Israel.7056

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> why do anti keep/tower/siege defender people simply not go play PvP since that is what they clearly want

>

> nerfing siege shouldnt even be considered until player aoe is toned down, it is already near impossible to defend against 300-600 radius aoe pulls and ele+necro aoe spam alone to begin with

PvP is only ever 5v5 I like the dynamic scaling of fights in WvW.

The second part of your post is a l2p issue imo.

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

> > >

> > > Siege is used to defend?

> > > Oh. I thought we were building it everywhere.

> > > Inside structures.

> > > Outside structures.

> > > In front of the enemy spawn.

> > > In front of the enemy keep to shoot down their ACs :trollface:

> > > Next to two servers fighting eachother because you can't fight on your own. Better shoot them with siege for tags and rebuild as soon as they leave. High end gameplay boys.

> > >

> > > Let's remove PPK from any kills made while "siege assisted" and double PPK from kills without siege. Also, siege-assisted should probably be server based. Before players tell me that'd lead to toxicity towards siegebuilding players... Are you playing the game? Most fight servers will happily flame anyone who builds siege when they shouldn't. I know I do.

> > >

> > > I like the idea; but the amount of supply in the game at this point is absurd. It used to balance between sieging, upgrading and attacking. Now it generates WAY more quickly while also having lost half its uses; and you can get it from EOTM. Supply balance is pretty bonkers overall and fixing it would take a lot more than ACs requiring supply to shoot.

> >

> > Would depend on the cost and how many rounds one refill gave. So like if one refill cost 25 supply and gave 1 round of each type of ammunition for each cart it would be pretty tough for even a large force to make use of them for long particularly if they're building them away from a supply hut. If someone built 6 acs thats 150 supply just to fire them all each reload. Same thing for trebs ballis and catas. Cannons could require cannonballs that sort of thing. Even an 1800 supply keep would run out pretty fast. That would satisfy the people who enjoy realism and "tactical" Siege play because they would have to actually think about when and where to use the siege and it would be nice for those of us who hate siege because it would be used far more sparingly.

>

> But then you'll still get that core ranger shooting mortars as soon as ANYTHING is in range of a keep until it's supply drained. You'll still have that AFK pipfarmer shooting his treb at SM for 6 hours straight, even when sm is yours :trollface:

>

> I think it's a better suggestion than most, but truthfully anyone who talks about realism in GW2 I ignore completely cause I care for healthy game design, not roleplay aspects. I see the value of giving a downside to the use of siege; but giving downsides to using something also directly leads to griefing and more infighting in servers. Only for casual carebears to tell us we're "toxic" while they're griefing and trolling their own server without realising it. It's not good design; imo.

>

> Same for people saying damage should go up against bigger blobs. It's absurd, it only motivates us to further flame any pug that isn't contributing; making them die then jumping and sieging their corpses. It's not good game design. The game should promote players with different objectives to play together with a common goal; not the opposite.

I think it's a fair price to pay to punish siege users.

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

>

> Siege is used to defend?

> Oh. I thought we were building it everywhere.

> Inside structures.

> Outside structures.

> In front of the enemy spawn.

> In front of the enemy keep to shoot down their ACs :trollface:

> Next to two servers fighting eachother because you can't fight on your own. Better shoot them with siege for tags and rebuild as soon as they leave. High end gameplay boys.

>

> Let's remove PPK from any kills made while "siege assisted" and double PPK from kills without siege. Also, siege-assisted should probably be server based. Before players tell me that'd lead to toxicity towards siegebuilding players... Are you playing the game? Most fight servers will happily flame anyone who builds siege when they shouldn't. I know I do.

>

> I like the idea; but the amount of supply in the game at this point is absurd. It used to balance between sieging, upgrading and attacking. Now it generates WAY more quickly while also having lost half its uses; and you can get it from EOTM. Supply balance is pretty bonkers overall and fixing it would take a lot more than ACs requiring supply to shoot.

Would depend on the cost and how many rounds one refill gave. So like if one refill cost 25 supply and gave 1 round of each type of ammunition for each cart it would be pretty tough for even a large force to make use of them for long particularly if they're building them away from a supply hut. If someone built 6 acs thats 150 supply just to fire them all each reload. Same thing for trebs ballis and catas. Cannons could require cannonballs that sort of thing. Even an 1800 supply keep would run out pretty fast. That would satisfy the people who enjoy realism and "tactical" Siege play because they would have to actually think about when and where to use the siege and it would be nice for those of us who hate siege because it would be used far more sparingly.

Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> Lol why do you all insist on insulting players that play differently than you?

Because even though I subscribe to the subjective theory of value when it comes to economics I'm really some thing of an absolutist when it comes to ethics.

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > i have not seen any group from eu to na not use ac. you must be the .00001 percent. and you calling all of this group taking, according to you, the cowards path.

> > >

> > > not smart.

> >

> > I am the .00001 percent then. What you're advocating isn't smart if the goal is to actually be good at the game.

>

> Wich is a very good thing for you....

>

> But people dont care how they will win, even if 30+(even 60) vs 10 its skilled for most of the gw2 players those 30+ win agaisnt the 10.

> Israel we have been in several (actually alot if not the majorly of them) situations where those 30+ even pull siege against the 10'ish, so it is a matter of learn and adapt situation with a bit of starting payback with siege cause they also will, we just had to adapt and make it faster then enemy does.

>

> It is like a bit of 1 vs 1 gameplay, powercreep targets before he powercreep you.

> Gw2 isnt about balanced fights nor skilled gameplay, it rewards players by being lame.

>

The game has a fair bit of what some call "cheese" that doesn't excuse building siege to try to win fights and I think you know that.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> i think that best applies to you. =)

Well at least you're on NSP.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> i think thats a story you tell your opponents so they will come out and fight at your own terms.

>

> a nice bait for the novice player. a smart com would be calm and think and use his own plan to counter yours. he would either fight if it suits the group, siege, or bail. in short, if you have a lead a troop in service, you would know.

>

> i can respect the idea though. but to call those who do something else as coward is cowardice

>

Lol ok whatever you need to tell yourself.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > i have not seen any group from eu to na not use ac. you must be the .00001 percent. and you calling all of this group taking, according to you, the cowards path.

> > >

> > > not smart.

> >

> > I am the .00001 percent then. What you're advocating isn't smart if the goal is to actually be good at the game.

>

> my advocay of players learning to play the game mechanics, which include knowing when to fight, not to fight, siege, not to siege, which can be summed up as get good at the game not smart?

>

> now i see the problem. you do not read what i write. you imagine a certain Sov doing something you imagine and instead of addressing the things i post, you respond based on that idea.

>

It depends on your goal as a player and more generally as a guild. If the goal is just to win and/or defend objectives by any means necessary and you don't care about actually trying to improve as a player or as a guild then sure use siege run from fights whatever. But if your goal is to actually be an excellent player/guild then always try the fight legit even if you know the odds are terrible and never ever build or use siege. It's a tough road but the coward's path leads only to mediocrity. If you're willing to accept mediocrity then do whatever but understand the price you're paying.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> i have not seen any group from eu to na not use ac. you must be the .00001 percent. and you calling all of this group taking, according to you, the cowards path.

>

> not smart.

I am the .00001 percent then. What you're advocating isn't smart if the goal is to actually be good at the game.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"iKeostuKen.2738" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > here's like a sample raid of what we do. it's 2x speed and 4 panels. it will not show a smooth gameplay but it's fun. in the end, the thing that wiped our team was that guy on the tower hitting us with ac. in a way if he did not do it, we'd be farming all day.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > siege works. people got to use what's available.

> > > > >

> > > > > Just because you can do some thing doesn't mean you should

> > > >

> > > > not a smart reason not to.

> > >

> > > Yes it is. You compromise your potential as a player when you use shortcuts and crutches to win. In the short term you might win the fight but in the long run the players who don't use shortcuts and crutches will be better than you. It's not worth the price.

> > >

> > > Just because you can do something to win doesn't mean you should. Win legit or lose with honor.

> >

> > Thats what everyone in this game does though. The ones that dont rely on crutch dont run meta builds.

>

> he replied with the wrong idea in mind. i ask you.

>

> you have 7 guys, there's a blob outside. do you do the supposedly honorable thing and jump 50 players?

>

> would be fun. but, you die. or disable, repair walls, delay them as possible until back up comes?

>

>

Yes I don't build acs or play with people who will build acs that's the coward's path.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > >

> > >

> > > here's like a sample raid of what we do. it's 2x speed and 4 panels. it will not show a smooth gameplay but it's fun. in the end, the thing that wiped our team was that guy on the tower hitting us with ac. in a way if he did not do it, we'd be farming all day.

> > >

> > > siege works. people got to use what's available.

