Israel.7056

All of us on SoS are really confused to tell the truth. We thought that if we power bottomed for BG and 3.5v2'd red every week that we would win t1 eventually. It turns out we actually needed to **team up with red AGAINST BG to win**. So obvious now when you think about it oh well. Totally down to power bottom for JQ now though they look big and strong.

Yeah join TW

Yes if Blackgate doesn't win it's dead

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

>Siege vs players is secondary - you cant use siege vs players as effectivly if enemies are inside the objective to fight you because they where actually able to get in in the first place.

Um yes you can??

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

What is an argument trap? You said that equal numbers defenders should win so I'm trying to figure out exactly how many more attackers than defenders there should be before the odds should go in the attacker's favor. 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1? How skewed in favor of defense do you think the game should be?

Let's assume for the sake of this hypothetical that both sides are equally skilled.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

> > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > > >Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

> > > >

> > > > How much of a numbers advantage should attackers need?

> > > >

> > > > How much of a crutch should siege be able to provide defenders?

> > > >

> > >

> > > One need to look at entirety than one single perspective. AC for example has not been buffed since 2013, elsewhere team sustain has improved since than Furthermore, shield generator was introduced with capability to negate it. Plainly put, ac has become less effective over the years.

> > >

> > > From classes balance perspective. Compare to past, it is not that easy to fight 1:2 ratio anymore, let alone say 1:3.

> > >

> > > In this circumstance, it is quite easy to point finger at siege since it become decisive factor that affect the outcome for whoever holding it. However, again, one should not forget that siege damage (other than cata now scale with power) has not been buffed since 2013 while team sustains have improved since than. Thus, it is correct to say that siege itself is fairly balanced.

> > >

> > > Again, as mentioned previously, if one really want to pinpoint a clear unfair advantage that defender has, that will be the stats boost from claim buff. These stats simply can means harder to kill while doing more damage. Siege itself is fairly balance and contradicting to many wishes, I believe treb need to be adjusted to scaled increasingly with power as well.

> >

> > You didn't really answer either question in my view.

>

> I already answered it, siege is fairly balanced. You are looking for otherwise.

No you didn't. I asked you how much of a numbers advantage attackers should need to have in order to be able to take something. I asked you exactly how much of an equalizer siege should be in your view. You told me claim buffs are op. This is not an answer to my question.

Lol do you main deadeye in WvW?

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > >Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

> >

> > How much of a numbers advantage should attackers need?

> >

> > How much of a crutch should siege be able to provide defenders?

> >

>

> One need to look at entirety than one single perspective. AC for example has not been buffed since 2013, elsewhere team sustain has improved since than Furthermore, shield generator was introduced with capability to negate it. Plainly put, ac has become less effective over the years.

>

> From classes balance perspective. Compare to past, it is not that easy to fight 1:2 ratio anymore, let alone say 1:3.

>

> In this circumstance, it is quite easy to point finger at siege since it become decisive factor that affect the outcome for whoever holding it. However, again, one should not forget that siege damage (other than cata now scale with power) has not been buffed since 2013 while team sustains have improved since than. Thus, it is correct to say that siege itself is fairly balanced.

>

> Again, as mentioned previously, if one really want to pinpoint a clear unfair advantage that defender has, that will be the stats boost from claim buff. These stats simply can means harder to kill while doing more damage. Siege itself is fairly balance and contradicting to many wishes, I believe treb need to be adjusted to scaled increasingly with power as well.

You didn't really answer either question in my view.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

>Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

How much of a numbers advantage should attackers need?

How much of a crutch should siege be able to provide defenders?

The 5v25 hypothetical is a useful red herring because it only tacitly concedes the larger arguments around siege being too strong while simultaneously attempting to refocus the discussion around a quasi impossible scenario which is supposed to make us feel sympathy for the defenders. Why don't we talk about 25v25? Or 40v40? Those are more realistic scenarios. We don't talk about those scenarios because everyone knows those outcomes from experience if the defenders decide to build a ton of defensive siege. You get a "long siege" and very few people actually enjoy those.

