Your Top 5 Problems or Concerns of WvW

[Coldtart.4785]

2 hours ago, Sher.1632 said:

You can barely keep up your participation to gain at least some pips  for the reward chests.

The participation system as a whole can be aggravating. We barely get any rewards to begin with but you sometimes have to jump through hoops to get even that since getting into a 1v5 fight and losing doesn't count as participating. There's all these ways to try and stop people from getting rewards while afk but they don't address the root of the problem: there are people in wvw that don't want to be there, not because it's rewarding to do so but because there are things that can only be obtained through wvw. If we could just sell wvw exclusives on the tp there wouldn't be any incentive to afk and thus no need for a participation meter.

[XenesisII.1540]

50 minutes ago, Coldtart.4785 said:

The participation system as a whole can be aggravating. We barely get any rewards to begin with but you sometimes have to jump through hoops to get even that since getting into a 1v5 fight and losing doesn't count as participating. There's all these ways to try and stop people from getting rewards while afk but they don't address the root of the problem: there are people in wvw that don't want to be there, not because it's rewarding to do so but because there are things that can only be obtained through wvw. If we could just sell wvw exclusives on the tp there wouldn't be any incentive to afk and thus no need for a participation meter.

You don't actually need to wvw. You can earn legendary armor in pve raids and ow. You can buy legendary weapons off the tp thus skipping the gift of battle. The ring you can earn one in raids, and the other can be filled with the most common dropped ascended(rings) anyways. If you don't want to be in wvw, don't be in wvw. 🤷‍♂️

[Silinsar.6298]

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I think mounts are bad for the mode, because it makes roamers less of a threat. I'd bet my horse that this also inadvertently fuels some of the zerg hate that goes on here, on top of the constant nerfs to siege and tower defenses. Roamers should have use in the game mode as a way of stifling an enemies reinforcements...a tactical gameplay strategy that's essentially been eradicated and i think that's a shame...and i'm saying this as a Zergling. Not only that but players that might be newer to WvW just mount up and zip around the big baddies that are praying for content and so those Zerglings never really get to learn about how to deal with certain scenarios (like how to better run away from an enemy, or supporting your teammates in smaller skirmishes so that you can get to the zerg together) not to mention that these skirmishes ultimately create new dynamics outside of the zerg fight (and leads to more meaningful content, and reasons to fight each other)

That's pretty much on point. In general higher out of combat mobility makes it more risky to engage in fights / objectives when you're outnumbered. The meta's quite durable, so even if you do target respawning players specifically, it's very likely someone adds before you get to finish the fight. It also makes in-combat mobility even more of a must-have, because it's more important to chase targets down (when they could otherwise reset but rejoin fully healed within seconds due to mount leaps or just keep you in combat with lance while you're fighting other players). And if you want to escape you'll also have to handle opponents jumping on / ahead of you with mounts. Mounts also make it harder to engage someone in small scale fights on even ground - the aggressor has to deal with two leap dodges, "super speed" and an extra ~10k HP if they are not mounted as well and hit with a lance.

Mounts effectively shrunk the map - the response and respawn (+return to the fight) time is lower. And tend to take longer now. That's a combination that reinforces numerical advantage. So in short, yes, it's harder to start skirmishes and they're even more risky for the side that has less players around.

 

About Zerglings returning to the Zerg, yes... and it's sad and funny to see how badly many players with very high ranks handle themselves if caught in a small scale fight. You could expect more from Bronze Ranks 6 years ago than from a lot of Diamonds now.

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

You don't actually need to wvw. You can earn legendary armor in pve raids and ow. You can buy legendary weapons off the tp thus skipping the gift of battle. The ring you can earn one in raids, and the other can be filled with the most common dropped ascended(rings) anyways. If you don't want to be in wvw, don't be in wvw. 🤷‍♂️

A lot of blame is attributed to pve'ers afking but honestly most of the afkers I've seen are actually wvwers who seem to always be there. People who actually dislike the game mode will get up and leave pretty fast and not spend hours on end. Casual players tend to have lives and aren't going to be clogging up the queues outside of prime time. Like  if someone takes the time to think  of cringe ways to exploit the system, especially in a wasteful fashion, then  they are not casuals.

