Reducing overall damage in WvW is a bad decision.

[DeceiverX.8361]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"ledernierrempart.6871" said:■ smaller groups will get an even harder time killing the larger group.

This is the wrong way to think about it because what benefits the small group also benefits the large group; meaning that damage increases give large groups even more damage. So it becomes a wash. The large group will have an easier time killing the smaller group if damage is increased. Small vs. large group encounters aren't done through damage balance but strategy. Damage balance is reserved for groups of equal size.

■ in 1v2 situation the solo player will have an even harder time killing a downed player.

This is more a problem with downed state than damage since they had one time buffed downed state to give a small window of invulnerability and buffed the downed HP when damage was higher. They should undo those buffs.

Hard disagree. It's very easy to win a 1v2 after the first player goes down, and the res only really ever happens when the person doing the 1v2 is playing a sustain tank. In which case they should never be winning the 1v2 or mathematically offensive strats have zero merit at all. To win, either you hard cleave while they try and res or you ignore the downed player/throw the occasional attack/AoE at it and just fight the other guy, leaving the downed person to never res and have basically no impact on the fight.

Downed state only actually matters in encounters where there are enemies in group of 5 or more. 1v2 is entirely about boons, CC, and fight control with either intermittent bursts or huge sustain to break down that first player and control the rest of the fight.

If you nerf damage, and the boons, sustain, and CC are left to remain the same (largely what we saw after the major "balance" patch), you end up with a meta where individual skill on offense-oriented builds almost nearly does not matter and where players on these builds either respec to the easiest lowest-risk builds, or opt just to gank, which is what the "roaming" scene mostly looks like today; people who gank while outnumbered, and people who play cheeky sustain builds that basically never die and exist just to harass and grind down offense-oriented builds (because newsflash, the high-investment offense-oriented builds have been over-nerfed and do the same damage as ones which spec substantially more defenses).

[RlyOsim.2497]

how do you combat the inability of a large portion of the population that thinks showing up is enough?

it wild that people are still thinking ppt is valid after all this time/the current state of wvw.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952 said:That's not relevant to the discussion. Whether you think a reward exists or not doesn't change the fact that there IS a winning condition and it's clear that the game changes are favouring the side that plays a better strategic game to achieve that condition. Just because you don't like the change doesn't mean it's not following the intent of the WvW gamemode. Still not seeing you explain all the strategic elements and rewards for winning those elements even though you claim the purpose of WvW is mainly to kill players. You can't assume you understand what WvW should be better than Anet if you can't explain this.

right now, WvW territory control is a pretext to fight. you capture territory when there is no fights. i never saw a group of player avoiding fights for the sake of capturing territory since years. yeah, players did play for the server back then. but back then there was a gathering bonus for the winning server. and also WvW seasons. and more balanced population overall.what now?

just by playing all day/night long you will naturally make more points than a server which only really plays on prime time. when that happens the losing server will have no way of winning back the point difference unless they sacrifice their time to play GW2 for actually no special reward upon achieving the feat of winning the first place.usually, at the end of the weekend the first will stay first, the second will stay second and the third will stay third until the end of the week.

now that i think about it. why do you bother with me wanting to balance the game around fights if all there is to WvW is structure caping? isn't that already good enough? why are you agianst me promoting smaller scale fights? aren't you pushing your ideals about WvW onto me? how will not reducing overall damage for WvW impact structure caping?

I can just imagine the contorted, confused faces on those players faces when the game changes to align with what Anet wants to offer players in WvW vs. what those players think it should be. Again ... WvW differentiates itself from PvP by NOT being focused on just fighting people. That's not an accident.

will you believe me if i say that most , if not all, changes arenanet made for WvW was based off some players feedback?of course not all of the updates where good ones. either becasue arenanet didn't listened to the right crowd or because they did not fully understood what players wanted.in the end , if the players quit the game die.

you should also realise that, aside from the relatively young 2v2 and 3v3 compared to the 5v5, regular 5v5 pvp gamemode is not about killing the enemy but capturing and holding points, becasue that is the most effective way to win.

would you play WvW if there was no enemies? no you wont. no one would. that is why people just stop playing when facing low WvW populated server where there is barely nothing to kill. they will paint all the map in one color and then leave.

i don't know what i can add... i am sorry if you really commited yourself in WvW to make opints for your server while it is useless to do so... you should seek what is fun and balance the game around that. because arenanet will never make a WvW season again (the reason was players getting a burnout in actively trying to make their server win and so WvW lost alot of players in the process). competitivness is dead. (until we get official GvG).

