Djamonja.6453 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > Mag doesn't have a BL. Mag doesn't play on anything other than EBG. > > And they aren't in T1 They were last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Djamonja.6453" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > Mag doesn't have a BL. Mag doesn't play on anything other than EBG. > > > > And they aren't in T1 > > They were last week. > Yep. And not for over a month before that. But yeah. Mag doesn't count unless it's their EBG keep or it's SMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Caliburn.1845" said: > > > > Sure, on underpopulated worlds, with gaps in coverage T3s flip all the time. It is easy to take a T3 when they have only a handful of people defending it. > > > > > > > > What we're talking about is taking T3s in the face an active opposition force of say at least 75% of the attacking force. If you want to argue that attacking is as easy as defending...there is no point in really arguing with you, you've obviously never led a large force against a competent enemy. > > > > > > > > As to hitting other targets. The response time from spawn to anywhere is generally 90 seconds or less. Unless you're fighting incompetent rabble who are defending, or you have an active third server(all too rare nowadays), your attempt to hit another target will see the same defenders above you on the wall. > > > > > > Again, a three man group consistently is able to take towers as t-2 to 3 on a T1 world during NA prime... please. > > > > > > Your doing it wrong. > > > > Proof of claim? > > It's done nightly Israel. I don't video. Take it for what it's worth. > > Rampage thinks I'm full of kitten anyway. It's all good. You seem to be suggesting that 2-3 people are taking well defended t2-t3 objectives. Is that in fact your claim or are you simply saying that 2-3 people can take an undefended objective given enough time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuyunet.8497 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Fuyunet.8497" said: > > Attack multiple points eh. Hopefully you realize most commanders aren't trying to ppt. They trying to look for fights. > > Looking for fights.... > > So.. why break open the structure? > > You think that group whether even numbers or not, that has a chance to come out to fight you under that same *in your words* overpowered AC fire, is going to stick around to fight you when the wall falls? > > Smh... They attack those structure to bring enemy zergs from other bls or bring people to those structure. To tell them where they are but why bother sending a zerg when you can just send 10 people to build ac and use all the siege inside it to repel them. Why break open the structure? Cause those zergs won't fights unless you threaten them by trying to take the T3 structure they so care about. But like I said, can't even break it open cause you just need 10 or so to repel against 50 man group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadlySynz.3471 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Fuyunet.8497" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Fuyunet.8497" said: > > > Attack multiple points eh. Hopefully you realize most commanders aren't trying to ppt. They trying to look for fights. > > > > Looking for fights.... > > > > So.. why break open the structure? > > > > You think that group whether even numbers or not, that has a chance to come out to fight you under that same *in your words* overpowered AC fire, is going to stick around to fight you when the wall falls? > > > > Smh... > > They attack those structure to bring enemy zergs from other bls or bring people to those structure. To tell them where they are but all you get is a zerg from other bls to turtle in with 10ac outside and 20 more inside + w/e other siege there are. > > Why break open the structure? Cause those zergs won't fights unless you threaten them by trying to take the T3 structure they so care about. But like I said, can't even break it open cause you just need 10 to repel against 50 man group. You don't even need 10; if 2 are already in the structure ready to go on a couple of Sup AC's it's enough to repel, even when the drop several guild rams and a couple of shield gens. This happened in SMC today, myself and someone else just happened to be on 2 AC's as a 50 squad came in, dumped their rams and shield gens, but because we were already standing right there, it was enough to wipe their rams and gens out, and killed several as well. I thought to myself, this certainly isn't right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasC.1056 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Interesting discussion we have here... Here're my two cents on the overall topic of "defended T3 keeps". Take it for what it's worth : another opinion on that. No more and no less valuable than anyone else's, and I won't show my skritt, even if you're asking it nicely. Usually, when a blob comes and attack a T3 keep in my BL, here's what happens 90% of the time : 1. They drop 5 superior catas and 3 shield generators (and sometimes AC or ballistas too). **Oddly enough, those sieges aren't such an issue in that context**. 2. Drops are _instantly_ built. 3. The fortified T3 wall falls down in usually less than 1 minute 4. The only counter a defender can use is shield generators. Impossible to go on walls because they're all painted red from scourge or eles AoE, and you get pulled to your doom by CC. Impossible to use canons or oil (who does anyway ?). Very hard to use AC's unless you're standing on the single pixel that's not a death trap. Only a few of them can be dropped in odd places. 