But that's the whole point. You hit people to prevent them from moving the big magnets. The small ones, you can sword spam 4-5 times instead of pushing.

I agree, the defenders should not be scot-free from having to deal with the tower mechanics. However, there is a dilemma when attackers and defenders are using the same paths: blocking the center/most-direct path not only inhibits attackers, but also inhibits defenders from getting to the flag; therefore, neither will want to use mechanics to block off paths (this is the fatal flaw the first "crystal" layout had, because blocks completely surrounded the door).

So the key is to design a layout where both attackers and defenders have an invested interest in using the mechanic because: (a) if the switch is 'on' attackers will have a slight advantage and defenders will have a slight disadvantage, and (b) if the switch is 'off' attackers have a slight disadvantage and defenders have a slight advantage.

When you have two guild of equal numbers, ultimately the primary factor of towering is the disparity in respawn distances between attackers and defenders. Basically what these new mechanics are doing is making these respawn distances a little bit dynamic.

Attacker/defender respawn distance to both the flagroom door and the switch mechanic are important to balance. If there is a large difference in respawn distance to the flag, defenders will easily keep the fort. Likewise, if the switch mechanic is very close to the defender respawn, then defenders will have a strong control over the switch. If the switch mechanic is very close the the attacker respawn, then attackers will have a strong control over the switch.


-----


Now speaking in a larger context as far as NGS™ is concerned, and a little speculation about how the stuff tested in BoxFort™ might be used;