Sure you have degens that are building their 25th legendary or something but those are by and far the exception. People often exaggerate the importance of legendaries but guess who's going to be the most vocal-- people that struggle to get them. Of course it's gonna sound like it's the most important thing in the world and the world will end if they don't get them.

Like even this week people blamed pvers for the increased queues because of the event, and while that is true, our queues are often clogged already by certain big  guilds trying to fit on a certain map (typically ebg/hbl) and don't want to go anywhere else.

But beyond my subjective perspective, I think it's also clear that these WvW requirements really do not deter people. People still do them, and the requirements have been like that since the start. If the GoB was such an obstacle, then legendaries would be disproportionately made by WvW players-- and lol, that's just silly.

Furthermore, I would also say a lot of people that come into wvw and end up hating the game mode do so for very valid reasons. Perhaps instead of making it so that some pvers don't have to do wvw   they could actually make it a game mode that is more playable for most people.

Edited March 26 by ArchonWing.9480

[Coldtart.4785]

2 hours ago, Silinsar.6298 said:

About Zerglings returning to the Zerg, yes... and it's sad and funny to see how badly many players with very high ranks handle themselves if caught in a small scale fight. You could expect more from Bronze Ranks 6 years ago than from a lot of Diamonds now.

I'm not sure what you're expecting minstrel builds or full glass builds with no mobility or sustain to do against a roaming build.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 hours ago, Silinsar.6298 said:

That's pretty much on point. In general higher out of combat mobility makes it more risky to engage in fights / objectives when you're outnumbered. The meta's quite durable, so even if you do target respawning players specifically, it's very likely someone adds before you get to finish the fight. It also makes in-combat mobility even more of a must-have, because it's more important to chase targets down (when they could otherwise reset but rejoin fully healed within seconds due to mount leaps or just keep you in combat with lance while you're fighting other players). And if you want to escape you'll also have to handle opponents jumping on / ahead of you with mounts. Mounts also make it harder to engage someone in small scale fights on even ground - the aggressor has to deal with two leap dodges, "super speed" and an extra ~10k HP if they are not mounted as well and hit with a lance.

Mounts effectively shrunk the map - the response and respawn (+return to the fight) time is lower. And tend to take longer now. That's a combination that reinforces numerical advantage. So in short, yes, it's harder to start skirmishes and they're even more risky for the side that has less players around.

 

About Zerglings returning to the Zerg, yes... and it's sad and funny to see how badly many players with very high ranks handle themselves if caught in a small scale fight. You could expect more from Bronze Ranks 6 years ago than from a lot of Diamonds now.

Ya. And to be honest If we kept mounts in the game mode, then i think like in other war games, it could/should be something you would have to work for or invest in almost like an upgrade... and there should be viable counters to choosing to have that ability. Like if you invest in the airplane to fly over everyone? Then the enemy can invest in anti-aircraft tech... If you invest in tanks? The enemy can go anti-artillery. So if you chose mounts, then the enemy should be able to invest in something that can counter the use of your mounts. If they don't it's because they decided to counter something else.

"Build Wars on the level of World tactics" sounds like a true call back to what this game should be about (build wars). I guess that's another issue i didn't raise but...the upgrade system seems...lacking too.

Edited March 26 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Riba.3271]

From the top of my head, the obvious ones are:

1. Objective Auras: There can be no fair fight when there are 800 stat swings even on open field (~25% damage). Of course players will opt to have 75% winrate, over 25% winrate, and now there are more people willing to defend than attack, and then that 75% winrate became 90% winrate. Yes, keep are still lost.. But only by bad players against good ones that have several times better builds, organised mindset and play more effective. Dueling also died because objective auras: WvW needs competitive combat support. Best guild or dueler should best guild or dueler everywhere, not become 10th best when enemy has 800 more stats and no siege around.

