Stop Punishing Defenders

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Garrus.7403 said:Seems like most defenders are so spoiled by the years of constant defensive siege buffs and now you get one nerf and the world falls apart.

The defense vs offense isn't new. People have been talking about it for years. The old forums had mounds of posts on the balance between the two. Part of the change that higher tier structures have more points associated to them was driven by those discussions. As I said, used to defend more, but defense is boring. But overtime as more options are removed from defenders the less likely anyone will if that balance isn't addressed. Different people will view it differently, but the point of the objectives is to be a focal point for the fights, something to draw people in so that conflict occurs. For that to occur, there has to be value in them, and for that to occur there needs to be a chance they can stand.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:

@Garrus.7403 said:Seems like most defenders are so spoiled by the years of constant defensive siege buffs and now you get one nerf and the world falls apart.

It is not just one nerf. Have you forgotten the huge nerf to Arrow Carts not too long ago. Now an entire zerg can stand under AC fire like it's just raindrops. Seriously, Cannons do no good for defense. Oil does no good for defense. Arrow Carts do no good for defense. Walls do no good for defense. What's the point in defense now? Nothing. Might as well just stand back and let the blob take whatever they want, then when they leave try to take it back. The bigger stacked servers will have an easier time taking over an enemies territory now and getting free bags because now the smaller servers will have nothing that they can run to for any kind of protection. All they will do is stand in Spawn camp and stare at their enemies inside their keep. Yay.

Agree, ACs were fine to stand under before the nerf if you weren't glass cannon, after the nerf they are laughable. The other issues with the AC change was that ACs are the only thing that could hit a cata against a wall. It would hurt havocs as well since they use the same tactic, but if there aren't some options for ACs to damage catas or no other options to damage catas then a minimum range may be needed so that balistas can play more of a role in defense.

[Dawdler.8521]

@displayname.8315 said:Attacking was fine when you had competent zergs playing. Now that the norm is 15 people kitten around doing the same cata wall strategy over and over again... yeah anet just gave you the crutch you needed...That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Svarty.8019]

@Fizzee.1762 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@aspirine.5839 said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@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.

Adapt or complain on the forums about OP siege and structures, hey it worked for the zerglings :)

Let us not forget that countless times Arenanet has changed the game to suit gankers who complained on this forum, so "it worked for the zerglings" doesn't carry any weight whatsoever. It's not even true.Regarding who's complaining, it sounds like people asking others to adapt are complaining and also asking Arenanet to change the game to suit them. AGAIN.

As for expecting people to adapt, many would rather QUIT - they enjoy defending, not dying! You can't force non-combatants to PvP, nor should you.

This is the most Piken thing I've read in a while...

Structures are designed to be objectives which people fight over. They are designed to provide locations where teams clash and fight. They are not designed to be the answer to being bad at the game.Fortunately, Anet agrees and have stated live that they want more fights between players inside structures (which is why they are improving the TTK on the structures).

Don't worry though, you'll still have time to port to spawn if dying in the game is too terrifying for the old people.Whilst on that subject, that old people excuse doesn't cut it.. I'm in my mid 30's and constantly sleep deprived from the baby screaming at night; and yet I still go toe to toe with the ADHD kiddos and do fine.Unless you have a reaction time of a drunk sloth, you aren't going to insta die the second someone looks at you funny, so stop being terrified of your shadow.And if you do have that slow a reaction time, you should probably think about playing bridge down the local old folks home instead of GW2... 'cuz I think even bingo might be too much for you.

Firstly, for your benefit I'd like to point out that being rude with snide remarks about people makes one seem rather immature - believe me, I've been there... I'd suggest that setting a good example will garner your cause more support.

Secondly, let me explain my perspective for you, since you seem to have a different opinion of how the game works:

IMO, WvW objectives aren't there to be fought over, they're not some trophy in a glass cabinet, detached from the game and something that you are awarded after completing a task, rather they are there to USE as a way of evening up fights so that the weaker side has a CHANCE against the greater force.

"Bad at the game", isn't a thing. It's a sandbox, as I've mentioned before. In WvW the players make the game what it is, they make their own fun. Your idea of "the game" is not the only one - to many of us it is more nuanced and multifaceted.

[duillyn.2697]

/wave and tp against smaller numbers, the same people in here arguing that this is a bad change.

This is a good change, wasting the time of 50 people because some dude with a trackball is sitting pressing 1 button on an ac is terrible gameplay. It should not be rewarded and any steps that actively nerf this style of gameplay should be encouraged, and I think in the wider community this change is welcome.

