Your Top 5 Problems or Concerns of WvW

[Bleikopf.2491]

Mostly just issues with defending and sieging:

1. Walls suck.
   Due to the way LoS interacts with ground-targeted effects, it's considerably easier to put an AoE on the wall, than it is to cast down from. If you dare step too close to the edge to get a better LoS, you get pulled from the wall or instantly nuked. Even still, sometimes I get pulled off the wall from the opposite side of it. Walls are not safe to stay on and cast down from.
2. Desert Homekeep. It has these hexagonal glass platforms you can stand on and cast down from. Except that the ones above the gate basically always block your own LoS, while being super easy targets to put ground targeted AoEs on from below.
3. Defensive siege, especially cannons, suck for a similar reason. What is the point of having these cannons if I can rarely if ever hit anything with it? The own walls are blocking the projectiles, often enough the wall it is standing on. Desert Homekeep again getting a special mention with these glass platforms.
4. How the hell do I get participation for defending event? This one feels like I have very little agency over it.
5. Scout Participation. You can get some from a Tag that's running, but I'd love some solution independent of having a squad on the map.

[Leger.3724]

Does any server have a higher amount of PMs per capita and Willbenders per capita than Kaineng? 

[Sonderm.4639]

3 hours ago, Bleikopf.2491 said:

Mostly just issues with defending and sieging:

1. Walls suck.
   Due to the way LoS interacts with ground-targeted effects, it's considerably easier to put an AoE on the wall, than it is to cast down from. If you dare step too close to the edge to get a better LoS, you get pulled from the wall or instantly nuked. Even still, sometimes I get pulled off the wall from the opposite side of it. Walls are not safe to stay on and cast down from.
2. Desert Homekeep. It has these hexagonal glass platforms you can stand on and cast down from. Except that the ones above the gate basically always block your own LoS, while being super easy targets to put ground targeted AoEs on from below.
3. Defensive siege, especially cannons, suck for a similar reason. What is the point of having these cannons if I can rarely if ever hit anything with it? The own walls are blocking the projectiles, often enough the wall it is standing on. Desert Homekeep again getting a special mention with these glass platforms.
4. How the hell do I get participation for defending event? This one feels like I have very little agency over it.
5. Scout Participation. You can get some from a Tag that's running, but I'd love some solution independent of having a squad on the map.

Wall ranger identified.

[Mabi black.1824]

23 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

So please, let me know how it's good for defenders?

I agree and understand very well everything you have written. Personally I think that players like you, are the most valuable in this game mode. I myself play that role very often. I was just thinking more broadly about how these changes affect the game. In the eyes of the developer, this change stimulates player participation. For example, when attackers and defenders have very similar numbers, We know that the defender already has a stat advantage precisely because he has the structure, if we stimulate the offense a little maybe it's better? Is this a way to encourage the attack to try? rather than give up and say goodbye to the content? Maybe that's what the development is looking at?

[Limbo.4087]

Skill lags, also skill lags, maybe skill lags, especially skill lags, 30x30x30 fights make skill lags on entier map

[Leaa.2943]

1. Bubble boonball meta

2. Bubble boonball meta

3. Bubble boonball meta

4. Bubble boonball meta

5. Bubble boonball meta

Edited April 8 by Leaa.2943
Changed v to b

[pukish.5784]

my biggest concern is player's skills and knowledge experience gap. new or lazy players don't know what to do against certain opponents, keep getting pulled by mesmer, easily attracted by full minstrel spellbreaker or any tanky builds/classess while their dps classess are free casting. and then such players tend to afk inside keep, stand on walls watching allies die, permanently on siege while enemy is far away from siege range etc. when commander tag is up, they play normaly but when commander tag is not there, they play really bad like a bot.

[foxtrot.6902]

1) Stuns, daze, etc. spam.

I get it, unplugging your opponents controller is a good way to win. But it's a little out of control.

Not every profession is firebrand with gobs of easy accessible stab or a profession with gtfo blink/invuln stun breaks.

Easy lo-fi solution add some stability to using a stun break for some professions. There should be an opportunity cost for face rolling stun attacks.

All the traits that activate on being stunned generally come with long icd. Granted might end up crashing the server if something like autodefense bomb dispenser had no icd.

2) some professons are absurdly slippery where others just flat out can't compete, would like to see that gap closed a little. Like...no point in engaging slippery is kind of just dumb.