2. Shield Generators and boon golems: WvW siege balance is in joke state. Gates are weaker and golems can be given quickness now,. So they go down 2 times faster. Guild golems cost only 50 supplies and can have protection making them super tanky. To top it off, shield gens block all other siege: ballistas, trebs, acs, catapults, cannons, mortars. So the meta is just zerg rushing into lord room in 2 minutes.... And due to objective auras from point 1, they are in immense rush and will just get facerolled if there is defending zerg on map.

EDIT: Oh yeah.. And siege HP was doubled against siege damage in the crit/condi patch. So golems and rams effectively take half the damage from other siege now, and siege damage to siege should be buffed by at least 30%. I know their intent was probably to make siege bit tankier, but doubling hp against siege was going little bit overboard.

3. God awful server systems. Linkings are terrible, World Restructuring is bad. We had perfect system of monoservers but there were just too many servers. So instead of keeping most logical and competitive system that kept strong communities, great transfer costs and player influence, they chose to ruin it for everyone. The fact is that they chose to make their game 10 times worse worse because they didn't want to make the logical choice of deleting servers due to bad press.

4. Desert map: Because no1 who wants a challenge will opt to go to map that has no enemies 90% of the time, so it is waste of space for most players and all it does is ruin scoring balance. It is just so much different from alpine that often server that would lose with alpine map, will win with desert map... Or vice versa. So obviously there can be no server rankings.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying youre not allowed to like desert. The problems are that it is too unpopular and different compared to alpines. Having 3 desert maps in same matchup would be fine, if it was close to as popular and wouldnt drop activity to half, but having mix of deserts and alpines is just not the way to go. At least then we would know who is the best server at the end of the matchup... Once monoservers from point 3 are returned

5.. Dolyak amount.  While this is minor point compared to points 1-3., it is still important to point out as it affects the map state everytime you log in. With HoT keep and castle upgrades were required having same amount of dolyaks as towers . This was oversimplification of working system and the maps were not designed that way. Keeps upgrade several times faster now, and castles 10+ times. Double dolyaks required to upgrade keeps and quadruple for castles. It will still be intuitive and memorable system, but has better logic and balance behind it. Right now packed doylak is superior for everything: Upgrading and supply. So obviously it needs to specialize in supply and not count as 2 for upgrae.

Edited March 26 by Riba.3271

[LordHT.8297]

On 2/21/2024 at 11:04 PM, XenesisII.1540 said:

Been a while since we've had one of these.

Here's my list, feel free to list your own.

1. Boon ball game play. Too much support, not enough strips, too easy for groups to roll maps when there's no opposing groups of same strength, discourages pugs and essentially kills off content for hours. Numbers matter, skill doesn't. Not to mention the lag that comes with it, game is turning into ESO.

2. 2v1 doesn't work as it should. Two strongest should not be avoiding each other to fight the weakest. That is bully game play, there needs to be incentive to always go after the strongest, seek out a challenge and not prey on the weakest, King of the Hill, not Swim in the Sewers.

3. Population, on a server, world, or time zone level, a mess and will never be balanced, but why spend so much time thinking about it on a world level, instead of fixing it on the smaller level, with outnumbered or map mechanics.

4. Roaming in a good place? meh, some specs get away with having too much of something or another.

5. What's next after WR? What's going to change to make me want to continue playing WvW in the future? Points don't matter, siege don't matter, upgrades don't matter, wins don't matter, is there any change coming to boost WvW in the future or is it another 10 years of missing Cornerstones?

Bonus 6. Where's the wvw legendary accessories? A 5k ticket infusion with a 0.00000001% drop rate was a giant nothing burger.

What are your top 5 problems or concerns of WvW?

Anet pls hire this guy!

[Riba.3271]

12 minutes ago, LordHT.8297 said:

On 2/22/2024 at 4:04 AM, XenesisII.1540 said:

Been a while since we've had one of these.

