What numbers should Offence vs Defence be balanced for/against? And why?

[joneirikb.7506]

Just a simple question to start a conversation:
 

Quote

What numbers should Offence vs Defence be balanced for/against? And Why?

Because the one thing I've been sitting back with watching the last two weeks discussions about the latest changes is that no one seems to be on the same page regarding this, and I think this is probably the most important basic thing that we'd need to agree on to have any kind of relevant discussion about defence in general. I don't want to do a poll, because I want people to answer with their own numbers, and talk about it. This might also change depending on the whole size of the encounter, so the ratios might work differently at 80vs40 and 20vs10 etc, but here's a couple of ratio examples to start off with:

• 1:1 (example 50 vs 50)
• 2:1 (example 20 vs 10)
• 10:1 (example 40 vs 4)

(Oh look, I made a short post, I'm proud!)

[Dawdler.8521]

50:1, clearly.

[bq pd.2148]

can you explain what those numbers are even supposed to represent? 

generally speaking for most of the matchup the populations will not be balanced, be it by sheer number or expertise in combat, coordination and supply/siege usage.  usually then we will find the currently stronger side to be more on the offensive and the other team(s) more on the defensive. because of this alone the defending side would need some advantage to compensate and provide meaningful content for the other team(s).
however it is quite difficult to pinpoint just how much advantage the defending side would need as the difference in current power could be small or gigantic.

these days its also rare to see a fully sieged up keep/tower with the scouts to man the siege in time. would the options defenders have be taken into account if they are not realistically used often ? (as maintaining such defenses and scouting is not considered by the games reward systems)

[ShadowStep.3640]

I would say, on average, 1:1 ratio of attackers/defenders should always be in favor of the defenders after that 2:1 ratio attackers/defenders should be mostly in attackers favor but not completely (not able to just roll through an owned space) then anything more than a 2:1 ratio in favor of attackers should always result in attackers be victorious. 

Now that would be average assuming equal forces and if you have a force of 40 disorganized pugs with various builds and gear levels vs 15 premade with people in voice and a competent builds then I see no reason it should be "equal" at that point but, again, my first point was assuming averages. 

Truthfully there is no way to compensate for the different types of players you get in WvW from fight guilds vs pug groups so im not sure there is a right answer. 

[XenesisII.1540]

Not really just simple to list numbers to numbers when quality of groups/metaclasses make a huge difference.

[ArchonWing.9480]

I think it depends on the objective itself.

An undefended camp should easily fall to any attacker.

A undefended tower should be taken by a small group easily.

Keeps should require more regardless.

The biggest thing is more like time to capture rather than ratios. Unupgraded, undefended structures should be easy to flip, but tiered structures should be a pain either way. We need stuff to flip or otherwise people will get bored and nobody will take any intiative. But if they are flipped too fast, then there is no point in defending and then it just turns into EOTM.

So basically I think camps and towers should have a much larger turnover rate by design. Which they do. But the keeps seems to be an issue at times.

Edited May 5 by ArchonWing.9480

[Gop.8713]

For walled objectives, it depends on what you consider effective defense. Defenders should be able to delay at any ratio, otherwise what would be the point of walls? But I don't think defenders should be able to prevent capture at even 2:1. Ultimately, the stronger force should eventually win either way . . .

But you also have to consider what 'attacker' means. Three ppls on a ram with forty-seven ppls standing afk is three attackers, not fifty . . .

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

It's less about numbers and more that no player or group of players should be able to win too much, and any player or group of players that is seriously trying to do something, should have at least the occasional win.

It used to be worth my time to fight to the end in most circumstances defense, or offence.  Since sometime between 2017 and 2019, and the rise of the boon ball, I find myself only ever bothering to:
1. Flip camps for participation. 
2. Run around with some overpowered guild I like.  Very occasionally this actually results in interesting fights. But usually one side or the other just bulldozes the other for the duration of the raid.
3. On the few servers that still have one, follow around the back-capping pug-mander, and run every time we see opposition.  

 

[SweetPotato.7456]

No one can balance when players log into play.

WvW is not just about who has the larger number, it is about number, play style and coverage

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Just a simple question to start a conversation:
 

Quote

What numbers should Offence vs Defence be balanced for/against? And Why?

