WvW Changes April 16th 2024

[One more for the road.8950]

7 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

You mean the guilds that gvg like once a week and then spend 2-6 days in regular wvw farming bags? 😏

That's not GvG. That's the same people, alright, but being in some type of squad, whatever it might be. GvG has timers, rules, etc, and every now and then there's a tournament, draft or guild based.

Even though, some of the GvG'ers can't be arsed to WvW.

Edited April 19 by One more for the road.8950

[Riba.3271]

On 4/18/2024 at 12:07 PM, Mabi black.1824 said:

When Riba mentions the first signing, it is actually the striker who decides it, because he is the one who defines where and when. The defender is forced to give an answer to that first engagement.

If 2 groups are in same objective and inner wall is still up, attacker cant engage on defender. Defender can always choose which angle and when to engage.

My point wasnt about which objective, since there are obviously harder and easier ones on map, but the fight between 2 groups . 

Sometimes I wonder what are you guys thinking... Attacker does not choose when to engage... They walk to the gate or wall, then defenders choose direction and time to approach... Maybe with some siege and tactivators.

Engaging occurs when 2 groups are fighting each other, not when one group arrives at enemy tower.  For engaging you need 2 groups and If defender chooses to not come or fight, no engaging occurs. So engaging only occurs once fight begins... Cant believe I have to give you guys English lessons here.

Edited April 19 by Riba.3271

[Lagniappe.4869]

8 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Attacker does not choose when to engage

Like how Poland started WW2 by simply existing next to Germany.

Edited April 19 by Lagniappe.4869

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

7 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

If 2 groups are in same objective and inner wall is still up, attacker cant engage on defender. Defender can always choose which angle and when to engage.

My point wasnt about which objective, since there are obviously harder and easier ones on map, but the fight between 2 groups . 

Sometimes I wonder what are you guys thinking... Attacker does not choose when to engage... They walk to the gate or wall, then defenders choose direction and time to approach... Maybe with some siege and tactivators.

Engaging occurs when 2 groups are fighting each other, not when one group arrives at enemy tower.  For engaging you need 2 groups and If defender chooses to not come or fight, no engaging occurs. So engaging only occurs once fight begins... Cant believe I have to give you guys English lessons here.

That wasn't the point they were making. They were saying that the attacker can decide WHERE to attack, and WHEN. Sure, once they've committed to a target then the defenders can respond, and assuming they've got there before the 30 seconds needed to get a wall down these days, they can choose when to engage.

But if they are up against one of ANETs pet boonballs, what does that matter? They've basically got 3 choices; sit back and let them take whatever they want, then flip it when they've got bored and left the map, try and defend as a cloud and just feed them bags until they get bored and cap, or make a boonball of your own and hope that you've got a composition closer to the meta, because if you haven't you will STILL be just feeding them bags. Just in bigger clumps.

Until we get a proper rock, paper, scissors setup, where boonball actually has a counter that isn't another kittening boonball, this is going to be a kitten form of so called gameplay. But every indication we get from each successive patch is that they think the fix is to make boonballs stronger. Which is just mind blowing.

Until they understand the problem they are creating, there is zero chance they will fix it.

[One more for the road.8950]

13 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Sometimes I wonder what are you guys thinking... Attacker does not choose when to engage... They walk to the gate or wall, then defenders choose direction and time to approach... Maybe with some siege and tactivators.

I dunno what you are smoking, but I want it.

[Riba.3271]

28 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

That wasn't the point they were making. They were saying that the attacker can decide WHERE to attack, and WHEN

They said my point was wrong when I literally referred to engaging in my comments. It had nothing to do with easier and harder objectives existing. He misinterpreted what I was saying, then I explained what I ment and now you misintrepeted why I quoted him. 

 

If attacker can take easy objective (f/e anzalias), it still means they have to be stronger to take it even if it is one of the easier objectives on the map < - This was my point

How he quoted me: "Riba is wrong because attackers have advantage because they can choose which objective they can take". No. If each individual objective is defenders advantage, then attackers dont have advantage. They are just better players if they take it

Edited April 19 by Riba.3271

[Cael.3960]

Unfortunately there's a huge disconnect in this discussion that centers around being outnumbered vs being a defender. For many it's impossible to equate one without the other and this is the underlying issue preventing meaningful discussion. Boon balls aren't the only groups that attack objectives. If you can't imagine any other circumstance being possible, it makes sense that these changes are especially punishing for defending players. If you recognize that it's also possible for defenders to outnumber their attackers you may begin to see the problems in giving any one side a significant advantage over the other. 