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:That's not relevant to the discussion. Whether you think a reward exists or not doesn't change the fact that there IS a winning condition and it's clear that the game changes are favouring the side that plays a better strategic game to achieve that condition. Just because you don't like the change doesn't mean it's not following the intent of the WvW gamemode. Still not seeing you explain all the strategic elements and rewards for winning those elements even though you claim the purpose of WvW is mainly to kill players. You can't assume you understand what WvW should be better than Anet if you can't explain this.

right now, WvW territory control is a pretext to fight. you capture territory when there is no fights.

Again .. this all points to the direction that WvW is a strategic game and the changes make sense in this context. yes .. you WILL capture objectives without fighting for them sometimes. There isn't a problem with that. It's part of WvW and it always has been. Making an issue out of how hard it is to kill players because you capture territory without fights makes no sense.

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:will you believe me if i say that most , if not all, changes arenanet made for WvW was based off some players feedback?of course not all of the updates where good ones. either becasue arenanet didn't listened to the right crowd or because they did not fully understood what players wanted.in the end , if the players quit the game die.Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Anet has an intent for WvW ... and if it was only about killing players, then it would have a VERY different reward structure and map layout to begin with ... in fact, it would look just like PVP ... wow, what a coincidence. The whole argument that we can just ignore the strategic part of the game because you say it's not fun or rewarding makes no sense. You don't determine what is fun or rewarding for anyone but you. The fact is that the view that counts here is the one that Anet has an intent for their changes ... even if it's as superficial as "players die too fast and we don't like it".

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:aren't you pushing your ideals about WvW onto me?

If I was the one making changes to the game, that question might make some sense. I'm not pushing anything on you. I'm saying why the changes make sense if you understand what WvW is. You deny it's a strategic game and it's just about fighting ... then you wonder why Anet makes bad changes to it. I like the part where you don't even try to understand the change ... you just jump right to the conclusion this change is just some random mistake or something.

[Chaba.5410]

@DeceiverX.8361 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"ledernierrempart.6871" said:■ smaller groups will get an even harder time killing the larger group.

This is the wrong way to think about it because what benefits the small group also benefits the large group; meaning that damage increases give large groups even more damage. So it becomes a wash. The large group will have an easier time killing the smaller group if damage is increased. Small vs. large group encounters aren't done through damage balance but strategy. Damage balance is reserved for groups of equal size.

■ in 1v2 situation the solo player will have an even harder time killing a downed player.

This is more a problem with downed state than damage since they had one time buffed downed state to give a small window of invulnerability and buffed the downed HP when damage was higher. They should undo those buffs.

Hard disagree. It's very easy to win a 1v2 after the first player goes down, and the res only really ever happens when the person doing the 1v2 is playing a sustain tank. In which case they should never be winning the 1v2 or mathematically offensive strats have zero merit at all. To win, either you hard cleave while they try and res or you ignore the downed player/throw the occasional attack/AoE at it and just fight the other guy, leaving the downed person to never res and have basically no impact on the fight.

Downed state only actually matters in encounters where there are enemies in group of 5 or more. 1v2 is entirely about boons, CC, and fight control with either intermittent bursts or huge sustain to break down that first player and control the rest of the fight.

If you nerf damage, and the boons, sustain, and CC are left to remain the same (largely what we saw after the major "balance" patch), you end up with a meta where individual skill on offense-oriented builds almost nearly does not matter and where players on these builds either respec to the easiest lowest-risk builds, or opt just to gank, which is what the "roaming" scene mostly looks like today; people who gank while outnumbered, and people who play cheeky sustain builds that basically never die and exist just to harass and grind down offense-oriented builds (because newsflash, the high-investment offense-oriented builds have been over-nerfed and do the same damage as ones which spec substantially more defenses).

TBH you aren't clear on what you're disagreeing about.

• That what (mechanic) benefits the small group also benefits the large group? (How does the large group also not benefit from damage changes?)
• That small vs. large group encounters are fought through strategy? (This makes no sense because you then go on about respec'ing and ganking which are types of strategy.)
• That damage balance should be reserved for groups of equal size? (You never talk about groups of equal size so it can't possibly be this one.)

Or you're disagreeing that down state should have the invulnerability window and HP nerfed?