Here's my list, feel free to list your own.

1. Boon ball game play. Too much support, not enough strips, too easy for groups to roll maps when there's no opposing groups of same strength, discourages pugs and essentially kills off content for hours. Numbers matter, skill doesn't. Not to mention the lag that comes with it, game is turning into ESO.

2. 2v1 doesn't work as it should. Two strongest should not be avoiding each other to fight the weakest. That is bully game play, there needs to be incentive to always go after the strongest, seek out a challenge and not prey on the weakest, King of the Hill, not Swim in the Sewers.

3. Population, on a server, world, or time zone level, a mess and will never be balanced, but why spend so much time thinking about it on a world level, instead of fixing it on the smaller level, with outnumbered or map mechanics.

4. Roaming in a good place? meh, some specs get away with having too much of something or another.

5. What's next after WR? What's going to change to make me want to continue playing WvW in the future? Points don't matter, siege don't matter, upgrades don't matter, wins don't matter, is there any change coming to boost WvW in the future or is it another 10 years of missing Cornerstones?

Bonus 6. Where's the wvw legendary accessories? A 5k ticket infusion with a 0.00000001% drop rate was a giant nothing burger.

What are your top 5 problems or concerns of WvW?

Anet pls hire this guy!

Lol. Anyone can point out the problems. But this guy clearly has no idea how to solve the issues without breaking something else. For example reason why groups are rolling over maps is because gates are paper, boon golems are op, and shield gens block all the siege. So those should be targets changes. Reason why there are no opposing groups are objective auras: Competitive scene is dead. So that should a target of nerfs.

He doesn't mention of these. Anyone can see the problems in WvW, but some people are just clueless. Some people are paid for being clueless about these same things they should fix 😉 They might even come up with restructuring, boon golems, shield gens, dragon banners or linking systems while being on a payroll.

Edited March 26 by Riba.3271

[XenesisII.1540]

2 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Lol. Anyone can point out the problems. But this guy clearly has no idea how to solve the issues without breaking something else. For example reason why groups are rolling over maps is because gates are paper, boon golems are op, and shield gens block all the siege. So those should be targets changes. Reason why there are no opposing groups are objective auras: Competitive scene is dead. So that should a target of nerfs.

He doesn't mention of these. Anyone can see the problems in WvW, but some people are just clueless. Some people are paid for being clueless about these same things they should fix 😉

You sound pretty clueless yourself. Groups are not rolling maps because of "weak gates" when in fact most groups will break into objectives through their walls, it's because of boon balls that can withstand siege combat and has no field opposition until a similar group is formed against them.  Boon golems, lmao, yeah sure that's a top problem for sure. If you want to criticize someone else's list, at least put up a rational list of your own. 😏

The thread is about pointing out players personal top 5 problems or issues in a game mode that has 100's of problems and issues. I'm not going to sit here and rehash solutions when no one at anet is listening to feedback, I've listed many over the years I'm pretty done with doing anymore.

18 minutes ago, LordHT.8297 said:

Anet pls hire this guy!

Thanks, but no thanks, this company has a one track mind to many of their systems, and my ideas would just clash with them entirely. I just want a balanced game. 🤷‍♂️

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Sure you have degens that are building their 25th legendary or something but those are by and far the exception.

Hi. /wave. Wasn't trying to be done with all armor and then Anet released the Leggo armory and was done. That left, what's now syndrome to set in and as a in Havoc/Roamer alt-o-holic it was a WTW moment. Its a good feature and makes sense for newer players but left a gap with vet players. I admit longer term goal was 33 sets before armory. So hi lol, I do fit that description my friend.

4 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

People often exaggerate the importance of legendaries but guess who's going to be the most vocal-- people that struggle to get them.

Sorry its my nature to look at both sides. Do you need leggos? Agree no. Should they have higher stats, as I discussed with my guild, no. Do they hold value if you don't have multiple toons of the same weight class, no, go with ascended. Agree, a lot of peeps asking to make leggos easier probably don't know how easy they are already.

