WvW/PvP Update Preview Stream at Noon Pacific Time Today

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

makes sense for more VP during active hours as there is more people to fight against and thus harder content on active hours per capita

Though to be fair I prefer to use warscore over VP for wins so that it is not when you play that matters but the overall contributions during the matchup.

Edited July 10 by ChrisWhitey.9076
update

[Sonderm.4639]

1 hour ago, Sviel.7493 said:

Flame Rams change but not really.  They have 50% less health but 50% damage reduction when manned so you don't actually kill them faster.  I think the explanation was that players could clear them faster and get back to other things, but those same players would also need to repair the gate and that takes much longer than before since the 50% repair change so...which is it?  Do we want players sealing breaches faster or slower?  Why didn't we do the same for catas if this is about reducing the time to clear siege?  I don't see how this change matters whatsoever, but thanks for the extra 20 seconds?

I guess the (mostly sound) thinking here is that if you put pressure on the flame rams, the player operating it (even though he has iron hide protection) might have to leave it and you can more easily destroy the ram then. But yeah, no idea why they did not extend it to catas. Also - they should just increase the damage guards do to siege significantly so that you can leave the boring task of clearing siege mostly to them.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 minutes ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

makes sense for more VP during active hours as there is more people to fight against and thus harder content on active hours per capita

The implication of that is that 50 vs 50 is "harder content" than 5 vs 5. 

I disagree.

[One more for the road.8950]

11 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If they meant 6 points for 03:00 or something and 42 points for 20:00 wouldnt that completely mess up the prime vs off scoring? I mean we got the skirmish system just to make every 2h fair vs every other 2h in a 24h mode (when nighttime before could absolutely dominate the 24h of points in a 4h session). The change would swing it the complete opposite way and only mean you literally dont have to care about 20h out of 24h in EU.

Anet telling everyone they're worthless if they dont play a zerg in prime time. 🤷‍♂️

Points are 1st/2nd/3rd

EU VP, from when skirmish starts, CEST, as shown in stream:
2:00 6/4/2 - 4:00 6/4/2 - 6:00 6/4/2 - 8:00 15/10/5 - 10:00 15/10/5 - 12:00 15/10/5 - 14:00 - 15/10/5 16:00 15/10/5 - 18:00 30/20/10 - 20:00 42/28/14 - 22:00 30/20/10 - 24:00 15/10/5

NA VP, from when the skirmish starts, PST, as shown in stream:
5 pm 33/22/11 - 7 pm 33/22/11 - 9 pm 21/14/7 - 11 pm 9/6/3 - 1 am 9/6/3 - 3 am 9/6/3 - 5 am 13/8/4 - 7 am 13/8/4 - 9 am 13/8/4 - 11 am 13/8/4 - 1 pm 13/8/4 - 3 pm 21/14/7

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

10 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The implication of that is that 50 vs 50 is "harder content" than 5 vs 5. 

No but the other issue is that groups were making alliance guilds to cover all hours and it broke the matchmaking so 5 were going up against 50 at inactive hours which is unfair. Now the VP is not where I like it to be and I think total warscore at the end of the week be what determines a win.

[Dawdler.8521]

9 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

Points are 1st/2nd/3rd

EU VP, from when skirmish starts, CEST, as shown in stream:
2:00 6/4/2 - 4:00 6/4/2 - 6:00 6/4/2 - 8:00 15/10/5 - 10:00 15/10/5 - 12:00 15/10/5 - 14:00 - 15/10/5 16:00 15/10/5 - 18:00 30/20/10 - 20:00 42/28/14 - 22:00 30/20/10 - 24:00 15/10/5

NA VP, from when the skirmish starts, PST, as shown in stream:
5 pm 33/22/11 - 7 pm 33/22/11 - 9 pm 21/14/7 - 11 pm 9/6/3 - 1 am 9/6/3 - 3 am 9/6/3 - 5 am 13/8/4 - 7 am 13/8/4 - 9 am 13/8/4 - 11 am 13/8/4 - 1 pm 13/8/4 - 3 pm 21/14/7

That looks even worse to me I at least assumed it would then work similar to how it works now but just all boosted by higher activity in order to weigh "who can win all the zerg fights in prime" vs "plebs roaming with better coverage" (ie 42/41/40 points). This look like it would lead to absolutely massive point differences with no hope of any match where 1st/2nd or 2nd/3rd could trade points to pass each other.  I mean yeah it would be lower off prime but then that's still 200% more points for the winner compared to the looser. Today its 66% more points. 

But maybe I'm just being pessimistic and not seeing whatever Anet is seeing. 