[Substance E.4852]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:■ thieves or any glass canon builds will have an even harder time to kill the target while the target can still use mobility to run away or run toward an ally.

There's maybe a couple builds (not even whole classes) in the entire game that can escape a thief once engaged, that's why it's so utterly irritating to fight them

[Sinfullysweet.4517]

Just my humble observation. I noticed the changes didn’t do as intended. TTK hasn’t changed really. By scouting the fights don’t last that long when it’s Zerg on Zerg

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952 said:If I was the one making changes to the game, that question might make some sense. I'm not pushing anything on you. I'm saying why the changes make sense if you understand what WvW is. You deny it's a strategic game and it's just about fighting ... then you wonder why Anet makes bad changes to it. I like the part where you don't even try to understand the change ... you just jump right to the conclusion this change is just some random mistake or something.

each one of us is trying to have fun with what we prefer doing. some prefer excorting dolyacks, others just afk in towers and treb all day, other karma train with the commander and leave him if he fight too much etc...but Fights is a big part of WvW. (IMO the central aspect of WvW with the strategic territory control the objectives to make that happens but lets leave that aside as we do not agree on that part and it is just a matter of perception of the gamemode.)

i fully understand the changes. and we have enough data about it now to discuss about it.the overall damage reduction was to promote the use of more skills rather than spam a few to kill an opponent.give more room to counter attack without getting one shot by a magically 15k or whatever.it has a good intention. but this was the easiest way to tone everything down.

because now, previous average damage spells that were alrgith are less than average. previous one shot combo (kill an enemy under 1s) can still be done. (aka soulbeast with siamouth f1 + quick double maul, mesmer shatter, etc...)also revenant will not hit you with 15k on hammer 2 anymore but since they were used in bus with tons of buffs you will not be able to really counter anything.some weapons like engi rifle suffered alot from those changes. same for war hammer, staff elem..

the thing is, if arenanet really wnats to make fight longer, with more counterplay and less cheesy oneshot they should not simply tone done damage without reworking downed state, protection, retaliation.. in fact boons in general, condition damage (i am for more condi damage with less up time to be closer to power builds but without the same damage output instead of condi that last 20s. it is stupid to have spells that deal 17K burning over 8s. its like an instant kill switch if the target has no cleanse..)and AOE (maybe we could see a special buuble like the new war bubble that make you invulnerable to AOE on the ground while in it.).

ATM the adverse effects are not worth the changes.

@Sinfullysweet.4517 said:Just my humble observation. I noticed the changes didn’t do as intended. TTK hasn’t changed really. By scouting the fights don’t last that long when it’s Zerg on Zerg

yes, the changes impacted small scale fights more. big bus will always have enough damage and boons to roll over anything.

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:If I was the one making changes to the game, that question might make some sense. I'm not pushing anything on you. I'm saying why the changes make sense if you understand what WvW is. You deny it's a strategic game and it's just about fighting ... then you wonder why Anet makes bad changes to it. I like the part where you don't even try to understand the change ... you just jump right to the conclusion this change is just some random mistake or something.

each one of us is trying to have fun with what we prefer doing. some prefer excorting dolyacks, others just afk in towers and treb all day, other karma train with the commander and leave him if he fight too much etc...but Fights is a big part of WvW. (IMO the central aspect of WvW with the strategic territory control the objectives to make that happens but lets leave that aside as we do not agree on that part and it is just a matter of perception of the gamemode.)

no one is arguing fights isn't a big part of WvW. You need to be able to distinguish between the purpose of WvW (i.e., the things that give you wins) against how you can get those things (fights, etc...)

i fully understand the changes. and we have enough data about it now to discuss about it.the overall damage reduction was to promote the use of more skills rather than spam a few to kill an opponent.give more room to counter attack without getting one shot by a magically 15k or whatever.it has a good intention. but this was the easiest way to tone everything down.

because now, previous average damage spells that were alrgith are less than average. previous one shot combo (kill an enemy under 1s) can still be done. (aka soulbeast with siamouth f1 + quick double maul, mesmer shatter, etc...)also revenant will not hit you with 15k on hammer 2 anymore but since they were used in bus with tons of buffs you will not be able to really counter anything.some weapons like engi rifle suffered alot from those changes. same for war hammer, staff elem..

the thing is, if arenanet really wnats to make fight longer, ....

