????¿???????????????

And while my friends and family are getting SLAYED in that tower , I'm out there trying to provide with more supplies for them and in the end all I should get is "gg you tried" ? 

??????????????????????????????????¿??????????????????

supply runner's efforts MATTER !!¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And they would matter more if people actually needed supply to repair/rebuild the things they broke.

While this would probably just benefit the ktrain boon-blob, I really do think they should look at a system like this, even if it was just for a random event every now and again.  It would absolutely make supply and supply chain management more important.  Instead of just run around blobbing everything down and then kitten-jamming the 5 guys trying to recap, over and over.

[joneirikb.7506]

57 minutes ago, disForm.2837 said:

@joneirikb.7506 I wasn't here at that time so I have a question.

I play WvW every day and even ppt commanders take fights if they are easy. 

Did PvE players just jumped into WvW zones to farm, how it was sustainable? Because that sounds like a wet dream for any WvW guild, easiest bags ever. I've seen what an organized 15-20 players can do to a random blob, and that's in WvW, where at least some players have suitable builds/equipment. Against random PvE players with whatever equipment, massacre.

They specifically tried to find a mostly empty EotM instance, where they got 3 people on different teams. Then they populated it by taxi in members with the party system, thus at least partially filling the map up.

They where often large enough that they could run over roamers and small teams. And if someone gave them enough trouble they could team up with the 3rd team (say red + green vs blue havoc, while blue pve zerg would just stand aside or sabotage for the others), but they preferred to just let their own team sit and shout them out in mapchat etc, tell them to kitten.off and stop ruining their farm, and go back to circle.kitten in pvp or something.

And as said, sometimes a good havoc or a zerg busting guild found them, and either had enough or taxied in more etc. If the usual heckling didn't work, they'd abandon map, and search for another empty EotM instance.

You can probably still find some youtube videos about it if you search around.

ANet solved this in its usual manner, when they got around to update the rewards. Removed normal XP from all WvW, and gave pips and stuff to normal WvW, which also killed EotM pretty much. Small nail, meet big hammer.

[Gorani.7205]

18 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

A zerg can spend 5 minutes to tear down a wall or two and take the lord down. And just leave the autorepaired walls to run to the next objective. Without the autorepair this doesn't change, as they usually don't care about objectives they've taken...

I think this is the fundamental problem with the idea of leaving walls un-repaired after a capture.

PS: I am a big advocate of bringing back the supply game to WvW, but that would mean more coding and Dev time (which is currently non-existent, because Alliances are a distribution mechanic, not something that adds a game mechanic to WvW)

Edited July 2, 2023 by Gorani.7205

[blp.3489]

On 7/1/2023 at 6:05 PM, joneirikb.7506 said:

A zerg can spend 5 minutes to tear down a wall or two and take the lord down. And just leave the autorepaired walls to run to the next objective. Without the autorepair this doesn't change, as they usually don't care about objetives they've taken, looking for the next.

A home defence group have to generally spend more time taking down and taking back that objective, say 15 minutes. And then the auto repaired walls lets them go and take camps, and start working after the zerg, retaking objectives. 

If they then have to spend a lot more time running supplies from camps to repair possible multiple walls, this might take up to another 15+ minutes depending on situation, and other enemies about. It might result in defenders just saying kitten.it and stop bothering, because it simply takes too much work/time. That zerg might have captured their entire homeBL by the time they got the first keep back up with walls again.

I have a few thoughts on that. If a zerg took a keep and then left with the walls still down then just a few players on another team could waltz right in and take the keep as soon as RI expired.  The time consuming part would be rebuilding the walls but that is the same position a defending team is in if it repels the attackers after they get inside. Except the attackers will likely have taken most or all of any supply that may have been in the objective before the attack.  So my guess is that all the objectives the zerg takes would be flipped five minutes later just as camps are now. A structure with its walls breached is just a camp with a somewhat stronger npc defending it.  In short, if a zerg runs through a map without rebuilding walls it will all be flipped in a matter of minutes as long as there are several players from other teams on the map.