Either it is impossible to answer or it is too trivial to answer. Like the posts you mentioned from the last 2 weeks (just complaining to Anet without going into the merits) it seems to me that even asking this question highlights a bit of confusion. Let me explain why I say this. Which numbers are meant to be balanced? Answer: All things being equal, it is clear that in order to be balanced, they must be equal numbers. I don't know if you searched for this conversation on purpose but anyway, from here, Let's move on to something interesting that these recent updates have brought. quote from rubi's notes :

 - Guild objective's Presence of the Fortress and Aura bonus effects now grant +25 Power, Accuracy, Toughness, and Vitality instead of +100.

From here it is highlighted that the ''conditions'' of the two teams (attack and defense) are not the same, so even when their numerical ratio is 1:1 it is actually 1:1 + 25 more statistical points now. Previously it was 1:1 + 100 stat points. 

From a strictly mathematical point of view, and compared to the updated static advantages, therefore, the offense needs 25% more to play on par with the defense than its own number of defenders. whereas before 100% more was needed.

This is theoretically, because you have to establish with certainty what the +25 more stats represent in terms of the number of players. 25% more players, not just their stats. The latter also bring their skills, their opportunities, their strategies, etc.

Edited May 6 by Mabi black.1824

[Gaiawolf.8261]

Depends on the structure and how well fortified and what upgrades are installed. But in general I would favor the following ratios. 

Offense:Defense

Tower: 3:2

Keep: 9:5

Garrison: 11:5

SMC: 7:5

Ratios include lords, so a tower champ plus one player should be able to keep out three enemy players. Then as the attacking Force gets bigger the NPCs matter less.

SMC should be a bit lower than keeps because of the need to put people and resources for defense due to location and surface area of vulnerable infiltration points.

 

[joneirikb.7506]

17 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

50:1, clearly.

80 vs SPARTAAA!!!!!!! (solo core warrior in sandals)

[joneirikb.7506]

17 hours ago, bq pd.2148 said:

can you explain what those numbers are even supposed to represent? 

generally speaking for most of the matchup the populations will not be balanced, be it by sheer number or expertise in combat, coordination and supply/siege usage.  usually then we will find the currently stronger side to be more on the offensive and the other team(s) more on the defensive. because of this alone the defending side would need some advantage to compensate and provide meaningful content for the other team(s).
however it is quite difficult to pinpoint just how much advantage the defending side would need as the difference in current power could be small or gigantic.

these days its also rare to see a fully sieged up keep/tower with the scouts to man the siege in time. would the options defenders have be taken into account if they are not realistically used often ? (as maintaining such defenses and scouting is not considered by the games reward systems)

Basically the game is balanced around certain numbers, and as such the "Advantages of defence" should give a certain "amount" of advantage to tie into that overall "balance" (in theory). So while naturally WvW by its very nature can't be balanced at any given time due to population, coverage, fairweather, skill levels, organisation, and various other factors. ANet still have to balance numbers around something, so when they try to balance "Offence vs Defence" which numbers or ratios do people think the should balance around? Obviously they'll have to try to assume that the players will be roughly similarly skilled and organised, but if all other things are equal, what number difference should they aim for?

Do the playerbase want defence to be balanced only for equal numbers? So 10 vs 10, 50 vs 50, or 2 vs 2 etc? This would naturally mean that there would be practically no advantage to defence, and would probably be highly unlikely to happen very often due to the very random nature of WvW.

Or the other extreme, 50 vs 5, 10 vs 1, or similar situation, where the advantages of defence is so strong that a single man can hold of 10 enemies? This would obviously mean that almost anyone that knows how to defend would be able to have a strong impact, and I imagine that a lot of offence players would get sick of it and only attack empty structures.

What sort of gameplay do players want, and want ANet to focus toward when they keep trying to balance WvW-Defence?

[joneirikb.7506]

16 hours ago, ShadowStep.3640 said:

I would say, on average, 1:1 ratio of attackers/defenders should always be in favor of the defenders after that 2:1 ratio attackers/defenders should be mostly in attackers favor but not completely (not able to just roll through an owned space) then anything more than a 2:1 ratio in favor of attackers should always result in attackers be victorious. 

Now that would be average assuming equal forces and if you have a force of 40 disorganized pugs with various builds and gear levels vs 15 premade with people in voice and a competent builds then I see no reason it should be "equal" at that point but, again, my first point was assuming averages. 