 

An entrenched full squad with siege and tiered up walls is almost impossible to remove. They can rain dps down upon attackers and stealth-push/ambush with impunity upon anyone who dares attack a wall or gate. They have reserves of supply to patch walls, build additional siege, and in most cases have an easier time reviving downs along with better access reserve forces streaming in from the nearest waypoint. Very, very few groups have even the most remote chance against groups like this and the situation becomes increasingly difficult the longer a siege continues. Smaller squads ~15 or less, will just run from an objective once they see a similar sized group waiting for them inside. By the time they've managed to punch a hole (if they can punch a hole) attrition will have removed any chance of victory in the upcoming fight. That's why you often see ninja squads of 5-10 constantly building siege and wearing down the walls of objectives over time and then rushing the lord when no one is looking. If a defense response shows up that's as big as they are, they have to decide whether they can quickly win a skirmish and take the objective, or just run out before they're overwhelmed by increasing numbers and attrition. I'm sure even defenders will agree that when the attackers run the moment you show up it's a disappointment. You don't see many talk about that, however. 

 

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. 

 

The better player/group, strategy, model of efficiency should be what decides the engagement, not PvE advantages/disadvantages. The goal should be a continuous movement toward self-improvement and positive interactions within your server community. Group up, don't group up... doesn't matter. But talk to your server mates, coordinate something, build synergy and strategies that work within your playstyle and skillset. The last thing you should be demanding are buffs/nerfs when you don't have an understanding of the game mode beyond the limited circumstances your preferred playstyle involves. 

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

24 minutes ago, Cael.3960 said:

An entrenched full squad with siege and tiered up walls is almost impossible to remove.

So basically, if a full map of players on a single upgraded and sieged position decide to defend, it is difficult to remove? And you think that somehow negates the complaints on here?

And let's be honest, if you had a full squad on an upgraded, fully sieged target and it was attacked by a boonball group, there is still ZERO chance for the defenders unless they are in a comparable boonball. Because all that defensive siege will do nothing, and as soon as you try and engage they will kill you while you pointlessly bang your head against them. And once they are inside its game over.

It's a joke at the moment, and not a very good one.

[Chaba.5410]

52 minutes ago, Cael.3960 said:

Unfortunately there's a huge disconnect in this discussion that centers around being outnumbered vs being a defender. For many it's impossible to equate one without the other and this is the underlying issue preventing meaningful discussion. Boon balls aren't the only groups that attack objectives. If you can't imagine any other circumstance being possible, it makes sense that these changes are especially punishing for defending players. If you recognize that it's also possible for defenders to outnumber their attackers you may begin to see the problems in giving any one side a significant advantage over the other. 

That's a good way to put it.

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, Cael.3960 said:

Unfortunately there's a huge disconnect in this discussion that centers around being outnumbered vs being a defender. For many it's impossible to equate one without the other and this is the underlying issue preventing meaningful discussion. Boon balls aren't the only groups that attack objectives. If you can't imagine any other circumstance being possible, it makes sense that these changes are especially punishing for defending players. If you recognize that it's also possible for defenders to outnumber their attackers you may begin to see the problems in giving any one side a significant advantage over the other. 

 

An entrenched full squad with siege and tiered up walls is almost impossible to remove. They can rain dps down upon attackers and stealth-push/ambush with impunity upon anyone who dares attack a wall or gate. They have reserves of supply to patch walls, build additional siege, and in most cases have an easier time reviving downs along with better access reserve forces streaming in from the nearest waypoint. Very, very few groups have even the most remote chance against groups like this and the situation becomes increasingly difficult the longer a siege continues. Smaller squads ~15 or less, will just run from an objective once they see a similar sized group waiting for them inside. By the time they've managed to punch a hole (if they can punch a hole) attrition will have removed any chance of victory in the upcoming fight.