> >

> > Just because you can do some thing doesn't mean you should

>

> not a smart reason not to.

Yes it is. You compromise your potential as a player when you use shortcuts and crutches to win. In the short term you might win the fight but in the long run the players who don't use shortcuts and crutches will be better than you. It's not worth the price.

Just because you can do something to win doesn't mean you should. Win legit or lose with honor.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

>

>

> here's like a sample raid of what we do. it's 2x speed and 4 panels. it will not show a smooth gameplay but it's fun. in the end, the thing that wiped our team was that guy on the tower hitting us with ac. in a way if he did not do it, we'd be farming all day.

>

> siege works. people got to use what's available.

Just because you can do some thing doesn't mean you should

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > If the enemy is a map queue try to fight it anyways don't use acs that's lame dude.

>

> The same can be said about all the overstacking servers that only fight when they have 50+ and only engage when the enemy has less than 30.

Yeah that's lame too.

If the enemy is a map queue try to fight it anyways don't use acs that's lame dude.

> @"Etria.3642" said:

> Well. Four months ago I was a druid main who knew NOTHING about wvw except that it was highly frustrating trying to guess where Kiyoshi would be leading his zerg so I could follow and get a gift of battle. I did try joining the squad but was kicked after refusing to join their discord.

>

> (I preferred teamspeak). I was also geared for pve. Then I saw that CALM(his guild) was recruiting. Whispered. They did NOT reject my poor druid. Yes they did ask I play something else and gave me choices on what. They did require discord but by then I was fed up with guessing. So now I play a boonshare chrono and am gearing a spellbreaker and firebrand.

>

> The point and why this matters? Because I've learned while following and observing that being a commander is hella stressful. People, even in the guild, only want to follow THAT commander even when he is trying to train new commanders. They want success and bags even over the long term benefit of having SEVERAL commanders. (Obviously this isn't the WHOLE guild) but a learning commander gets fewer guildies and MANY fewer pugs and that is disheartening too.

>

> I've also seen Etheri in these forums claim he'll take the newbs THEY JUST NEED to follow his rules, which apparently are pretty close to CALM's. Voice. Squad. Use correct build. If you are level 80 on the wrong class? GO LEVEL SOMETHING WANTED. I guarantee that zerg won't kick a firebrand who joins the voice com. Just the stubborn druid(or ranger or whatever) who won't.

This is the right attitude.

Lol choke ac tactics god bless.

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > > They still can. nerfing them to nothing will not create more fights.

> >

> > It will largely remove the incentive to sit on arrow carts instead of trying to fight to defend things. So in other words if people want to defend things AND they believe their best chance of doing so is attempting to fight then the incentives are pointing players in the right direction which is fighting. Right now if players want to defend things **REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBERS THE BEST OPTION IS SIEGE TURTLING**. So ofcourse everyone builds siege to defend things instead of trying to fight. This is a perverse incentive because it highly discourages fighting and highly encourages siege turtling no matter the objective no matter the numbers. **SIEGE TURTLING IS ALWAYS THE OPTIMAL STRATEGY FOR DEFENSE REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS.** Humans respond to incentives. Change the incentives and you change the way humans will play the game.

>

> Well no it will not. I have seen no increase in the willingness to fight a given battle. If a group does nto want to fight 50 v 50 now they will not do so if there no arrow carts.

>

> EOTM has little in the way of defense of structures and I do not see a lot of fights there either.

>

> As to incentives, defending a structure it might have took hours to get to level 3 is an INCENTIVE. The most fights I see are still around defending those same structures and not out in the open. The fights occur either outside those Keep walls to drive an enemy away, or inside them once a wall falls and inner or the lord being worked on. The "I get bored fighting at a castle wall or trying to get to lords so quit crowd' do NOT want a fight . They want the structure to flip as quickly as possible.

Getting people to defend an objective is not the problem, getting people to defend without just turtling inside and building siege for 4 hours is the problem. Why do people turtle objectives with siege? BECAUSE IT WORKS AND ANYONE CAN DO IT REGARDLESS OF SKILL LEVEL.

The optimal defense strategy regardless of the objective, regardless of numbers is to turtle inside and build siege for hours because the siege is extremely powerful and anyone can use it which means it takes absolutely no skill to operate any of it which means even total novices can be useful with it which means they never have to learn to actually fight other players. It is a crutch and it creates the perverse incentive that if you want to defend your stuff you are better off not fighting at all until you absolutely have to and building as much siege as possible every chance you get. If the siege was nerfed so hard that it was practically useless then people who were interested in defending objectives would have to actually fight other players to defend because sitting on siege would no longer be an option.