Sure ... IF that's is why they made the changes, there could have been many ways to do it ... so instead of assuming the way they did it was the bad way because you are assuming why they did it ... just ask yourself why they did it this way.

in fact boons in general, condition damage (i am for more condi damage with less up time to be closer to power builds but without the same damage output instead of condi that last 20s. it is stupid to have spells that deal 17K burning over 8s. its like an instant kill switch if the target has no cleanse..)and AOE (maybe we could see a special buuble like the new war bubble that make you invulnerable to AOE on the ground while in it.).

ATM the adverse effects are not worth the changes.

yet no where in your 'I understand' talking do you actually acknowledge that making players harder to fight promotes a more strategic approach to playing WvW ... which IS what WvW is about.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952 said:

no one is arguing fights isn't a big part of WvW. You need to be able to distinguish between the purpose of WvW (i.e., the things that give you wins) against how you can get those things (fights, etc...)

this is a case where WvW lost its purpose years ago. players now play it to bump into other players and fight. they just don't care about the strategy approach. every stategy about siege placement has already been discovered and are now automatism. we don't think anymore.i also already answered this to you. WvW is, just like any other similar games in its core like planetside 2 or TESO WvW.. the objectives are there to give you a general direction in what you need to do. but you do it for the potential exciting fights you may get. you need to understand that.

Sure ... IF that's is why they made the changes, there could have been many ways to do it ... so instead of assuming the way they did it was the bad way because you are assuming why they did it ...

because they tried to adapt their view of WvW depending on players feedback? and that was player feedback, whinning because of getting one shot from nowhere from thieves or rev in bus.so they just took the easiest road and toned down all damage. but doing that without touching the other problems just led to other issues.you see, the players who just go in WvW to follow a commander in a big bus will love this. because that means less deaths while joining the bus and less magical 15K rev. but zergs will still get destroyed the same way abd still as fast as before but maybe letting those already dead ones one extra second of buttton smashing before death.in the end it doesn't change that much zergs fight but really does for other players not playing in zergs.

just ask yourself why they did it this way.

i already answered to this. because it is the easier way. or the lazyest way. pick one.no one in arenanet is fully commited to WvW. and i wonder about PvP. they don't have much time to spend on WvW matters so they just address the big problems.players whine about how they get one shot all the time in WvW? paf! overall damage nerf with the hope that this fix the issue.players whine about mount killing you while downed? paf! now mount maul deal less than an auto attack instead of working around what makes this mount unique and balance it.building cannons was used as a counter to zerg in zerg vs zerg fights? paf! deleted that update.in fact. most if not all WvW updates where made because of WvW bus players. because they are the biggest part of WvW now. if you don't please the bus people will leave.see how no downstate cast fear on bus players. because now, small groups will get more chance of screwing bus as they wont revive their fallen bus mates.

but since you asked me. why do YOU think?

yet no where in your 'I understand' talking do you actually acknowledge that making players harder to fight promotes a more strategic approach to playing WvW ... which IS what WvW is about.

so zerg boon ball with everyeone spamming their skills all over the place is a strategic approach to WvW? where are the roamers? the scouts? the sneaky small groups? the raid guilds?WvW is not all about bus. if if it was i would not even touch WvW with a stick anymore.this just promote zergs and big groups which dumb down WvW strategical options.

[jsp.6912]

Reduce damage is a good thing if (if only) they will fix some stat like minstrel, trailblazer and shit like it. I think they proba never do that so yeah it's a bad idea the nerf damage

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

no one is arguing fights isn't a big part of WvW. You need to be able to distinguish between the purpose of WvW (i.e., the things that give you wins) against how you can get those things (fights, etc...)

this is a case where WvW lost its purpose years ago. players now play it to bump into other players and fight.

That doesn't change the purpose though ... and this game change is actually a realignment to that purpose. See, that's really my point here ... you want something and the change isn't inline with what you want. So instead of an objective view of understanding why the change ... you just assume it's a mistake. That works for you because you have an agenda to make WvW about 'killing people' and 'fights' ... but more astute people know better because they understand that WvW has to offer something more than that.

i already answered to this. because it is the easier way. or the lazyest way. pick one.Those are not answers to the question I'm asking you. Why did they make it harder to kill players?

but since you asked me. why do YOU think?

