WvW Changes April 16th 2024

[Aeolus.3615]

@Chaba.5410

i can hit those with trebs from outter... but it will have to be a open field treb  >_>

 

And yes 3rd floor smc always theres no other place to put siege to delay a zerg, even so trebs and balis can hit siege even if almost oin center of that roof

Edited April 17 by Aeolus.3615

[One more for the road.8950]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

So you are saying much weaker or smaller group should be able to hold an objective. This would mean defenders has the advantage.. I understand that 20 people will propably be able to kill 30 with siege, respawns and tactivators, but what you guys are asking is 15vs40 to be doable.

... obviously. It's why you would have castles and keeps to begin with, as said earlier by someone else.

I think what you are totally not able to take in here is that the population differences sometimes (now often) make defending your keep the only content. And we were already at a place where people weren't able to do that pre-patch. And then there is no content. At all.

But either way defensive and offensive game play should be different. Offensive game play should be a gamble but better preparation give better rewards if successful. And to be totally honest, if you weren't able to grab a keep already with a squad of 30-40 players, not to mention 50, against a gaggle of pugs and randoms trying to defend before this update, it was probably not your keep to take. Because then it was a skill issue.

[Damian.8127]

When you hope its a late april fools joke....

[XenesisII.1540]

Quote

The following changes are part of an ongoing effort to make fighting for—and in—objectives feel better for attacking groups, as the defenders' advantage inside their own structures was previously too strong. While we don't want to swing that advantage completely in favor of attacking groups, we also want to encourage player interaction so that large portions of attacks against structures don't feel like a slog with little payoff.

We feel that these changes will help to incentivize more player vs. player interactions while still allowing for defensive tactical gameplay. We will continue to monitor how these changes affect sieges and structure attacks.

Imagine attacking one of the the most important therefore fortified places in the game of your enemy, deep in their territory, and thinking oh man this is a slog taking 5mins to break through these double walls, defenders totally shouldn't have this much of an advantage that takes 3 hours to upgrade, defending their most important objective in the game. This capture should totally feel like a walk in the park capturing a camp instead. What's the point of having enclosed structures anymore when your only goal is to have all the fights on lords?

Then somehow thinking reducing capture sizes is going to promote more fights on the lord, it wasn't a problem for 12 years, but now suddenly because the boon balls squirrel off to train track enemies running from them, because you know it's a giant fat boon blob, it's suddenly taking too long and needs to be nerfed.  What defensive tactical gameplay? you've nerfed it all so your blob can stroll into lords, only boon balling with numbers matter now.

That apparently was the most important priority issue to fix with WvW these days, fixing capture sizes and node placements because a boon ball failed to capture a keep after 20 mins of running over enemies, that didn't feel good for them!

🙄

Edited April 17 by XenesisII.1540

[zemiacsik.4590]

Meanwhile you are still waiting 45 seconds to be able to claim a camp..

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 minute ago, zemiacsik.4590 said:

Meanwhile you are still waiting 45 seconds to be able to claim a camp..

 

Just go an take the nearest keep and then do your claim, easy.

[TheGrimm.5624]

32 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Imagine attacking one of the the most important therefore fortified places in the game of your enemy, deep in their territory, and thinking oh man this is a slog taking 5mins to break through these double walls, defenders totally shouldn't have this much of an advantage that takes 3 hours to upgrade, defending their most important objective in the game. This capture should totally feel like a walk in the park capturing a camp instead. What's the point of having enclosed structures anymore when your only goal is to have all the fights on lords?

Then somehow thinking reducing capture sizes is going to promote more fights on the lord, it wasn't a problem for 12 years, but now suddenly because the boon balls squirrel off to train track enemies running from them, because you know it's a giant fat boon blob, it's suddenly taking too long and needs to be nerfed.  What defensive tactical gameplay? you've nerfed it all so your blob can stroll into lords, only boon balling with numbers matter now.

That apparently was the most important priority issue to fix with WvW these days, fixing capture sizes and node placements because a boon ball failed to capture a keep after 20 mins of running over enemies, that didn't feel good for them!

🙄

Funny one last night. For some reason I didn't feel my normal stubbornness to not lose stuff since it was all papered anyway.  Knocked down a tower wall and went in. Had an enemy havoc follow me in, it was their tower, figured if they attacked I would go for it but wouldn't end well considering the numbers. They watched me take down the NPCs and emoted. I emoted back and left their tower. They caught me breaking into one of their keeps. Got an offer to join guild and switch servers. Had to laugh. Added them to friends if we ever get Alliances. 

[XenesisII.1540]

6 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Funny one last night. For some reason I didn't feel my normal stubbornness to not lose stuff since it was all papered anyway.  Knocked down a tower wall and went in. Had an enemy havoc follow me in, it was their tower, figured if they attacked I would go for it but wouldn't end well considering the numbers. They watched me take down the NPCs and emoted. I emoted back and left their tower. They caught me breaking into one of their keeps. Got an offer to join guild and switch servers. Had to laugh. Added them to friends if we ever get Alliances. 

