1 person to tap a keep.

[GBEW.5947]

i think its kindof lame that it only requires one person to tap an entire keep, should be more like 5-10.

[SweetPotato.7456]

This is the kind of complaint that confused Anet that made them change stuffs that doesn't need to be the change , and then the forum exploded into a non recoverable state of whining about that changed that was unnecessary, while the resources is pulled to attend to stupid stuffs like this, than another person whine about another non issues and that vicious cycle just keep spinning - dampener, disruptor, moving nodes around making ring smaller/bigger meanwhile if you can prevent me flying on my skyscale to a jumping puzzle why can't you stop people exploiting into enemy structures? For the love of the game let them do their job 😜 

[Lucy.3728]

If it wasn't abuse (some call it a feature), like 1 thief doing that, then have a scout in the keep.

[TheGrimm.5624]

9 hours ago, GBEW.5947 said:

i think its kindof lame that it only requires one person to tap an entire keep, should be more like 5-10.

Not sure this would work. I can break into a keep solo. Doesn't mean I can take, doesn't mean I can't, but break in, do it all the time. This wouldn't serve the change you think it would.

[MedievalThings.5417]

It should not be guard aggro that triggers contested, except camps.  Structures should require siege damage before they contest.  This benefits both attackers and defenders.  Defenders would still have a waypoint available until siege damage is done (anet hates defending, so we already know that won't change).  But, it would also benefit attackers, as they could clear guards and get siege built before a structure ever looks in danger.  This would increase the value of scouts as well.

[Gorani.7205]

15 hours ago, GBEW.5947 said:

i think its kind of lame that it only requires one person to tap an entire keep, should be more like 5-10.

The "tap" on a keep (or tower) does only one game mechanic thing, blocking a quick teleport to an existing way point (if there is one in T3). You can counteract that by having the watchtower  upgrade, which will show the tapping player approaching (or leaving) or a real player scouting the area around the keep for the tapping player (or shooting siege). All of that promotes small player driven game play (which is getting reduced which each mechanics update by ANet's devs currently do) unless you decide not to check the contested keep for several turns.
If getting shot at by a single archer on a wall should count as a tap or if killing a guard is necessary could be up for discussion, the concept of contesting without siege damage to a wall or gate should not be the necessary trigger, in my opinion.

Edited May 1 by Gorani.7205

[Dawdler.8521]

40 minutes ago, Gorani.7205 said:

or a real player scouting the area around the keep for the tapping player (or shooting siege). 

Yeah you don’t need a scout standing on a wall going “oh look he contested again”. You need a roamer to engage him before he even reach the keep - and preferably contest everything of theirs along the way so they have to check too. 

[urd.8306]

And no roamer will do that, because those perma-tap thieves are uncatchable anyway when you are solo.

[Dawdler.8521]

17 minutes ago, urd.8306 said:

And no roamer will do that, because those perma-tap thieves are uncatchable anyway when you are solo.

That's why you send the same thieves after them. You get rid of your thieves. You hopefully get rid of their thieves. Everybody wins.

[CutesySylveon.8290]

19 minutes ago, urd.8306 said:

And no roamer will do that, because those perma-tap thieves are uncatchable anyway when you are solo.

Even groups struggle. Only thing to worry about is potential reveals from watchtower or a Ranger using Sic 'Em. 

I usually keep my glass armor on, but I've seen plenty of thief players use tanky armor to tap as well, which my guess is Cele that they use on Specter but swap to Daredevil to move quicker or DE to just keep stealthing and continuously tap.

If they don't want to be caught, you won't catch them unless they screw up. 

Edited May 1 by CutesySylveon.8290

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

I think being able to close a waypoint by letting a guard hit you, or hitting a guard is silly.

At the very least it should require killing a guard. 

If it were up to me I'd change it so waypoints don't close until some wall or gate loses 1-5% or so of it's health.  I.e. make the contester build siege, or spend some time beating on a gate.  Putting the lord into combat, or contesting the circle, should also keep the waypoint closed.  