4 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Of course it's gonna sound like it's the most important thing in the world and the world will end if they don't get them.

Like even this week people blamed pvers for the increased queues because of the event, and while that is true, our queues are often clogged already by certain big  guilds trying to fit on a certain map (typically ebg/hbl) and don't want to go anywhere else.

But beyond my subjective perspective, I think it's also clear that these WvW requirements really do not deter people. People still do them, and the requirements have been like that since the start. If the GoB was such an obstacle, then legendaries would be disproportionately made by WvW players-- and lol, that's just silly.

Furthermore, I would also say a lot of people that come into wvw and end up hating the game mode do so for very valid reasons. Perhaps instead of making it so that some pvers don't have to do wvw   they could actually make it a game mode that is more playable for most people.

Agree for some reasons and not for others lol. I would hope that my server mates would know by now I am all about the shades of grey. 

Not Archon here;  Not a fan of calling out any new player during a WvW event. We want new players but then call them out, even in jest, while an event is up. It doesn't help the game mode. Think about it people. We want changes, we want players, we want resources spent in game development. Don't be a kitten in events. Instead don't assume you have a right in your queue. Get in, be active and stop getting into to be AFK blocking other players. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

 

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Lol. Anyone can point out the problems.

You have done this quite a bit over time, how is this different? Xen asked an opinion of what player see as issues to give Anet feedback. That's pretty fair in my book which is also why I try and stay out of it. You asked me not to be nice though so this seemed to be a fair ball.

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

But this guy clearly has no idea how to solve the issues without breaking something else.

Again this sounds like a number of your fixes, nerf defense to allow more ktraining versus defenses. How is that a good change?

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

For example reason why groups are rolling over maps is because gates are paper, boon golems are op, and shield gens block all the siege.

Gates and walls are paper. Boon golems? Less worried about them. Rams were over buffed I agree. 

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

So those should be targets changes.

What changes? You complained OP made none and then you did the same, what changes?

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Reason why there are no opposing groups are objective auras:

Never once has a OB Aura created doubt whether to attack. When I build siege that may not have players to use it, I call out paper tiger defense in place. It means there is defense in place but has no value if no one is around to refresh or use it if needed. OB aura is the same. Does no good without equal forces which means its more useless unless you are on a side standing around AFK.

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

He doesn't mention of these. Anyone can see the problems in WvW, but some people are just clueless. Some people are paid for being clueless about these same things they should fix 😉 They might even come up with restructuring, boon golems, shield gens, dragon banners or linking systems while being on a payroll.

Yet we still see multiple people coming across with different opinions. I would be less judgmental since I would question most of your points over time as well. 

[Widebody.5071]

Exploits, exploits, exploits, exploits and disingenuous complaints that screw up other players play style.

[Silinsar.6298]

12 hours ago, Coldtart.4785 said:

I'm not sure what you're expecting minstrel builds or full glass builds with no mobility or sustain to do against a roaming build.

This was meant to be in reference to players not learning how to react when being engaged while alone anymore in general because they usually just ride to their zerg. There're are also plenty running roaming builds whose reactions just do not match the supposed experience their rank indicates. Rank never equaled skill, but in the past high ranks were at least more likely to have a decent grasp of their skills and the combat system. Now sometimes it seems like the opposite.

Anyway, what someone trying to get back to their zerg can do is:

• Avoid the most direct route and literally riding through opponents (Sniff lets you spot enemies behind obstacles)
• Wait for other people to respawn and go with them, instead of creating a constant line of 2-5 players between 2 objectives
• Learn to use the defensive tools you have, even when they are few
• Try to fight back with what you have
• Or simply switch to a different loadout while on the way (build templates made this easier than ever)

[ArchonWing.9480]

11 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

.  Boon golems, lmao, yeah sure that's a top problem for sure.

I mean, it's kinda dumb golems can get boons but it's definitely not a top problem of WvW.

