Stop Punishing Defenders

[TheGrimm.5624]

@hunkamania.7561 said:What are defenders even defending? Winning means nothing. Is there hidden treasure in there that I didn't find yet?

The point of defending is for the sake that someone wants to take it. Objectives are the focus of the fights. And I say this as a havoc and roamer. Defending used to be a bigger thing but as there is less and less chance to defend then whats the point. It was already easier as havoc to attack, this just makes it more so.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Well, based on the recent update, Anet feels the opposite of the OP.

Gates and walls have had their damage mitigation normalized to the damage levels done to tier 1 (wood). All walls and gates should now take the same amount of damage from a siege attack.

Seems so, all aboard the K-Train!

[sephiroth.4217]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:What are defenders even defending? Winning means nothing. Is there hidden treasure in there that I didn't find yet?

The point of defending is for the sake that someone wants to take it. Objectives are the focus of the fights. And I say this as a havoc and roamer. Defending used to be a bigger thing but as there is less and less chance to defend then whats the point. It was already easier as havoc to attack, this just makes it more so.

Once they added automatic upgrades instead of using player paid ones then players also lost thier incentives to protect thier investments..

For someone like me, if the tower is open and I help kill the 3 or 4 people inside with another roamer then I just leave the tower open and move on, couldn't care less which server owns it.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:What are defenders even defending? Winning means nothing. Is there hidden treasure in there that I didn't find yet?

The point of defending is for the sake that someone wants to take it. Objectives are the focus of the fights. And I say this as a havoc and roamer. Defending used to be a bigger thing but as there is less and less chance to defend then whats the point. It was already easier as havoc to attack, this just makes it more so.

Once they added automatic upgrades instead of using player paid ones then players also lost thier incentives to protect thier investments..

I was against this one in the beginning, but after the change there was a lot less stress when the objective you just dropped a ton of coin and time in is flipped when no one came to defend. So, somewhat ok with this, but I agree with your point less commit to the structure less chance people will care if its lost. That's one of those map call outs that set the teeth, don't worry we will circle and flip it back. As I said was already easier to attack, lets see how this pans out. Now what about no down state?

[XenesisII.1540]

If defenders defending something is meaningless because what they're defending has no value.... then what's the point of attacking it? isn't that just as meaningless?

[TheGrimm.5624]

@XenesisII.1540 said:If defenders defending something is meaningless because what they're defending has no value.... then what's the point of attacking it? isn't that just as meaningless?

That's where the imbalance comes in. You defend it because its yours, you attack it because its theirs. That's balanced. But when its easier to attack then it is to defend you are left with nothing but attacking. That said, add in no downstate or forced respawn on death, and that might change it up. It would give defenders more reason to defend if they can thin the larger force, but as long as a zerg can just rez their dead its in favor of numbers, especially if you can't slow'em. Lets see how it plays out but been watching objectives paper all over the place.

[steki.1478]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:What are defenders even defending? Winning means nothing. Is there hidden treasure in there that I didn't find yet?

The point of defending is for the sake that someone wants to take it. Objectives are the focus of the fights. And I say this as a havoc and roamer. Defending used to be a bigger thing but as there is less and less chance to defend then whats the point. It was already easier as havoc to attack, this just makes it more so.

Isn't the whole point of havoc to constantly pressure enemy objectives/supplies with small amount of people, regardless of you being attacked or not?

[Aenaos.8160]

Problem: WvW lacks a meaningful campaign and players have no incentive to defend installations or win the match,just focus on advancing their personal WvW rank and getting loot.Solution: Remove defending installations all together.

1+1=11

[Aenaos.8160]

@"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:Look at vanilla WvW, there were no shield gens, no structural integrity, no hardened gates, no tactivators, and the game was much more enjoyable. It actually took skill to defend objectives.

"We need a better balance on attacking and defending."I agree. All the defensive mechanics they added need to be toned down.

I'm sure the 10 seconds it takes for 3 rams to kill a t1 gate is adequate time for defending.The gates simply have to git gud and learn to dodge.

[steki.1478]

@Aenaos.8160 said:

@"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:Look at vanilla WvW, there were no shield gens, no structural integrity, no hardened gates, no tactivators, and the game was much more enjoyable. It actually took skill to defend objectives.

"We need a better balance on attacking and defending."I agree. All the defensive mechanics they added need to be toned down.