Even if the waypoint behavior was changed, white swords probably should continue to appear due to guards being put into combat.

 

[Aeolus.3615]

18 hours ago, GBEW.5947 said:

i think its kindof lame that it only requires one person to tap an entire keep, should be more like 5-10.

only noobs tap keeps and npc's 🙂

If I recall u can leave siege prints, hiding in some places where the npc's will keep attacking but don't have LoS, I think it still works doubt this was fixed.

[Cuks.8241]

2 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

If it were up to me I'd change it so waypoints don't close until some wall or gate loses 1-5% or so of it's health.  I.e. make the contester build siege, or spend some time beating on a gate.  Putting the lord into combat, or contesting the circle, should also keep the waypoint closed.  

Even if the waypoint behavior was changed, white swords probably should continue to appear due to guards being put into combat.

I like your idea. Let the white swords appear but don't disable the waypoint until certain amount of siege dmg is done. Maybe even more than 5%, maybe even until outer is breached.

Or if I partially steal idea from Planetside 2. There could be secondary objective(s) that power up waypoint independently from the dmg done to the keep. These could be outside of the keep, maybe tucked just behind a wall, defended by npcs so it's not easier than now to disable the waypoint. Or inside the inner. Side keeps maybe only outside but Garry inside the inner so it harder to disable than side keeps.

These would be juicy targets for roamers. Main squad goes for the breach while roamer groups go to disable waypoint power up stations around the keep to disable the waypoint.  2 or 3 stations per keep, not in the main breach areas. You need to disable all 2 or 3 to disable waypoint. Defenders can repair stations and restore waypoint. This would mean the attacking group needs the support of roamer parties to destroy the stations and keep them destroyed. And small defender groups could actually defend and repair these stations and be useful, hope for big group to waypoint in.

[Aeolus.3615]

22 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I like your idea. Let the white swords appear but don't disable the waypoint until certain amount of siege dmg is done. Maybe even more than 5%, maybe even until outer is breached.

Or if I partially steal idea from Planetside 2. There could be secondary objective(s) that power up waypoint independently from the dmg done to the keep. These could be outside of the keep, maybe tucked just behind a wall, defended by npcs so it's not easier than now to disable the waypoint. Or inside the inner. Side keeps maybe only outside but Garry inside the inner so it harder to disable than side keeps.

These would be juicy targets for roamers. Main squad goes for the breach while roamer groups go to disable waypoint power up stations around the keep to disable the waypoint.  2 or 3 stations per keep, not in the main breach areas. You need to disable all 2 or 3 to disable waypoint. Defenders can repair stations and restore waypoint. This would mean the attacking group needs the support of roamer parties to destroy the stations and keep them destroyed. And small defender groups could actually defend and repair these stations and be useful, hope for big group to waypoint in.

A way to address that would be add something else besides sword cross lock the WP, imagine a ping warning that structure is being attacks and will lock its WP for players, maybe  more icons for it would do it, 1 sword being contested, and the normal cross swords WP locked for players outside the guild.

In addition the guild that owns the structure could have a different timer for the WP, imagine even if contested they could still use the WP  every 2 or 3 minutes, and maybe this could be added as some ammo slot for it in the guild enhancements, this way guilds would also have to work towards have those  WP usages.

Edited May 1 by Aeolus.3615

[TheGrimm.5624]

This is one that seems simple on paper but is it?

• Can it be used by all sides regardless of size, yes.
• Can it be used by all sizes of attackers today, yes.
• Does it require a side to scout to see what it is to get more info, yes.
• Can it be used as a feint, yes.
• Can it be used as a pre-attack, yes.