5. Rince and repeat at 2nd wall. 6. If you try to fight the classical way, you're laglocked and condi bombed to death. I call that **the Blitzkrieg**. It's usually very effective, because they can reach lord in less than 2:30 (the event timer). Unless you're in a very reactive server, and are able to pull the tactivator, your own zerg usually doesn't have the time to come if it's in another map. Now, from my personal point of view, I don't think blob playing Blitzkrieg are looking for fights (as in "against another blob") because of how fast they're doing everything, and how laggy and bomby everything is. For something more positive, my most recent good memory of attacking a T3 keep. We were around 15 ppl, with roughly the same amount of defenders. Frontal assault was useless. 5 ppl amongst me set 2 catas to NE wall to get the attention, and the 10 others did their job southern gate. Killed their lord under their very nose. I had a lot of fun. I sincerly think everyone should be able to enjoy the game in their own way, and in WvW, it can cover lots of playstyles which have to be respected. Then, I must confess, as someone that spends more time defending than attacking, I usually note that defending against a blob is suicide, because of engine (LoS, can't shoot at the bottom of wall etc.) and walls are death traps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogrey.3891 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 too lazy to read all comments (just read the first page) so if someone else pointed the same sorry just i agree with you 1. sieges should not be easy. sieges somehow are already a joke making them more easy will lead to ktrain and nothing else. 2. historically there were cases where armies with less manpower could defeat bigger armies. so why because you have a huge blob against less people should be instant win for you? it adds a strategic point helping them win you. i know watching huge blobs doing the same sucks but let small armies have a chance after all not their fault that your huge blobs are brain dead zombies just spamming aoe and nothing else expecting to instant win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 4, 2018 Author Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Mogrey.3891" said: > too lazy to read all comments (just read the first page) so if someone else pointed the same sorry just i agree with you > > 1. sieges should not be easy. sieges somehow are already a joke making them more easy will lead to ktrain and nothing else. > > 2. historically there were cases where armies with less manpower could defeat bigger armies. so why because you have a huge blob against less people should be instant win for you? it adds a strategic point helping them win you. i know watching huge blobs doing the same sucks but let small armies have a chance after all not their fault that your huge blobs are brain dead zombies just spamming aoe and nothing else expecting to instant win. > > Still tho, look at EBG flor example in T1 the keeps never flip SMC never flips unless the server holding it is completely dead, otherwise the other dudes are just smart enough to not even try, the map is completely boring 24/7 there are enough defensive tools already in place by geographics alone, high ground terrain, choques waypoint proximity for respwns, being able to use siege from tower to take down atackers inside the keep, defense is just crazy unbalance when the defending team has a map blob sitting there just defending, sure u can treb for 2 hours and get it done, but that is precicesly the point, nobody is going to do it, no commander/guild will do that on daily basis it takes too much time for people (80% of the population) that only play a couple hours a day, siege wars are just very boring, most peopel play this game for the combat/group combat, it is the big strenght of the game, if we wanted to play long ass realistic sieges we will be playing total war strategy games or something, don't u think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasC.1056 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Rampage.7145" said: > > @"Mogrey.3891" said: > > too lazy to read all comments (just read the first page) so if someone else pointed the same sorry just i agree with you > > > > 1. sieges should not be easy. sieges somehow are already a joke making them more easy will lead to ktrain and nothing else. > > > > 2. historically there were cases where armies with less manpower could defeat bigger armies. so why because you have a huge blob against less people should be instant win for you? it adds a strategic point helping them win you. i know watching huge blobs doing the same sucks but let small armies have a chance after all not their fault that your huge blobs are brain dead zombies just spamming aoe and nothing else expecting to instant win. > > > > > > Still tho, look at EBG flor example in T1 the keeps never flip SMC never flips unless the server holding it is completely dead, otherwise the other dudes are just smart enough to not even try, the map is completely boring 24/7 there are enough defensive tools already in place by geographics alone, high ground terrain, choques waypoint proximity for respwns, being able to use siege from tower to take down atackers inside the keep, defense is just crazy unbalance when the defending team has a map blob sitting there just defending, sure u can treb for 2 hours and get it done, but that is precicesly the point, nobody is going to do it, no commander/guild will do that on daily basis it takes too much time for people (80% of the population) that only play a couple hours a day, siege wars are just very boring, most peopel play this game for the combat/group combat, it is the big strenght of the game, if we wanted to play long kitten realistic sieges we will be playing total war strategy games or something, don't u think? I understand the problem, and I empathize (eventhough I never set foot in EBG for reasons). Still, I'm wondering about something. When I read carefully what you're saying, I feel like the biggest complain is, roughly, _"players are too lazy to come out and fight."