I'm sure the 10 seconds it takes for 3 rams to kill a t1 gate is adequate time for defending.The gates simply have to git gud and learn to dodge.

Then your roamers and scouts aren't doing a great job. Time for everyone to git gud, not just gates.

[aspirine.5839]

@steki.1478 said:

@Aenaos.8160 said:

@"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:Look at vanilla WvW, there were no shield gens, no structural integrity, no hardened gates, no tactivators, and the game was much more enjoyable. It actually took skill to defend objectives.

"We need a better balance on attacking and defending."I agree. All the defensive mechanics they added need to be toned down.

I'm sure the 10 seconds it takes for 3 rams to kill a t1 gate is adequate time for defending.The gates simply have to git gud and learn to dodge.

Then your roamers and scouts aren't doing a great job. Time for everyone to git gud, not just gates.

What server are you on again?

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@steki.1478 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:What are defenders even defending? Winning means nothing. Is there hidden treasure in there that I didn't find yet?

The point of defending is for the sake that someone wants to take it. Objectives are the focus of the fights. And I say this as a havoc and roamer. Defending used to be a bigger thing but as there is less and less chance to defend then whats the point. It was already easier as havoc to attack, this just makes it more so.

Isn't the whole point of havoc to constantly pressure enemy objectives/supplies with small amount of people, regardless of you being attacked or not?

Used to be. These days it feels like the role of Havoc is to get run over by zergs on warclaws and AoEed to death in seconds.

[nthmetal.9652]

@steki.1478 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@"hunkamania.7561" said:What are defenders even defending? Winning means nothing. Is there hidden treasure in there that I didn't find yet?

The point of defending is for the sake that someone wants to take it. Objectives are the focus of the fights. And I say this as a havoc and roamer. Defending used to be a bigger thing but as there is less and less chance to defend then whats the point. It was already easier as havoc to attack, this just makes it more so.

Isn't the whole point of havoc to constantly pressure enemy objectives/supplies with small amount of people, regardless of you being attacked or not?

Yes! And it feels awesome, even for the defending side: When we're sitting in the garrison and hear "swords at bay", move out, and shortly after that "red blob at hills! Halp!" Now you have less time to defend, more pressure to decide on which objective to defend, with how many people. It gets harder to hold all objectives especially if you already have many under your control.

We're almost half way there! Now with better rewards hopefully for taking higher tier objectives and better rewards for defending objectives, while also making the status quo a little harder to maintain we might see more movement there. I'm really looking forward to these changes in WvW.

[Arda.2490]

Thank you anet for killing WvW ! i'm going to edge of the mists now.

[Svarty.8019]

Anet want fights in structures.

43 mins into this video... https://www.twitch.tv/videos/402656725Raymond Lukes (I removed all the "umm"ing and "ya know"ing from this quote) , "time to entry is something that we're really trying to adjust because we think the fun is trying to push back the attack and then once everyone's inside and able to fight that's where a lot of the fun begins".

The theory is good for PrimeTime, but Off-Peak people are going to have an enormous shake-up where powerful sides just Ktrain everything because it's even harder for weaker sides to defend.

[LetoII.3782]

@Svarty.8019 said:

The theory is good for PrimeTime, but Off-Peak people are going to have an enormous shake-up where powerful sides just Ktrain everything because it's even harder for weaker sides to defend.

Side benefit in disguise.When you can't defend with a handful, you drop tier. The servers with big off-hours get matched together.

[Svarty.8019]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@"Svarty.8019" said:

The theory is good for PrimeTime, but Off-Peak people are going to have an enormous shake-up where powerful sides just Ktrain everything because it's even harder for weaker sides to defend.

Side benefit in disguise.When you can't defend with a handful, you drop tier. The servers with big off-hours get matched together.

I was talking with an off-peak defender yesterday, he said, "If it's impossible, we just won't play - we don't want to backcap empty objectives".

Dropping tiers is fine, losing players is a catastrophe for you, your enemy and Arenanet.

[LetoII.3782]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

The theory is good for PrimeTime, but Off-Peak people are going to have an enormous shake-up where powerful sides just Ktrain everything because it's even harder for weaker sides to defend.

Side benefit in disguise.When you can't defend with a handful, you drop tier. The servers with big off-hours get matched together.

I was talking with an off-peak defender yesterday, he said, "If it's impossible, we just won't play - we don't want to backcap empty objectives".