If you're bad the easiest thing you can do is not be bad, and then if you're still bad maybe a PVP sandbox isn't the gamemode for you.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

@duillyn.2697 said:/wave and tp against smaller numbers, the same people in here arguing that this is a bad change.

This is a good change, wasting the time of 50 people because some dude with a trackball is sitting pressing 1 button on an ac is terrible gameplay. It should not be rewarded and any steps that actively nerf this style of gameplay should be encouraged, and I think in the wider community this change is welcome.

If you're bad the easiest thing you can do is not be bad, and then if you're still bad maybe a PVP sandbox isn't the gamemode for you.

If one guy on an AC is holding off a blob of 50 - you may want to reassess who is 'bad'.

[Fizzee.1762]

I despair Svarty....

So you're in WvW which is objectively, an objective based, primarily PvP game mode.Where capturing and holding objectives give you literal points towards your server, which in turn determine who wins or looses the match... And you say that objectives are NOT objectives to be fought over???I mean they are called OBJECTIVES for crying out loud...

And you also say that WvW is a sandbox? No, it's not. Again, there are clear objectives and a goal to achieve; these objectives are:a) Capture and hold as much as possibleb) Get points from killing enemies and the results from a)c) Get more points at the end of the skirmish than the other 2 teamsd) Get more skirmish points by the end of the MU...

You can obviously make your own fun, I mean that goes for anything...By all means go and sit in a big circle by the centaurs and tell ghost stories if that makes you happy, but that doesn't make it a sandbox gamemode any more than beetle racing around the guild hall makes PvE a racing gamemode...

You also previously complained that "non-combatants" are being "forced to PvP"... IT'S A PvP BASED GAMEMODEAnd again, this is objectively true, you can try and say that it's PvE and PvP so you should be able to avoid the PvP, but no, it's primarily a PvP game mode, it even states that clearly on the wiki:"CombatWvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players."

It's like joining a PvP server in WoW and then complaining on the forums that people keep on attacking you when you want to be a non-combatant.

Fortunately for those of us who want PvP to exist in WvW, Anet seem to fully understand the principles of WvW I outlined above and want MORE fights inside structures. They want the epic large scale fights that come out of this and even stated live that they are lowering the time to entry specifically so that more fights happen.Something tells me that begging the devs to make less fights happen in WvW, or to shelter people from dying to PvP, MIGHT fall on deaf ears.

And to address the Rude/Snide remarks comment, No, being nicey nice does not garner more results. This is clear from how badly Piken has Hemorrhaged decent players and commanders over the years, yet WSR, RoS, and Vabbi before them, (which I'm sure you'd consider horrifically toxic places) have gone from strength to strength.I wish KISS all the best of luck with their new training guild, many have tried this before but I give it 6 weeks tops before even KISS give up on Piken and xfer, as so many others have before when faced with trying to train such nice players...

[Svarty.8019]

@"Fizzee.1762" said:I despair Svarty....

So you're in WvW which is objectively, an objective based, primarily PvP game mode.Where capturing and holding objectives give you literal points towards your server, which in turn determine who wins or looses the match... And you say that objectives are NOT objectives to be fought over???I mean they are called OBJECTIVES for crying out loud...

And you also say that WvW is a sandbox? No, it's not. Again, there are clear objectives and a goal to achieve; these objectives are:a) Capture and hold as much as possibleb) Get points from killing enemies and the results from a)c) Get more points at the end of the skirmish than the other 2 teamsd) Get more skirmish points by the end of the MU...

You can obviously make your own fun, I mean that goes for anything...By all means go and sit in a big circle by the centaurs and tell ghost stories if that makes you happy, but that doesn't make it a sandbox gamemode any more than beetle racing around the guild hall makes PvE a racing gamemode...

You also previously complained that "non-combatants" are being "forced to PvP"... IT'S A PvP BASED GAMEMODEAnd again, this is objectively true, you can try and say that it's PvE and PvP so you should be able to avoid the PvP, but no, it's primarily a PvP game mode, it even states that clearly on the wiki:"CombatWvW is first and foremost, a Player vs. Player game-mode. You are rewarded with both loot and Points-Per-Kill (PPK) for killing enemy players."

It's like joining a PvP server in WoW and then complaining on the forums that people keep on attacking you when you want to be a non-combatant.

