Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Defending/SM nerfs when?


Riba.3271

Recommended Posts

It is nearing primetime and 4 tiers out of 5 in EU has T3 SM. If other servers have attempted all day to reset it and failed, isn't it little bit too easy to hold or upgrade? Every server should have weaker timezones than opponents, but apparently stonemist is so easy to hold that it can't be reset even when server is at its weakest.

Increase amount of dolykas required to upgrade and reduce the combat stats inside. Maybe reduce effectiveness of some SM specific tactivators. You could even extend the nerfs to all objectives, and defenders would still win most of the time.

Overall WvW would feel much healthier if attacking objectives felt remotely fair. After all, to defend, you need willing attackers first.

And to all the disorganised individuals that always come here to cry about defending being too hard: you losing stonemist or t3 keep with inexperienced chatmander against organised 40 man guild voice tags, doesn't mean it isn't easy to hold. You or your server just didn't try their best.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guild laughs anytime they ask where to and I state rule #2. If in doubt, attack the side that holds SMC. The rule has even more emphasis the closer SMC gets to T3. It also makes double teaming valid. So Riba, were the other two sides working against the side that held SMC or were they nipping at each other instead since it was easier?

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

My guild laughs anytime they ask where to and I state rule #2. If in doubt, attack the side that holds SMC. The rule has even more emphasis the closer SMC gets to T3. It also makes double teaming valid. So Riba, were the other two sides working against the side that held SMC or were they nipping at each other instead since it was easier?

Ain't nobody got time for that, capping empty camps and towers is the way to go!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen. It is far to easy to defend with a fraction of the people. Having defensible keeps is fine but SM has such a big influence on the state of EB, it doesn't seem right at all for it to be so difficult to flip, its unfun.

I often thought removing the ability to place defensive siege (ie siege cap it for defenders) and giving the lord a massive health or toughness increase might be an interesting way to go with SM. This would encourage actual fights in the objective which, outside of clown shoe wearing 'defenders', most people actually want

Edited by RlyOsim.2497
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worse if it doesn't flip during prime time if organized groups, just dodge the map as the content isn't any good, but the worse I've seen mostly is involving the stacked T1 servers, where you can't ever play on EBG, apart from past midnight.Β 

T1 is just awful to stay in for too long, as there's almost always that one server queued on EBG, withΒ  SM tiered up for most of the day.

Edited by CrimsonOneThree.5682
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2023 at 6:45 PM, Riba.3271 said:

isn't it little bit too easy to hold or upgrade

No

I'm linked to Fissure and they're known SM lovers who have a queue for ebg when I come home from work at around 3-4 pm. Today it was 40 for ebg, 0 for the borderlands.

And they've lost SM this week too.

If Anet wants to change anything, just bring back supps for defense event and ppl will drain SM again and it'll be harder to keep. And other ppl, having trouble with defense events because of their random variables, will be happy too.
Actually everyone will be happy.
Except for the SM defenders.

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

SMC is the easiest targets to punch holes in. If a side is holding it then the other sides failed to focus fire and choose not to prevent it from ranking. That's an issue for the other two sides and not an issue with defense. Players need to learn where and when to attack versus go with its easier to attack paper targets. Don't nerf defense when players make bad calls on where they attack and instead choose easier rewards.

Edit: Sorry confused peeps, don't let the side that holds SMC double team you by double teaming the other side that also doesn't hold SMC. Remember Rule #2 if in doubt attack the side that holds SMC on all maps.

Edited by TheGrimm.5624
lol
  • Like 1
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Why don't we make dolyak going into SMC walks at -100% swiftness and without armor.Β πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ€£πŸ˜‚

lol, not sure that is needed.

Never remove the options for friendly roamers and havocs to take and bait camps that the side that holds SMC owns. One it's in their job role and two don't remove their tactical options. It's like a fishing expedition. Take, set and wait for people that look to retake versus just run back to the defense of SMC even when they have no supply running. Hopefully if the two sides that don't have SMC are playing smart, one hits SMC while the other digs holes in the third that does own it. You need to make the side that holds SMC decide, keep it and lose everything else or lose it to keep their third. When the two sides decide to skip SMC and attack each other all they do is empower the side that holds it to help double team both of the two sides that don't own it. Which gives the owning side more time to rank it up to their advantage. That's not a defense is OP issue, that's players making bad calls in hopes of rewards versus looking at the longer view of allowing a side to hold it longer. Rule #2, if in doubt attack the side that holds SMC.Β 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

lol, not sure that is needed.

Never remove the options for friendly roamers and havocs to take and bait camps that the side that holds SMC owns. One it's in their job role and two don't remove their tactical options. It's like a fishing expedition. Take, set and wait for people that look to retake versus just run back to the defense of SMC even when they have no supply running. Hopefully if the two sides that don't have SMC are playing smart, one hits SMC while the other digs holes in the third that does own it. You need to make the side that holds SMC decide, keep it and lose everything else or lose it to keep their third. When the two sides decide to skip SMC and attack each other all they do is empower the side that holds it to help double team both of the two sides that don't own it. Which gives the owning side more time to rank it up to their advantage. That's not a defense is OP issue, that's players making bad calls in hopes of rewards versus looking at the longer view of allowing a side to hold it longer. Rule #2, if in doubt attack the side that holds SMC.Β 

If the trend is to nerf everything in WvW, I have another idea, make the Dolyak self-combust after the last tower before SMC.Β Β πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

Edited by SweetPotato.7456
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

If the trend is to nerf everything in WvW, I have another idea, make the Dolyak self-combust after the last tower before SMC.Β Β πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

lol, exploding dolyaks. Maybe we need a vengeance tactic that can be installed in camps, killing a dolyak in motion triggers a flame blast in a 1200 unit radius that applies burning to all enemies. Would never pass but might be a tactic named as 'Revenge of the Yak!'. πŸ™‚Β 

  • Haha 1
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
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...