WvW Changes April 16th 2024

[One more for the road.8950]

5 hours ago, Chaos God.1639 said:

it's also more realistic.

So is having to repair armor, but thankfully we left that behind.

[Cael.3960]

7 hours ago, Reztek.7805 said:

Nope, it's not that common. Equal numbers happen at best during prime time. So maybe 3 hours out of 24. The rest of the day one team outnumbers the other teams. So in general it should be 1/3 easymode attacking and 2/3 outnumbered defending. And for the latter: if the outnumbered teams decide to try to attack, none of the changes will help 5 players to take a T3 Tower against 50 defenders.

But obviously easymode attacking isn't easy enough for everyone. I personally tend to fall asleep after joining the zerg for more than 30 minutes. You might get an other impression if you only play during prime, but even then, there's no rocket science needed to successfully take an objective. You're probably just doing it wrong.

I didn't say it was common, I said it was more common than you think. It's best to take a step back after you read something and consider the perspective before becoming antagonistic because it doesn't reflect your personal bias. 

It's not common but it does happen. It happens more frequently when there are two large squads on a map. If your entire WvW experience is being outnumbered because you and most of those on your server refuse  to join a squad it's very easy to get the impression these events never happen.

Something else to consider is the disparity in populations not just between servers but between regions. What holds true for NA can be very different in EU. Just because your experience differs from someone else doesn't mean their perspective doesn't exist. 

And yes, I can already see the counter-argument rising up the moment those words hit your brain. For context, I don't engage in one form of WvW exclusively. I roam, I solo, I havoc, I half-squad, I rvr, I blob. I run yaks, I build siege, I patch walls. I scout, I supply drain and target paint. The only thing I haven't done is spend significant time in EU (and my experiences there have been wildly different from NA in most respects). 

Playing multiple roles and styles of play are imporant to having a full understanding of what's going on. But many of the loudest, most beligerant presences on this forum play one thing exclusively and fly into a cynic rage at the mere perception it's not as strong as as it once was or that some other playstyle has gained an advantage with the latest patch. Most of the time it's an extreme overraction when the disparity in player skill is a wider gap than any nerf or buff is going to create from one patch to the next. 

And yes, the game is pushing easymode, but it's not just for attackers. To be blunt, defending is far more accessible to casuals and new players than attacking is. Attackers need to know where to get siege, how to maintain enough supply to build it, where the best spots are to place it and will need much more supply to do anything than a defender. Attacking requires leadership and experience, defending usually doesn't. People who don't have a community to teach them what they need to know will instinctively flock to the nearest friendly objective and try to defend it because it requires little more than a warm body pushing buttons. If you don't nudge these casuals and new players out of their comfort zone, they won't ever learn to do more than that. That's why I like the changes, it forces players to engage in more than just one style of play. 

And yes, I can see the argument that the nerfs force one style of play because nothing can be defended anymore. You're wrong. You're flat wrong. It's not a defender problem, it's a population and organization problem and there are tools to improve both of those things. You can build your community. You can change servers. The choice to be chronically outnumbered, complain about it, and demand a handicap because you can't be bothered to put in the effort is why we need WR in the first place. Those who are flexible and can adapt to change should be the ones leading the path forward, not those who are stagnant and get hostile if anything upsets the status quo. 

[Cael.3960]

9 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

You shouldn't balance for just that. Just like you shouldn't balance exclusively for your "boonball blob is defending".

You should try to balance for both scenarios, and if that's not possible, then for scenarios that actually occur most often in the current game.

In such a way that both attackers and defenders have fun by balancing to a certain extent based on different numbers of attackers/defenders.

And they don't. That's why you have walls, defensive buffs, fixed-siege, tactivators and a spawn waypoint with a shorter runback to your garrison than either attacking force. These offer a small handicap which should even an uneven playingfield and become less of a factor when more players are involved on both sides. 

I'll repeat what I said because I feel you missed the point entirely and it's important to take a moment and consider the wider implications of balancing for unbalance.

"Realistically you can't balance a game mode around the assumption that one side will be heavily outnumbered by another. If the system in place presents the opportunity for a massive shift in population from one side to the other at any time you need to be mindful that some advantages given to an outnumbered population are also an advantage given to an overwhelming population. That's why if you're going to buff/nerf something, you want it to be a minor advantage at best. Something that becomes less and less relevant as more players are involved because ultimately you want player agency to be the determining factor in a competitive environment."