Dropping tiers is fine, losing players is a catastrophe for you, your enemy and Arenanet.

I am an off hours defender.Holding out thru prime every day til the Aussies/Asians log in... Isn't great.This is the pain of ripping a band-aid off, a couple bad weeks followed by a new, less frustrating normal.

[ArchonWing.9480]

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:No, it's fine. Proper Borderland defending is not just about hiding in a keep and pretending to be useful. That should never be rewarded. It's also about backcapping , denying supply, and the last is what a lot of people miss-- pressuring the enemy borderlands by occasionally damaging undefended walls/gates of structures and papering the occasional upgraded structure.

Properly havoc play is already rewarded. Though I would say the act of killing players seems to give so little participation. Now that should be changed. I think mounts still need an extra nerf as that has also led to issues.

Simply put, literally every borderland defender I know has zero trouble keeping up partcipation. And from experience, it's certainly better than running with an incompetent commander too.

Case in point, last night my server took most of one server's entire borderland and then EB. Yet that server was able to keep up their score by simply going to another borderland and taking undefended stuff while backcapping their own. They most likely did not have over 10 people. OTOH, when my server is being faced with the exact same circumstances, they just run outside EB spawn nonstop to get spawn camped, thus accomplishing little with more numbers. How can 10 people accomplish that much more than 20 and most likely have full participation while the later group has none? It's just about playing smart and yes I understand that's a foreign concept in this game, but still, it gets results.

Tl;dr Stop worshiping t3 structures. You're literally killing the game.EDIT: I just realized I taught people how to PPT. #Feelsbadman

Agreed and well put. Unfortunately, players like that are becoming less and less common thanks largely in part to the passive effects of Tactics.

Yep. People were afraid after those awful HoT changes that defense would be dumbed down. Looks like it happened. I mean, if you're too afraid to leave a structure on your own, bring a buddy! =p

I used to solo towers on my own but after this fortified garbage came on, I don't even bother. Sometimes we'll be like 3v6 and we have the outnumbered buff above us facing an upgraded structure and all they do is get on siege. Fun gameplay. As if only outnumbered people hump siege LOL.

I mean, I don't really get a lot of the complaints. Yea balance is garbage and it's no fun one you're outnumbered 10:1. But stuff like getting partcipation? /shrugs. If you want some extra gold, play a fractal or two. It'll give more than wvw gets in a week-- although that's another problem. Maybe they were right that people were actually really into pve?

[Svarty.8019]

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:No, it's fine. Proper Borderland defending is not just about hiding in a keep and pretending to be useful. That should never be rewarded. It's also about backcapping , denying supply, and the last is what a lot of people miss-- pressuring the enemy borderlands by occasionally damaging undefended walls/gates of structures and papering the occasional upgraded structure.

Properly havoc play is already rewarded. Though I would say the act of killing players seems to give so little participation. Now that should be changed. I think mounts still need an extra nerf as that has also led to issues.

Simply put, literally every borderland defender I know has zero trouble keeping up partcipation. And from experience, it's certainly better than running with an incompetent commander too.

Case in point, last night my server took most of one server's entire borderland and then EB. Yet that server was able to keep up their score by simply going to another borderland and taking undefended stuff while backcapping their own. They most likely did not have over 10 people. OTOH, when my server is being faced with the exact same circumstances, they just run outside EB spawn nonstop to get spawn camped, thus accomplishing little with more numbers. How can 10 people accomplish that much more than 20 and most likely have full participation while the later group has none? It's just about playing smart and yes I understand that's a foreign concept in this game, but still, it gets results.

Tl;dr Stop worshiping t3 structures. You're literally killing the game.EDIT: I just realized I taught people how to PPT. #Feelsbadman

Agreed and well put. Unfortunately, players like that are becoming less and less common thanks largely in part to the passive effects of Tactics.

Yep. People were afraid after those awful HoT changes that defense would be dumbed down. Looks like it happened. I mean, if you're too afraid to leave a structure on your own, bring a buddy! =p

I used to solo towers on my own but after this fortified garbage came on, I don't even bother. Sometimes we'll be like 3v6 and we have the outnumbered buff above us facing an upgraded structure and all they do is get on siege. Fun gameplay. As if only outnumbered people hump siege LOL.