Wrt an EotM-like scenario, there aren't instances of maps in WVW so there are very likely to be players on any given map who won't cooperate with leaving objectives open if only because they want to get their weeklies done in a very efficient manner.

The best case scenario is that a few of the zerglings stay behind to fight off or ambush opponents that come wanting to flip the structure and you end up with a lot of small scale fighting on maps where only one team can field a zerg.  Zergs might well do only enough repairs to close the structure, depending on if they are capturing objectives with supply in them, to force opponents to at least have to build siege to get in.

All in all I would guess that structures taken by zergs would be lost again significantly faster than now if zergs don't do at least some repair work and that more thought and attention about supply would be needed.

Whether zergs actually care how long they hold structures they capture I can't predict but I think that smaller groups would have more opportunities to effectively counter zergs for ppt purposes at least. There would also be new opportunities for scouts to be useful by determining how much repair if any has been done. There might even be more use for the cheap blue siege we accumulate from big spender dailies in knocking down walls and gates that were only repaired enough to close them.

My bet is that there will be more strategy and tactics needed and that it will be harder for teams to own entire maps.

[XenesisII.1540]

They would have to put participation for wall repairs in again otherwise you're going to find a lot of broken walls.

Besides of which objectives are already in a weaker state when they get captured for a reset, especially if it was a t3 objective, which means it went back to t0 and lost all that extra hitpoints on walls and gate, lost siege, lost guards, lost tactics, and maybe even 0 supply if sabotage depot was used. 

[babana.7521]

No to this suggestion. 
 

First of all, this isn't a single player castle building simulation game. 

Second of all, defending the camp and walking the dolly is part of rebuilding the objective, please don't over complicate the game. 

 

Thirdly, if enemy wanted, they can always come inside the keep when the wall is breached even if it wasn't breached by them, wait there or have a fun 3 ways battle and see who won the objective. 

 

Lastly, the only way I see this getting into the game mode is this : after successfully capping an objective, if it wasn't claim by any guild, it doesn't level up. There is no need for unrepair wall or what not. 

[joneirikb.7506]

12 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

I have a few thoughts on that. If a zerg took a keep and then left with the walls still down then just a few players on another team could waltz right in and take the keep as soon as RI expired.  The time consuming part would be rebuilding the walls but that is the same position a defending team is in if it repels the attackers after they get inside. Except the attackers will likely have taken most or all of any supply that may have been in the objective before the attack.  So my guess is that all the objectives the zerg takes would be flipped five minutes later just as camps are now. A structure with its walls breached is just a camp with a somewhat stronger npc defending it.  In short, if a zerg runs through a map without rebuilding walls it will all be flipped in a matter of minutes as long as there are several players from other teams on the map.

Wrt an EotM-like scenario, there aren't instances of maps in WVW so there are very likely to be players on any given map who won't cooperate with leaving objectives open if only because they want to get their weeklies done in a very efficient manner.

The best case scenario is that a few of the zerglings stay behind to fight off or ambush opponents that come wanting to flip the structure and you end up with a lot of small scale fighting on maps where only one team can field a zerg.  Zergs might well do only enough repairs to close the structure, depending on if they are capturing objectives with supply in them, to force opponents to at least have to build siege to get in.

All in all I would guess that structures taken by zergs would be lost again significantly faster than now if zergs don't do at least some repair work and that more thought and attention about supply would be needed.

Whether zergs actually care how long they hold structures they capture I can't predict but I think that smaller groups would have more opportunities to effectively counter zergs for ppt purposes at least. There would also be new opportunities for scouts to be useful by determining how much repair if any has been done. There might even be more use for the cheap blue siege we accumulate from big spender dailies in knocking down walls and gates that were only repaired enough to close them.

My bet is that there will be more strategy and tactics needed and that it will be harder for teams to own entire maps.

Yup, I think it can go both ways. My initial comment was mostly that some defenders are likely going to consider this a nerf to their defence. There isn't that many defenders left, so if we lost say half, there might not be much left.