[kash.9213]

On 4/8/2024 at 4:51 PM, pukish.5784 said:

my biggest concern is player's skills and knowledge experience gap. new or lazy players don't know what to do against certain opponents, keep getting pulled by mesmer, easily attracted by full minstrel spellbreaker or any tanky builds/classess while their dps classess are free casting. and then such players tend to afk inside keep, stand on walls watching allies die, permanently on siege while enemy is far away from siege range etc. when commander tag is up, they play normaly but when commander tag is not there, they play really bad like a bot.

To be fair, a lot of people think tags and tagging up is only for large scale. WvW is more of an arena match culture than an open world one. Unless they have some legs for roaming or whatever, these maps are kind of barren if you're new and trying to set out to look for stuff and they'll be visible to anyone across the majority of the maps. 

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

You know what else needs to be fixed? When two servers blatantly work together for the entire week to ensure they both stay in T1. There is nothing in the way that the 3 way matchup is set up to stop that happening, or to punish it in any way if it does. But what's the point of having a 3 way fight if it always ends up as 2 v 1?

Vabbi and Blacktide this week have made the T1 matchup a complete joke in the EU.

[Lems.2654]

Well my main concerns right now is.
1. The current meta is boonball. Its fallen into the same type of trap that the condi meta fell into back in 2018. There is too much application and not enough removal. They've fixed this problem before with the condi meta. Condis are still bad but far easier to manage than back then.
 

2. Celestial. A totally unique opinion that you've never heard before... Anyway my take on the cele meta, as a build crafter is this; Why would you run a 4 stat when you can run celestial for similar stats and way more survivability? I've found myself trying to make a build with a 4 stat, thinking hey why dont I try this build with cele? And just running with cele because the minor increase to damage isn't worth not running cele for the massive increase to survivability. Im primarily a roamer just because my timezone doesnt match with any group. And as of late ive found it very hard to find a roamer that isnt running cele. Not saying they dont exist. Just saying more often than not people are running some sort of cele build. IMO remove concen and expertise. Way back when cele was good, but required you to invest in concentration in your runes of sigils, which is a decent downside to the stat. Where at the moment there is no downside, because more often than not the TTK is around the same as berserker stat or other damage stat as cele stands right now.

3. Side effect of boonball, skill small groups have an extremely hard time competing agaisnt larger unskilled group, where historically it was a bit easier. I understand the meta is differnt now, but I still think that small skilled groups should be able to do some work.
 

Classes for the most part seem pretty balanced right now. aside from holosmith overheat having a noncrit damage of like 4k. allowing them to crit up to 25k possibly higher.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 4/7/2024 at 10:38 AM, Leger.3724 said:

Does any server have a higher amount of PMs per capita and Willbenders per capita than Kaineng? 

This thread so far has been a good thread to read players and about WvW in general. What is your point? Want to re-issue it about WvW? 

[TheGrimm.5624]

13 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

You know what else needs to be fixed? When two servers blatantly work together for the entire week to ensure they both stay in T1. There is nothing in the way that the 3 way matchup is set up to stop that happening, or to punish it in any way if it does. But what's the point of having a 3 way fight if it always ends up as 2 v 1?

Not EU, and not looking to make this a matchup thread since its has been informative. So is this an issue of 1&2 beating on 3? Or something else in general terms without going into details like vendetta.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Not EU, and not looking to make this a matchup thread since its has been informative. So is this an issue of 1&2 beating on 3? Or something else in general terms without going into details like vendetta.

This is teams 1 and 2 having an informal alliance so that they can effectively double team 3 on any map. Not much you can do to defend when you have two zergs taking your stuff at the same time. If you split, you lose both, if you focus on one you lose the other.

Now this does happen from time to time, as normally if you see 1 attacking 3, you might decide to go after them as well. But over a normal week it would balance out with different combinations grouping up. This scenario has 1 and 2 going after 3 ALL the time. It's even had 1 (the dominant server) going mysteriously missing in prime time PPT, to allow 2 to come first and make up two points on 3.

For the 3 team setup to work, there has to be a mechanism to balance things when there are teamups like this. Otherwise it's just 2v1 all the time, which is disheartening and unfair.

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

This is teams 1 and 2 having an informal alliance so that they can effectively double team 3 on any map. Not much you can do to defend when you have two zergs taking your stuff at the same time. If you split, you lose both, if you focus on one you lose the other.

Now this does happen from time to time, as normally if you see 1 attacking 3, you might decide to go after them as well. But over a normal week it would balance out with different combinations grouping up. This scenario has 1 and 2 going after 3 ALL the time. It's even had 1 (the dominant server) going mysteriously missing in prime time PPT, to allow 2 to come first and make up two points on 3.

For the 3 team setup to work, there has to be a mechanism to balance things when there are teamups like this. Otherwise it's just 2v1 all the time, which is disheartening and unfair.

