Future exciting battles with the lords of the fortress

[Ashen.2907]

I dont personally know anyone who has ever expressed to me that the reason they enjoy wvw is the opportunity to fight NPC mobs and who thought the mode would be made better by increasing that aspect.

[ArchonWing.9480]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:53 PM, XenesisII.1540 said:

Should turn the lords into one of the meta support or meme specs. Gunflame smc lord would be hilarious, or a double grav well chrono lord, or instead of some cheap break bar heal that no one notices how about making them an actual firebrand using the same skills and cooldowns of the meta support firebrand. 

Just make the lord a Willbender. They'll jump to another tower when you near them.

[MedievalThings.5417]

7 hours ago, Sansar.1302 said:

WvW needs less pve not more, wvw is pvp mode. 

But that is what anet is trying to get rid of.  For years they said wvw was just a type of pve.  That people that played wvw were pve-enjoyers.  And, they are currently on a crusade to nerf anything defense related to get people to stop defending so giant boonblobs can just ktrain entire maps.  Yeah, nothing pvp about wvw atm.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

6 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

No scaling purposes is to deal with exactly that. If you try and fix in place all that will mater in the end is size of the group.  

That's the point--I don't want less than 20 taking a keep.  It's a keep, in a realm vs realm mode, and they are currently flippable by 1 thief glitching in and fighting the lord for 5-10 min.  That's ridiculous.

 Needs to be a hierarchy, big groups for big objects--small groups for small ones.  Everything is currently the same, any size group can flip anything--thus nothing means anything.  

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

That's the point--I don't want less than 20 taking a keep.  It's a keep, in a realm vs realm mode, and they are currently flippable by 1 thief glitching in and fighting the lord for 5-10 min.  That's ridiculous.

 Needs to be a hierarchy, big groups for big objects--small groups for small ones.  Everything is currently the same, any size group can flip anything--thus nothing means anything.  

But you only aid the side that is zerging in that aspect, why? Mind you I am on the side of efficiency should be more important. Use as few as you can and do as much as you can. If 50 want to take a keep that takes 2, ok. But its also fair game if 2 retake it. Post tournaments a lot grow lazy in using less to do more and then regrouping to fight. Lets not remove more tactics to the fight. If it takes just 1 to take a keep, then let them take it if no one comes to defend. 

[bq pd.2148]

7 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

That's the point--I don't want less than 20 taking a keep.  It's a keep, in a realm vs realm mode, and they are currently flippable by 1 thief glitching in and fighting the lord for 5-10 min.  That's ridiculous.

 Needs to be a hierarchy, big groups for big objects--small groups for small ones.  Everything is currently the same, any size group can flip anything--thus nothing means anything.  

5-10 minutes on minstrel thief maybe.

while larger objectives would make sense to be flipped by larger groups and not a single player (often enough easily with legit ways, with opening the walls/gates solo - not just glitches)
there is already a bit too much incentive to run in larger groups, further reducing the options for smaller groups / solos doesnt help with that.

maybe we need more activities for smaller scale / solo like sabotaging dolyaks for various effects, ofc with the ability to 'clear' the dolyak by the defending side.
but most importantly the rewards for smaller scales would need to be put on par to just stacking as many as you can.  while i would like rewards for everything in wvw to be divided by the participants and scaled up accordingly, that might also lead to a bit more toxicity towards less sweaty players in larger scales for 'stealing rewards'. yet it would be nice if a 1 vs 1 would be similar rewarding as a 20 vs 20 or 50 vs 50.

[Sansar.1302]

10 hours ago, MedievalThings.5417 said:

But that is what anet is trying to get rid of.  For years they said wvw was just a type of pve.  That people that played wvw were pve-enjoyers.  And, they are currently on a crusade to nerf anything defense related to get people to stop defending so giant boonblobs can just ktrain entire maps.  Yeah, nothing pvp about wvw atm.

No one I play with likes pve in this game, me and those I know only likes pvp mmo games. 

[Gotejjeken.1267]

5 hours ago, bq pd.2148 said:

maybe we need more activities for smaller scale / solo like sabotaging dolyaks for various effects, ofc with the ability to 'clear' the dolyak by the defending side.
but most importantly the rewards for smaller scales would need to be put on par to just stacking as many as you can.  while i would like rewards for everything in wvw to be divided by the participants and scaled up accordingly, that might also lead to a bit more toxicity towards less sweaty players in larger scales for 'stealing rewards'. yet it would be nice if a 1 vs 1 would be similar rewarding as a 20 vs 20 or 50 vs 50.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with that.  I don't want to take the smallscale out, I want to balance small and large to both have meaning.  Keeps for large groups, towers for mid-size, then way more activity for roamers than just camps, dolyaks, sentries, and ruins. 