_ Which is why they want to play it safe, instead of running out for a more uncertain fight. Now, if you remove that specific part, **how can you be sure they just will bother more, come out and fight, instead of just letting the T3-whatever flip ?** I'm not saying it will happen, nor am I wishing for that, but usually, in a game context, players won't be bothered to do something without a good reason. And a good fight is obviously **not** a good reason, otherwise they'd **already** go out and look for it. I respect your enthusiasm, but I also advise you not to expect too much from other players. This is why I suggested the world restructuration to take into account one's ambitions for WvW, so that enthusiastic comms like you are can gather and enjoy large scale battles, and siege architects can play that fashion if they please :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > Interesting discussion we have here... > > Here're my two cents on the overall topic of "defended T3 keeps". Take it for what it's worth : another opinion on that. No more and no less valuable than anyone else's, and I won't show my skritt, even if you're asking it nicely. > > Usually, when a blob comes and attack a T3 keep in my BL, here's what happens 90% of the time : > 1. They drop 5 superior catas and 3 shield generators (and sometimes AC or ballistas too). **Oddly enough, those sieges aren't such an issue in that context**. > 2. Drops are _instantly_ built. > 3. The fortified T3 wall falls down in usually less than 1 minute > 4. The only counter a defender can use is shield generators. Impossible to go on walls because they're all painted red from scourge or eles AoE, and you get pulled to your doom by CC. Impossible to use canons or oil (who does anyway ?). Very hard to use AC's unless you're standing on the single pixel that's not a death trap. Only a few of them can be dropped in odd places. > 5. Rince and repeat at 2nd wall. > 6. If you try to fight the classical way, you're laglocked and condi bombed to death. > > I call that **the Blitzkrieg**. It's usually very effective, because they can reach lord in less than 2:30 (the event timer). Unless you're in a very reactive server, and are able to pull the tactivator, your own zerg usually doesn't have the time to come if it's in another map. Now, from my personal point of view, I don't think blob playing Blitzkrieg are looking for fights (as in "against another blob") because of how fast they're doing everything, and how laggy and bomby everything is. > > For something more positive, my most recent good memory of attacking a T3 keep. We were around 15 ppl, with roughly the same amount of defenders. Frontal assault was useless. 5 ppl amongst me set 2 catas to NE wall to get the attention, and the 10 others did their job southern gate. Killed their lord under their very nose. I had a lot of fun. > > I sincerly think everyone should be able to enjoy the game in their own way, and in WvW, it can cover lots of playstyles which have to be respected. Then, I must confess, as someone that spends more time defending than attacking, I usually note that defending against a blob is suicide, because of engine (LoS, can't shoot at the bottom of wall etc.) and walls are death traps... I dunno if you realize it or not but you essentially concede the fundamental point that "defense is too strong" here twice. The primary purpose of a "blitzkrieg" play is to bypass the enemy's defenses by utilizing speed and the element of surprise and in the second example you give you used misdirection to again bypass the enemy's defenses. "You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast." This is the most common response of everyone defending the current strength levels of defense in this game. But that response concedes the primary point of contention here; that defense is too strong. It's too strong if the only way to deal with it is to go around it. EDIT: An analogy to this line of reasoning is an argument where one player proposes that class x is too strong and someone else responds "well you can always choose not to fight them or you can zerg them down." It tacitly concedes the primary proposition and instead argues that the imbalance is justified because a workaround is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasC.1056 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > Interesting discussion we have here... > > > > Here're my two cents on the overall topic of "defended T3 keeps". Take it for what it's worth : another opinion on that. No more and no less valuable than anyone else's, and I won't show my skritt, even if you're asking it nicely. > > > > Usually, when a blob comes and attack a T3 keep in my BL, here's what happens 90% of the time : > > 1. They drop 5 superior catas and 3 shield generators (and sometimes AC or ballistas too). **Oddly enough, those sieges aren't such an issue in that context**. > > 2. Drops are _instantly_ built. > > 3. The fortified T3 wall falls down in usually less than 1 minute > > 4. The only counter a defender can use is shield generators. Impossible to go on walls because they're all painted red from scourge or eles AoE, and you get pulled to your doom by CC. Impossible to use canons or oil (who does anyway ?). Very hard to use AC's unless you're standing on the single pixel that's not