Thanks. Agree, too often double teams occur when its easier versus being used as a balancing tool. There are places for double teams in my book. One example, there should be a price for holding SMC. Its fair to, if in doubt, to assault the side holding it. The higher the tier the more emphasis of both the other two targeting the side that owns it. But too often its a case of its easier to jump a side already being hit and down and agree its worse when its trying to shut out a side from wanting to play. Thanks for the reply.

[One more for the road.8950]

7 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Not EU, and not looking to make this a matchup thread since its has been informative. So is this an issue of 1&2 beating on 3? Or something else in general terms without going into details like vendetta.

Eh. Servers aren't "teaming up" to beat on a third server, but people see opportunities in game play.
If you have one very strong opponent and one lesser strong but still stronger than you, equal to you or weaker than you, there's a chance you'll see the opportunity to get points or kills when the strong one starts moving on someone that's not you. Since MU is three sides, there's only one way that can go.

Some of the MUs are so badly balanced that if you try to hit on the strongest opponent while they go for the other one, they'll just come back to whoop your kitten an then go back to the other opponent and continue what they were doing. So a lot of the time you'll see the second team go for the "other side". When it happens against your team people cry about servers teaming up, when you do it yourself it's never mentioned.

The short of it is, do you want to get some kills, possibly a tower or two as well as a camp, or do you want to throw yourself against the wall and die to respawn.

[kash.9213]

41 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Thanks. Agree, too often double teams occur when its easier versus being used as a balancing tool. There are places for double teams in my book. One example, there should be a price for holding SMC. Its fair to, if in doubt, to assault the side holding it. The higher the tier the more emphasis of both the other two targeting the side that owns it. But too often its a case of its easier to jump a side already being hit and down and agree its worse when its trying to shut out a side from wanting to play. Thanks for the reply.

That's a good time to bounce and do something on your own or find another tag. You know that's going to be a lot of running across a map or standing around some siege. Unless you know that bunch can move and fight then it can be good aggro but you won't pull as much if they're already pressed. 

Edited April 12 by kash.9213

[One more for the road.8950]

5 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

This is teams 1 and 2 having an informal alliance so that they can effectively double team 3 on any map. Not much you can do to defend when you have two zergs taking your stuff at the same time. If you split, you lose both, if you focus on one you lose the other.

Now this does happen from time to time, as normally if you see 1 attacking 3, you might decide to go after them as well. But over a normal week it would balance out with different combinations grouping up. This scenario has 1 and 2 going after 3 ALL the time. It's even had 1 (the dominant server) going mysteriously missing in prime time PPT, to allow 2 to come first and make up two points on 3.

For the 3 team setup to work, there has to be a mechanism to balance things when there are teamups like this. Otherwise it's just 2v1 all the time, which is disheartening and unfair.

21 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

You know what else needs to be fixed? When two servers blatantly work together for the entire week to ensure they both stay in T1. There is nothing in the way that the 3 way matchup is set up to stop that happening, or to punish it in any way if it does. But what's the point of having a 3 way fight if it always ends up as 2 v 1?

Vabbi and Blacktide this week have made the T1 matchup a complete joke in the EU.

There wasn't any teaming up on this one for sure.
 
Even had a thread in this forum that got removed an hour ago or something about how Blacktide and Underworld tried to tank to T2 but failed.

[TheGrimm.5624]

16 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

Eh. Servers aren't "teaming up" to beat on a third server, but people see opportunities in game play.
If you have one very strong opponent and one lesser strong but still stronger than you, equal to you or weaker than you, there's a chance you'll see the opportunity to get points or kills when the strong one starts moving on someone that's not you. Since MU is three sides, there's only one way that can go.

Mileage varies for players. If two of the sides choose not to group up against the bigger side, that means they are choosing to lose. That's on them in my book. Some times you need to not go for the easy fight but face the bigger. Now this comes down to keeping up morale as well and I get that. Been double teamed quite a bit. Usually for bad reasons in my book. That's why I also believe in vendetta which I count as valid. But, that's more of an exception. We could probably have a whole thread about good and bad double teams to be honest. To Kranlor's point I could see some adjust to scoring to encourage more 2&3 versus 1 game play, but we need to get to reasons to win first, which as previously stated by Anet is after WR.

16 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

Some of the MUs are so badly balanced that if you try to hit on the strongest opponent while they go for the other one, they'll just come back to whoop your kitten an then go back to the other opponent and continue what they were doing. So a lot of the time you'll see the second team go for the "other side". When it happens against your team people cry about servers teaming up, when you do it yourself it's never mentioned.