Truthfully there is no way to compensate for the different types of players you get in WvW from fight guilds vs pug groups so im not sure there is a right answer. 

Thank you.

That means you want players to show up to defence and fight against the offence players, and having to at least match more than half their numbers to have a "decent chance" (on average). Do you think those numbers would be possible frequently enough to work well for most worlds?

[joneirikb.7506]

15 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Not really just simple to list numbers to numbers when quality of groups/metaclasses make a huge difference.

We shall have to assume things being as equal as they can. After all, game balance should never adjust for the differences in player skill/organization anyways.

[joneirikb.7506]

15 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I think it depends on the objective itself.

An undefended camp should easily fall to any attacker.

A undefended tower should be taken by a small group easily.

Keeps should require more regardless.

The biggest thing is more like time to capture rather than ratios. Unupgraded, undefended structures should be easy to flip, but tiered structures should be a pain either way. We need stuff to flip or otherwise people will get bored and nobody will take any intiative. But if they are flipped too fast, then there is no point in defending and then it just turns into EOTM.

So basically I think camps and towers should have a much larger turnover rate by design. Which they do. But the keeps seems to be an issue at times.

An interesting point and one which I agree with. In that case I'd like to hear your views of how many X:Y should be needed (for average people with average skill/organization etc) to take each? Essentially what kind of numbers do you think ANet should (try) balance around for these? What sort of gameplay do you want defence to create around objectives?

[joneirikb.7506]

12 hours ago, Gop.8713 said:

For walled objectives, it depends on what you consider effective defense. Defenders should be able to delay at any ratio, otherwise what would be the point of walls? But I don't think defenders should be able to prevent capture at even 2:1. Ultimately, the stronger force should eventually win either way . . .

But you also have to consider what 'attacker' means. Three ppls on a ram with forty-seven ppls standing afk is three attackers, not fifty . . .

Thank you.

So the gameplay you want, is that walls is mainly there to slow down (and players can help slow down further), and work more as a way to gather up enough players to have a more or less even fight at the end? Do you think it is realistic to expect enough players to arrive to try to defend for this?

Regarding the 3 people on ram, that's an interesting perspective. A lot of the time, siege combat tends to be a lot of standing around on both sides. Now that could be an interesting topic in itself, how to make siege combat more engaging for more people in general (they did try with the mount...)

[joneirikb.7506]

12 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

It's less about numbers and more that no player or group of players should be able to win too much, and any player or group of players that is seriously trying to do something, should have at least the occasional win.

It used to be worth my time to fight to the end in most circumstances defense, or offence.  Since sometime between 2017 and 2019, and the rise of the boon ball, I find myself only ever bothering to:
1. Flip camps for participation. 
2. Run around with some overpowered guild I like.  Very occasionally this actually results in interesting fights. But usually one side or the other just bulldozes the other for the duration of the raid.
3. On the few servers that still have one, follow around the back-capping pug-mander, and run every time we see opposition.  

 

Interesting, your first part sounds almost like you'd like more random involved, but then your second part seems to say you'd like more reliable ways to interact. Basically, if you raise the volatility of combat in general, then you'd have more variety in outcomes, and it would be more common to have some less likely wins happen now and then. Is that what you'd like? Like having some defencive mechanics that would create something like that?

I guess an example of that would be to have more impactful siege, so if you manage to build up say 5 trebuches and fire the same shot at the same time at the same place you could actually wipe out half a zerg?

[joneirikb.7506]

10 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

No one can balance when players log into play.

WvW is not just about who has the larger number, it is about number, play style and coverage

Of course, but game balance still has to assume all things being equal. The advantage of defence is another factor into the game balance, and one that ANet has to design around. I'm asking people what rough estimate and/or what sort of gameplay they want ANet to balance that around. Because if we can't even have some sort of agreement about that, then our every discussion about defence is kind of silly.

[joneirikb.7506]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Either it is impossible to answer or it is too trivial to answer. Like the posts you mentioned from the last 2 weeks (just complaining to Anet without going into the merits) it seems to me that even asking this question highlights a bit of confusion. Let me explain why I say this. Which numbers are meant to be balanced? Answer: All things being equal, it is clear that in order to be balanced, they must be equal numbers. I don't know if you searched for this conversation on purpose but anyway, from here, Let's move on to something interesting that these recent updates have brought. quote from rubi's notes :

 - Guild objective's Presence of the Fortress and Aura bonus effects now grant +25 Power, Accuracy, Toughness, and Vitality instead of +100.