Please, please, realize that 'defending' doesn't mean 'outnumbered'. These are two different concepts though it's true they often happen together. It's like being thirsty and drinking water. You can drink something else, or you can keep yourself hydrated without feeling thirsty first. 

They're balancing around equal opportunity for all three servers to put bodies on a map. They have to; you can't just assume a particular server will have 5 players scattered across all four borderlands and another will have 70 on each one. It's why we have server transfers, it's why we have ques. I get it that you're angry that your particular server can't field and organized response to handle a competent 30-man attacking a keep. But that's not a design problem, that's a community problem. Demanding that the game balance itself around your chosen handicap doesn't make sense. It's impossible to balance a game mode for every individual player equally. It's better to design a system that offers equality and let players decide how much of it they want. If a majority don't want it, then you start nudging it toward a place where more choice makes equality a greater possibility. 

And no, the vocal members on forums aren't a majority. It should be obvious to anyone who's played more than a single MMO in their life that the majority of players ignore reddit/forums altogether and just play the game. They vote with their time and their wallet and the only people who become aware of that vote are the actual game devs when they check their metrics and quarterly earnings months after patches and content drops. 

I like the changes, I state that for myself. As someone who plays a broad range of WvW situations/classes/roles and can see beyond the outrage to what future possibilities it might bring. 

[Cael.3960]

9 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of imagination. But rather what the current reality is for many players in GW2.

 

It seems to me that by "meaningful discussion" you mean to theorize without looking at the realities in the game.

If a full Zerg actually hides in a structure waiting to be attacked and then defending it, that is a very rare exception (in my experience), but not the usual. And this passive Zerg cannot then be somewhere else.

It is also the exception (in my experience now) that there are even fights when attacking/defending structures and the better one wins.

In my experience, what happens most often is that a Zerg attacks when there are only a few defenders (and they can't simply become more because there aren't enough players at the time).

Again, that's a playstyle of choice. Refusing to partake of a particular piece of content does not mean reality reflects only your choice of play. Though I will agree that many players play exclusively only one style of WvW and it's a significant contributing factor to their public outrage. 

If a full zerg hides inside a structure waiting to be attacked, and is ignored, while the rest of the borderland flips... it's tactically stupid. But because it's stupid doesn't mean it never happens. You're forgetting that every map has three factions. While those two blobs are fighting in a keep, the other faction flips everything because they DO want to PPT and there's nothing stopping them. Now you have a map where the defenders have one objective and nothing else, a faction that doesn't want blob-vs-blob fights but will happily gank singles and havock squads who try to take back anything they've papered, and one faction that is desperate for a big fight and the only one they can get is hiding inside a keep. 

Does it happen all the time? No. But in some tiers against particular servers it's a definite possibility. If you've played the game for a while, and I imagine you have, you know some of the servers and tiers where this can happen. Probably some of the guilds that would be involved as well. 

'Wins' are subjective in WvW. Some guilds/servers don't care about PPT, they just want KDR and bags. Some don't care about KDR, they just want a challenging fight against equal numbers. Both are mindsets which can feel alien to a group that sees warscore and victory points as the measure of success in a matchup. But the game offers both playstyles and neither group is wrong for wanting what they want. And ultimately if you want a balanced game mode, you have to accept that all of these things need to happen with an equal sense of reward. You can't prioritize any one playstyle over another. Nerfing walls and capture circles doesn't prioritize boonblobs, it encourages attackers of all sizes to try and take an objective. Again, conflating boonblobs vs defenders is ONE of many different kinds of encounters in the game, you need to recognize that other circumstances can and will happen and try to take them into account with your balance. Don't get so fixated on one issue that you lose perspective on how a change in one engagement will impact others in the same game mode.

[Reztek.7805]

5 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

I didn't say it was common, I said it was more common than you think.

And how common do i think it is? You have no clue. But that doesn't stop you from wild assumptions about everyone else, but yourself. Lol.

Quote

... before becoming antagonistic because it doesn't reflect your personal bias.

You're talking about yourself, right?

Quote

It's not common but it does happen. It happens more frequently when there are two large squads on a map.

As i said in the previous post, which you obviously did not comprehend: it's so rare it's almost irrelevant. Many other posters also tried to explain it to you, but you wouldn't get it.

Quote

If your entire WvW experience is being outnumbered ...

Creating a straw man won't help you here. No one said that. Quite the opposite, it's either steamroll through enemy objectives (which means you are outnumbering them, heh!) or let them take objectives because it's not worth defending.

Quote

I roam, I solo, I havoc, I half-squad, I rvr, I blob. I run yaks, I build siege, I patch walls. I scout, I supply drain and target paint.