a death trap. Only a few of them can be dropped in odd places. > > 5. Rince and repeat at 2nd wall. > > 6. If you try to fight the classical way, you're laglocked and condi bombed to death. > > > > I call that **the Blitzkrieg**. It's usually very effective, because they can reach lord in less than 2:30 (the event timer). Unless you're in a very reactive server, and are able to pull the tactivator, your own zerg usually doesn't have the time to come if it's in another map. Now, from my personal point of view, I don't think blob playing Blitzkrieg are looking for fights (as in "against another blob") because of how fast they're doing everything, and how laggy and bomby everything is. > > > > For something more positive, my most recent good memory of attacking a T3 keep. We were around 15 ppl, with roughly the same amount of defenders. Frontal assault was useless. 5 ppl amongst me set 2 catas to NE wall to get the attention, and the 10 others did their job southern gate. Killed their lord under their very nose. I had a lot of fun. > > > > I sincerly think everyone should be able to enjoy the game in their own way, and in WvW, it can cover lots of playstyles which have to be respected. Then, I must confess, as someone that spends more time defending than attacking, **I usually note that defending against a blob is suicide, because of engine (LoS, can't shoot at the bottom of wall etc.) and walls are death traps...** > > I dunno if you realize it or not but you essentially concede the fundamental point that "defense is too strong" here twice. > > The primary purpose of a "blitzkrieg" play is to bypass the enemy's defenses by utilizing speed and the element of surprise and in the second example you give you used misdirection to again bypass the enemy's defenses. > > "You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast." This is the most common response of everyone defending the current strength levels of defense in this game. > > But that response concedes the primary point of contention here; that defense is too strong. It's too strong if the only way to deal with it is to go around it. I've got no control on what happens in your brain but I'd like to underline that I also put a big emphasis on the fact that defense is mostly useless (I bolded that part in the quote) when it comes to a blob because of the unability to use walls and whatever stands on it. I can't figure how you jumped from this to me telling "defense is too strong". Also, I can't figure what's wrong with _"You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast"_. I mean... Are you conceding the fundamental point that "you just want to flip an empty objective and keep participation up" ? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 4, 2018 Author Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > @"Rampage.7145" said: > > > @"Mogrey.3891" said: > > > too lazy to read all comments (just read the first page) so if someone else pointed the same sorry just i agree with you > > > > > > 1. sieges should not be easy. sieges somehow are already a joke making them more easy will lead to ktrain and nothing else. > > > > > > 2. historically there were cases where armies with less manpower could defeat bigger armies. so why because you have a huge blob against less people should be instant win for you? it adds a strategic point helping them win you. i know watching huge blobs doing the same sucks but let small armies have a chance after all not their fault that your huge blobs are brain dead zombies just spamming aoe and nothing else expecting to instant win. > > > > > > > > > > Still tho, look at EBG flor example in T1 the keeps never flip SMC never flips unless the server holding it is completely dead, otherwise the other dudes are just smart enough to not even try, the map is completely boring 24/7 there are enough defensive tools already in place by geographics alone, high ground terrain, choques waypoint proximity for respwns, being able to use siege from tower to take down atackers inside the keep, defense is just crazy unbalance when the defending team has a map blob sitting there just defending, sure u can treb for 2 hours and get it done, but that is precicesly the point, nobody is going to do it, no commander/guild will do that on daily basis it takes too much time for people (80% of the population) that only play a couple hours a day, siege wars are just very boring, most peopel play this game for the combat/group combat, it is the big strenght of the game, if we wanted to play long kitten realistic sieges we will be playing total war strategy games or something, don't u think? > > I understand the problem, and I empathize (eventhough I never set foot in EBG for reasons). > > Still, I'm wondering about something. When I read carefully what you're saying, I feel like the biggest complain is, roughly, _"players are too lazy to come out and fight."_ Which is why they want to play it safe, instead of running out for a more uncertain fight. Now, if you remove that specific part, **how can you be sure they just will bother more, come out and fight, instead of just letting the T3-whatever flip ?