[POLL] Has the new ring size made an impact on game play?

[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.

 

It's been a week, what level of impact on game play has the new ring size made for you?

Has it changed behaviors around the ring?

Has it "encouraged more interactions" in the ring?

Has it scared away fights from the ring?

More or less players willing to stall a ring?

Or is it just another nothing burger change?

[Cael.3960]

Yes. -  Capture locations now have a more consistent combat area and reward players for fighting over the objective instead of ignoring combat altogether to delay the capture mechanic as long as possible. 

 

Open Field - More accurately the areas outside of walled objectives because it's now far more important to destroy siege than it used to be and most of the groups I've fought this week refuse to place siege within 1200 range of a wall. A close second would be towers because most of the groups I've fought this week will build their siege inside to attack keeps/smc on EBG and the garrison on Alpine BL. Turns out some servers have a crippling fear of doing anything within range of an enemy wall. 

Edited April 23 by Cael.3960

[Zephyrus.9680]

Small rings = easy flips = less and shorter fights. Less PvP and more PvE which I assume was their goal. 

Camps: it's the worst for camps, particularly the EBG ones that used to have a lot of big fights. Some of the most fun fights used to start over camps and this goes back to 2012.  Defense, offense, 3-ways where no one knew who's defending; it doesn't matter. They were good fights and now they don't happen because camps are so easy to flip.

Tiny camp circles are the 2nd worst change Anet made to WvW maps in 11 years, IMO (worst by far was inventing Desert BL). Unrelated but Speldan should be moved closer to the lake and Anz. Almost nothing happens there because the distance. 

Towers: Nothing meaningful changed. Already had tiny circles by design. 

Keeps: With the exception of spawn camping, resetting WPs is anti-PvP and should be harder, not easier. Now it is easier but just like SMC, if the lord is down then there is probably no meaningful fight anyway. This change just makes it slightly less meaningful. 

[Jeydra.4386]

This change definitely had an impact, it's just that the impact was not big. It means that if you want to hold the ring, you have a smaller area to kite. But holding the ring is something that you can only do for a short amount of time, so it only matters if you're currently outnumbered but there's a friendly zerg coming. Which doesn't happen often. Hence impact was not big.

[Ronin.4501]

The only real difference I've noticed has nothing to do with the ring size in the objective but rather that golems are no longer able to contest objectives. I've had one fight where someone still tried to use a golem to defend a camp, but everytime they climbed into the golem the ring continued to cap. They managed to prolong the fight (it was just me soloing the camp and them solo defending) for a bit by jumping in and out of the golem as I got them to low health, but eventually I was still able to cap the camp.

I suppose the ring size makes a difference in a few specific camps; notably SW camp on Alpine borderland, but I can't say anyone is defending any more/less than previously. It's still almost exclusively a numbers game. If 30-40 players are going for an objective and there are fewer defenders, they still take the camp with relative ease. If an equal number of players are fighting in north camp on Alpine bl, they're still often successful simply by merit of running back from spawn over and over as they wear down the attackers.

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

I suppose the ring size makes a difference in a few specific camps; notably SW camp on Alpine borderland

People not being able to [ab]use that one square meter standing behind the house is pretty much the only real difference I’ve seen too.

[Ronin.4501]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

People not being able to [ab]use that one square meter standing behind the house is pretty much the only real difference I’ve seen too.

In just about every other camp it doesn't really make any difference. I'll confess I don't play a lot in EBG so maybe it makes a difference in some of the camps there and I wouldn't know.

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

People not being able to [ab]use that one square meter standing behind the house is pretty much the only real difference I’ve seen too.

Abuse? Please explain what you were seeing. Numbers on both sides and such. What was the context?

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Abuse? Please explain what you were seeing. Numbers on both sides and such. What was the context?

The context was capping a camp.

I thought that was obvious.

[Rosangelina.3694]

The tiny circles in camps kinda sucks. It forces you to stand in aoe range with less room to kite and if you're fewer people trying to defend it makes it that much more difficult.  I've only really experienced defending green camps on ebg and NC on alpine, which in many instances was chaotic.

Overall I think it needs a bit more adjusting depending on the size of the camp itself. In some cases a smaller circle is fine and others it seems silly (like alpine nc).

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The context was capping a camp.

I thought that was obvious.

Using terrain is an abuse? You mean line of sight. Aka making someone look behind the house was that big of an ask?

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Using terrain is an abuse? You mean line of sight. Aka making someone look behind the house was that big of an ask?

Are you saying Anet fully planned to make that tiny man sized little area where you can see the player tag through the thin wall some kind of super secret genius tactical position for defenders?