Fortunately for those of us who want PvP to exist in WvW, Anet seem to fully understand the principles of WvW I outlined above and want MORE fights inside structures. They want the epic large scale fights that come out of this and even stated live that they are lowering the time to entry specifically so that more fights happen.Something tells me that begging the devs to make less fights happen in WvW, or to shelter people from dying to PvP, MIGHT fall on deaf ears.

And to address the Rude/Snide remarks comment, No, being nicey nice does not garner more results. This is clear from how badly Piken has Hemorrhaged decent players and commanders over the years, yet WSR, RoS, and Vabbi before them, (which I'm sure you'd consider horrifically toxic places) have gone from strength to strength.I wish KISS all the best of luck with their new training guild, many have tried this before but I give it 6 weeks tops before even KISS give up on Piken and xfer, as so many others have before when faced with trying to train such nice players...

What I'm reading from you, and forgive me if this appears to be a strawman (it looks like one to me, even!), it's really not intended as such. It is purely intended to illustrate what my perception is at the moment.Do you think people shouldn't be permitted to focus on defending objectives - this seems something of an authoritarian perspective to me, and can't possibly be the case, can it? So what's the truth here?Should an overwhelmingly large force be able to just walk into an objective by virtue of it's size alone and regardless of how poorly organised they are or the manner in which they prepare their attack, i.e. the way they set up their siege?Should that handful of people NOT be able to TRY to destroy enemy siege? Should they somehow be blocked from trying to defend things?Should they be allowed to slow down potential captures in the hopes that help may arrive in the near future? Or are they not to be allowed that either.Those are the questions I have regarding small groups trying to defend structures.

Please enlighten me as to what you believe should and should not be "allowed". Once we understand each other's positions we can possibly work on solutions.

With regards to Vabbi, WSR and RoS, (or Vabbi, Vabbi2.0 and Vabbi3.0, as I refer to them) going from strength to strength I'll say just this: Wrong. They seem to only want to hold SM. Occasionally they get a commander and literally everybody on a map follows them, so of course they will just PPT any map regardless of resistance. Which is ironic because they claim to desire good fights. Then when they do eventually get beaten they quit. Not strong at all.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Blockhead Magee.3092 said:

@duillyn.2697 said:/wave and tp against smaller numbers, the same people in here arguing that this is a bad change.

This is a good change, wasting the time of 50 people because some dude with a trackball is sitting pressing 1 button on an ac is terrible gameplay. It should not be rewarded and any steps that actively nerf this style of gameplay should be encouraged, and I think in the wider community this change is welcome.

If you're bad the easiest thing you can do is not be bad, and then if you're still bad maybe a

PVP

sandbox isn't the gamemode for you.

If one guy on an AC is holding off a blob of 50 - you may want to reassess who is 'bad'.

I admit I agree and don't understand, if people are dieing to 1 guy on an AC, maybe those other 50 should maybe actually equip some gear.

And wasting time...ok that's karma Training at its peek, 50 vs 1.......

Maybe we are going about this in the wrong way. Maybe structures should have a fixed value and reward for that cap should be value/numbers used. That might solve zerg mentality.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@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.

Hi!

I am the OP. I solo and havoc. Translation, I defend rarely, I am most often attacking. That's where my opinion comes from. We are out of balance. Its far easier to attack than to defend. The more you reduce defense the more you aid zerging. Attackers could easily take defended objectives before the various defense nerfs if they had more numbers. Now its even easier.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Kitta.3657 said:This thread is a joke. Opening with some crazy wackadoodle sense of victimhood as defenders when Anet has literally buffed defending for years to a point they NEED to nerf it to have actual balance between attack & defense. Even after this most recent change, defending still has all the advantages.

Nope, no joke. Been WvWing for 5 years now after coming from a game where you could WvW since level 1 (and 5+ years of that game), usually attacking so my point comes from that side. I don't favor zerg play, but agree a larger force should have some edge, but right now zerg wins. Before zerg could slowed and weakened and weak willed zerg could be forced back. We are closing back in to why just not have open fields and lots of flags people just run around to.

[Dawdler.8521]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:This thread is a joke. Opening with some crazy wackadoodle sense of victimhood as defenders when Anet has literally buffed defending for years to a point they NEED to nerf it to have actual balance between attack & defense. Even after this most recent change, defending still has all the advantages.