** > > I'm not saying it will happen, nor am I wishing for that, but usually, in a game context, players won't be bothered to do something without a good reason. And a good fight is obviously **not** a good reason, otherwise they'd **already** go out and look for it. I respect your enthusiasm, but I also advise you not to expect too much from other players. This is why I suggested the world restructuration to take into account one's ambitions for WvW, so that enthusiastic comms like you are can gather and enjoy large scale battles, and siege architects can play that fashion if they please :) I also want people to understand something here, this is the typical pugmander, some of my friend just says: ¨yo JQ has a big blob in xxx map come fight it¨ i say cool that sounds fun, i tag up call all my friends online form up a group and fight it, if we defeat them succesfully they will start playing defensivelly, so we start hitting structures if i do not outnumber this person by at least x3 times he will succesfull be able to hold my force for 30/mins on a tower and 2/3 hours on a keep by disabling shielding trebbing me, runnig supply etc etc etc. At that point i spend like 4-5 hours commanding and captured 1 tower and 1 keep (maybe) and we are outnumbering this guys big time so the fight is probably quite dull basically the soon we are in the lords room is gg we will just PVE raid that bitch and it is over. At this point 50% of my friends following me just to fight the blob already quit, so i call it there. Next day people ask me to tag up to fight a blob same story, at some point really boring fighting siege for 3 hours and i call it. After some time doing this over and overt i just call it before even engaging the keep, and continue this trend for some time untill i just don't even bother to tag up at all cuz i know how it is going to end, so the servers have no more capable pugmanders everyone is bored quit the game play something else you name it WvW is dead at that point. This whole post is just showing arenanet how to kill this death spiral from the head from an experienced commander POV. I do understand some people juut wanna defend but there is no reasson why a world on massive numbers disadvantage should be able to keep up somewhat on score because that makes an unhealthy enviorment for the whole comunity, if you dont have the numbers you should just lose everything fast bleed points so you drop a tier and find a more reassonable oponent. That is why it should all be based on who has the biggest fighting/most capable force, ofc tactics/skill will always play a part here the problem is when a server with 30 players can keep up with server with 120 people by turteling obejectives with siege and tactivators it just becomes boring for that big team to the point people start quitting playing altogether and that is why WvW is a failure as a whole, the matchmaking system and game mechanics fail at providing engaging content for people looking for action fights and epic battles which is honestly the whole purpose of the game mode to start with. Scouting defending it should just be what it was back in the day, properly be able to comunicate your force where the enemy is and slow them down just enough for your team show up in time to overcome the enemy trying to take the keep or whatver, sure siege may play a role here to provide the defensive team with some tactical advantages but the really important factor should be who has the better force, siege alone should never be able to make a force of x3 or x4 times your numbers back off without even getting to the face to face fight in the lords room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > I've got no control on what happens in your brain but I'd like to underline that I also put a big emphasis on the fact that defense is mostly useless (I bolded that part in the quote) when it comes to a blob because of the unability to use walls and whatever stands on it. I can't figure how you jumped from this to me telling "defense is too strong". > > Also, I can't figure what's wrong with _"You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast"_. I mean... Are you conceding the fundamental point that "you just want to flip an empty objective and keep participation up" ? ;-) You don't need to stand on the walls and freecast you just have to build arrow carts. How is defense "mostly useless" if the best way to take stuff is to "blitzkrieg" things? The whole point of the blitzkrieg is to take stuff before the defenders can make use of their defenses. "You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast" is a more artful way of saying "it's still possible to take undefended or lightly defended objectives" which was never in question. It's all part of the larger strawman which you restated as "you just want to flip an empty objective and keep participation up." No I think defense is too strong and clearly you do too otherwise you'd just argue that arrow carts and ballis and cannons and mortars and trebs are not strong or that the tactivators aren't that strong or that the guild objective auras aren't that strong. But no one has argued that stuff they've simply said "well you can always sneak around the map or be really fast." That's not a valid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euryon.9248 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Caliburn.1845" said: > > Sure, on underpopulated worlds, with gaps in coverage T3s flip all the time. It is easy to take a T3 when they have only a handful of people defending it. > > > > What we're talking about is taking T3s in the face an active opposition force of say at least 75% of the attacking force. If you want to argue that attacking is as easy as defending...there is no point in really arguing with you, you've obviously never led a large force against a competent enemy. > > > > As to hitting other targets. The response time from spawn to anywhere is generally 90 seconds or less. Unless you're fighting incompetent rabble who are defending, or you have an active third server(all too rare nowadays), your attempt to hit another target will see the same defenders above you on the wall. > > Again, a three man group consistently is able to take towers as t-2 to 3 on a T1 world during NA