I feel like that's a rather bad counterexample.

A full squad that is  entrenched in an objective is of zero relevance and no threat to anyone unless you exclusively want to take that objective. By it's very definition they cannot guard every objective on the map in this manner simply due to the fact that they cannot fit that many people on the map.

This is probably why nobody imagines this scenario as they would just ignore said group and just take other things around it. And if nobody attacks them because it's way too fortified, the defenders also lose participation and don't really do anything.

The only way this  is relevant is a scenario where they have all the objectives sieged up, and can quickly defend all of them and everything is scouted. Or more commonly they ninja something during a dead time and fortify it up.  But in general, that's only possible if they have a population advantage, and as you've noted yourselves, discussions shouldn't be centered around that.

Not to mention that usually groups that play like these are usually free bags and again, only are relevant when they outnumber the enemy. I don't really see a reason to drive these types from the game if you ask me....

 

Edited April 19 by ArchonWing.9480

[Killek.8253]

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Sometimes I wonder what are you guys thinking... Attacker does not choose when to engage... They walk to the gate or wall, then defenders choose direction and time to approach... Maybe with some siege and tactivators.

What the hell are you even talking about? How are the defenders making the attackers choose when and where to attack? Sure, the defenders can kind of choose their approach, but that's still based on where the attackers are deciding to breach. There is no timing anymore, its pretty much defend now, or get out; Anet has taken our ability to substantially delay an attack.  

[Cael.3960]

This thread and much of discussion surrounding the latest patch is filled with bad-faith examples that fail to adequately explain the full gamut of experiences one can have in WvW. 

I also spent most of that post focusing on squads of 20 men or less attacking an objective, in case you rolled your eyes and glossed over the more rational part of the discussion. 

But lets ignore all of that for favor of the far more outlandish and incensing discussion about boonballs, about how it's impossible to find one waiting for another zerg inside a tiered objective and how absurd the whole idea of being outnumbered as an attacker actually is. 

One boonball facing off against another boonball inside a t3 objective is much more common than you would think. When one boonball realizes they can't beat another boonball what will they do? Either move maps or... that's right... rush to defend an objective where the buffs, environmental advantages, and rando solos on the map will make up the difference. 

Yes, they can also dodge the other boonball and k-train the t0 objectives... but that's something defenders can (and will) complain about in their own map chat until faces are read and ears are bleeding. The tag that won't help them, and that means they're the one's who are ultimately responsible for losingt a keep they spent hours building up. 

Anyway, boonball waiting inside keep. Some groups don't want to sit in a tower and treb a wall until there's a clear path straight to a lord. Sometimes that kind of siegeplay just isn't possible. Some boonballs want the challenge of a big fight even if it comes with significant disadvantages, and will siege a T3 keep just to get a fight out of that boonball who can't leave the map but also won't fight anything until the mapchat gets so toxic they worry about their guild losing reputation on the server because of it. 

So, defenders get a boonball of their own. Maybe it's not as good as the one outside, but if it was... why would they be behind a wall in the first place? And with that boonball, they have equal or greater numbers than the one outside. 

Equal numbers, defender advantages... so in theory, defenders should win. They don't. Why? Because they're poorly trained, poorly coordinated, aren't running the right builds or possess a strategy that's effective against someone who does all the above. Your defending group, with a numbers advantage, can't do the job because they aren't as good as the other group. 

A second circumstance, is when a boonball forms up for their raid inside an objective only to have another boonball attack it before their raid starts. Are you suggesting they should leave the keep, let it flip while they k-train undefended objectives? No, map chat would go ballistic on these guys for abandoning a keep they were already sitting in. 

To answer your immediate question... why form up in a keep instead of at spawn? Because a lot of boonballs don't want to collect random map solos who aren't properly geared or running appropriate builds. They have a plan, a purpose, and more coordination than these randos are prepared to give so there's no reason to pick them up unless there are free spots to give. But they will be constantly, relentlessly, pinged for squad invites if they stay at spawn. So most either hide their tag or form up somewhere else. Plus, keeps have supply and many squads want to fill up before they push out toward their first objective. 