If you don't see why EOTM is not a valid comparison to real WvW I don't know how to help you.

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> They still can. nerfing them to nothing will not create more fights.

It will largely remove the incentive to sit on arrow carts instead of trying to fight to defend things. So in other words if people want to defend things AND they believe their best chance of doing so is attempting to fight then the incentives are pointing players in the right direction which is fighting. Right now if players want to defend things **REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBERS THE BEST OPTION IS SIEGE TURTLING**. So ofcourse everyone builds siege to defend things instead of trying to fight. This is a perverse incentive because it highly discourages fighting and highly encourages siege turtling no matter the objective no matter the numbers. **SIEGE TURTLING IS ALWAYS THE OPTIMAL STRATEGY FOR DEFENSE REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS.** Humans respond to incentives. Change the incentives and you change the way humans will play the game.

Also Victory aren't you an EU player?

> @"Victory.2879" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Reduce their damage by like 50 percent across the board. Force these siege turtles to make some friends and learn to fight or lose everything as it should be anet.

>

> It's almost like you have zero tactics, and can't deal with people who want to defend their objectives against your zone blob, and feel that there should be nothing stopping you planting rams/catapults and wiping out walls quickly, and anything that does so should be removed from the game.

>

> If the 50 man blob is really turtling in ONE objective and you are all standing there then you are failing badly in your tactics. A couple of split teams can wonder off and attack other objectives, reduce walls or supplies within other objectives, and force your enemy to have to defend more than one place.

>

> Most AC can be wiped from well placed trebs (which also drain supply) except some in lords room in the garrison - which should be very hard to take.

>

> Next you'll complain about having to build a treb as a counter...

>

> You don't seem to understand that the 'siege turtles' are the ones who have learnt to fight within the design of the game, and you just want more numbers= auto win with lots of wexp as you k train around swapping objectives.

>

>

And what's to prevent the 50 man blob from also splitting up and building more acs in two objectives rather than one?

Most acs in most objectives cannot easily be taken down with trebs but again anything offense can do defense can do as well with an advantage. Counter trebs, ballis, cannons, mortars or just people suiciding on the trebs. Ez.

Your "tactics" are rudimentary and easy to counter and nothing others haven't thought of before. Anything offense can do defense can do as well and with the added advantage of t3 walls, guild buffs, tactivators etc.

The siege turtles exploit a set of overpowered tools to keep things they have no business keeping. It is time for that to end. You can fight against this all you want but I think in the end Anet will come to their senses and nerf siege and then maybe you will have to learn how to fight people.

Or add an ammo system to rapidly drain supply from anyone who uses them. Make them pay a severe penalty for siege turtling.

Reduce their damage by like 50 percent across the board. Force these siege turtles to make some friends and learn to fight or lose everything as it should be anet.

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Arrow carts don't seem much weaker to me. Seems like the crying over the nerf was an enormous overreaction.

>

> No that is not what it tells me. It tells me that the group that felt this would lead to more open field fights were exactly wrong. Arrow Carts ARE weaker when they manned by small groups against larger but there no real difference when there a much larger defending force that can use multiples of them. This pretty well exactly what the group opposed to the nerfs were stating.

They seem to be about the same to me. We need more severe nerfs I think.

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> How easy it is to forget that we were once a vile, evil, disgusting Pugger. That once we were new to the game and had no idea what we were doing and only trying to lrn2ply nub. That we only had one level 80 character that was barely exotic'd out. That we had no ranks in WvW whatsoever. It must be nice to forget such things and just expect every player to automatically come into WvW knowing exactly what to do, having a full stable of all classes at level 80 with PoF, having full legendary equipment, and be rank 3000. It's just such a good feeling knowing that that is exactly how this game is played. That we know that everybody that logs into GW2 will have and do exactly what we need. I mean it's not like there are people out there that work an 8 hour job, come home, cook, clean, take care of kids, take online classes, do homework, help with homework, mow lawns, take out trash, etc. We all just live in our parent's basement playing GW2 on our most fastest internet and bestest computer for 16 hours a day, every day becoming the elite WvW'er we are today. Isn't it such a great feeling to be able to be toxic to those kind of players? It's great. Right?

Melodramatic nonsense and endless excuses. Am I supposed to feel pity?