prime... please. > > Your doing it wrong. No one is arguing that 2-3 people can't take an *undefended* tower or keep. That such a thing happens is irrelevant. Are your 2-3 people taking a t3 tower or keep with a couple of defenders in it pounding you with AC's and disabling your siege over and over. Unless they are just dumb, they can stymie your little havoc group pretty much indefinitely. Problem is that 3-5 defenders can do the same thing in a T3 keep against 20-25. The "blitzkrieg" is only possible with a large group with enough supplies on hand to throw down a lot of fast siege. Even so, if a handful of competent defenders arrive to defend inner, you're going nowhere. And yes, there are 20-25 man fight groups more interested in fighting than PPT, but if the only way to get fights is to attack a T3, yet even when the defenders outnumber the attackers they stay behind siege or at the very most will only come out while within cannon/AC range, then what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Euryon.9248" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Caliburn.1845" said: > > > Sure, on underpopulated worlds, with gaps in coverage T3s flip all the time. It is easy to take a T3 when they have only a handful of people defending it. > > > > > > What we're talking about is taking T3s in the face an active opposition force of say at least 75% of the attacking force. If you want to argue that attacking is as easy as defending...there is no point in really arguing with you, you've obviously never led a large force against a competent enemy. > > > > > > As to hitting other targets. The response time from spawn to anywhere is generally 90 seconds or less. Unless you're fighting incompetent rabble who are defending, or you have an active third server(all too rare nowadays), your attempt to hit another target will see the same defenders above you on the wall. > > > > Again, a three man group consistently is able to take towers as t-2 to 3 on a T1 world during NA prime... please. > > > > Your doing it wrong. > > No one is arguing that 2-3 people can't take an *undefended* tower or keep. That such a thing happens is irrelevant. > > Are your 2-3 people taking a t3 tower or keep with a couple of defenders in it pounding you with AC's and disabling your siege over and over. Unless they are just dumb, they can stymie your little havoc group pretty much indefinitely. > > Problem is that 3-5 defenders can do the same thing in a T3 keep against 20-25. The "blitzkrieg" is only possible with a large group with enough supplies on hand to throw down a lot of fast siege. Even so, if a handful of competent defenders arrive to defend inner, you're going nowhere. > > And yes, there are 20-25 man fight groups more interested in fighting than PPT, but if the only way to get fights is to attack a T3, yet even when the defenders outnumber the attackers they stay behind siege or at the very most will only come out while within cannon/AC range, then what's the point? So... you attack a T3. Does that group come out to play? My point is, if they won't fight your numbers under the protection of siege, what makes you think they will fight you when the protection of the walls is gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euryon.9248 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Euryon.9248" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Caliburn.1845" said: > > > > Sure, on underpopulated worlds, with gaps in coverage T3s flip all the time. It is easy to take a T3 when they have only a handful of people defending it. > > > > > > > > What we're talking about is taking T3s in the face an active opposition force of say at least 75% of the attacking force. If you want to argue that attacking is as easy as defending...there is no point in really arguing with you, you've obviously never led a large force against a competent enemy. > > > > > > > > As to hitting other targets. The response time from spawn to anywhere is generally 90 seconds or less. Unless you're fighting incompetent rabble who are defending, or you have an active third server(all too rare nowadays), your attempt to hit another target will see the same defenders above you on the wall. > > > > > > Again, a three man group consistently is able to take towers as t-2 to 3 on a T1 world during NA prime... please. > > > > > > Your doing it wrong. > > > > No one is arguing that 2-3 people can't take an *undefended* tower or keep. That such a thing happens is irrelevant. > > > > Are your 2-3 people taking a t3 tower or keep with a couple of defenders in it pounding you with AC's and disabling your siege over and over. Unless they are just dumb, they can stymie your little havoc group pretty much indefinitely. > > > > Problem is that 3-5 defenders can do the same thing in a T3 keep against 20-25. The "blitzkrieg" is only possible with a large group with enough supplies on hand to throw down a lot of fast siege. Even so, if a handful of competent defenders arrive to defend inner, you're going nowhere. > > > > And yes, there are 20-25 man fight groups more interested in fighting than PPT, but if the only way to get fights is to attack a T3, yet even when the defenders outnumber the attackers they stay behind siege or at the very most will only come out while within cannon/AC range, then what's the point? > > So... you attack a T3. Does that group come out to play? > > My point is, if they won't fight your numbers under the protection of siege, what makes you think they will fight you when the protection of the walls is gone? I think that's the crux of the problem -- consistently finding roughly equal-sized groups who will fight in the open field without siege. The existence of OP AC carts and