@Anet - Siege changes I think we strongly need for the alliance change.

[grave of hearts.7830]

Sieges are fine as they are,90% of it doesnt matter because of the existing constant senarios.

A:The assault commander has a spy pinpointing all siege locations,and with mesmers and ele spikes the walls are useless.

B:The assault commander has the number advantage and the knowledge of when exactly the defenders have no one on.

C:Attackers usually come in blobs,that hide under a gen till the walls go down.

D:Its always a guild blob pushing big objectives,against randoms with no organisation because there is no opposition.

 

[Henry.5713]

Siege is a mess in this game. We are simply too used to how everything works that we aren't even bothered by half of this nonsense anymore. Talking about stuff like melee catapults, even being able hit the inner walls with these placements which totally negates supply limitations. Arrow carts being able to take down catapults and and flame rams. Not to mention the shield generator spam.

Don't get me wrong, I am actually saying this as someone who likes a good drawn out siege or defense. And no, people shouldn't be punished for defending properly nor should it be impossible to take any objective during prime if you play well enough. Risk and reward should matter. Playing smart should be rewarded. But it should be more than bring numbers and you get to k-train or throw down an AC or two and you get to defend against ten times your number.

 

What we need is a full set of changes if you ask me:

1. Add minimum range to catapults to put more emphasis on rams

2. Make rams take no damage from arrow carts

3. Allow players hide inside rams similar to golems to force enemies to push out

4. Remove siege disablers

5. Have ammunition (catapults, trebuchets) as people proposed

6. Remove or at least limit shield generators

7. Reduce arrow cart AoE and possibly numbers

8. Buff cannons and oils, upgrading structures should matter

9. Lower ballista damage to catapults

10. Go through with the proposed (ground targeted) trebuchet changes as they will be limited by ammunition now

11. Not sure about siege golems, probably leave them as they are

[DaVid Darksoul.4985]

I agree that siege needs fixed, although it should favor defense over offense. Siege should scale off of players stats. Limit number pf cata and rams in a given area, so tired of trying to defend against blobs that use 4-6 catas/rams to take a T1 defended by 1 or 2 players. Reduce aoe of ele, ranger and necro, and get rid of that stupid pull that can pull you from other side of the wall ( make all pulls like necro's). Best game play is when you need to work to take objectives, if you are so incompetent that 1 or 2 defenders can stop an assault you need to get gudder.

[Meviken.2054]

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > u.u how then will the few defend against the many?

>

> Quite truthfully, the few really shouldn't be able to defend against the many. That might be an unpopular opinion, but just like how regardless of skill, a 50 man zerg will always beat a 10 man zerg. _don't hate me :(_

 

Shouldn't they?

So the Great Siege of Malta should have been lost? Outnumbered 6:1

And Frederick the Great should not have won the battles of Rossbach and Leuthen? Outnumbered 2:1.

And Hangaku Gozen should never have been able to defeat 10,000 troops with but 3,000 or so.

 

Admittedly, we don't play in real life, and the limitations of real war don't all exist (physical bodies take up space, and cannot pass through one another, for one thing), but then again, our characters are supposed to represent heroes, not ordinary folk. So odds of 1:5 can be beaten. If you're good enough. In the case of a team, you've got to be coordinated, too. And I have seen a 10-man zerg annihilate a much larger group.

 

Siege is an annoyance. But it was part of real war, and it gives the game character. Honestly, I think siege is about right. Perhaps the ammo should require supply, but the way it works right now... works.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

I guess attackers are tired of being outsmarted by a smaller group who, due to smaller numbers must use their resources wisely as there is ALWAYS a spot you can lay a cata or treb w/o defenders getting to you. I guess those types of interactions (fewer defenders than attackers) attackers are looking for an easier win. Its called Strategy.

 

Ive been part of...and led a smaller group to take towers (and keeps every once in a blue moon) while being defended. Its all about the com's strategical intelligence and wisdom.

 

If you dont use strats, the defenders deserve to win. That is what siege is for.