It should be clear ... I think Anet made this change to realign people's activities to focus on what WvW is REALLY about ... a strategic game, not a 'kill players' one. We already have a 'kill players' game mode ... WvW has to offer something different.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952 said:It should be clear ... I think Anet made this change to realign people's activities to focus on what WvW is REALLY about ... a strategic game, not a 'kill players' one. We already have a 'kill players' game mode ... WvW has to offer something different.

in what way, reducing damage dealt push players to focus on objectives instead of fights?

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:It should be clear ... I think Anet made this change to realign people's activities to focus on what WvW is REALLY about ... a strategic game, not a 'kill players' one. We already have a 'kill players' game mode ... WvW has to offer something different.

in what way, reducing damage dealt push players to focus on objectives instead of fights?

I'm not claiming how players will behave ... I'm saying that the change encourages a more strategic game.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:It should be clear ... I think Anet made this change to realign people's activities to focus on what WvW is REALLY about ... a strategic game, not a 'kill players' one. We already have a 'kill players' game mode ... WvW has to offer something different.

in what way, reducing damage dealt push players to focus on objectives instead of fights?

I'm not claiming how players will behave ... I'm saying that the change encourages a more strategic game.

how so? all i see is that it encourage bigger groups and bus. bigger groups have even more of an edge against smaller groups.it encourage boonballs even more since high damage builds are less viable. better use the old "dps with numbers" tactic while making everyone harder to kill.

the only good thing reducing overall damage has done is making 1v1 more interesting.

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:It should be clear ... I think Anet made this change to realign people's activities to focus on what WvW is REALLY about ... a strategic game, not a 'kill players' one. We already have a 'kill players' game mode ... WvW has to offer something different.

in what way, reducing damage dealt push players to focus on objectives instead of fights?

I'm not claiming how players will behave ... I'm saying that the change encourages a more strategic game.

how so? all i see is that it encourage bigger groups and bus. bigger groups have even more of an edge against smaller groups.

because it's what you want to see. Bigger groups ALWAYS had more of an edge against smaller groups ... so that's irrelevant statement.

I don't see why you would conclude it encourages bigger groups ... there are many ways people want to experience WvW but no one wants to be insta'ed either ... so when players are easy to kill the population tends toward safety in numbers with the zerg. That leads to a less strategic approach to playing WvW. If players are actually harder to kill, the ones that want to experience non-zerg play for a more strategic approach are more confident in their ability to do so.

If anything, if players are harder to kill, it will make the zerg experience more boring for people that actually want to play WvW for 'fights' and 'killing people'. There is NO argument that a group is harder to kill than a single player ... REGARDLESS of how hard it is to kill an individual player. The whole logic you are applying here doesn't make sense. We are going to have bigger zergs because people are harder to kill? That doesn't make sense to me BUT even if that is true, those servers and their commanders that think that way are going to lose BIG TIME to those that know how to adapt to the change ... so it's just survival of the fittest if you ask me ... #Adaptordie

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952 said:because it's what you want to see.

it is not what i want to see, it is what i see and experienced first hand.

I don't see why you would conclude it encourages bigger groups ... harder to kill players are more likely to make smaller groups and venture on their own.

unfortunately there is less and less roamers and bigger and bigger bus. to the point of some servers only creating one big bus and a few lost players wandering the land.of course WvW guilds do create smaller groups when they raid. and by doing so we did felt the changes against bigger bus.right now reducing damage have the exact opposite effect as players will feel safer in the bus while having a harder time when alone because they can't cheese as much as before and so not kill when they would before.fun fact: there is still some builds that allow to kill in few seconds. like soulbeast have access to enough temporary damage boost to achieve that. but against a bus? retaliation will kill you.

[God.2708]

God who started using the term boonballing? No it wasn't me. Such an obnoxious stupid term. People have been running around in big blobs trying to maximize boon uptime since the game started, it's what let RG crush the competition at the game start. It is completely irrelevant to damage dealt, and quite frankly if you go and look at the prior patch I think you'll find that relevant boons (namely might and protection) got reduced just as much if not more than damage did.

Damage levels are pretty easily measurable. It should take a ratio of ~ 3:1 assuming equal conditions for the group to get destroyed (30%+ players killed). This is actually about where it is now. Prior to the Feb patch it was closer to a 1.5:1.

Of course numbers favor the larger group. That's what happens in a game mode where the only motivator is killing other players. You do the things that results in killing people the easiest, which is to have more red circles. Adjusting damage won't change that. It didn't prior to the patch. It didn't in 2012 when the game first started. The only thing that directly impacts that is target caps on skills, and people keep wanting siege nerfed, and classes shouldn't have higher target caps than they do.