...

Playing multiple roles and styles of play are imporant to having a full understanding of what's going on. But many of the loudest, most beligerant presences on this forum play one thing exclusively and fly into a cynic rage at the mere perception it's not as strong as as it once was or that some other playstyle has gained an advantage with the latest patch.

Ohhh really, you are so special. You must be the only player doing that. Do you want a pat on the back? <Irony off> You fail to see that people who do exactly those roles, are the majority of the critics of those changes. And it must be a coincidence, that exactly those types of players are becoming increasingly rare because they leave the game. Why would a zerg-lemming even care about weakened defense? Another one of your straw mans?

Quote

And yes, I can see ...

You wrote that at least twice, but honestly i doubt that. You seem completely delusional, sorry.

But you can take the forum win, you seem quite invested here.

Edited April 21 by Reztek.7805

[Thron Stal.9367]

19 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

defensive buffs

They nerfed those too

[ArchonWing.9480]

On 4/20/2024 at 12:27 PM, Cael.3960 said:

If a full zerg hides inside a structure waiting to be attacked, and is ignored, while the rest of the borderland flips... it's tactically stupid. But because it's stupid doesn't mean it never happens.

Yea, but why would you stop your opponent from doing something stupid?

On 4/20/2024 at 12:27 PM, Cael.3960 said:

While those two blobs are fighting in a keep, the other faction flips everything because they DO want to PPT and there's nothing stopping them. Now you have a map where the defenders have one objective and nothing else, a faction that doesn't want blob-vs-blob fights but will happily gank singles and havock squads who try to take back anything they've papered, and one faction that is desperate for a big fight and the only one they can get is hiding inside a keep. 

Or one faction sees what is going on, and disengages, so they can simply trace the train of the 3rd server backwards and derail it getting some easy bags. Or (less likely) both servers briefly put things aside to slap the 3rd server for trying to exploit them.

This is completely a player generated issue, but I would say a certain type of player that only cares about farming bags in the short term doesn't ever bother with these tactics because it is beneath them. Also applies to the player base as a whole as the mode degenerates and there is no point considering these factors.

I mean if you're breaking into a keep and farming bads, the bads will always be there even if you take a break. In fact it'll encourage them to regroup. and allow for more kills over the long run. If you're pushing one side so hard in a keep at the expense of all else, then of course the 3rd server is just going to backcap. It's fine to say you don't care about that, but you're still playing a part in enabling this behavior.

So yea it can be frustrating when people do dumb things against their self interest and drag you down with them, but someone's gotta make a concession somewhere. And at the end of the day, it's important to know your enemy and their tendencies. A lot of people in this game  (not you in particular) tend to wax  about skill and strategy but the moment something comes along that actually forces them to use their brain instead of regurgitating it from someone else, they just freak out.

Edited April 22 by ArchonWing.9480

[Cael.3960]

2 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Yea, but why would you stop your opponent from doing something stupid?

Or one faction sees what is going on, and disengages, so they can simply trace the train of the 3rd server backwards and derail it getting some easy bags. Or (less likely) both servers briefly put things aside to slap the 3rd server for trying to exploit them.

This is completely a player generated issue, but I would say a certain type of player that only cares about farming bags in the short term doesn't ever bother with these tactics because it is beneath them. Also applies to the player base as a whole as the mode degenerates and there is no point considering these factors.

I mean if you're breaking into a keep and farming bads, the bads will always be there even if you take a break. In fact it'll encourage them to regroup. and allow for more kills over the long run. If you're pushing one side so hard in a keep at the expense of all else, then of course the 3rd server is just going to backcap. It's fine to say you don't care about that, but you're still playing a part in enabling this behavior.

So yea it can be frustrating when people do dumb things against their self interest and drag you down with them, but someone's gotta make a concession somewhere. And at the end of the day, it's important to know your enemy and their tendencies. A lot of people in this game  (not you in particular) tend to wax  about skill and strategy but the moment something comes along that actually forces them to use their brain instead of regurgitating it from someone else, they just freak out.