That's the strangest recruitment story I've heard lol. 🤭

[ArchonWing.9480]

30 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Funny one last night. For some reason I didn't feel my normal stubbornness to not lose stuff since it was all papered anyway.  Knocked down a tower wall and went in. Had an enemy havoc follow me in, it was their tower, figured if they attacked I would go for it but wouldn't end well considering the numbers. They watched me take down the NPCs and emoted. I emoted back and left their tower. They caught me breaking into one of their keeps. Got an offer to join guild and switch servers. Had to laugh. Added them to friends if we ever get Alliances. 

Lol, what server were they? They probably wanted decent havoc players that knew what they were doing.

Edited April 17 by ArchonWing.9480

[RaveOnYou.2819]

again some changes that nobody asks

[Zok.4956]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

you're going to have a difficulty talking about defender/attacker advantages and balance when people here keep conflating it with smaller v. larger groups.

Well, the point here is not to philosophize about any theoretical games situations, but rather what effects the changes have on the actual game play. And that's why many (rightly IMO) will talk about the unequal number of players when making changes like this. 

[zemiacsik.4590]

I thought that defending something was dead after they removed defense participation but it is even more hilarious now. If you do not have same size boonshitblob (and you do not have one) you literally can not do anything - you are loosing participation because if you do not kill some special enemy then "you are not defending", your upgraded objective is worthless, your siege do nothing to attackers, you can not disable, trying to repair is just a big joke.. and imagine trying to defend your garri/earth against two servers, lol. So people just run away to the oposite side of the map and try to cap something else without enemies. I really feel eNcOuRAgEd! Thank you 👏

[urd.8306]

One important point to mention because it's been not talked about much. There is still the thing of not taking keeps for an hour, because your blob is full of braindead people that feel the need to farm a bunch of randoms that try to contest and defend their keep. It never makes much sense but it still is the reality that this happens a lot on smaller/outnumbered servers that you find 10-15 people trying to fight off that boonball.
This should be a working option not a "3 people and a dream" situation. This is were the whole keep design is lacking in all aspects and gives attackers another huge advantage

[Chaba.5410]

50 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

Well, the point here is not to philosophize about any theoretical games situations, but rather what effects the changes have on the actual game play. And that's why many (rightly IMO) will talk about the unequal number of players when making changes like this. 

Unequal numbers of players happen in all scenarios.  Most of the talk here seems to focus on one particular scenario: when defenders are outnumbered.  It's running circles around each other, which is why it's more useful to discuss the changes when talking about even numbers.

I suspect there's a reason why we see few complaints by the guys trying to attack a tower and getting run over by a blob: either no one really plays like that anymore or they don't feel as bad because the tower wasn't theirs to lose.

Edited April 17 by Chaba.5410

[Gotejjeken.1267]

17 hours ago, Waffler.1257 said:

Interesting that with sPvP Anet takes the time to submit proposed balance changes weeks in advance to solicit player feedback and make adjustments, while with WvW they simply implement garbage changes that are the exact opposite of what players want with no warning whatsoever. Pretty obvious they absolutely hate WvW, just like after introducing the poorly designed desert BL, rather that listen to player feedback and redesign the map (something that they have done with a number of sPvP maps such as skyhammer) they simply decided they were never going to make another WvW map again to spite the players. Sad really.

They post balance changes for all three modes weeks in advance; not arguing that WvW balance isn't based off sPvP + cele gear then scale it to fit 50v50...but still.

RBL was redesigned just like Skyhammer, it used to be even more asinine.  

Also, they've never made another sPvP map since either--I would count both modes pretty well forgotten in terms of new content.  

The changes for WvW are just so inane that I'm actually thankful sPvP is on auto-pilot.  They'd probably do something like take away the side nodes to make matches faster.  

[cillercammy.8064]

I'm working towards getting the Essence of Animosity for my legendary ring but noticed you can no longer trade "Testimony of Jade Heroics" for the "Testimony of Desert Heroics". The Essence of Animosity still cost 500 "Testimony of Desert Heroics"... Is this going to be updated?

[Chaba.5410]

6 minutes ago, cillercammy.8064 said:

I'm working towards getting the Essence of Animosity for my legendary ring but noticed you can no longer trade "Testimony of Jade Heroics" for the "Testimony of Desert Heroics". The Essence of Animosity still cost 500 "Testimony of Desert Heroics"... Is this going to be updated?

The work around is (assuming you've maxed out hero points) you buy 500 Notarized Scrolls of Central Tyrian Heroics and consume them so they refund you 500 Proofs of Heroics.

Yea, it's an oversight and hope they fix that.