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:it is not what i want to see, it is what i see and experienced first hand.

What you experience and see is not the whole picture for sure. If your conclusion is SIMPLY based on your own experiences, it's certainly deficient.

@"Obtena.7952" said:unfortunately there is less and less roamers and bigger and bigger bus.

OK even if that's true you can't conclude that's because players are harder kill. Just because two things happen together doesn't mean they are related. Even the idea that there are less roamers and bigger zergs is questionable ... what is that based on?

What we have here is a case of "I believe what I want based on what I see". That's not reasonable.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@"Obtena.7952" said:

What you experience and see is not the whole picture for sure. If your conclusion is SIMPLY based on your own experiences, it's certainly deficient.

OK even if that's true you can't conclude that's because players are harder kill. Just because two things happen together doesn't mean they are related. Even the idea that there are less roamers and bigger zergs is questionable ... what is that based on?

What we have here is a case of "I believe what I want based on what I see". That's not reasonable.

at this point one could assume you are trolling.i have enough hours in WvW to have my own opinions. of course some people will agree and other wont. that is irrelevant since those who will agree are mostly duelers, roamers or players that don't often or like playing i large bus. and at the same time the ones who will mostly disagree with me are players who moslty plays in bus.i am not here to try and prove my point by using numbers but arguments.roaming and such dying in profite of bus is something that started to happens years ago, way before the overall damage nerf. i was just showing you that this trend isn't changing and that this overall damage reduce didn't changed a thing about that. so it didn't made WvW better.

i have already told you all my arguments so far and i may just repeat myself at this point. feel free to play more WvW without following map bus, ask WvW players what they think about all this and not just those who follow bus all day, try and base your arguments on your own experience and others instead of assuming what WvW is (not should be) just by reading what the gamemode is all about.

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:

What you experience and see is not the whole picture for sure. If your conclusion is SIMPLY based on your own experiences, it's certainly deficient.

OK even if that's true you can't conclude that's because players are harder kill. Just because two things happen together doesn't mean they are related. Even the idea that there are less roamers and bigger zergs is questionable ... what is that based on?

What we have here is a case of "I believe what I want based on what I see". That's not reasonable.

at this point one could assume you are trolling.

You could, but it would be smarter if you didn't. I'm asking you to explain how you concluded people that are harder to kill results in bigger zergs. You 'seeing' it doesn't make sense. I'm not asking you for numbers but even just thinking about it, that relationship between increasing zerg size with harder to kill players doesn't make sense. There is no assumption in my thinking; harder to kill players encourages strategic play. It's easy to see that's true because if you take the difficulty to kill players to absurd levels, WvW would ONLY be a strategic game ... but you didn't do that, you just assumed everything you think is correct and the change is 'bad'.

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952 said:

You could, but it would be smarter if you didn't. I'm asking you to explain how you concluded people that are harder to kill results in bigger zergs. You 'seeing' it doesn't make sense. I'm not asking you for numbers but even just thinking about it, that relationship between increasing zerg size with harder to kill players doesn't make sense. There is no assumption in my thinking; harder to kill players encourages strategic play. It's easy to see that's true because if you take the difficulty to kill players to absurd levels, WvW would ONLY be a strategic game ... but you didn't do that, you just assumed everything you think is correct and the change is 'bad'.

your assumption is false and by saying that you are just ignoring all the arguments i threw at you in our several days long discussion.also this change don't directly incite players to play bus but make it harder to small groups or roamers to deal with a bus or larger group than them which in the end benefit the bus or the larger group.you are only looking at the damage reduction and not at the rest.downedstate are a bit longer to finish with dps. harder to 1v2 because it takes a bit longer to kill thus leaving room for a +1 or not being able to deal with downstate properly.it takes even longer to kill a player under protection, stab and regen. (boonball, remember?)bunker builds will be even more bunkier.bunker meta is fucking boring and that's part of what killed gw2 ESL.

the question is, why are you so adament on what WvW should be when i, a WvW player (yes that is the gw2 gamemode i play the most), see things very differently than you while you, doesn't seem like a WvW player as you don't seem to understand WvW current problems.i repeat myself but, your ideal WvW with only bus running around to cap everything while avoiding over bus to take the most structures was on EOTM map, and it is dead now. keep that in mind. when WvW will become as interesting as PvE it will die for good.