They could add a ton of other things that would make things fun--who knows something like the caves you can only take up to a 5 man in for each side and then fight over something in there that gives points.  Even down to 1v1's, have an area where you can duel but it actually is meaningful for the server.  

[Gorani.7205]

On 5/6/2024 at 6:52 PM, Erysium.4501 said:

What do you think?

I think adding another element to the fight in the lord's circle will not tear apart the main problem - the big boon ball sitting on that circle.
I'd rather have a mechanic that makes larger groups spread out and kind of "punishes" them for not spreading.
e.g. when the lord is dead, every Depot spawns a "Ghostly Hero", which can be activated by a defender. This will require x amount of supply and teleport the "Ghostly Hero" to the body of the fallen Lord, pulsing some sort of Agony damage to enemies in the circle (so you can't covert a damaging condition to a boon) and rezzing him over time.
That could inspire some interesting gameplay, because attackers might want to leave a few players behind to make sure no defenders activate the ghostly hero. They could also move out of the circle not to take damage pulses, allowing defenders to either fight them outside or rush in to help at the rezz. Defenders could, in case of Keeps with several depots "chain" the appearance of ghostly heroes (if enough supply is left), making attackers leave behind more people at depots or make sure to drain supply before attacking (e.g. making use of Treb shots at depots during the attack). The Ghostly Hero could even be a tactic/improvement you have to slot into your tower and keep.
I feel we could have some of the dynamics back we once had with "bannering the lord" and all of that would be driven by active player decisions and not an NPC activity.

[SweetPotato.7456]

On 5/7/2024 at 12:52 AM, Erysium.4501 said:

Hello folks!
I have a WvW post that to my knowledge has never been introduced.
I hope it is understandable as it was translated from German.

There are training bots of every class in the PvP lobby (Heart of the Mists). The fighting style of the bots is exciting, but a little weak. I could well imagine such bots as protectors of the lord of the fortress in wvw. The protectors could appear when the lord of the fortress is attacked or maybe only has 50% life left. if you give them the strength of an elite rank and they do a lot of damage, it could make the wvw boss fights more exciting. the feeling of defeating a lord of the fortress is then a greater challenge in the fortresses.

I assume that it would be easy for Arenanet to implement.

What do you think?

actual human players should be fighting to save the lord of the fortress. 

[Dawdler.8521]

On 5/11/2024 at 12:21 AM, Zepoolpe.9217 said:

It's Anet, why in would you assume something like that? 😕

If it's harder than using an already existing 2x2x4m cornerstone mesh and putting an already existing texture on it, we're kittened.

[Zepoolpe.9217]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If it's harder than using an already existing 2x2x4m cornerstone mesh and putting an already existing texture on it, we're kittened.

Don't despair: as soon as they finish implementing Alliances™️ and restoring balance, they'll fix that DBL cornerstone!

[Erysium.4501]

On 5/13/2024 at 12:17 AM, Zepoolpe.9217 said:

Don't despair: as soon as they finish implementing Alliances™️ and restoring balance, they'll fix that DBL cornerstone!

do you really think so? i really hope so 😶

[prototypedragon.1406]

Anet could perhaps create castles similar to smc in each of the alpine maps and remove the ruins entirely/relocate or use them as a way to be advantages ( being  glide paths) to those that try to siege it potentially  creating more additional Objectives to capture and defend.  I mean how often do fights normally occur in the center of alpine maps? Last I knew it's mostly just sit and wait for the ruins to cap for map bonus then one can shuffle on their way.  I mean originally the center of the Alpine maps had quaggans and objectives once captured provided mercenaries to attack objectives along with  damaging all gates owned by enemy forces by 50percent if afterward you captured the center island.  Granted they probably would not return to anything like the quaggans again. But if they could design it in such a way that gives equal opportunities for defenders and attackers alike to gain footing against each other .

[Erysium.4501]

On 5/15/2024 at 10:16 PM, prototypedragon.1406 said:

Anet could perhaps create castles similar to smc in each of the alpine maps and remove the ruins entirely/relocate or use them as a way to be advantages ( being  glide paths) to those that try to siege it potentially  creating more additional Objectives to capture and defend.  I mean how often do fights normally occur in the center of alpine maps? Last I knew it's mostly just sit and wait for the ruins to cap for map bonus then one can shuffle on their way.  I mean originally the center of the Alpine maps had quaggans and objectives once captured provided mercenaries to attack objectives along with  damaging all gates owned by enemy forces by 50percent if afterward you captured the center island.  Granted they probably would not return to anything like the quaggans again. But if they could design it in such a way that gives equal opportunities for defenders and attackers alike to gain footing against each other .

i have opened a new topic on your post. thank you for your inspiration