We really need a discussion with the devs on these changes.

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

The debate about whether the siege should have been killed before the gate was repaired is all well and good but it is also a complete side show.

The key point is that the wall/gate repair changes as they stand are terrible (and as a sub point you shouldn't be able to damage destroyed walls/gates while they are being repaired).

A very high percentage of people in the WvW forum and this thread seem to agree on this.

Again, I don't like them either. But it requires now more to do it or for one to prep it for close to the same as we did before. We lost some tactics to use the question is did we gain any? Still testing.

Disagree with removing damaging downed wall since it requires an attacker to choose keep firing or bring those bodies into the fight. We need less dumbing down on fights and players making more calls of what to do and when. Again also disagree with the 50 mark. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Real question is, how much dumber do we want to make WvW? 

In what world are 3v1's normal? If OP is winning multiple 3v1s then for my money, the attackers shouldn't even be able to penetrate the tower.  Rewarding repeatedly dying to 1 dude is a dangerous path, especially when they already have cele builds to put everyone on equal or greater footing.  With cele, you should never lose in numbers unless you are less skilled, and three times less skilled means something needs to give, or they will lower the bar so much that Drizzlewood is harder than WvW.  

I do realize the game is 12 years old and naturally probably have to set the bar lower to get players in, but too low benefits no one.  It is a big reason I no longer really actively play WvW as there is no reward for being good at roaming.  Not that there ever was, but now more than ever it is a colossal waste of time to defend literally anything.  

If OP was that good at 3v1, why didn't they just hold it even when out of sups? Again I am on the side that defense is on the losing end of this, but this read more as an ad that defense needs more nerfs. I disagree there. 

[Lucy.3728]

5 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

I do realize the game is 12 years old and naturally probably have to set the bar lower to get players in

Or the players also age and the game adjusts.

My reaction is not as good as it was 20 years ago. Eye–hand coordination has also deteriorated.😄

However, the changes were/are a nice diversion in the game. But the reasons behind them are not clear to me either.
With all the things people complain about in the game, things got changed that no one even thought of before.

Edited May 1 by Lucy.3728

[MedievalThings.5417]

On 4/26/2024 at 9:47 AM, Remus Darkblight.1673 said:

Your mistake was trying to defend a tower by yourself instead of being in the boon ball where you're supposed to be.

I wish this was a sarcastic post (and may have been intended that way) but you know that is exactly what Anet is thinking.  Anet has made it VERY clear they do not like people defending.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

13 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

If OP was that good at 3v1, why didn't they just hold it even when out of sups? Again I am on the side that defense is on the losing end of this, but this read more as an ad that defense needs more nerfs. I disagree there. 

Not sure I understand--there are times when both walls can be down and the gate and I've defended 1v2-3 on a tower lord only to either leave after the second, maybe third time or get run over as they bring a guild and start whispering and/or sending me choco bananas and salt packets in the mail.  

There's no incentive to hold it at all.  If you want that much direct conflict just play sPvP so you can fight for 15 min straight and get decent(ish) rewards in ranked.  Rather that then defend some empty tower in WvW and get zero reward outside possibly a few random heavy loot bags.  I mean hell, even the WXP stops after the first time you kill them if they run directly back as it doesn't have enough time to build between them dying.  

Edited May 1 by Gotejjeken.1267

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 minute ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Not sure I understand--there are times when both walls can be down and the gate and I've defended 2-3v1 on a tower lord only to either leave after the second, maybe third time or get run over as they bring a guild and start whispering and/or sending me choco bananas and salt packets in the mail.  

lol, seen similar there. Let me spin this some. If one can block three and you are using that to say defense nerfs were too much, is that going to read in the same light by a dev that was listening to players saying attacking is harder than defending? Add to that the stated area of the fight, south towers at ABL? I just think this feeds ammo to the side that says attacking is more difficult than defending. I think a detail that was missing was that there were no other defenders coming which paints a different picture. Which is also the issue in defense nerfs since it's felt the most when its a 3 v 1 or a 50 v 20 and there is no backup. But if its a 1 v3 with 1 the one winning and 49 more were just around the next bend, again different picture and people calling for defense nerfs since the 3 should have been able to clear the target before the other 49 arrived to defend as well. Again I think defenders had it worse off then attackers before the changes.

1 minute ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

There's no incentive to hold it at all.  If you want that much direct conflict just play sPvP so you can fight for 15 min straight and get decent(ish) rewards in ranked.  Rather that then defend some empty tower in WvW and get zero reward outside possibly a few random heavy loot bags.  

In general I agree and I have to check myself at times since I run with the ideas of; keep your stuff, take theirs, kill them, gets your peeps back up if you can. So defending is just a built in idea to me even when its a hopeless endeavor. 

[Gotejjeken.1267]

46 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

lol, seen similar there. Let me spin this some. If one can block three and you are using that to say defense nerfs were too much, is that going to read in the same light by a dev that was listening to players saying attacking is harder than defending?

I'd hope not.  As for me, player skirmishes have little to do with 'attacking' or 'defending' as you can 1v3 in the middle of the road if you want.  That's more a gear / class balance issue and determining if the 3 were just bad/new/whatever or the 1 is using a build that is super busted.  

Where attacking/defending comes in is the siege warfare aspect of things.  It theoretically should be harder to get into structures, and more rewarding when you do.  That's the balance, you can't just let defenders siege up like in the old days and never be able to flip anything as long as they refresh it, and you can't just have attackers like now be able to throw down 5 cats per 3-man PUG and steamroll keeps in ~2 min.  

 All this is probably a function of the mode is really meant for zerg vs. zerg, something that only routinely and reliably happens on EBG.  So, you have at least three different fires: ZvZ, havoc / roaming (guild and individual), and siege vs. siege warfare (at any sizing).  

I think we all agree making it impossible for the little guy to do anything meaningful and reducing circles to 'increase engagement' is probably the worst way to go about this.  

[TheGrimm.5624]

20 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

I'd hope not.  As for me, player skirmishes have little to do with 'attacking' or 'defending' as you can 1v3 in the middle of the road if you want.  That's more a gear / class balance issue and determining if the 3 were just bad/new/whatever or the 1 is using a build that is super busted.  

Agree or that the other 3 had builds that weren't up to the task for whatever reason.

20 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Where attacking/defending comes in is the siege warfare aspect of things.  It theoretically should be harder to get into structures, and more rewarding when you do.  That's the balance, you can't just let defenders siege up like in the old days and never be able to flip anything as long as they refresh it, and you can't just have attackers like now be able to throw down 5 cats per 3-man PUG and steamroll keeps in ~2 min.  

 All this is probably a function of the mode is really meant for zerg vs. zerg, something that only routinely and reliably happens on EBG.  So, you have at least three different fires: ZvZ, havoc / roaming (guild and individual), and siege vs. siege warfare (at any sizing).  

I think we all agree making it impossible for the little guy to do anything meaningful and reducing circles to 'increase engagement' is probably the worst way to go about this.  

I agree. Especially on the smaller circle bit. So far this just leaves defenders, which might often be smaller and less organized less options to contest which decreases the overall fight time.