you know, smallscale fight with small groups vs small groups kinda benefit from less overall damage. even 1v1 are more fun that way. the problem is the outnumbered situation (which happens alot.) 1v2... 10 v 20... small group vs bus... and this si not only a problem because of population difference between server but also becasue you kill any fight strategy. just run the meta build, bunker down and let the number do the damage. it is super effective.but yeah, for you WvW is not about fight but about territory control. which wont happens if there is no fights. like i said, every games that have this WvW setup is all about fights, with territory control as a pretext to get fights. kill fights and you will have only PvE players playing WvW.see? i am repeating myself. you should speak about that to other people than me see what they think about all this (again, repeating myself.)i am but one voice. seek the others and come back to me. we will see if you will have the same opinion then.

[Obtena.7952]

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

You could, but it would be smarter if you didn't. I'm asking you to explain how you concluded people that are harder to kill results in bigger zergs. You 'seeing' it doesn't make sense. I'm not asking you for numbers but even just thinking about it, that relationship between increasing zerg size with harder to kill players doesn't make sense. There is no assumption in my thinking; harder to kill players encourages strategic play. It's easy to see that's true because if you take the difficulty to kill players to absurd levels, WvW would ONLY be a strategic game ... but you didn't do that, you just assumed everything you think is correct and the change is 'bad'.

your assumption is false

Except there isn't an assumption there. But if you actually think there is one and it's wrong ... you should take care to explain why you think so. I don't even know what 'assumption' you are referring to so it's impossible for me to respond to that. Not too much to ask for some honesty and discussion in good faith.

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:the question is, why are you so adament on what WvW should be when i, a WvW player (yes that is the gw2 gamemode i play the most), see things very differently than you while you, doesn't seem like a WvW player as you don't seem to understand WvW current problems.

This discussion isn't about what I think vs. what you think ... nor does it have anything to do with your attempt to show your thoughts on the matter are more relevant because of your self-proclaimed expertise in WvW over your perceived level of mine; don't even try that. It's about what you want it to be vs. what it is. You might not like it but WvW has intended strategic play. The changes encourage that aspect of the gamemode, regardless of what your 'expertise' tells you ... and that's NOT bad because that strategic element is what differentiates it from just being PVP. You have chosen to ignore that to make your argument ... that's contrived.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see Anet's next change in WvW because in case you didn't notice ... LOTS of changes in WvW have moved it in this strategic play direction. I urge you think about that.

[duillyn.2697]

its frustrating

Edited April 30, 2022 by duillyn.2697

[ledernierrempart.6871]

@Obtena.7952

you can't see out of the box.WvW HAD intended strategic play. but each patch leads to the destruction of diversity for the sake of being more (new?) player friendly.you have now WvW players wanting to just follow their beloved commander without the annoyance of getting killed by gankers... in a mass pvp environment.you want a dumbed down WvW.nerfing overall damage (without any other rework on boons, downedstate etc... blablabla...read my precedent posts) encourage nothing but more bus fights which are the most braindead fights of any fights you could have in WvW.

PvP? so a game mode that actively promote point capping to win the match and get better reward which in turns promote bunkering down points is more of a player fighting each others gamemode for you than a WvW were you actually attack and defend castles with siege engines and go 80v80v80 where winning or loosing because of territory control gives actually no reward is less about fighting and more about how to take over the map to earn more points? is WvW a PvE map to you?

let actually WvW players decide what they would actually want for their gamemode instead of, you, not a WvW player, pushing your ideals or understanding onto us.but hey, the more WvW veteran leave WvW the more it will be filled with WvW wanabee PvE players. it is by no means an insult. what i am saying is that i feel like WvW is getting changed for the PvE croud to accomodate better to this gamemode so that WvW would actually attract them into playing WvW. which in turn make them the bigger voice in changing WvW into what they like most which is, what i fear, not really what us, old WvW players or those who came there to fight, really wanted or expected when playing WvW.you can be a good example of that. your understanding of WvW is limited to its description, like you would read a raid strat or an event objective and do exactly what you are told to. because it is how the event or the raid is meant to be played. you have a very PvE mindset. (not to be taken as an insult. just a way of thinking)if i follow your thoughts, duels should not exist in WvW. it is an abberation that does not fit into the rules of WvW right?don't worry, duels are dying too.

mark my words, promoting bus in WvW over anything else will transform WvW into EOTM.i will let at your own discretion the luxury to interpret that as you want.