Camps get tagged (swords) instantly now when attacked - Why?

[Silinsar.6298]

The 30sec delay was fine imo. What's the reason behind this change?

[Draygo.9473]

I rather like the change. 

This is a side effect from the 'tapping' changes, keeps no longer flag if a guard gets hit until the gate/walls are reduced to 95% health or the lord is in combat. To compensate anet made the white swords appear instantly. 

[One more for the road.8950]

Well, except Speldan.

That never gets swords unless they're orange.

[Hesione.9412]

Oh good, so when roamers go to flip a camp, you don't have the 30 second window before the blob is warned. /s

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

So people waiting for "content" can find it faster.

It's not so hurtful to experts, but does make it harder for newer players to solo without being found and wrecked by said experts. Again new players likely will be directed to not solo and join the throng, and most of these players might turn into the ones that only play with a tag.

[Dawdler.8521]

38 minutes ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

Again new players likely will be directed to not solo and join the throng, and most of these players might turn into the ones that only play with a tag.

Oh no we’re creating monsters!

Isn't that what literally everyone on the forum recommends to new players?

[SweetPotato.7456]

everything should be tag as soon as enemy are in sight, those lazy guards!

[Gop.8713]

I love this change, it increases the odds of me finding content as I run around flipping things . . .

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Oh no we’re creating monsters!

Isn't that what literally everyone on the forum recommends to new players?

I always tell new ppls to run around by themselves on home bl looking for things to do, and by the time they figure out that dying has no consequences in wvw they'll likely have the rest sorted : )

[CafPow.1542]

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Oh no we’re creating monsters!

Isn't that what literally everyone on the forum recommends to new players?

I got that advice too. That or „push dollys“.

honestly the main issue is that a new player with no idea about anything can possibly feel like me when i first entered wvw: „wth am i supposed to do now?“

the best thing when you have a new player imo is: grap him and roam with him gor 1-2 hours.

[H K.4057]

On 8/3/2024 at 11:51 AM, Draygo.9473 said:

I rather like the change.

I agree. I get a lot more fights at camps now, and lot of these fights are 1v1s vs roamers.

[Junkpile.7439]

Well how zone blob that own everything in empty map would get kills otherwise? Of course my new tactic is kill one guard fast as possible, tp spawn and run fast back in safezone cliff look how big blob come blobing in camp.

[TheGrimm.5624]

The issue is, the lack of it being stated as a change. Or worse this was an unknown change after an adjustment to the change related to the contested WP change.

[Riba.3271]

Most didn't understand that there was 30 second delay, so the change was good. There is no reason to give someone competitive advantage with systems based on arbitrary numbers. It is better to make camp lords and guards faster to kill than have 30 second delay.

Edited August 16 by Riba.3271

[Silinsar.6298]

On 8/16/2024 at 9:53 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

The issue is, the lack of it being stated as a change. Or worse this was an unknown change after an adjustment to the change related to the contested WP change.

Yeah, that's so often the problem with WvW changes. They fail to accomplish their objective without causing other issues and side effects. Now depending on what your opinion on the fix is, you might like some of them, but often there's at least one negative aspect for some playstyles. And we don't even know if in ANet's view the change did what it was supposed to do, what side effects might have been intended and if there's any further fixes planned (or not) as they usually don't even acknowledge them. Something like "In trying to improve X, Y changed as well so we're looking into that." or "[...] while Y also happens, we'll see if those changes turn out positive."

It makes it look like they're messing with something without understanding it.

  

18 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Most didn't understand that there was 30 second delay, so the change was good. There is no reason to give someone competitive advantage with systems based on arbitrary numbers. It is better to make camp lords and guards faster to kill than have 30 second delay.

It randomly changing due to something else without the change being documented is less understandable than the game just working how it did for years. The lord buff is probably a much bigger issue in that regard.

There's no competitive advantage in earlier tags. NPCs are already pretty fast to kill.

 

Edited August 17 by Silinsar.6298

[Riba.3271]

7 hours ago, Silinsar.6298 said:

 

There's no competitive advantage in earlier tags. NPCs are already pretty fast to kill.

OP was obviously killing guards within 30 seconds and flipping before enemies had opportunity to show up since it is a problem for him that defenders are showing up now. With old system lot of roaming builds could kill guards within 30 seconds and there was no defending a camp without actually staying in it. This kind of defeated the purpose of white swords.

Now if camps are too hard to flip now, then guards warrant being nerfed. After all they're supposed to be easiest objective where noobs start at

Edited August 17 by Riba.3271

[TheGrimm.5624]

11 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Now if camps are too hard to flip now, then guards warrant being nerfed. After all they're supposed to be easiest objective where noobs start at

Camps aren't any harder to flip. Now roamers need to play smarter to use them as bait to draw defenders in. If that is their goal. Camps are fine. Its more was this an intended change or a byproduct of another change?