The other useful red herring is always something to the effect of "well have you tried attacking more than one place at once?" or "if you build enough rams really fast defensive siege isn't an issue and you can get to lords room without a serious fight." Both again tacitly concede the larger issue of defensive siege being too strong because the fundamental assertions are something like "the best way to deal with siege is to not deal with siege" but they attempt to redirect the conversation towards criticizing the attackers tactics as if attacking a structure head on with a zerg looking to fight something is just for morons who don't understand the game. But if the two best ways of taking stuff involve tactics that are designed to **circumvent enemy defenses and avoid a fight** then defensive siege is clearly too strong.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> 5 can't really stop 25, is just a deterrence. Also, you assume that the children will grow up to have same mentality as the adults that just use only siege. As for developing skills, I think those that overwhelm others would be less likely to further their skills than those that got overwhelmed. With those said, your issue is still with fraction A.

It depends on a lot of variables but generally speaking 10-15 can shut down 25-40 at most major objectives if they know what they're doing. 25+ can stall out a map q if they understand how to use defensive siege properly.

My issue is with siege. It just so happens that on this particular issue C and A are largely indistinguishable in terms of playstyle so we can't talk about nerfing siege without effecting them both.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> What mentioned as children are non-stacked servers where filled with many fresh players since those servers are normally open for freshies to join unlike stacked servers that historically stacked upon over and over again while closed from time to time due to overpopulation. This is not comparison to your group of people who just want to siege since you particularly mentioned T1.

>

> Your issue is with the first fraction that do whatever it takes to win, that is your source of problem since you mentioned there is certain T1 server. I am sure they fight better than fresh blood.

>

> You entire basis is base on some bad sheeps and a revision that will condemn all other servers that can be outpopulated from time to time. Pretty much the same mentality why people kept on opposing blowing up servers since years ago.

My primary contention is that the tools the "children" use to "prevent being overwhelmed" are the same tools that "fraction A" uses to win by "any means necessary." If it can be used by 5 to defend against 25, which is the usual canard, then it can also be used by 50 to defend against another 50.

My secondary contention is that the tools that the "children" use to "prevent from being overwhelmed" also prevents them from developing any real skill at the game which further exacerbates the "skill gap." It keeps them "children" because it's a safety net that catches them when they fall. As the "skill gap" widens it becomes harder and harder for the "children" to ever feel like they can catch up so it creates a feedback loop whereby the bad players get worse and the good players get better.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

> > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > > > The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

> > > > >

> > > > > The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

> > > >

> > > > So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

> > >

> > > Continuing sophistry doesn't win you argument, you know?

> >

> > So you concede the point?

>

> If fallacy is how you win an argument, then sure. I have no interest to deal with people who just want to win for the sake of winning.

"One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale."

Explicitly states that there is a group of players who fall into neither fraction A or B who you compare to "children" who either don't know how to win or lack the will to win. I'm literally just restating your premise.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> This is how wvw will continue on with siege... “Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.”... This thread is about revisions to siege, not revisions to change wvw into a glorified spvp experience that you’re hoping to achieve.

>

He can always change his mind. Anyways none of the suggestions I made would make siege useless.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

> > >

> > > The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

> > >

> > > Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

> >

> > So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

>

> Continuing sophistry doesn't win you argument, you know?

So you concede the point?

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

>

> The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

>

> Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> I’ve provided much more rational input than you have. You want to argue that wvw should be more fight based to determine outcomes, but wvw was designed to be a multi layered combat and capture objective experience. You’re trying to impose your fight club mentality to change the whole mode into more of a structured pvp environment. No, that’s not how it’s gonna go... You don’t grasp RvR, you want “fair fights” and think players who smartly smash your zerg sitting at a door with siege “unfair” and cowardly... Instead of complaining about enemy siege, get better at taking a defender structure and don’t expect the devs to hand you your victories just because you were out played and our smarted.

>

> I’ve ran with the top gw2 havoc/roamer guild and your trying to educate me about “fights”. You try to tell me I don’t understand how wvw functions, yet I have a far better understanding of how the mode was designed... and here you bring up “overwatch” as some example... You want fair fights then go to spvp.

Just because you tagged along behind a roaming guild or followed a commander once doesn't mean you know anything about fighting. Anyone can do that.

All you've said to me so far is "this is the way it is and has been so this is how it must be." That is not a reasonable argument and it has no place in a suggestions thread of all places.