I mean, I don't really get a lot of the complaints. Yea balance is garbage and it's no fun one you're outnumbered 10:1. But stuff like getting partcipation? /shrugs. If you want some extra gold, play a fractal or two. It'll give more than wvw gets in a week-- although that's another problem. Maybe they were right that people were actually really into pve?

Nope, they're really into community, teamwork and helping friends. They might not all be lightning-fingered teenagers - this game is filled with one-shot builds, why should some child, retiree or somehow less reactive person be expected to compete at that level? Let's say there's six retirees. They're still all going to get pulverised by three great players in open field - but they can contribute to their team effort by firing siege at you from a wall. THAT is why they stay inside objectives.

Telling players how to play isn't going to work, this mode was created as a sandbox. They can do what they want within the rules.

[fewfield.7802]

Dear all the defenders (siege lover)

Please get good and learn to fight properly.The fun part of wvw is large scale pvp.Those sieges and facilities have spoiled you too much.

[Svarty.8019]

@fewfield.7802 said:Dear all the defenders (siege lover)

Please get good and learn to fight properly.The fun part of wvw is large scale pvp.Those sieges and facilities have spoiled you too much.

Would you please take a look at my post above yours? I know they were sent at the same time, so I can't say you had a chance to do so before posting. Perhaps you could do it now.

[ArchonWing.9480]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:No, it's fine. Proper Borderland defending is not just about hiding in a keep and pretending to be useful. That should never be rewarded. It's also about backcapping , denying supply, and the last is what a lot of people miss-- pressuring the enemy borderlands by occasionally damaging undefended walls/gates of structures and papering the occasional upgraded structure.

Properly havoc play is already rewarded. Though I would say the act of killing players seems to give so little participation. Now that should be changed. I think mounts still need an extra nerf as that has also led to issues.

Simply put, literally every borderland defender I know has zero trouble keeping up partcipation. And from experience, it's certainly better than running with an incompetent commander too.

Case in point, last night my server took most of one server's entire borderland and then EB. Yet that server was able to keep up their score by simply going to another borderland and taking undefended stuff while backcapping their own. They most likely did not have over 10 people. OTOH, when my server is being faced with the exact same circumstances, they just run outside EB spawn nonstop to get spawn camped, thus accomplishing little with more numbers. How can 10 people accomplish that much more than 20 and most likely have full participation while the later group has none? It's just about playing smart and yes I understand that's a foreign concept in this game, but still, it gets results.

Tl;dr Stop worshiping t3 structures. You're literally killing the game.EDIT: I just realized I taught people how to PPT. #Feelsbadman

Agreed and well put. Unfortunately, players like that are becoming less and less common thanks largely in part to the passive effects of Tactics.

Yep. People were afraid after those awful HoT changes that defense would be dumbed down. Looks like it happened. I mean, if you're too afraid to leave a structure on your own, bring a buddy! =p

I used to solo towers on my own but after this fortified garbage came on, I don't even bother. Sometimes we'll be like 3v6 and we have the outnumbered buff above us facing an upgraded structure and all they do is get on siege. Fun gameplay. As if only outnumbered people hump siege LOL.

I mean, I don't really get a lot of the complaints. Yea balance is garbage and it's no fun one you're outnumbered 10:1. But stuff like getting partcipation? /shrugs. If you want some extra gold, play a fractal or two. It'll give more than wvw gets in a week-- although that's another problem. Maybe they were right that people were actually really into pve?

Nope, they're really into community, teamwork and helping friends. They might not all be lightning-fingered teenagers - this game is filled with one-shot builds, why should some child, retiree or somehow less reactive person be expected to compete at that level? Let's say there's six retirees. They're still all going to get pulverised by three great players in open field - but they can contribute to their team effort by firing siege at you from a wall. THAT is why they stay inside objectives.

Telling players how to play isn't going to work, this mode was created as a sandbox. They can do what they want within the rules.

Lol, sorry, I don't buy that. My server has plenty of older players (and yes, they are borderland defenders). There's also literally a guild called [old] and they do a better job havocing over people probably half their age just because they play smarter. Also, unlike some youngsters, they also know that dying in a game does not mean you die irl and don't hide in structures.

Yea sure, a lot of them might not have the lightning reflexes of a young person and will lose some fights, but come on, this is Gw2, not Counterstrike, not Starcraft, you don't need it unless you duel all the time. If anything, these are who mounts help the most lol. And honestly a lot of hot shot roamers overrate themselves too highly.

