Can we get a DEV response?

[misterman.1530]

This will get moved to the WvW forums, but since it appears that DEVs rarely dip a toe into that forum, I figured I would ask here:

Can we please get a DEV response/explanation of the WvW changes foisted upon us? These are NOT good changes.

[XenesisII.1540]

On 4/20/2024 at 7:41 AM, misterman.1530 said:

This will get moved to the WvW forums, but since it appears that DEVs rarely dip a toe into that forum, I figured I would ask here:

Can we please get a DEV response/explanation of the WvW changes foisted upon us? These are NOT good changes.

They already did with the patch notes.

Quote

World vs. World

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.

I like how there's 5 confused people over a simple reply 🤭 -->

Edited April 22 by XenesisII.1540

[Mikhael.2391]

11 hours ago, misterman.1530 said:

This will get moved to the WvW forums, but since it appears that DEVs rarely dip a toe into that forum, I figured I would ask here:

Can we please get a DEV response/explanation of the WvW changes foisted upon us? These are NOT good changes.

Nope, they keep promoting brainless gameplay, blob up use your face side to side on the keyboard and see who wins first on the boonballs. And you will get blocked here reported etc for saying they are doing a terrible job in the game mode and dont give 2 craps about players here. 10 years and they just do not care.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

Anet doesn't listen one bit to any of us.  If you're not a blob PPT commander, they have no time for you.   This last set of terrible changes was just icing on that confirmation cake. 

 

 

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

9 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

They already did with the patch notes.

 

which were dumb.

With the current boonball meta, attackers could roll around in an objective for hours already. They made that worse.

These changes need to be reverted. They just cement the current boring, idiotic meta that everybody hates. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

Choo Choo! All aboard the karma train!

So key in the new meta is if in doubt don't defend, just go and take. Anet is not looking for fights, they want insta-noodles. 

[prototypedragon.1406]

31 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Choo Choo! All aboard the karma train!

So key in the new meta is if in doubt don't defend, just go and take. Anet is not looking for fights, they want insta-noodles. 

Anet wants instant noodles but they ordered off brand I think it's just the cup that has a picture of noodles on it but filled with boon water. 🤣 ( Noodles not included in packaging)

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 minutes ago, prototypedragon.1406 said:

Anet wants instant noodles but they ordered off brand I think it's just the cup that has a picture of noodles on it but filled with boon water. 🤣 ( Noodles not included in packaging)

lol!

Its late don't taunt me, any ramen would do. NOODLES! lol

[SweetPotato.7456]

20 hours ago, misterman.1530 said:

This will get moved to the WvW forums, but since it appears that DEVs rarely dip a toe into that forum, I figured I would ask here:

Can we please get a DEV response/explanation of the WvW changes foisted upon us? These are NOT good changes.

foisted hmmm, you made me search google.

[Gop.8713]

In defense of the devs, I would ask ppls to think back to before all these defensive nerfs started, before they capped acs and halved wall health. Maps were pretty stagnant, and you'd often have keeps and towers that didn't flip for days, esp on bls. Now was this bc attacking was 'too hard'? No, it's bc attackers were lazy. But if the reality is that the playerbase is unwilling to engage in active siege to cap an objective, anet must nerf defenses if they want to increase activity . . .

And it's also important to note that it worked. Those maps are much less stagnant now. Does anet need to keep nerfing defenses? Tbh Idk, I haven't really tried to tier and defend anything since back before that first round of nerfs, I adapted to the changes and moved on to other styles of play. It all depends on how lazy attackers are, really . . .

Or in other words, if the ktrain is the only style of play players are willing to engage with, don't blame anet for enabling the ktrainers . . .

[Coldtart.4785]

59 minutes ago, Gop.8713 said:

No, it's bc attackers were lazy.

You sure it's the people that would rather be actively fighting than waiting around for half an hour for the trebs to finally make an opening that are the lazy ones?

[Gop.8713]

Either lazy or just not quite bright enough to figure out more productive things to do to aid in the siege than stand around. You feel I was being too generous . . ?

[Chaba.5410]

34 minutes ago, Gop.8713 said:

Either lazy or just not quite bright enough to figure out more productive things to do to aid in the siege than stand around. You feel I was being too generous . . ?

What more productive things?

[hugeboss.5432]

There seems to be a misunderstanding between what wvw players want... and the devs.
We don't play wvw to find a resolution/conclusion to the conflict, we play to take part in a never-ending battle (a map is called "Eternal Battlegrounds" for a reason). [Like in Norse mythology "The Battle of the Heodenings"].

When a blob decides to siege & attack a T3 Garrison/EB-Keep, this is what we wvw veterans would consider the main *ENDGAME* wvw raid event. We don't want a quick easy 5 minute battle, that would be considered seriously "anti-climatic". Infact, many times we laid siege to T3-Garrisons in the early years, we often predicted that we probably won't flip it, but at least we can have some nice long fights & test each others skill (the main fun here is to play the actual fighting action, not the conclusion of that battle). You don't attack the T3 garrison because you want the 1000wxp reward, you do it for the fight. The fighting action is the actual reward.

It's like going out with a dream date, and then quickly finishing the entire evening within 60 seconds.
(It's the journey that is the main event, not the destination)

 

[Gop.8713]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

What more productive things?

It's kind of pointless to go down this road since it hasn't been relevant in years but back when laying siege took effort and defenders responding to an attack meant that the attackers were going to have to actually, y'know, siege, what ppls not immediately involved in the main attack and not lazy or dim enough to just stand around would do would be to start an alternate breach point, throttle enemy supply or choke off enemy reinforcements . . .