From here it is highlighted that the ''conditions'' of the two teams (attack and defense) are not the same, so even when their numerical ratio is 1:1 it is actually 1:1 + 25 more statistical points now. Previously it was 1:1 + 100 stat points. 

From a strictly mathematical point of view, and compared to the updated static advantages, therefore, the offense needs 25% more to play on par with the defense than its own number of defenders. whereas before 100% more was needed.

This is theoretically, because you have to establish with certainty what the +25 more stats represent in terms of the number of players. 25% more players, not just their stats. The latter also bring their skills, their opportunities, their strategies, etc.

Basically, you're really reinforcing my question. ANet changed that stat bonus from +100 to +25, because they felt Defenders have too big an advantage. Which leaves us with the question "How many attackers vs defenders did you have in mind when you made this change?"

And as the last two weeks of discussions have shown, there is absolutely no agreement among players what number of attackers vs defenders anything should be balances around. That's my question, what numbers should ANet balance around?

[joneirikb.7506]

1 hour ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Depends on the structure and how well fortified and what upgrades are installed. But in general I would favor the following ratios. 

Offense:Defense

Tower: 3:2

Keep: 9:5

Garrison: 11:5

SMC: 7:5

Ratios include lords, so a tower champ plus one player should be able to keep out three enemy players. Then as the attacking Force gets bigger the NPCs matter less.

SMC should be a bit lower than keeps because of the need to put people and resources for defense due to location and surface area of vulnerable infiltration points.

 

Thank you.

Interesting, I can see what kind of gameplay you'd want at each point. With these rations a HomeBL team could in theory manage to defend 2 keeps at the same time against 2 different servers, if organized well. Do you think this would be too strong an advantage for the HomeBL team?

[Zyreva.1078]

Winning outnumbered should be about playing better than the opposition, not because of some mechanics, that can only be overcome with even greater numbers.

This should apply to both offense and defense.

Edited May 6 by Zyreva.1078

[Gorani.7205]

I don't think we need to talk about numbers, but context (towers/keeps).
In a a fight over a camp (T0/T1) there should be hardly any advantage for defenders (unless the defender uses very short term things, like standing in the Scout's field do get blinding shots); With a T2/T3 camp (Cabalists + Zealots) you should need to play clever to mitigate things like the pulls, so defenders should have a small advantage in the first 10 to 15 seconds.

Walled structures should provide a significant time delay from attacking the gate/wall to reaching the Lord. In a 1:1 situation of ACTIVE attacking players vs defending players, defending players should have the upper hand. The problem (by design) is that fighting on and around the part of the fortification that supposed to protect you the most as a defender - the wall - is putting you in the worst disadvantage you can chose while defending: e.g. 3 people attacking with a cata vs. 3 defenders will put the attackers in a clear advantage, should the defenders stand on the top of the wall (LoS issues, not in the spot to repair, range issues, not protection from pulls because of geometry) vs. the attackers (can hide in LoS spots next to the wall, can still AoE the top of the wall, can pull, have more space to avoid AoE).

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Basically, you're really reinforcing my question.

That was exactly what I wanted.😉 This is because the question could lead to an interesting debate.

[Zyreva.1078]

40 minutes ago, Gorani.7205 said:

The problem (by design) is that fighting on and around the part of the fortification that supposed to protect you the most as a defender - the wall - is putting you in the worst disadvantage you can chose while defending: e.g. 3 people attacking with a cata vs. 3 defenders will put the attackers in a clear advantage, should the defenders stand on the top of the wall (LoS issues, not in the spot to repair, range issues, not protection from pulls because of geometry) vs. the attackers (can hide in LoS spots next to the wall, can still AoE the top of the wall, can pull, have more space to avoid AoE).

And where's the problem? You know that you don't have to sit on top of the wall as defender if it puts you into a disadvantageous position, right?

Walls aren't supposed to give you a combat advantage, they are supposd to give you time to muster enough defenders (and equal numbers should be suffcient, so if it's 3vs3, get out there and fight).