But you raise a good point, scouts. Why aren't there scouts shadowing enemy forces? Why  aren't their more than one in a keep or tower? Why aren't they keeping sentries friendly or challenging for bloodlust superiority or picking off zerglings running back or dropping supply traps or target painters or communicating with their map chat where the enemy zerg is so they can mount a pre-emptive defense? I feel like the kind of player who does these things is an excellent defender, someone who probably doesn't need every possible advantage heaped upon them to fight something that's of equal numbers. 

And yes, I specifically say EQUAL NUMBERS because the game mode is balanced around the assumption that at any time any faction can have a full map que on their position. If they can't, or won't, gather together to achieve something greater than what they can do on their own... frankly, you deserve to lose everything. A boonblob without something to fight is a boonblob that logs off or moves maps once they've given the other side every opportunity to organize an effort to fight back. 

Demanding that an outnumbered group with no coordination or player ability should be buffed sufficiently that they can defeat a much better organized, skilled and knowledgeable group with actual leadership is absurd. Honestly, the entitlement on this point is wild. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
 

Edited April 19 by Cael.3960

[Chaba.5410]

18 minutes ago, Cael.3960 said:

Equal numbers, defender advantages... so in theory, defenders should win. They don't. Why? Because they're poorly trained, poorly coordinated, aren't running the right builds or possess a strategy that's effective against someone who does all the above. Your defending group, with a numbers advantage, can't do the job because they aren't as good as the other group

Alternatively, the defenders aren't the Mag anti-boonball cloud. Some serious irony going around...

Edited April 19 by Chaba.5410

[One more for the road.8950]

Lost logic about offensive and defensive game play, skill issues and Dunning-Kruger effect aside... You can tout that they need to balance the game mode for some kind of utopian scenario where the servers have equal population and coverage, but the reality is that they don't. We have dead servers, almost dead servers, average servers, good servers and monster servers. There is no blob inside. Or any blob to come to the rescue. And who meets who is a lottery.

When the people on the servers that is currently having problems with population and coverage log in to find everything taken, and almost impossible to get as much as a camp back, they log back out. When the servers that has been capping and killing everything doesn't have any more to cap or kill, they log out. Then you can talk about how it's "fair" or "unfair" as much as you want, because the game mode is dead. And we were heading there BEFORE this patch.

We need WR sooner rather than later, and if not, something else. Because this isn't working.

Edited April 20 by One more for the road.8950
Missing words

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

ANET need to get past this notion that boonballs should be the only way to play.

Some people like to roam. As it stands, roamers just get in the way of any possible defence against a boonball, unless they are willing and able to switch to a boonball spec and join the throng in defence. Some people like to run in smaller groups, but again unless they are willing to lead a larger group, or subsume themselves in one and pass control to someone else, they also get in the way of a possible boonball defence.

Watching a boonball wreck your stuff and knowing there is zero chance of stopping it is not fun. Having to switch your way of playing to have ANY chance of defending is not fun. Especially when the chances are it STILL won't work, because the boonball has been carefully crafted to be meta. While we're at it, spending extended time getting smacked around by both opposition servers who are BOTH stronger than yours individually isn't fun either. There needs to be something in place to mitigate that too.

Because if people can't enjoy their time in WvW, they are going to give up. If the choice is "play the way you want and screw your side over, or play the way ANET wants and hate it" then personally that will be me gone. Maybe I'm the only one, but I doubt it. There needs to be legitimate choice in WvW, there needs to be room for different playstyles. And the changes need to stop catering to one group of players.

Don't get me wrong, I've played in some boonballs and it can be fun for a while. But not if it's the only game in town. Punching down might feel great for the one doing the punching, but it's kitten for those being punched. That's true for those on the receiving end of an unstoppable boonball, or a server pair up. If those people start to quit, pretty soon there will be nothing to punch down on, then will the people punching quit as well?

It's well past time for a change of course for WvW. Because if we carry on like this ANET are going to kill it.

[TheGrimm.5624]

12 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

An entrenched full squad with siege and tiered up walls is almost impossible to remove.

And the easiest to decoy. You leave the min needed to decoy and have the rest attack elsewhere. This a decade old tactic.