Almost any change to WvW will be both positive and negative to any/all playstyles, despite what most players seemingly believe. And this mode is especially vulnerable to "player perception", "They nerfed X! Now the game sucks, I hate it! I'll quit!" and others reads that, and instantly puts themselves in a negative mindset, and believe things is nerfed. The bigger the change, the greater likelihood of this. So a change as drastic as no walls repair is very likely to cause such a reaction.

[blp.3489]

I was never clear on whether pip related participation could be separated from defence participation, and if not why they removed it, but if so I think participation for repair should be reinstated for the sake of us players that solo repair walls after defending structures.

As I stated earlier, I don't see why successful defenders have to repair walls but successful attackers do not.  So for me, any argument against capturers having to repair needs to be checked as to whether it would also apply to defenders.  If it does also apply to defenders then I don't think it is fair/balanced to only benefit attackers. For example, "repairing walls is tedious", if so why is it okay that defenders have to endure the tedium but attackers are exempt?

There may be a better argument for automated repair of walls, say talk to the quartermaster and the walls start being repaired at X units of supply every Y units of time, provided there is supply in the depot, with the rate being comparable to a single player doing repairs or something.  That would better relieve the tediousness issue. It would also provide a supply draining mechanism for preventing enemy capture of your supply.  If the enemy kills the quartermaster then repair stops until they are revived.  If the wall is slowly being repaired then there is a benefit to a quick counterattack, which in turn can lead to fighting.  It all comes back to strategic use of supply.

Certainly there is the possibility of unforseen negative consequences, either real or imagined, which is why having a test week and then taking time to assess the results would be advisable. Hopefully very few players would rage quit the mode over a one week test.

Edited July 3, 2023 by blp.3489

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, blp.3489 said:

As I stated earlier, I don't see why successful defenders have to repair walls but successful attackers do not.  So for me, any argument against capturers having to repair needs to be checked as to whether it would also apply to defenders.

You forget that attackers also have to spend supply to create siege to counter siege/break down those walls/gates in the first place, spending supply to repair or build counter siege is the balance to that engagement. Once the objective flips, the roles are reversed, with the attackers now having to defend a weakened objective with possibly no supply on hand, but most times they just move on and the objective isn't even defended for an easy recap.

Automated wall repair also already happens when the objective upgrades to t2/3. The problem with automated repair triggered by the quartermaster is there are times when defenders want to have the wall or gate open to use as a choke point advantage for zergs/blobs, and hate it when the wall is repaired in the middle of those battles taking place in it still, this would happen more often and the person wouldn't even need to be at the danger spot to do it.

Edited July 3, 2023 by XenesisII.1540

[Baldrick.8967]

Yes to this suggestion, will speed up the karma train as we all know trains have zero interest in defending anyway.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/3/2023 at 1:42 PM, Baldrick.8967 said:

Yes to this suggestion, will speed up the karma train as we all know trains have zero interest in defending anyway.

I don't think it would impact the karma trains we already have. The question is would it extended fights and balance more in taking and holding? If defense events were fixed would it encourage people to repair if it wasn't done automatically on take? People take and go now because its more rewarding and its mindless. A goal here would be to increase the value in supply and a subgoal would to increase the value in supply camps which creates more open field fights. People often complain about wall hangers and people not coming out to a fight. So if you want them to come out to fight you need to create a higher demand in holding camps which does translate to more open field fights of all sizes. While the defend event included repairs there was an uptick to fights around camps, in what I could see, not sure if there are any websites that have heat maps, will need to check into that. Mix in reasons to win the week and then its more value add in holding versus just attacking, which again increases chances for conflicts to happen.

Another potential in not auto repairing is its potential to impact the size of the scale of the conflict. Would it impact people spreading out to fight more fights? Some people run large scale since they see the walls as something that slows them down to try and take something. So again if you break into something and don't fix what you broke when you left how does that impact behavior. Said it before, would be an interesting test to see how it impacts gameplay on various level. But back to the first point, we already have karma trains daily, and no they were around long before EoTM was even a map. 

[Gotejjeken.1267]

If you do this, no one would ever repair anything.  As why would you repair a structure you just destroyed, and why would you repair a structure that was just destroyed when you can waltz right in to the lord?