We all know how it is and has been you don't need to tell us that. This is a thread where we talk about how it **COULD BE**. The game **COULD BE** anything the devs **WANT IT TO BE**. It doesn't have to be like it is or has been. It doesn't have to be like any other RvR game that is or ever was or ever will be.

We also don't have to accept cowardly and unfair behavior as if it's a given. It can also be changed. Change the rules of the game and you change the way the game is played.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > Did you not read? It is because they already tried to fight and couldn't win. Or are you in denial that stacking is not primary cause for a lot of issues? Is it because you are one of the stackers?

> >

> > You're incredibly biased because you're on HoD so if a server has even 5 good players out of 100 you're going to consider that a "stacked" server.

> >

> > But how many times did this hypothetical zerg try the fight before they decided they couldn't win straight up and they needed to build acs? Once? Twice?

> >

> > What if I told you that there's a certain t1 server that won't even try fights most of the time they usually just run into the objective and immediately start building siege?

> >

> > You're making excuses for having this enormous safety net in the game that players can rely on to carry them through fights. Is it because you don't usually win fights straight up yourself?

> >

>

> People stack for various reasons, ultimately, they have a common purpose and that is to win. So, it is still issues caused by the stackers. You are making justification on a so-called solution to a problem that only caused by the stackers, nothing to do with core of the game. Why not for once, stop stacking? Of course, to get people to stop stacking is a lot of work but it is the ultimate solution to your suppose problem.

But why is everyone not equally good at the game? Why are some people better and some people worse? Is it just coincidence? No clearly not.

Everyone on every server wants to win fights but not everyone is actually good enough to do it. There are only two things anyone has to do to get better at fighting: practice and contemplative reflection. Siege lets players skip practice so they never improve and over time the people who do practice a lot outpace everyone who hasn't and you end up with massive disparities in ability. It's no coincidence that all the best players come from GvG guilds.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> >

> > > Your arguments would be stronger without all the assumptions... Just because I primarily roamed solo or with my guild, doesn’t mean I’ve not joined in with zergs... or had to defend a structure... or attacked a structure... or understand how wvw works.

> > >

> > > Great! Now you are starting to realize there are multiple ways to play this mode and participate! It doesn’t matter whether you feel a certain playstyle or tactic is unfair, what matters is that all players are allowed to use whatever tools and legal tactics they can to win a fight, defend a structure, capture a structure... Siege play is an intergal part of the make up of wvw, so you’re just going to have to accept that, and learn to work with them and around them. Ben’s comment to reinforce my point... “One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.”

> > >

> > >

> > > WvW is a Realm vs Realm mode that drew inspiration from Dark Age of Camelot. Better comparisons would be DAoC, ESO, Crowfall, CU...

> >

> > Yeah right. "I joined a zerg once." Lol ok sure you did.

> >

> > Siege is unfair. That's the whole point of it. It's explicitly designed to be unfair. No player skill in the game has a 50 target cap and can be fired safely behind a wall from 2k range. But siege is also incredibly unfun. It slows the game down and it serves as an easy out for players who can't fight. Ben hasn't told us what he means by making siege "useless." My suggestions would keep siege in the game but make fighting much more important at the same time. There would still be rams and catas and acs and cannons and mortars for people to sit on although I would seriously tone down those as well.

> >

> > The main inspiration was probably DAOC because ESO came out after GW2 and Crowfall and CU haven't even been released.

> >

> > But so what? It doesn't matter what WvW initially drew inspiration from it doesn't have to be that way now and obviously Anet realizes that which is why they're thinking of making changes to the game mode and if Anet actually wants to differentiate their product in this market and take advantage of this massive market of players who just want to fight other players they will want to consider making this game the game that actually focuses on fighting rather than siege warfare.

>

> You don’t seem interested in having a conversation, just arguing, but I’ll give you one last benefit of the doubt...

>

> “Siege is unfair”... then go spend your time in Spvp. Don’t complain about a mode that has seige built in to be an integral part of the mode... Ben already established that siege isn’t going anywhere, so get use to it. If you want more fair and balanced fights then it’s available to you with the click of a button in the heart of the mists. WvW is an RvR mode, it’s a “mist war”, not a glorified “fight club” mode where enemies are suppose to play the way you want them to play.