The argument doesn't even make sense internally anyways. Even if you can break in golems, defenders using the OP claim buff would kill everything escorting the golems, and then build their own OP boon golems to kill the invading boon golems with the help of OP claim buff.  Because the defenders have easier access to supply, they will eventually have more golems and win. And nobody attacks defenders anyways because of super claim buff in this paradigm anyways.

Although to be fair that sounds cooler than what actually happens. I would totally go for golem vs golem fights.

I'll just leave it at that. I think third party criticism by avoiding them directly but referring to them directly in a reply to other people in plain view is pretty weaksauce anyways. Not that I'm always above that sort of thing and honestly the overall argumentative style is similar to my own and somewhat commendable in some regards-- but.... that is if I were completely devoid of humor and self awareness. 

Edited March 26 by ArchonWing.9480

[TheGrimm.5624]

23 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

  The problem to me, is where the objectives are physically on the map. You want to physically bring enemy players, and allied players together into the same physical places for a fundamental game mechanical reason. Right now players just "choose" to wander into enemy territory with pretty much no real reason other than that they are bored, and the most efficient way to "cure bordeom" is SMC (not to mention this is the cause of vacancy on other BL's too), by way of just this colloquial meme understanding that that is where you go if you want to have fights. This is bad game design to me... even though its got this quality of "if it's not broken don't fix it." How it should work, is that there is a reason you would go into an enemies territory. The first most logical step are camps because the maps "currency" are supplies. Because camps are already in your base...then why bother attacking someone else camp outside the base... just defend your own since that is more optimal, it's easier to do, takes less energy, is less risky and so on...

You want to trigger a conflict, understand that. Where I am not sure you mean is there is already a reason to go into the other side's territory so I think you lost me there. if we break down in a simplified form the rules are; Hold your stuff, take their stuff, kill them, try and keep yours alive. I agree a player is choosing to do the action of take their stuff, but its not boredom it's a game mechanic. An issue here might be there is no reason to win so why take the chance, and again agree that is a choice to try and win for no reason. But the stick behind it is also the game mechanic of participation. Not saying that a map that puts supply in risker locations wouldn't be a bad one to try on a new map. I agree I have liked ideas that create more open world hotspots over time, though we have seen Anet say they want more fights on objectives and the idea you have meets in the middle of those.

23 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

So why are people standing around in keeps and not doing anything?: Because there's no reason why they need to leave their base, and its the same idea on the other side of the map for the enemy. The only reason you might leave a base currently, is cause you got a tag now, and you can go bully the enemy so that you don't have to be bored sitting in base. Changing the amount of supply in the camps that exist already isn't going to change this behavior, it has to be more fundamental than this (changes to the physical locations of objectives)

So it's not so much the value of the currency itself...or the currency itself really...it's where that currency is located and asking whether it (the location) brings people together or not.

This is one is what I call tag dependency. Players assuming they can't do anything unless they have some one guiding them to content. This is harder to address then just through map design though I think. It also could be changes to tags over time. Its up to each tag, yes this includes havocs and invis ones too, to not only say where but why and how if they are inclined to do so. This is much easier in voice so that is one of the reasons, though I don't do this, that I defend invis tags that ask people to be in voice if they want to be in squad it's just easier and if they are going to provide a tag that's a fairball in my book. Typemanders its even harder on them so I get why they may not take time to provide the whys, but it also some time means players not taking direct action when they don't have a tag since they didn't understand why a comm did what they did. 

23 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I think mounts are bad for the mode, because it makes roamers less of a threat. I'd bet my horse that this also inadvertently fuels some of the zerg hate that goes on here, on top of the constant nerfs to siege and tower defenses.

I think mounts could have launched better, not sure when I roam I feel less of a threat, its just a tool to get back out there faster and its a great taught to larger sides. Mounts allow a roamer that's doing scout work to trail and keep eyes on a bigger force allows for other, antics. 

23 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Roamers should have use in the game mode as a way of stifling an enemies reinforcements...a tactical gameplay strategy that's essentially been eradicated and i think that's a shame...and i'm saying this as a Zergling.