[Silinsar.6298]

17 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

OP was obviously killing guards within 30 seconds and flipping before enemies had opportunity to show up since it is a problem for him that defenders are showing up now. With old system lot of roaming builds could kill guards within 30 seconds and there was no defending a camp without actually staying in it. This kind of defeated the purpose of white swords.

Now if camps are too hard to flip now, then guards warrant being nerfed. After all they're supposed to be easiest objective where noobs start at

Not really the point of the post (I was just asking why ANet changed this) but since you're already speculating about my opinion...

Defenders showing up alone isn't the problem, it's usually interesting to get some fights going. However, it's not fun to be swarmed by a group twice to 5 times the size of yours (especially if they're quick to respawn and can rejoin the fight before you have a chance to stomp the rest of the players and cap). When you're outnumbered on a map and try to do something there's often few targets you can realistically go for and camps are some of them. If they're scouted and defended props to the enemy (and you'll likely have some good smallscale fights) - but if not havoc / guerilla tactics should be viable strategies to quickly capture small non-upgraded objectives (and have some little "wins" that way). This change reduces the need for the outnumbering world to split up or organize scouts, because simply reacting to tags will be fast enough to intercept caps in many more cases now. This is reinforced by the WP tagging changes since before you could more easily tag a keep to delay defenders.

On the other hand, if you try to defend camps while being outnumbered you barely benefit from earlier tags, since they'll be overrun anyway.

So from my POV they gave another advantage to whichever team already has the better odds on a map. Which I dislike on principle because it's the opposite approach - encouraging players to participate in WvW with smaller groups, even when outnumbered - that keeps maps alive, especially outside of prime time. The general "vibe" of WvW changes has been "go bigger or go home" for a while and imo that's unsustainable. The more you only allow the bigger group to succeed and the riskier you make it for outnumbered teams to attempt anything, the more people will only play when they're part of the biggest group. And that causes a ripple effect that makes maps stagnate: one team just caps and holds everything until they're bored of it and other teams mostly avoid the map (or WvW altogether) until then because they have no way of putting up a fight.

 

As for the suggestion to rather nerf guards: Imo it makes more sense to delay the tag again or speed up the capping process because guards are already just a couple of mobs that are easy to kill.

Edited August 18 by Silinsar.6298

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

30 minutes ago, Silinsar.6298 said:

So from my POV they gave another advantage to whichever team already has the better odds on a map. Which I dislike on principle because it's the opposite approach - encouraging players to participate in WvW with smaller groups, even when outnumbered - that keeps maps alive, especially outside of prime time. The general "vibe" of WvW changes has been "go bigger or go home" for a while and imo that's unsustainable. The more you only allow the bigger group to succeed and the riskier you make it for outnumbered teams to attempt anything, the more people will only play when they're part of the biggest group. And that causes a ripple effect that makes maps stagnate: one team just caps and holds everything until they're bored of it and other teams mostly avoid the map (or WvW altogether) until then because they have no way of putting up a fight.

Truths like these are the reason I come to this forum. This is very good stuff because its accurate, and I wish anet peeps understood more of this. There really are no comeback mechanics other than continue to lose and "come back" next week.

[TheGrimm.5624]

42 minutes ago, Silinsar.6298 said:

Not really the point of the post (I was just asking why ANet changed this) but since you're already speculating about my opinion...

So from my POV they gave another advantage to whichever team already has the better odds on a map. Which I dislike on principle because it's the opposite approach - encouraging players to participate in WvW with smaller groups, even when outnumbered - that keeps maps alive, especially outside of prime time. The general "vibe" of WvW changes has been "go bigger or go home" for a while and imo that's unsustainable. The more you only allow the bigger group to succeed and the riskier you make it for outnumbered teams to attempt anything, the more people will only play when they're part of the biggest group. And that causes a ripple effect that makes maps stagnate: one team just caps and holds everything until they're bored of it and other teams mostly avoid the map (or WvW altogether) until then because they have no way of putting up a fight.

 

This is the crux of it. The why has value. Not to mention if it was intentional, then Anet missed the mark in adding it to the notes to say, see we changed this to help with this. Verses it now comes across as a potential bug instead of an intended change.

[Zyreva.1078]

2 hours ago, Silinsar.6298 said:

[...}or speed up the capping process

They should simply make the capping speed independent of the numbers of players inside the circle (like in spvp). There is no reason why it should take much longer for a single player - that can be fend off much easier anyway - than for a zerg.

Alas, won't happen, because it would go against their

2 hours ago, Silinsar.6298 said:

"go bigger or go home"

agenda.