[XenesisII.1540]

"For you, boon ballers, the day they graced wvw with reduced capture rings was the most important day of your life, but to me, it was just Tuesday."

[Firefly.5982]

I can't describe these ridiculous changes as anything but a super obvious, clear, transparent, direct spit in the face of wvw.

Such a blatant eff you to everyone outside the zerg boonball.

I would say I'm shocked, but then I can't really be shocked anymore. I am pissed though. For the first time since I started playing, actually pissed. It takes a lot to kitten me off but nerf after nerf after nerf and then finally THIS beepshow has done it for me. Unbelievable...well not really, since it's been obvious Anet wants the boonball to reign and smallscale players to go eff themselves for a long while.

It's sad. I'd say I hope they reverse this crap but I doibt that'll happen so why bother hoping.

Good luck to all who keep playing. May you find your niche outside the boonball that makes you happy 😕

[Ashen.2907]

6 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

It wasnt. Defenders always had better access to combat siege, respawns, tactivators, mounts/gliding and first engage. If attacking group was organised and pushed in at same time, it doesnt mean you couldnt so same as defender... As long as you timed it. Attackers had to wait for defenders to be exposed and gates in between being down. Defenders could engage anytime.

Attackers choose the time and place of the engagement and have greater opportunuty to organize numbers and force composition in advance as well. Those three elements are deciding factors in any battle. I agree that the elements you mention can be influential, but they pale in comparison to the ability to choose the ground, the time, and the force(s) of the battle.

[Inerias.3762]

So, defending bonuses...just talking on keeps right now.  If keep defenders had enough folks to defend the keep, the other server wouldn't be in the keep in the first place, right?  I understand the changes and see the reasoning, but not sure it's effective for all circumstances.  This week, we have had both of the other servers in our garrison at the same time for hours farming every night.  It's no fun, our server pair has almost given up.  We can't defend against two teams when half the time we are outnumbered.  We know server balance is an issue and they are trying (keeping fingers crossed) but we need something to help now.  What about the full aura bonuses when outnumbered?  Or something similar to that?  There were times we were NOT outnumbered, but when both other servers are in your garrison, you're essentially outnumbered.

And one more suggestion....I believe there should be some sort of restriction of owning SMC if the server doesn't have their own garrison, or a percentage of their own home borderland or something similar.  I mean how would one army take a center castle if they don't even own their own garrison for supplies and reinforcements, etc?  Doesn't necessarily have to be SMC, but some sort of restriction on how many keeps/towers/camps you can own if you don't own your own?  Something has to be done to make folks WANT to defend and be in their own borderlands also.  Several weeks ago against Mag, they were too busy with "Mother" and they owned not one thing on their borderland but absolutely everything in EBG.  Armies wouldn't be able to survive or sustain that.  An Army should have to go THROUGH their own borderlands to get to EBG to where they fight for control....and they can't do that if they own nothing.

I support ANet and know they try and there is absolutely no way to make everyone happy regardless of what is done, but at least make it fun for as many folks as you can.  I wish I knew the end all and be all to make that happen, but I think these suggestions may help.

[Graymatter.4723]

7 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

... obviously. It's why you would have castles and keeps to begin with, as said earlier by someone else.

I think what you are totally not able to take in here is that the population differences sometimes (now often) make defending your keep the only content. And we were already at a place where people weren't able to do that pre-patch. And then there is no content. At all.

But either way defensive and offensive game play should be different. Offensive game play should be a gamble but better preparation give better rewards if successful. And to be totally honest, if you weren't able to grab a keep already with a squad of 30-40 players, not to mention 50, against a gaggle of pugs and randoms trying to defend before this update, it was probably not your keep to take. Because then it was a skill issue.

It's a lot more nuanced that that. A/Net have to cater for population variances across the different timezones. Changes that make it easier for a smaller group to defend their keep against superior numbers could make it impossible for anyone to take a keep during prime time when servers are queued regardless of how well they play. The changes also benefit outnumbered servers when they try and take back their objectives. Prior to these changes, a smaller opposing group could hold onto your EBG keep for a long time, despite you having more people. Someone could put a few golems in the lord's ring and stop people from capturing their keep until reinforcements arrive from across the map.

[Arbiterjim.1472]

Who looked at WvW and thought that defending was too easy and needed to be nerfed?  Who thought that watching an enemy zerg paint your entire borderland was fun?

[Chaba.5410]

File under: "No one asked for these changes"

 

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

File under: "No one asked for these changes"

 

And there will be many, many more examples. People thinking this particular change was unrequested are delusional.

JuSt KIll tHE gOLeM isn’t a way to brush it of either, as usual it’s a question of extremes and some people have a tendency to be very extreme when it comes to abusing something that is “normally” not an issue. Seeing a golem in a T1 camp isn’t a big deal when you come with 50 people. Seeing 5 golems in a T3 camp in the middle of the night when there is two people on the map is.