This is where I think there are differences in places, still seeing a good amount of roamers and havocs that are detached from larger groups. Now to be fair one of the reasons I like my server is that they are packed full of pugs so it could be my mileage that varies or an NA thing. 

23 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Not only that but players that might be newer to WvW just mount up and zip around the big baddies that are praying for content and so those Zerglings never really get to learn about how to deal with certain scenarios (like how to better run away from an enemy, or supporting your teammates in smaller skirmishes so that you can get to the zerg together) not to mention that these skirmishes ultimately create new dynamics outside of the zerg fight (and leads to more meaningful content, and reasons to fight each other)

lol, some of my favorite times have been getting new players in a group and them asking questions or rambling to new havoc players on the why's of a thing. Prior bonus events had a couple start following me while roaming around doing various things. They started asking why are you doing these things? Told them and we spent the night doing various havoc actions. They were happy to hear you didn't have to just play large scale to find content. 

23 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I can kind of go on about these topics...but it's another one of these fundamental game loops that are just straight up missing from the game.

Personally I think there are roles and goals for large groups, smaller groups and roamers out there. The most efficient sides use a mix of all, but that is rare these days. Not certain map design can fix that though, to me that still ties into reasons to win. I think I worry less about stacking these days since even though that has been the most often used statement on why not to have reasons to win nor better rewards in the game mode. We already have servers that will stack in the current environment so not sure its still a valid counter argument.

As always, till its Forum Wars 2 time later tonight, Good Hunting!

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I mean, it's kinda dumb golems can get boons but it's definitely not a top problem of WvW.

The argument doesn't even make sense internally anyways. Even if you can break in golems, defenders using the OP claim buff would kill everything escorting the golems, and then build their own OP boon golems to kill the invading boon golems with the help of OP claim buff.  Because the defenders have easier access to supply, they will eventually have more golems and win. And nobody attacks defenders anyways because of super claim buff in this paradigm anyways.

Although to be fair that sounds cooler than what actually happens. I would totally go for golem vs golem fights.

I'll just leave it at that. I think third party criticism by avoiding them directly but referring to them directly in a reply to other people in plain view is pretty weaksauce anyways. Not that I'm always above that sort of thing and honestly the overall argumentative style is similar to my own and somewhat commendable in some regards-- but.... that is if I were completely devoid of humor and self awareness. 

Golem arena map confirmed. Controlling all the bloodlust ruins opens an extra map where sides can wage Golem Wars 2 in gladiatorial style closed map combat. May the best mech win!

Could have been a thing I think. Ah the opportunities that are out there.

[Riba.3271]

On 3/26/2024 at 9:56 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

On 3/26/2024 at 8:31 AM, Riba.3271 said:

 

Again this sounds like a number of your fixes, nerf defense to allow more ktraining versus defenses. How is that a good change?

? My list consists of both attacking and defending changes? Have you ever red it? I will list it here again

- Objective auras combat bonuses -> non combat (Passive defending nerfed and more fighting incentivised) - Defending nerf, combat buff, dueling and gvg buff

- Stronger gates and walls (More time for defenders to get numbers/commander -> Better fights) - Defending buff, combat buff, scouting buff

- Boon golems removed and shield gens reworked (Using siege to defend possible again) - Defending buff, combat buff

- Gliding in combat removed, mount shares endurance bar with walking form - Defending nerf, combat buff

- Siege 40-60% more damage to siege (for the unintended 100% increased siege health vs siege)- Defending buff, scouting buff

- Keeps and castles require more dolyaks (2x, 4x) - Defending nerf (for certain situations in keeps/castles), Roaming buff, Guild raid buff

- Links removed (reduced servers) - Buff for coordination and activity (More enemies -> More fun -> More allies -> More fun -> More Enemies ->)

- Desert map removed (Matchup outcome fair, no"dead weeks" on home bl) - PPT buff, guild buff, scouting buff

 

As you can see, the list removes Passive defences that are always on (Gliding, Mounts, Objective Auras) and buffs active defences (Time to use active defenses or build numbers to fight, active defenses like siege). Also big buff to defence-minded players since people will be attacking more with combat being fair inside the objectives.