[Leaa.2943]

So i been very loud about how i felt about the changes in the past about defending and how it was buthcered. I still think it was horribly ballances well to be fair it was totally onesided and destroyed the will to try and defend in situations where you where heavy outnumbered. Just to take down rams and closing the gate took so long that lord was likely dead when we finally manage and it has been awful and the small capture rings are still awful, BUT todays stream gave me some hope back. My will to play and defend in cases where we are outnumbered against blobs sort of got a burst of maybe this can work. Maybe defense is back. Well bubbleboonballs still is kitten and make it unfun over all to play wvw, but what i saw today was at least changes in the right direction and not so one sided as it been for a while now. I appreciate it and i hope it will keep on going so that  all wvw players feel included again.

[Sviel.7493]

3 minutes ago, Leaa.2943 said:

So i been very loud about how i felt about the changes in the past about defending and how it was buthcered. I still think it was horribly ballances well to be fair it was totally onesided and destroyed the will to try and defend in situations where you where heavy outnumbered. Just to take down rams and closing the gate took so long that lord was likely dead when we finally manage and it has been awful and the small capture rings are still awful, BUT todays stream gave me some hope back. My will to play and defend in cases where we are outnumbered against blobs sort of got a burst of maybe this can work. Maybe defense is back. Well bubbleboonballs still is kitten and make it unfun over all to play wvw, but what i saw today was at least changes in the right direction and not so one sided as it been for a while now. I appreciate it and i hope it will keep on going so that  all wvw players feel included again.

What changes gave you hope for defense?

Not looking to argue, just curious.

[Leaa.2943]

1 minute ago, Sviel.7493 said:

What changes gave you hope for defense?

Not looking to argue, just curious.

The changes added in todays stream.

[Sviel.7493]

1 minute ago, Leaa.2943 said:

The changes added in todays stream.

Anything in particular?

[Leaa.2943]

lol no i liked the changes in todays stream, i don't really get why it has to be anything specific. 

[Cael.3960]

Too early to tell just what the impact of these changes will have on the game mode as a whole. Knee-jerk reaction is that cheaper and more plentiful siege along with higher penalties for losing the PPK battle will encourage an even more risk-averse strategy by teams who avoid fights in the first place. Being able to build more siege does little to solve the problem of under-defended objectives. Changes to scoring... whatever. PPT teams were already winning and they weren't the ones feeding the PPK in the first place. Sucks for fight groups; there's now even more siege-slog to bother with and no guarantee a fight will happen at the end of it. And if you do get one, it's likely to be at an increased disadvantage in tiered objectives and far less satisfying in general. Might as well scrim on the way to south camp. Watch out for the leeches though; now that they get increased warscore for tagging GvG's in progress you'll see a lot more trolling of organized fights. 

Of course, a big assumption with these changes is that players will actually build AND use the siege now that it has a cheaper cost. Most casual players don't carry siege or traps in their inventories and spend whatever supply they have on repairs or on siege dropped by more experienced players. Many don't even use siege even when it's just a few steps away, preferring instead to autoattack from range out of fear of being targeted or trapped while using siege. But the further away from an actual fight you are, the more likely casual players are to use player-placed siege... so I see a lot of trebs in the future. Particularly in any objective which can shell walls from within the relative safety of another walled objective. Safe siege is best siege.  

Amusingly, what many fail to realize is that cheaper siege actually benefits PPT blobs who can now build substantially more of it from further away. There's no point in taking a fight now until you've got a clear rush straight to the lord room and with more siege for the same supply you can get that done even faster. I don't think cheap arrowcarts are going to be an issue for most group; by the time enemies get within range of them there won't be any walls to prevent those positions from being rushed anyway.  It might be a problem for extended lord room fights when a defending blob is also present, but there was little reason for attacking groups to make an outnumbered attempt on an objective in the first place. Even now many groups will just run from a siege if a defending group of a similar size encounters them before they reach the lord room. Easier just to pressure and wait rather than risk attrition to your pug squad by losing a fight.   

Interesting to see this is the direction the gamemode is going. Punch as many holes as possible and wait for a time to ninja when no one is watching. I feel for the defenders sitting on shield generators all day just to hold onto a tiered objective. You're going to be more important than before and the rewards for 'winning' aren't any better. 

[coro.3176]

3 minutes ago, Sviel.7493 said:

Anything in particular?

Well, for one thing, the contested changes make it much easier to determine what is *actually* being attacked vs what just got tapped by a roamer killing guards. That clarity makes it way easier to organize a response.

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

The VP changes based on time of day are mostly pointless.  They'll have a slight effect of making active primetime servers go to higher tiers, but they won't allow for the occasional decent matchup in EU or SEA time to be properly counted(speaking from an NA perspective).  And they won't fix the huge coverage gaps.

Since it's no longer a real 24/7 game mode, far better to run 6 or 8 hour matchups where the teams are built, and the number of active tiers are changed, based on the activity during that time of the day.

[Cuks.8241]

We have a system that almost noone cares about. They changed some numbers. Everyone will continue not to care.

We can build more siege, yay. Anyone cares?