And you can still do whatever you want, but ignoring how game mechanics work is going to lead you to a bad time. Adapt.

[Shroud.2307]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:No, it's fine. Proper Borderland defending is not just about hiding in a keep and pretending to be useful. That should never be rewarded. It's also about backcapping , denying supply, and the last is what a lot of people miss-- pressuring the enemy borderlands by occasionally damaging undefended walls/gates of structures and papering the occasional upgraded structure.

Properly havoc play is already rewarded. Though I would say the act of killing players seems to give so little participation. Now that should be changed. I think mounts still need an extra nerf as that has also led to issues.

Simply put, literally every borderland defender I know has zero trouble keeping up partcipation. And from experience, it's certainly better than running with an incompetent commander too.

Case in point, last night my server took most of one server's entire borderland and then EB. Yet that server was able to keep up their score by simply going to another borderland and taking undefended stuff while backcapping their own. They most likely did not have over 10 people. OTOH, when my server is being faced with the exact same circumstances, they just run outside EB spawn nonstop to get spawn camped, thus accomplishing little with more numbers. How can 10 people accomplish that much more than 20 and most likely have full participation while the later group has none? It's just about playing smart and yes I understand that's a foreign concept in this game, but still, it gets results.

Tl;dr Stop worshiping t3 structures. You're literally killing the game.EDIT: I just realized I taught people how to PPT. #Feelsbadman

Agreed and well put. Unfortunately, players like that are becoming less and less common thanks largely in part to the passive effects of Tactics.

Yep. People were afraid after those awful HoT changes that defense would be dumbed down. Looks like it happened. I mean, if you're too afraid to leave a structure on your own, bring a buddy! =p

I used to solo towers on my own but after this fortified garbage came on, I don't even bother. Sometimes we'll be like 3v6 and we have the outnumbered buff above us facing an upgraded structure and all they do is get on siege. Fun gameplay. As if only outnumbered people hump siege LOL.

I mean, I don't really get a lot of the complaints. Yea balance is garbage and it's no fun one you're outnumbered 10:1. But stuff like getting partcipation? /shrugs. If you want some extra gold, play a fractal or two. It'll give more than wvw gets in a week-- although that's another problem. Maybe they were right that people were actually really into pve?

Nope, they're really into community, teamwork and helping friends. They might not all be lightning-fingered teenagers - this game is filled with one-shot builds, why should some child, retiree or somehow less reactive person be expected to compete at that level? Let's say there's six retirees. They're still all going to get pulverised by three great players in open field - but they can contribute to their team effort by firing siege at you from a wall. THAT is why they stay inside objectives.

Telling players how to play isn't going to work, this mode was created as a sandbox. They can do what they want within the rules.

K I just want to address the real world disadvantages here because I fit in to that category. I have some pretty bad motor skills (poor co-ordination) thanks to brain trauma when I was young. And I play on a laptop with reversed keybinds using a trackpad instead of a mouse... And I still play solo, often on a Necro as well. The only way I could be more disadvantaged is if I was half blind.

I agree that people can do what they want. Absolutely not disputing that. But in situations like what @ArchonWing.9480 described, it's a little obnoxious and unfortunately very common. It's one thing to play to your advantage, it's another to need every advantage.

[SWI.4127]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@"XenesisII.1540" said:If defenders defending something is meaningless because what they're defending has no value.... then what's the point of attacking it? isn't that just as meaningless?

That's where the imbalance comes in. You defend it because its yours, you attack it because its theirs. That's balanced. But when its easier to attack then it is to defend you are left with nothing but attacking. That said, add in no downstate or forced respawn on death, and that might change it up. It would give defenders more reason to defend if they can thin the larger force, but as long as a zerg can just rez their dead its in favor of numbers, especially if you can't slow'em. Lets see how it plays out but been watching objectives paper all over the place.

Who says it's easier to attack than defend though? You can defend with much lower numbers and stop an attacking group with higher numbers. The game in general is in a much better state if you are left with "nothing but attacking" compared to "nothing but defending". Attacking takes some initiative and is a catalyst for action, while defending is mostly reactionary.

I do like defending as much as the next guy, but there is no defending without an attack to defend against. T3 structures completely discouraged attacks unless the enemy had like 30+