18 minutes ago, hugeboss.5432 said:

There seems to be a misunderstanding between what wvw players want... and the devs.
We don't play wvw to find a resolution/conclusion to the conflict, we play to take part in a never-ending battle (a map is called "Eternal Battlegrounds" for a reason). [Like in Norse mythology "The Battle of the Heodenings"].

When a blob decides to siege & attack a T3 Garrison/EB-Keep, this is what we wvw veterans would consider the main *ENDGAME* wvw raid event. We don't want a quick easy 5 minute battle, that would be considered seriously "anti-climatic". Infact, many times we laid siege to T3-Garrisons in the early years, we often predicted that we probably won't flip it, but at least we can have some nice long fights & test each others skill (the main fun here is to play the actual fighting action, not the conclusion of that battle). You don't attack the T3 garrison because you want the 1000wxp reward, you do it for the fight. The fighting action is the actual reward.

It's like going out with a dream date, and then quickly finishing the entire evening within 60 seconds.
(It's the journey that is the main event, not the destination)

 

I believe that these ppls you describe exist, but the sad reality is that they are in the extreme minority. The bulk of wvwers want the ktrain or, at best, an easy breach that avoids the cap in hopes of creating a bag farm. Nobody is out there looking for a fight : /

[Chaba.5410]

31 minutes ago, Gop.8713 said:

It's kind of pointless to go down this road since it hasn't been relevant in years but back when laying siege took effort and defenders responding to an attack meant that the attackers were going to have to actually, y'know, siege, what ppls not immediately involved in the main attack and not lazy or dim enough to just stand around would do would be to start an alternate breach point, throttle enemy supply or choke off enemy reinforcements . . .

Many of those tactics are still used today. Consider that they don't really solve the issue of players still standing around and waiting. So I'm left wondering what productive things you were thinking of.

Alternate breach point: What do you think happens when defending boonball shows up and attackers are split? Have you considered the stategic decision behind not splitting a force like that?  Ninja groups that do this operate usually independently of the main attacking force and don't want to be revealed either.

Throttle enemy supply: How many are needed for this task that at best only occurs every 5m? My group typically only needs one person doing this.

Choke off reinforcement: This already happens, but it's usually done by roamers or other small havoc groups. They are effective against runbacks who trickle in, which requires the main force of attackers to have already breached and killed defenders. They aren't going to be doing anything against a defending zerg arriving to reinforce.  Also see above question about strategic decisions with splitting forces.

Edited April 22 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

The best alternate breach points are when you can siege two different structures at once. For example, drop some catas or rams at SWT, get them built, then leave and drop more siege at south bay.  Usually all defenders show up at bay while a small number of pugs stayed at SWT to finish. It doesn't take very many, only 2 or 3. And the absolute winner spot is between Langor and the Blue Keep in EBG. You barely split your blob. Splits defenders.

Edited April 22 by Chaba.5410

[Gop.8713]

34 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Many of those tactics are still used today. Consider that they don't really solve the issue of players still standing around and waiting. So I'm left wondering what productive things you were thinking of.

I was thinking of the things that I listed in response to your inquiry. Feels like you're trying to pick a fight over content that hasn't existed in years. Was the boonball even a thing back then . . ?

But you do make an excellent point that the dim or lazy players were typically those blindly following a tag. Different world back then . . .

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

On 4/20/2024 at 5:50 PM, XenesisII.1540 said:

the defenders' advantage inside their own structures was previously too strong

Translation; "The boonball blobs that our ANET devs like to run in wasn't immediately winning every fight, so we had to make changes so that they would".

When the best setup to attack a structure is a boonball, and the best setup to defend a structure is a boonball and the best setup for an open world fight is a boonball, sensible people would start to question whether they've made a mistake in balancing things. ANET look  at their stats, see that 5% of the time the attacking boonball doesn't win, and nerf defending into the ground.

This is an objectively terrible change for anyone that doesn't play boonball. If they carry on with this they are going to drive a lot of people away from WvW.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, Gop.8713 said:

In defense of the devs, I would ask ppls to think back to before all these defensive nerfs started, before they capped acs and halved wall health. Maps were pretty stagnant, and you'd often have keeps and towers that didn't flip for days, esp on bls. Now was this bc attacking was 'too hard'? No, it's bc attackers were lazy. But if the reality is that the playerbase is unwilling to engage in active siege to cap an objective, anet must nerf defenses if they want to increase activity . . .

Wasn't seeing this issue personally. A T3 was tasty target for all Havocs. Again I think this is where mileage varied across the conversations. 

 

[One more for the road.8950]

15 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Wasn't seeing this issue personally. A T3 was tasty target for all Havocs. Again I think this is where mileage varied across the conversations. 

 

1-3 ppl could take a T3 tower if undisturbed easily.

[TheGrimm.5624]

The issue here is, it is unclear on what, where, how information was gathered that said Defense had the edge on Offense. Maybe Anet has info they can share that paints this picture and it makes sense to the defense people posting. Could be a thing. May not be. Key here is any defense posters need to change their gameplay since it is what it is. We will need to either double down to hold our stuff or adjust our game play and use less to take theirs while they zerg. Good hunting!

[TheGrimm.5624]

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

1-3 ppl could take a T3 tower if undisturbed easily.

1-3 for keeps agree. 

[One more for the road.8950]

1 minute ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

1-3 for keeps agree. 

Yeah, been there, done that too. Hills with 2-3 because going back to get supplies when alone is a slog.

[TheGrimm.5624]

Just now, One more for the road.8950 said:

Yeah, been there, done that too. Hills with 2-3 because going back to get supplies when alone is a slog.

Part of the fun of a Havoc is going big or go home. 🙂