The balance here is defending team loses a structure that took hours to upgrade, and attacking team gains a structure that's easy to lose if not guarded.  With the cata/ram spam walls and gates really play no role here--which is a fixable problem if they'd tone down siege power.  Just having multiple walls / gates missing is not, because as mentioned there is no incentive to ever fix them.  

tldr; this change = all structures become camps.  Just walless nodes to fight over--almost like a very watered down massive scale PvP.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/3/2023 at 10:54 AM, joneirikb.7506 said:

Yup, I think it can go both ways. My initial comment was mostly that some defenders are likely going to consider this a nerf to their defence. There isn't that many defenders left, so if we lost say half, there might not be much left.

Almost any change to WvW will be both positive and negative to any/all playstyles, despite what most players seemingly believe. And this mode is especially vulnerable to "player perception", "They nerfed X! Now the game sucks, I hate it! I'll quit!" and others reads that, and instantly puts themselves in a negative mindset, and believe things is nerfed. The bigger the change, the greater likelihood of this. So a change as drastic as no walls repair is very likely to cause such a reaction.

I admit I defend way too many times when I shouldn't. Have done full siege sets and spent way too much on placing defensive siege in hopes to see people come to defend to just see a T3 get burnt down fully sieged and no one shows up for scouting callouts. That said I have thrown the idea out about testing non-repair weeks to see how it impacts play. Even as a roamer/havoc player it would change up game play. Havocs consider options already of where am I hitting them and what is my intent. Am I looking to take or just make them waste supply. I wonder if this would also impact larger scale, the reason for a test is I think it might and could and add more thoughtful play and tactics to the mix we have. But again, I say test since if it would require a larger code rewrite, we do have bigger fish out there first. If its a light change, could make for an interesting test, IMO.

[TheGrimm.5624]

23 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

If you do this, no one would ever repair anything.  As why would you repair a structure you just destroyed, and why would you repair a structure that was just destroyed when you can waltz right in to the lord?

The balance here is defending team loses a structure that took hours to upgrade, and attacking team gains a structure that's easy to lose if not guarded.  With the cata/ram spam walls and gates really play no role here--which is a fixable problem if they'd tone down siege power.  Just having multiple walls / gates missing is not, because as mentioned there is no incentive to ever fix them.  

tldr; this change = all structures become camps.  Just walless nodes to fight over--almost like a very watered down massive scale PvP.

Defensive events do need fixing and I do think week end placements will help in balancing in attacking and defending if we get there. Still glad even if it took years that we got to the point that higher tiered structures add more in points, holding your stuff should matter. I think the karma train tags are already going to hit the weakest point and the tags that are looking to take and hold will still do what they do. But if that's just 20% of the mix, curious how it would impact the other 80% and does it meet what ANet was looking for which is more fights. You might be right and it means more people just circling each other, but again, if its an easy test week, could be interesting, but, they need to fix the defense events first else I do agree, no one would repair. The other very unknow variable is ANet's attack events which we haven't see enter into the mix yet. That's a wild card that may change this idea around and say its a terribad thing to test if it just encourages even less people to defend. Again we need both, defending and attacking else there are no fights and we might all just as well go play single player games versus run in circles.

[blp.3489]

While I know some players won't repair, it might even be that most karma trains won't bother, but defenders do repair after successful defenses so there are players who repair and my guess is that many of those players would repair after they capture objectives.  Especially when they can quick grab an open structure.  The 50 supply you would use to build a catapult if the structure wasn't open is enough to close a wall or gate so if you don't at least close the structure you are helping the enemy conserve supply.

What a zerg taketh away a half dozen players can take back so at very least maps that get painted one color in the wee hours will get repainted fairly quickly rather than sit half the night collecting ppt.

Heck, give anyone who did 20 supply of repair on a structure a bonus reward when the structure is fully repaired following a capture.  Maybe have bronze silver gold bonuses depending on the amount of repair performed. The prior repair exploit wouldn't work unless the structure gets fully repaired and only the first time after capture.