Edited April 20 by TheGrimm.5624

[Zok.4956]

14 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

If you can't imagine any other circumstance being possible, it makes sense that these changes are especially punishing for defending players. If you recognize that it's also possible for defenders to outnumber their attackers you may begin to see the problems in giving any one side a significant advantage over the other. 

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.

 

14 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

Unfortunately there's a huge disconnect in this discussion that centers around being outnumbered vs being a defender. For many it's impossible to equate one without the other and this is the underlying issue preventing meaningful discussion.

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).

[Zok.4956]

14 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

Realistically you can't balance a game mode around the assumption that one side will be heavily outnumbered by another.

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.

[Mabi black.1824]

51 minutes 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).

I agree with what you wrote here, I want to add that all teams have their best time/time and their worst time/time would be impossible in contrast in our weekly matches with teams of 2000 players. I also have to say that I am never too worried about these kinds of changes, because they always apply in both directions. They affect your team but at the same time they also affect the enemy team. 

As I have already written we just have to have a little patience, give time to these changes and check if they stimulate the content to emerge or not. My testimony last night on the enemy bay, with the excuse that the walls could not be closed, matured a clash on 3 sides, and all 3 had a similar and rather large group. It went on quite a bit and it was fun to participate.

[random.9803]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:46 PM, Gehenna.3625 said:

lol recent WvW changes:

• A lot fewer supplies in objectives
• Made Rams incredibly hard to kill
• Nerfed defensive siege pretty much into the ground
• Nerfed the main defensive trick
• Nerfed a defensive tactivator into the ground
• Now you have to repair 50% of a wall to be able to get it raised again
• And Golems don't trigger the contested status, so there will be even less warning for defenders

How dumb/lazy are attackers these days that this was all necessary? And we've probably not seen the end of it. This is just pathetic really lol

Great changes that just made me give up on this game mode after 12 years ,objective achieved . But they don't care because they have no clue..

[Chaos God.1639]

well rebuilding the wall only at 50%, will just make it more important to defend the walls and this will make the supplies more important too. it's also more realistic.

[Reztek.7805]

14 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

One boonball facing off against another boonball inside a t3 objective is much more common than you would think. When one boonball realizes they can't beat another boonball what will they do? Either move maps or... that's right... rush to defend an objective where the buffs, environmental advantages, and rando solos on the map will make up the difference.

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.

[Gorani.7205]

3 hours ago, Chaos God.1639 said:

well rebuilding the wall only at 50%, will just make it more important to defend the walls and this will make the supplies more important too. it's also more realistic.

Then I we need participation for repairing walls between 0-50% back, so that holding the wall isn't a scenario were you lose participation while being active in the defense. And we need stationary siege that actually can hit attacking siege (canon placements are either a death trap or/and shoots at spots where attacking siege isn't placed), will do damage to attackers (AC being a wet noodle projector), can shoots downwards (looking at you ballistae) or  in case of walls actually help defenders (that are not carpet bombed by AoE from below and pulled off the wall, while they don't even have a LoS to attack themselves).
More realistic would be a few people holding a castle for a long time, while dozens are outside and have a very hard time getting in (because people directly next to the walls could easily be attacked by defenders from above, who are perfectly covered via crenelations and hoardings).

[Dawdler.8521]

35 minutes ago, Gorani.7205 said:

Then I we need participation for repairing walls between 0-50% back, so that holding the wall isn't a scenario were you lose participation while being active in the defense.

Yeah that's kind the main issue - you're getting bogged down with a trivial task that will just make you loose participation. Nobody want to be "stuck" in an objective just because the wall/door cant be reasonably repaired and they have to babysit it. Going off to get supplies? Well it'll take like a minute there and back (and that's probably a close camp) to repair and you need to do that like 10 times. You'll be in the red before long. And then you are "forced" to have to go find something easy to do instead.

Heaven forbid you actually meet enemies. Aint nobody got time for that when participation is needed fast to stop it dropping.

It's dumb gameplay and Anet just made it dumber.

Edited April 20 by Dawdler.8521

[Chaba.5410]

5 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

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).

How would you describe your playstyle then?

If you were leading an attacking zerg, would you pick the objective that already had some scouts in it or the one that wasn't scouted yet? Why or why not?