Again this is where its easier and just lends to the bigger side getting free reign to do as they will. Gamers like shiny. Gamers like to win. The game mechanics should encourage that but also play smarter for better matches especially if its lopsided during a time period. Players don't help matches from being lopsided when the smaller sides just end up sniping each other.

16 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

The short of it is, do you want to get some kills, possibly a tower or two as well as a camp, or do you want to throw yourself against the wall and die to respawn.

I thing everyone should try large scale, havocs and roaming. That way if things aren't working in one sense or another, change your scale of play. Course, I run with the mindset that we need all three to be the most efficient else I wouldn't play all three styles. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

32 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

That's a good time to bounce and do something on your own or find another tag. You know that's going to be a lot of running across a map or standing around some siege. 

Morale and tag dependency. If a tag is up and running they need to balance to keep their players happy or be honest with them. Its going to be rough but keep at it, we are going to die, but we are keeping this thing. No we can't take that group, yet, hit what and where you can. 

Tag dependency, if there isn't one, getting players used to still knowing what to do to turn it around versus just log, that's even harder, especially since again no reason to win so why bother. But to turn it around you need players to know how to do that which will encourage others to then help turn the tide. During the WR had a group say in chat, we have only 12 we can't do anything. That made me laugh.

Course, I never claimed to be sane. More grumpy I get, I just then move to roaming and then go hunting. 

[One more for the road.8950]

49 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Mileage varies for players. If two of the sides choose not to group up against the bigger side, that means they are choosing to lose.

I am not sure you get how unbalanced it can actually be.

Last week Whiteside Ridge, a server without a link had 76k kills and 21k deaths, k/d 3.6. Their opponents, both linked, had 24k/54k and 22k/50k. Even teaming up against them would be futile.
Another one was Fort Ranik that's linked with Gunnar's Hold, where they had 75k/31k against two with 24k/41k and 24k/54k.
There wasn't even any time of the day or night when they were not the most people online iirc.

When both weaker sides get nowhere, often is spawncamped, people log in just to log back out, people will grab the chance for any action that's not instant death. If monster opponent goes for another team's keep, you also go in to get some action. Because it's the only one you get, other than going into another game mode, another server, or talk nicely to your missus.

Edit: Just checked now for current week, half an hour before reset:
Whiteside Ridge, moved up a tier. Current kills soon 76k, current deaths 21.5k, their opponents have 19k/43k and 28k/60.5k
Fort Ranik and Gunnar's Hold moved up a tier, currently on 62.5k/33.5k, their opponents 24k/27.5k and 21k/49.5k.

Edited April 12 by One more for the road.8950

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

1 hour ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

There wasn't any teaming up on this one for sure.
 
Even had a thread in this forum that got removed an hour ago or something about how Blacktide and Underworld tried to tank to T2 but failed.

There was a point where we were a fairly strong second place. So if Vabbi wanted to go for the "weaker" opponent, they could have hit green and knocked them down. Instead both blue and green were exclusively hitting us on multiple maps.

This is Vabbi wanting a "vassal" server to be with them on T1 to make their position stronger. Whoever has just been promoted to T1 best watch their back, because they'll almost certainly be doing it again.

[One more for the road.8950]

55 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I thing everyone should try large scale, havocs and roaming. That way if things aren't working in one sense or another, change your scale of play. Course, I run with the mindset that we need all three to be the most efficient else I wouldn't play all three styles. 

And for this, ppl just can't be arsed. When we have MU's like those I mentioned up there, we end up with monster opponents that's hunting for content, which means anyone and anything. You're lucky if you manage to flip a camp at times.

Other times, fine. But not with those really unbalanced ones.

Edited April 12 by One more for the road.8950

[One more for the road.8950]

8 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

There was a point where we were a fairly strong second place. So if Vabbi wanted to go for the "weaker" opponent, they could have hit green and knocked them down. Instead both blue and green were exclusively hitting us on multiple maps.

This is Vabbi wanting a "vassal" server to be with them on T1 to make their position stronger. Whoever has just been promoted to T1 best watch their back, because they'll almost certainly be doing it again.

Vabbi wouldn't care which one lost of you two, so why would they do anything about it. They were significantly stronger than both of you, you were equally weak compared to them.

[Shadynasty.1760]

I love trebbing and do it often, but I actually LOSE participation while doing it. I drop almost 1 entire participation level per wall I take down, and when I'm on floor 3 of SMC and i build multiple trebs to knock down walls so i can call out the downed walls to have players run in, I can drop below level 3 and then, even though I'm actively playing, I'm no longer earning skirmish tickets. It's hot garbage. Some of us love siege. :(