I was thinking two stage mechanics last night, but not sure. As a tag if we went that way then its easy, swords but open WP, it's nothing would be first thought. Where as now, as a tag, a havoc or a roamer I need to ask or go and see what's up. There is gameplay there for the larger and smaller groups. If we go with wall or gate damage only you then you impact smaller scale more than you do larger scale since it means it is an attack and you have to respond, where as right now its questionable for both. On top of that it leaves smaller scale with more of an impact since it would take them longer to breach where as larger scale could already be in and at lord before you were made aware since they should have more siege in place.

This is one again where I don't think it would work out as thought. 

 

[Abjurer.9302]

11 hours ago, MedievalThings.5417 said:

It should not be guard aggro that triggers contested, except camps.  Structures should require siege damage before they contest.  This benefits both attackers and defenders.  Defenders would still have a waypoint available until siege damage is done (anet hates defending, so we already know that won't change).  But, it would also benefit attackers, as they could clear guards and get siege built before a structure ever looks in danger.  This would increase the value of scouts as well.

Before the HOT release guards would not contest objectives and it behaved like this.  It was possible to pull guards away from the gate to be killed so that rams could be built with multiple supply runs without contesting the objective.  It also forced someone tapping the keep to hit the gate.

[Jaruselka.5943]

What if we had a different indicator that the structure was being hit but not contested? Like a circle indicator if a guard or siege was being hit? Swords would only show if the structure was taking siege damage and be contested?

[Gotejjeken.1267]

Depends on what they want to do, but if engagement is the idea, then I'd say just make swords only trigger on siege damage and be notification only--no more contesting the WP for keeps.  

One person tapping promotes anti-engagement, because 99.9% of the time the tapper just runs off.  

[Zyreva.1078]

5 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Depends on what they want to do, but if engagement is the idea, then I'd say just make swords only trigger on siege damage and be notification only--no more contesting the WP for keeps.  

One person tapping promotes anti-engagement, because 99.9% of the time the tapper just runs off.  

But closed waypoints force people to run and running instead of porting gives a lot more opportunity for fights.

Nothing is less engaging than zergs just porting from structure to structure.

7 hours ago, Jaruselka.5943 said:

What if we had a different indicator that the structure was being hit but not contested? Like a circle indicator if a guard or siege was being hit? Swords would only show if the structure was taking siege damage and be contested?

It would remove (or at least reduce) the need to scout and therefore remove even more opportunities for player interaction.

Edited May 2 by Zyreva.1078

[oatsnjuices.1698]

That could be resaid as, big groups shouldn't be able to take a keep when there is 20 or 30 less defenders on the map.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

5 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

But closed waypoints force people to run and running instead of porting gives a lot more opportunity for fights.

Nothing is less engaging than zergs just porting from structure to structure.

How does running give more opportunity for fights? 

In the south spawns maybe, as you could get spawn camped.  But north? I don't think I've ever run into a fight trying to get to a keep from north spawn, there's not enough roamers left for that.  

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

How does running give more opportunity for fights? 

In the south spawns maybe, as you could get spawn camped.  But north? I don't think I've ever run into a fight trying to get to a keep from north spawn, there's not enough roamers left for that.  

It creates tactics for smaller sides to slow down a larger one allowing for a more even fights at the cost of the smaller side to use resources to do said slowing, aka tapping. Else the fight would be over more quickly as the larger side can just overwhelm the other. There is also the third side that may choose to aid server 3 over server 1 and interfere in servers 1 return to the fight. I know that is more rare but it does happen. 

[Gaiawolf.8261]

On 5/1/2024 at 9:20 AM, Dawdler.8521 said:

That's why you send the same thieves after them. You get rid of your thieves. You hopefully get rid of their thieves. Everybody wins.

Good concept but doesn't work as long as stealth is so much stronger than revealed. Which is a whole other debate for countless other threads. 😅

[Justine.6351]

I would just build a sneaky ballista somewhere for tapping.

[GBEW.5947]

On 5/2/2024 at 7:13 AM, oatsnjuices.1698 said:

That could be resaid as, big groups shouldn't be able to take a keep when there is 20 or 30 less defenders on the map.

thats not at all what i said.