emphasis by some on K/D means too many groups seem to only come out once they have *overwhelming* advantage. They will only fight open-field if they think there is almost no chance to lose. This is a problem of mentality more than anything, but the siege issue just makes it too easy to stay home and not risk a real fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Euryon.9248" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Euryon.9248" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Caliburn.1845" said: > > > > > Sure, on underpopulated worlds, with gaps in coverage T3s flip all the time. It is easy to take a T3 when they have only a handful of people defending it. > > > > > > > > > > What we're talking about is taking T3s in the face an active opposition force of say at least 75% of the attacking force. If you want to argue that attacking is as easy as defending...there is no point in really arguing with you, you've obviously never led a large force against a competent enemy. > > > > > > > > > > As to hitting other targets. The response time from spawn to anywhere is generally 90 seconds or less. Unless you're fighting incompetent rabble who are defending, or you have an active third server(all too rare nowadays), your attempt to hit another target will see the same defenders above you on the wall. > > > > > > > > Again, a three man group consistently is able to take towers as t-2 to 3 on a T1 world during NA prime... please. > > > > > > > > Your doing it wrong. > > > > > > No one is arguing that 2-3 people can't take an *undefended* tower or keep. That such a thing happens is irrelevant. > > > > > > Are your 2-3 people taking a t3 tower or keep with a couple of defenders in it pounding you with AC's and disabling your siege over and over. Unless they are just dumb, they can stymie your little havoc group pretty much indefinitely. > > > > > > Problem is that 3-5 defenders can do the same thing in a T3 keep against 20-25. The "blitzkrieg" is only possible with a large group with enough supplies on hand to throw down a lot of fast siege. Even so, if a handful of competent defenders arrive to defend inner, you're going nowhere. > > > > > > And yes, there are 20-25 man fight groups more interested in fighting than PPT, but if the only way to get fights is to attack a T3, yet even when the defenders outnumber the attackers they stay behind siege or at the very most will only come out while within cannon/AC range, then what's the point? > > > > So... you attack a T3. Does that group come out to play? > > > > My point is, if they won't fight your numbers under the protection of siege, what makes you think they will fight you when the protection of the walls is gone? > > I think that's the crux of the problem -- consistently finding roughly equal-sized groups who will fight in the open field without siege. The existence of OP AC carts and emphasis by some on K/D means too many groups seem to only come out once they have *overwhelming* advantage. They will only fight open-field if they think there is almost no chance to lose. This is a problem of mentality more than anything, but the siege issue just makes it too easy to stay home and not risk a real fight. The numbers is certainly a reason. Agreed. I've also seen people saying 10 shouldn't be able to hold out vs 50. But do we expect the 10 to come out vs 50? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 All that being said, if shield gens were removed, we'd see more towers and keeps being opened. Regardless of how far along they upgraded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 4, 2018 Author Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > All that being said, if shield gens were removed, we'd see more towers and keeps being opened. Regardless of how far along they upgraded. Shield gens help attacked and defenders alike, it is the only thing attackers can do to sustain AC fire too while hitting a door, in my opinion they work better offensive than defensive, usually defensive shield gens are very easy to take out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Rampage.7145" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > All that being said, if shield gens were removed, we'd see more towers and keeps being opened. Regardless of how far along they upgraded. > > Shield gens help attacked and defenders alike, it is the only thing attackers can do to sustain AC fire too while hitting a door, in my opinion they work better offensive than defensive, usually defensive shield gens are very easy to take out Isn't that the truth lol. Hate shields gens... So.. Not trying to be a kitten... Why are people dropping catas within AC range or Ballista range? Catas Damage per second is just as high from range as it is close up.... making the only effective defensive seige on a tower or keep a mortar (easily bubbled by catas) catas on the wall of a structure, or trebs.. both of which can be nullified in most cases. It also forces them to come out to kill the seige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted February 4, 2018 Author Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Rampage.7145" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > All that being said, if shield gens were removed, we'd see more towers and keeps being opened. Regardless of how far along they upgraded. > > > > Shield gens help attacked and defenders alike, it is the only thing attackers can do to sustain AC fire too while hitting a door, in my opinion they work better offensive than defensive, usually defensive shield gens are very easy to take out > > Isn't that the truth lol. Hate shields gens... > > So.. Not trying to be a kitten... Why are people dropping catas within AC