Make winning matter. For kitten sake give players different color temporary titles. Bronze, silver and gold for being in t3, t2 or t1. Everyone would go crazy for colored titles. Pve players so jealous. Ppt to the moon.

[XenesisII.1540]

8 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

We have a system that almost noone cares about. They changed some numbers. Everyone will continue not to care.

We can build more siege, yay. Anyone cares?

Make winning matter. For kitten sake give players different color temporary titles. Bronze, silver and gold for being in t3, t2 or t1. Everyone would go crazy for colored titles. Pve players so jealous. Ppt to the moon.

Have temporary titles or icons for the matchup, depending on what you do the most in the match. Something showing ultimate dominators for the week(or the season I guess), or yak slapper, or deadly duelers, or most stomps etc. When they first started the seasonal spvp icons showing in wvw, but people were annoyed with it, I think maybe more for the fact that it was for icons for spvp than wvw getting their own. So dunno, people always wanting that leaderboard kitten, so maybe this is a way to show it per match/season. 🤷‍♂️

[RisingDawn.5796]

With  4 weeks of Team matching before it get's reshuffled,  although the scoring changes are 'interesting', it won't change much, especially since the matchups after the Team reshuffling, often has population imbalances.

It takes weeks to get into the appropriate tier, which won't  happen fast enough with the current one up and down system, but also the rewards aren't really motivating, to 'win' anymore.

Edited July 11 by RisingDawn.5796

[DeWolfe.2174]

8 hours ago, Sviel.7493 said:

-Victory points will now be weight based on player population per skirmish.
    -Range from 6 points for first to 42 for EU.
    -9 points to 33 for NA.

That's geographical discrimination. The Dev's should talk to someone in human resources as they'll likely fill them in on why that's bad.

Otherwise, the only good change might be the one to white swords. Because really, there's no reason to care about the score at all.

Edited July 11 by DeWolfe.2174

[godfat.2604]

11 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Shift it to 10, boon blob bag farmers need to be shot up the ranks to face each other.

I would like to support increasing PPK a lot so that those blob groups can match with the other blob groups easier, otherwise they would be able to manipulate the scores too easily by stop capturing or defending objectives to not gain scores, lowering their tiers to farm the other smaller servers (teams).

If PPK alone can boost their tiers, the only way they can intentionally tank would be stop playing. Blob groups should only play against the other blob groups. It's unfun for any other groups. We should keep them in tier 1.

Of course, the downside of this would be discouraging high risk play style, feeding the enemies. Maybe one way to address this would be making killing spree a thing. So PPK only starts to boost a lot when one side kills a lot in a short period. So as long as there's no mess suicide, PPK should remain low.

I doubt if this is something ANet are willing to do though, beside tweaking simple numbers...

[krill.4902]

Rams will be easier to destroy? Great, i'm preparing Flamethower squad for doors!!!😈

"Burn baby, burn!!"

Edited July 11 by krill.4902

[LordHT.8297]

When do they plan to implement this? 

 

 

(edit: now I see that they are going to release it July 16)

Edited July 11 by LordHT.8297

[LordHT.8297]

The only good change in my opinion is in the contested objectives, but they didn't explain that properly. Will the objective be contested for every 2% damage the gate/wall suffers? Why did they emphasize 98%? I hope they don't do anything stupid when implementing this.
The other changes are bad, they are again punishing people who play off hours and what do they expect from that? People will simply stop playing at these times, there's no point in defending, there's no point in attacking, why are you going to log in? To be farmed by retirees who do off-hours ppk to inflate their egos with kill counts?
The changes to sieges are also bad, they are nerfing golems and rans and buffing trebs and acs and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that it will be much more advantageous to take down a keep with trebs from a safe distance than get close and have to deal with hundreds of acs with poor rams/golems which will lead to defenders to use counter trebs too which will be pathetic, welcome to TvT.

Edited July 11 by LordHT.8297

[Bizgurk.5639]

3 minutes ago, LordHT.8297 said:

The only good change in my opinion is in the contested objectives, but they didn't explain that properly. Will the objective be contested for every 2% damage the gate/wall suffers? Why did they emphasize 98%?

The objective will be contested by causing it to take damage while below 98%. Those 98% are a measure to prevent that from being abused, since it's possible to damage a structure for 0 damage.

[LordHT.8297]

9 minutes ago, Bizgurk.5639 said:

The objective will be contested by causing it to take damage while below 98%. Those 98% are a measure to prevent that from being abused, since it's possible to damage a structure for 0 damage.

And what will happen if you never repair the gate? Will it contest the objective every time it takes damage?

[Bizgurk.5639]

6 minutes ago, LordHT.8297 said:

And what will happen if you never repair the gate? Will it contest the objective every time it takes damage?

That's what I asked myself too while watching the stream. There are a few possibilities. Either there's only one trigger by bringing it below 98%, multiple triggers at certain structure health percentages, or the trigger is simply taking damage while below 98%.
We will see.