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Are you saying Anet fully planned to make that tiny man sized little area where you can see the player tag through the thin wall some kind of super secret genius tactical position for defenders?

I am saying I think larger rings make for more fights. I say this from a defense and offensive view point. But it is what it is so we will need to change tactics and see if changes can create different types of fights. Still a new change and a lot of things to try and new concepts to be applied. 

[MedievalThings.5417]

It had the exact impact Anet intended, fewer players defending.  At least before, you could troll a ring some until more defenders showed.  Now, you have zero room to stand in, so it is pointless to defend...just as Anet wants.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 4/25/2024 at 8:15 PM, MedievalThings.5417 said:

It had the exact impact Anet intended, fewer players defending.  At least before, you could troll a ring some until more defenders showed.  Now, you have zero room to stand in, so it is pointless to defend...just as Anet wants.

This is actually an interesting one to see if we get an answer on. Was the thought behind the rings changes to lower the fight, standardize the ring or did they think it would increase fight time. So far it seems to decrease time to take when looking at this as a defender and as an attacker. But was that the actual intent?

Edited May 1 by TheGrimm.5624

[XenesisII.1540]

59 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

This is actually an interesting one to see if we get an answer on. Was the thought behind the rings changes to lower the fight, standardize the ring or did they think it would increase fight time. So far it seems to decrease time to take when looking at this as a defender and as an attacker. But was that the actual intent?

They stated the change was to promote more pvp interactions in the ring, not lower the fighting. Not to increase fight time because they're trying to put a smaller time limit to captures by forcing the defenders hand. But all I've seen is it makes players give up sooner.

Standardize rings was actually something that should have been done long ago, although having huge rings like north camp led to many epic battles up there. The ring change isn't the problem, but the idea that drove them to make those changes, that's a joke. They're still looking at all the outside elements of a fight wondering why groups will not engage at all times, and not at that the actual core problems.

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

The primary reason organized groups don't fight (in NA), is that most groups know their place in the pecking order.  And very few of them want to take fights they know they'll lose more than 1-3 times per play session.

If anet really wants to incentivize the large groups to fight, then they need to make the pecking order less important, and/or return to a segmented matchup system where the high pecking order groups are all locked away in 1 tier away from the gen pop.

 

 

[MedievalThings.5417]

1 hour ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

The primary reason organized groups don't fight (in NA), is that most groups know their place in the pecking order.  And very few of them want to take fights they know they'll lose more than 1-3 times per play session.

If anet really wants to incentivize the large groups to fight, then they need to make the pecking order less important, and/or return to a segmented matchup system where the high pecking order groups are all locked away in 1 tier away from the gen pop.

 

 

That's an accurate way of looking at it.

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

The primary reason organized groups don't fight (in NA), is that most groups know their place in the pecking order.  And very few of them want to take fights they know they'll lose more than 1-3 times per play session.

If anet really wants to incentivize the large groups to fight, then they need to make the pecking order less important, and/or return to a segmented matchup system where the high pecking order groups are all locked away in 1 tier away from the gen pop.

 

 

Yet if no one challenges that is it the case? 

[TheGrimm.5624]

 

9 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

The primary reason organized groups don't fight (in NA), is that most groups know their place in the pecking order.  And very few of them want to take fights they know they'll lose more than 1-3 times per play session.

If anet really wants to incentivize the large groups to fight, then they need to make the pecking order less important, and/or return to a segmented matchup system where the high pecking order groups are all locked away in 1 tier away from the gen pop.

 

 

When a player pugmands they get a lot of whispers. Questions, comments, suggestions, do this, don't do that bits. Been on both sides of that fence. When pugmanders bring the fights they also have to mind those not in squad. Do you want to out them, try and appease them or what. It adds politics into the mix. Some guild groups run unopposed since they don't have pug groups that will fight them. This is also an issue.  

 

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

It's really really simple, in 2014, even the best comped players died 5-10-20 times in hour.  In 2024 the best comped players often die 0-1 times in 3 hours.  Anet has really messed everything up with way way way way too much sustain, and other tools that allow people to stack advantages too high.

And the "like-minded" players who "want to win" all bunch up together in certain timezones and certain servers, instead of spreading out, and creating content for each other.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

It's really really simple, in 2014, even the best comped players died 5-10-20 times in hour.  In 2024 the best comped players often die 0-1 times in 3 hours.  Anet has really messed everything up with way way way way too much sustain, and other tools that allow people to stack advantages too high.

And the "like-minded" players who "want to win" all bunch up together in certain timezones and certain servers, instead of spreading out, and creating content for each other.

 

Not wrong lol.