range or Ballista range? Catas Damage per second is just as high from range as it is close up.... making the only effective defensive seige on a tower or keep a mortar (easily bubbled by catas) catas on the wall of a structure, or trebs.. both of which can be nullified in most cases. > > It also forces them to come out to kill the seige. how do you assault inner SMC for example tho? with no shields u would never make it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euryon.9248 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 I have a suggestion: make it possible to use siege disablers on defensive siege :open_mouth: Also, I will use this space to take contention with the entire title of this thread. The WvW rework is about dealing with the population imbalance, a completely separate issue from the tactics of siege. The one has no bearing on the other, and defensive siege remaining somewhat OP isn't going to render the reworking of wvw pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Substance E.4852 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"Substance E.4852" said: > > Literally the only problem is Arrow Carts. > > > > Everything else is solved by their weakening or outright removal. > > -Doors become easier to assault. > > -Enemies actually have to leave the walls, or get up on them, to kill the catas. > > -Fighting inside a place like inner Bay stops becoming a meat grinder when there isn't a 1k+ death zone from a single cart that costs 30 supply. > > yes, this. I think the only thing that needs to be done is to tone down the # of targets. > trebs downing walls from halfway across the map isn't helpful either. I get that this is one of the few ways a smaller server can cap stuff but if the bigger server does it as well (which they do) then its more of a benefit for them imo. if youre the smaller server I think its wiser to just split up, which I know rarely happens. idk man. 1st world problems eh? Trebs give value to towers beyond simply being supply depots with walls. It really all just comes down to arrow carts still being ludicrously overpowered ever since they first buffed them years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben K.6238 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 This is not a bug. Skewing everything towards offense and numbers is what results in karma trains in the first place. Of course defense should be easier. The problem is that spending hours to break that defence is a waste of time, when it should be worth every minute to take on the hardest challenge you can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasC.1056 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > I've got no control on what happens in your brain but I'd like to underline that I also put a big emphasis on the fact that defense is mostly useless (I bolded that part in the quote) when it comes to a blob because of the unability to use walls and whatever stands on it. I can't figure how you jumped from this to me telling "defense is too strong". > > > > Also, I can't figure what's wrong with _"You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast"_. I mean... Are you conceding the fundamental point that "you just want to flip an empty objective and keep participation up" ? ;-) > > You don't need to stand on the walls and freecast you just have to build arrow carts. You can't build arrow carts in mid air. There're a few spot where they're safe, but not that much. Once again, walls are death traps, and whatever is on it is 99% useless for defensive purpose. Even if I stare hard at the wall, it won't defend it. > How is defense "mostly useless" if the best way to take stuff is to "blitzkrieg" things? The whole point of the blitzkrieg is to take stuff before the defenders can make use of their defenses. Just as I said : because of the blob, you can't use walls and most sieges. And once the blob is in, defenders are laglocked, stunlocked, and condi spammed to their death. I'm talking about an outnumbered scenario of course. The "10ppl can hold a T3 keep against a blob" one. > "You can get around it by being sneaky or being fast" is a more artful way of saying "it's still possible to take undefended or lightly defended objectives" which was never in question. It's all part of the larger strawman which you restated as "you just want to flip an empty objective and keep participation up." That was no strawman, just me playing smart ;-) You're trying and twisting all that I'm saying just to have me agree with you, and in doing so, you're become such a caricature that you're almost saying that even the smallest defense should not exist. > No I think defense is too strong and clearly you do too otherwise you'd just argue that arrow carts and ballis and cannons and mortars and trebs are not strong or that the > tactivators aren't that strong or that the guild objective auras aren't that strong. I would be really greatful if you could prevent yourself from issuing statements about what I'm thinking. Especially when I'm thinking the exact opposite, and I stated it twice. It makes the reader think that you're reason-proof. Canons and mortars are death traps. Trebs can be useful. Tactivators are of various use (when they're not trolled). Guild objective auras are useful, yet not impactful in my opinion. > But no one has argued that stuff they've simply said "well you can always sneak around the map or be really fast." That's not a valid argument. You may think it's not a valid argument, and I'm not so far to agree with you. Yet, you also have to concede that defenders won't always play the game you're expecting them to, which is why one should adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now