It depends on what you want out of the game. Many of us have jobs, kids, post-secondary opportunities and/or other responsibilities. We don't have the luxury of playing this game like it's a career or an extended summer vacation. If I have 60 minutes of free time and I want to spend it getting fights in WvW I'm not going to spend it flipping paper objectives because it's tactically sound for the server's PPT strategy. I'm going where the OJ's are. Or where there's a camp that's not on RI where I can assume other roamers are headed. If it's a guild night and I'm with a group looking for a fights, we're going to go where other groups are likely to be. If that means punching a hole in a wall to get at what's hiding inside, we'll build siege and punch a hole. If an enemy group wants to come out and fight on the open field where my guild will spend 60 minutes contributing nothing to the matchup's PPT I'm also fine with that. For those who care about the PPT and who wins a tier my guild's play is stupid. By not taking things when we have a group that can achieve it we're "actively dragging the server down". But I'm having fun, my guild is having fun, and even if the rewards are significantly less than what we'd get by k-training paper objectives I'd rather do this instead. 

There's also not much point in retracing a havoc squad's k-train if you want fights and they don't. You're just giving them more objectives to re-paper while they continue to ignore you. When they've got nothing left to flip and their remaining options are to fight you or move maps, most will flock to whatever is under attack and call in reinforcements if they can't handle it. It may not be the fight you want, but at least it's content you came online to get. And by ignoring all the superfluous PPT you're getting more of it in your limited time than you would by doing the 'smart' thing that's in your 'best interest'.  

As for those who suggest taking it to a guild hall if you want fights; you don't get pips, bags or wiggle chests in the guild hall. In fact, if you want food and utility buffs or the ability to change gear and test new builds you're going to need at least a little income to make that happen. WvW doesn't pay well at all and it pays even less if you don't k-train. But if you find PvE tedious and don't have the time to grind it for cash, WvW at least offers you the gameplay of a guild arena with enough gold incentive that you're not making yourself poorer by playing it. 
 

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, Cael.3960 said:

It depends on what you want out of the game. Many of us have jobs, kids, post-secondary opportunities and/or other responsibilities. We don't have the luxury of playing this game like it's a career or an extended summer vacation. If I have 60 minutes of free time and I want to spend it getting fights in WvW I'm not going to spend it flipping paper objectives because it's tactically sound for the server's PPT strategy. I'm going where the OJ's are. Or where there's a camp that's not on RI where I can assume other roamers are headed. If it's a guild night and I'm with a group looking for a fights, we're going to go where other groups are likely to be. If that means punching a hole in a wall to get at what's hiding inside, we'll build siege and punch a hole. If an enemy group wants to come out and fight on the open field where my guild will spend 60 minutes contributing nothing to the matchup's PPT I'm also fine with that. For those who care about the PPT and who wins a tier my guild's play is stupid. By not taking things when we have a group that can achieve it we're "actively dragging the server down". But I'm having fun, my guild is having fun, and even if the rewards are significantly less than what we'd get by k-training paper objectives I'd rather do this instead. 

There's also not much point in retracing a havoc squad's k-train if you want fights and they don't. You're just giving them more objectives to re-paper while they continue to ignore you. When they've got nothing left to flip and their remaining options are to fight you or move maps, most will flock to whatever is under attack and call in reinforcements if they can't handle it. It may not be the fight you want, but at least it's content you came online to get. And by ignoring all the superfluous PPT you're getting more of it in your limited time than you would by doing the 'smart' thing that's in your 'best interest'.  

As for those who suggest taking it to a guild hall if you want fights; you don't get pips, bags or wiggle chests in the guild hall. In fact, if you want food and utility buffs or the ability to change gear and test new builds you're going to need at least a little income to make that happen. WvW doesn't pay well at all and it pays even less if you don't k-train. But if you find PvE tedious and don't have the time to grind it for cash, WvW at least offers you the gameplay of a guild arena with enough gold incentive that you're not making yourself poorer by playing it. 
 

I'm not really sure where this rant about PPT came from. In fact my whole post was about how  to maximize kills from PPTers so who really cares if they repaper stuff anyways after you kill them? I mean honestly you have some decent points there but you sometimes really veer onto really weird tangents.

I mean I suppose if it's 5 people from the other server doing it then yes you would ignore them but that's just one of the scenarios.

Edited April 22 by ArchonWing.9480

[Luranni.9470]

My main problem is just how sloppy the "work" is.  Rings are off-centre, synths are in outright stupid places, npcs didnt get moved and/or respawn outside of the rings, it's just lazy and messy and unnecessary. So I guess it's on point for anet's current "design philosophy" :/.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

5 minutes ago, Luranni.9470 said:

My main problem is just how sloppy the "work" is.  Rings are off-centre, synths are in outright stupid places, npcs didnt get moved and/or respawn outside of the rings, it's just lazy and messy and unnecessary. So I guess it's on point for anet's current "design philosophy" :/.

"If it doesn't look like an intern came up with it, we probably put too much effort into it".