>

> The games I mentioned are RvR tailored games, and are more appropriate comparisons to wvw. Unlike the “overwatch” comparison you are trying to make with wvw... You don’t seem to grasp the “medieval” Realm vs Realm vs Realm concept very well.

>

> Because missed the previous edit-

>

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

>

> Under “Trivia”

>

> “The inspiration for World versus World came from Dark Age of Camelot's realm vs. realm battles.”

>

> Under “Siege weapons”

>

> “Siege Weapons are environmental weapons that can be built to accomplish a particular purpose. For instance, arrow carts and cannons are very effective against clustered enemies, ballistae at destroying enemy siege equipment, trebuchets for breaking down doors and walls, and shield generators to disrupt enemy movement and support allies.”

>

> Additional link to siege weapons info...

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weapon

>

> “Siege weapons are usually static environmental weapons used in WvW. They are fixed to their build site location, except for siege golems (which can be moved). These weapons can only be used by the team that created them; opponents can attack (and damage) the objects. Important for both offense and defense in World versus World combat, Siege weapons are often the key to winning an otherwise impossible battle.”

You're just making a nonsensical argument.

They're clearly thinking of making changes to siege otherwise Ben wouldn't have made this thread.

You're arguing about why things shouldn't change in a thread made by a dev looking for suggestions on how to change things....

We don't have to accept anything as it is or has been. This is a video game it can always be changed. WvW can be anything the devs want it to be.

Just because this game drew initial inspiration from DAOC doesn't mean it can't draw inspiration now from Overwatch. There's absolutely nothing preventing that except developer whims.

They're asking for suggestions and so my suggestion is to radically tone down siege. You're trying to argue that because it has been a certain way that it must continue to be that way. That's a very silly argument to be making particularly in a thread of this kind.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Your arguments would be stronger without all the assumptions... Just because I primarily roamed solo or with my guild, doesn’t mean I’ve not joined in with zergs... or had to defend a structure... or attacked a structure... or understand how wvw works.

>

> Great! Now you are starting to realize there are multiple ways to play this mode and participate! It doesn’t matter whether you feel a certain playstyle or tactic is unfair, what matters is that all players are allowed to use whatever tools and legal tactics they can to win a fight, defend a structure, capture a structure... Siege play is an intergal part of the make up of wvw, so you’re just going to have to accept that, and learn to work with them and around them. Ben’s comment to reinforce my point... “One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.”

>

>

> WvW is a Realm vs Realm mode that drew inspiration from Dark Age of Camelot. Better comparisons would be DAoC, ESO, Crowfall, CU...

Yeah right. "I joined a zerg once." Lol ok sure you did.

Siege is unfair. That's the whole point of it. It's explicitly designed to be unfair. No player skill in the game has a 50 target cap and can be fired safely behind a wall from 2k range. But siege is also incredibly unfun. It slows the game down and it serves as an easy out for players who can't fight. Ben hasn't told us what he means by making siege "useless." My suggestions would keep siege in the game but make fighting much more important at the same time. There would still be rams and catas and acs and cannons and mortars for people to sit on although I would seriously tone down those as well.

The main inspiration was probably DAOC because ESO came out after GW2 and Crowfall and CU haven't even been released.

But so what? It doesn't matter what WvW initially drew inspiration from it doesn't have to be that way now and obviously Anet realizes that which is why they're thinking of making changes to the game mode and if Anet actually wants to differentiate their product in this market and take advantage of this massive market of players who just want to fight other players they will want to consider making this game the game that actually focuses on fighting rather than siege warfare.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> Did you not read? It is because they already tried to fight and couldn't win. Or are you in denial that stacking is not primary cause for a lot of issues? Is it because you are one of the stackers?

You're incredibly biased because you're on HoD so if a server has even 5 good players out of 100 you're going to consider that a "stacked" server.

But how many times did this hypothetical zerg try the fight before they decided they couldn't win straight up and they needed to build acs? Once? Twice?

What if I told you that there's a certain t1 server that won't even try fights most of the time they usually just run into the objective and immediately start building siege?

You're making excuses for having this enormous safety net in the game that players can rely on to carry them through fights. Is it because you don't usually win fights straight up yourself?

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Umm... I’m a roamer, so let’s stop with the assumptions.