Nope, no joke. Been WvWing for 5 years now after coming from a game where you could WvW since level 1 (and 5+ years of that game), usually attacking so my point comes from that side. I don't favor zerg play, but agree a larger force should have some edge, but right now zerg wins. Before zerg could slowed and weakened and weak willed zerg could be forced back. We are closing back in to why just not have open fields and lots of flags people just run around to.

You're describing WvW since 2012. No armor has literally changed nothing of what you describe.

[Svarty.8019]

@Kitta.3657 said:Anet has literally buffed defending for years

Literally? You mean they've polished it but not improved it's functionality? Well yes, at one stage they added some new siege models, but those aren't defending specific.

I don't believe that they have buffed defending - I don't remember them doing so. In fact, I suspect there have been more changes to the contrary. Let's see your evidence!

[LetoII.3782]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:Anet has literally buffed defending for years

Literally? You mean they've polished it but not improved it's functionality? Well yes, at one stage they added some new siege models, but those aren't defending specific.

I don't believe that they have buffed defending - I don't remember them doing so. In fact, I suspect there have been more changes to the contrary. Let's see your evidence!

Dude, they just undid one of the hot buffs to upgraded door and wall damage reduction... like Tuesday.

Where you going with this?

[Svarty.8019]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:Anet has literally buffed defending for years

Literally? You mean they've polished it but not improved it's functionality? Well yes, at one stage they added some new siege models, but those aren't defending specific.

I don't believe that they have buffed defending - I don't remember them doing so. In fact, I suspect there have been more changes to the contrary. Let's see your evidence!

Dude, they just undid one of the hot buffs to upgraded door and wall damage reduction... like Tuesday.

Where you going with this?

I don't remember that being a hot buff.

[LetoII.3782]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:Anet has literally buffed defending for years

Literally? You mean they've polished it but not improved it's functionality? Well yes, at one stage they added some new siege models, but those aren't defending specific.

I don't believe that they have buffed defending - I don't remember them doing so. In fact, I suspect there have been more changes to the contrary. Let's see your evidence!

Dude, they just undid one of the hot buffs to upgraded door and wall damage reduction... like Tuesday.

Where you going with this?

I don't remember that being a hot buff.

Maybe not :/Presence of the keep?

[Iozeph.5617]

@Gop.8713 said:I love siege wars but it seems like I'm in a pretty extreme minority on that. Anet has nerfed defense some in the past bc players complained that tiered, defended structures yield a stale map where no one is really willing to attack anything. I doubt they would go back on that, the nerfs are just a case of giving ppl what they want . . .

They don't care about attacking flipping anything. Only if it draws an enemy out because there's more bags to be had from an open field fight than wasting five to ten minutes battering a wall or a door down. If the players running blobs now had their way there'd be no fortifications. Nothing but wide, flat and open fields to do nothing but run around and win trade on all day long because 'fite server.' If they were truly fight servers they'd all be running off meta specs and just fighting for the love of it, regardless of how long it takes, instead of going for what gives them the greatest yield of loot per unit time with one side wiping, then rinsing an repeating once they agree in chat where they're going to meet up again after everyone releases.

Solution's simple. Just have everyone on the map spotted, have them represented on the mini map for everyone to see at all times and let the chips fall wherever.

[Svarty.8019]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:Anet has literally buffed defending for years

Literally? You mean they've polished it but not improved it's functionality? Well yes, at one stage they added some new siege models, but those aren't defending specific.

I don't believe that they have buffed defending - I don't remember them doing so. In fact, I suspect there have been more changes to the contrary. Let's see your evidence!

Dude, they just undid one of the hot buffs to upgraded door and wall damage reduction... like Tuesday.

Where you going with this?

I don't remember that being a hot buff.

Maybe not :/Presence of the keep?

Fair enough. That is definitely a buff for defending. I rather like that one, however, because it's one of few pure handicap features.

[ArchonWing.9480]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:This thread is a joke. Opening with some crazy wackadoodle sense of victimhood as defenders when Anet has literally buffed defending for years to a point they NEED to nerf it to have actual balance between attack & defense. Even after this most recent change, defending still has all the advantages.

Nope, no joke. Been WvWing for 5 years now after coming from a game where you could WvW since level 1 (and 5+ years of that game), usually attacking so my point comes from that side. I don't favor zerg play, but agree a larger force should have some edge, but right now zerg wins. Before zerg could slowed and weakened and weak willed zerg could be forced back. We are closing back in to why just not have open fields and lots of flags people just run around to.

You're describing WvW since 2012. No armor has literally changed nothing of what you describe.