Overall, I dont like how you're putting words into my mouth (like everytime). I have never promoted attacking type gameplay. What I am doing is promoting interactive WvW where both people make decisions and don't win just because bonuses they have from being at a certain location or just because they're defenders instead of attackers.

Edited March 28 by Riba.3271

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

- Boon golems removed

They added new siege? Cool, got to remember to build one of those.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

? My list consists of both attacking and defending changes? Have you ever red it? 

If I never read any of it, why would I have been concerned enough to ask if a reply was over the top and hoped it wasn't so the conversation could continue? Will leave the rest for tonight since its late, outside of DBL.

I think we see this different based on region or server. If your side is avoiding DBL, that's on them.

Edited March 28 by TheGrimm.5624

[Riba.3271]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

- Boon golems removed

They added new siege? Cool, got to remember to build one of those.

Since you're old school, you should remember how original design of golems was that boons weren't applied to them. This applies to 33% damage reduction of protection and 50% damage increase of quickness. In addition to this Resistance and Might are strong boons for golem to have.

To top it off siege damage to siege was reduced by 100% in patch where conditions and crits were allowed to affect siege.

So the original golems took 200% more damage from siege and did 33%+ less damage. Also gates have less hitpoints these days. Now of course bad groups don't apply protection and quickness to the siege, but any group that put any thought into WVW will.

I get your feelings after reading this. Yes, they have no idea what they are doing. There is no way the design of golems after 5 years was so bad that they needed such massive buffs.

Edited March 28 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I think we see this different based on region or server. If your side is avoiding DBL, that's on them.

Every server is less active there. I have already posted numbers several times about it. Regardless if you're NA or EU, alpine map is 50%+ more popular in average. This applies to enemies and allies, meaning even if you have large group willing to play that map, there won't be nearly as much enemies.

2 servers having alpine map and 1 desert is akin to playing ping pong with one guy having tennis racket and other guy having badminton one. Even if one side wins, you don't know if they were better or if they had better racket. So all 3 servers in same matchup should have same borderland... Which in this case happens to be alpine because it is visibly more popular. Maybe you can rotate 3x Desert in every 3 or 4 weeks. 2 servers in same matchup shouldnt have different home borderlands

Edited March 28 by Riba.3271

[Dawdler.8521]

22 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Since you're old school, you should remember how original design of golems was that boons weren't applied to them. This applies to 33% damage reduction of protection and 50% damage increase of quickness. In addition to this Resistance and Might are strong boons for golem to have.

To top it off siege damage to siege was reduced by 100% in patch where conditions and crits were allowed to affect siege.

So the original golems took 200% more damage from siege and did 33%+ less damage. Also gates have less hitpoints these days. Now of course bad groups don't apply protection and quickness to the siege, but any group that put any thought into WVW will.

I get your feelings after reading this. Yes, they have no idea what they are doing. There is no way the design of golems after 5 years was so bad that they needed such massive buffs.

Oh man I wanted a golem that just pulsed all boons AoE and thought I had missed it getting both implemented and removed.

[SweetPotato.7456]

I have come to the conclusion there is only one major concern for me regarding WvW - L A G      G      IIIII      N         G

 

Edited March 28 by SweetPotato.7456

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

Want to fix one thing? Stop huge numbers of players switching to T5 servers just before reset so that they can pretend to be good players by wailing on smaller servers for a week or two. Or just carry on letting that happen, which will just lead to more and more players giving up and quiting, because it makes for a very kitten gaming experience.

It isn't fun spending most of the week with one server camping both spawnpoints on EBG while they hold the entire map, and showing up mob handed if anyone dares to poke their head out.

But if the plan is to kill wvw, then keep it up, you're doing a great job.