>

> If anyone is having this much trouble with siege then they need to make some personal improvements and changes.

>

> Also, expand your mind so you understand there are multiple ways to play wvw, and that’s the way this Realm vs Realm mode was designed... Complete with siege, structures, fights, tactics... with an objective to score points in the board for your team. There is no right or wrong way to play wvw, there is only what we are limited to by design and intent... You don’t like players sieging up then fine, but there is more to wvw than just “come out and fight”, and don’t expect players to play the way you want them to play... This is a sand box mode, where players can choose what they want to do while in wvw and that’s how it goes... Wrap some thoughts around all that before you make any more assumptions and reply.

If you really are a roamer then no one has any real reason to take you seriously when you talk about siege. You don't deal with siege, you have no place commenting on it. You're just pontificating about a hypothetical that you don't actually have any experience with.

It'd be like me trying to talk about PvE raids even though I've never done one.

If you claim to accept the premise that all ways of playing are equally valid and desirable then I can see where your radical nonjudgmental attitude comes from but again there's no reason for me to take you seriously. It's a terrible attitude and it's obviously not good for the game.

I accept that there are multiple ways to play this game mode but clearly the most popular way to structure any game is around fighting other players. All of the most popular games in the world right now; Fortnite, PUBG, Overwatch etc are pvp focused. So if Anet wants to try to stay in line with current market trends they need to seriously reconsider how siege gets in the way of fights. Tone down the siege and all the defensive nonsense, make the game mode more fast paced and pvp oriented and maybe WvW will stop losing players to other games that give them what they actually want.

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"elitegamerz.4965" said:

>

> > Overall I just thing everything in WvW is "too fast". Spvp is where quick decaps and fast outplays are meant to thrive. WvW is suppose to be a week long three way war. Grand strategy and planning should reign king here. There should be a constant weighing of risk/reward. You want to build an army of golems to rush smc? Alright, but it should take a large amount of precious supply. If you succeed you gain a huge tactical advantage, but if you fail your keeps and towers are left starved of supply and

> > vulnerable to attack. As of right now there isn't any risk for building anything really.

>

> Uhmm. It takes literally HOURS to take a defended t3 keep. And building an army of golems drains your keep, smc, or both. How long do you think the siege portion of a fight should take? And how much supply?

Make it super realistic and make one wall take days to bring down.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > I consider that as a balance issue than a siege issue. The question is are both server stacked server or only one of them is stacked? This can result in skill differences due to stacking. For starters, compare the two blob average wvw levels. If skill differences too great to overcome, it is natural they go for extreme measure. So what is the real solution here? Stop stacking servers so you can fight people of your own skills.

> >

> > It's a siege issue. Siege gives people an easy out if they can't win a fight legit. Take away the siege and they will have to try the fight.

>

> Unfortunately for you, siege isn’t going anywhere. Your only option is to learn how to play this mode with siege in it.

>

> You’re not going to impose the “fight club” mentality on the devs to remove siege weapons or warfare, so you have to adopt new levels of tactical gameplay for gaining objectives and winning fights... However, the devs created a mode for players such as yourself, and that’s called Structured PvP... There you can find more like-minded players and the “honorable warrior” fights that you’re looking for.

>

> Also, being able to use an array of “tools” and tactics is the beauty of sandbox gameplay. Makes wvw unpredictable, and tests critical thinking and decision making skills.

>

> GL

What if I told you that WvW is for pvp too and that there are plenty of like minded people playing WvW already? Mind blown I know.

What if I told you that fighting other players requires more critical thinking and decision making skills than building arrow carts to try to win fights? Mind blown again I'm sure.

We shall see what happens with siege, you don't know what they're open to. It's possible that they're seriously considering toning siege down. I am clearly not the only person who thinks it's a change that needs to be made.

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> I consider that as a balance issue than a siege issue. The question is are both server stacked server or only one of them is stacked? This can result in skill differences due to stacking. For starters, compare the two blob average wvw levels. If skill differences too great to overcome, it is natural they go for extreme measure. So what is the real solution here? Stop stacking servers so you can fight people of your own skills.

It's a siege issue. Siege gives people an easy out if they can't win a fight legit. Take away the siege and they will have to try the fight.