Well, ironically enough I think the buffs to defense encouraged zerging even more, because changes like buffed arrow carts, reinforced walls, emergency wps, and especially that watchtower garbage means that the most reliable way to take a upgraded keep is simply to zerg it down.

[steki.1478]

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:This thread is a joke. Opening with some crazy wackadoodle sense of victimhood as defenders when Anet has literally buffed defending for years to a point they NEED to nerf it to have actual balance between attack & defense. Even after this most recent change, defending still has all the advantages.

Nope, no joke. Been WvWing for 5 years now after coming from a game where you could WvW since level 1 (and 5+ years of that game), usually attacking so my point comes from that side. I don't favor zerg play, but agree a larger force should have some edge, but right now zerg wins. Before zerg could slowed and weakened and weak willed zerg could be forced back. We are closing back in to why just not have open fields and lots of flags people just run around to.

You're describing WvW since 2012. No armor has literally changed nothing of what you describe.

Well, ironically enough I think the buffs to defense encouraged zerging even more, because changes like buffed arrow carts, reinforced walls, emergency wps, and especially that watchtower garbage means that the most reliable way to take a upgraded keep is simply to zerg it down.

But nerfs to defense somehow also promote zerg play?

[ArchonWing.9480]

@steki.1478 said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Kitta.3657 said:This thread is a joke. Opening with some crazy wackadoodle sense of victimhood as defenders when Anet has literally buffed defending for years to a point they NEED to nerf it to have actual balance between attack & defense. Even after this most recent change, defending still has all the advantages.

Nope, no joke. Been WvWing for 5 years now after coming from a game where you could WvW since level 1 (and 5+ years of that game), usually attacking so my point comes from that side. I don't favor zerg play, but agree a larger force should have some edge, but right now zerg wins. Before zerg could slowed and weakened and weak willed zerg could be forced back. We are closing back in to why just not have open fields and lots of flags people just run around to.

You're describing WvW since 2012. No armor has literally changed nothing of what you describe.

Well, ironically enough I think the buffs to defense encouraged zerging even more, because changes like buffed arrow carts, reinforced walls, emergency wps, and especially that watchtower garbage means that the most reliable way to take a upgraded keep is simply to zerg it down.

But nerfs to defense somehow also promote zerg play?

It gives more options to not zerg. That doesn't mean people won't zerg, but maybe groups of 3-5 won't feel ill trying to bang their heads against an upgraded structure.

The garbage trinity of stab changes, guild hall upgrades, and reinforced walls/tacitvators of HoT decimated my friend's list in WvW and it would not recover from it. Nothing from mounts to population imbalance to terrible skill balance has ever done anything as catastrophic, so yea, I won't care for it going at all.

[spectrito.8513]

@Svarty.8019 said:

As for expecting people to adapt, many would rather QUIT - they enjoy defending, not dying!

That was exactly what people who played wvw for a long time did when mount was introduced, they quitted.

You can't force non-combatants to PvP, nor should you.

Please tell me this is a joke

[Ranger Emeritux.5837]

Comments on how hard it is to take T3 keeps before the update are interesting along with the uniformed comments on scouting. Give me a 5 man advantage in a keep fight along with 3 cats and 3 shield gens, and you could sit back and pound away for hours and take anything anywhere before the wall nerf. If you are a passive scout then you are a bad scout. We are now in the day of 3 minutes from the outside to the lords room of red garrison ne side. Advice from a 2 account player since beta, all tourneys, don't scout, don't defend, join the k-train and get bags. If you are outnumbered, back cap. WvW is what it is now.

[Deimos.4263]

The biggest problem with the walls is that the battlements don't really work anything like real-world battlements. Standing on them is a death sentence, whereas standing right under them should be a death sentence. Where are the machicolations? Why is there nothing shielding defenders standing on these walls?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Deimos.4263 said:The biggest problem with the walls is that the battlements don't really work anything like real-world battlements. Standing on them is a death sentence, whereas standing right under them should be a death sentence. Where are the machicolations? Why is there nothing shielding defenders standing on these walls?

Will we in turn get ladders so we can just climb over the walls?

Thats realistic after all. Hell you could just toss a rope and climb up. Its not like they are particularly tall. Some you can probably parkour up.

Haha wait what am I even saying. In universe realism dictates that we should be able to teleport up the walls. Theres no anti-teleport tech built in to them after all, its just plain walls. Its entirely unrealistic that a mesmer cant get to the lordroom in 30s.