Siege Revisions

[Napo.1230]

How about just make walls safe to stand on....delete the siege for all I care it does nothing with the amount of aoe a blob brings to destroy it.

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"Napo.1230" said:

> How about just make walls safe to stand on....delete the siege for all I care it does nothing with the amount of aoe a blob brings to destroy it.

 

so you can build 8 acs on there and camp them without ever actually fighting another player? (because they'll never remove sieges)

 

entertaining content.

[aspirine.6852]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > Not all of them of course. But picture a reset night on the alpine or even desert borderlands without siege. Your own map will be impossible to defend because your team cannot be in Bay, hills or garri at the same time. So all that will happen is it flipping over and over again.

> > Doesnt sound right to me.

>

> Everything already does flip constantly on reset nights and it's glorious. I personally think that's when the game is the most fun because I get to spend hours just running around doing fight after fight not having to worry about siege too much. Siege isn't as much of an issue when the map is fresh and nothing is upgraded. It's still annoying but there's not enough supply accumulated within the first few hours of reset to allow anyone to do any serious turtling. The really soulcrushingly tedious turtleplay stuff comes usually a day or two into a matchup when a large force has had hours of uninterrupted time to upgrade and siege everything up so their blob can sit behind a wall and build siege against attackers for several hours at every major objective. The game slows to a crawl and it's mostly time spent dealing with siege instead of fighting players which isn't fun for anyone except siege monkeys.

>

> The real question I think everyone has to ask themselves seriously is: WHY DOES ANYONE FIGHT TO DEFEND AT ALL ANYMORE? Why doesn't everyone just build siege and never fight anyone even when they've got a 50 man squad? Wouldn't it be a totally viable strategy to only ever defend with siege regardless of numbers??? There's nothing in this game that actually treats fighting to defend preferentially over turtling objectives with siege.

>

> Siege requires relatively little practice or experience, no time invested in learning a class or refining a build or playing with a team. Even the worst players can understand that you just aim the circle over as many people as possible and press the buttons. It's pathetically easy to be effective on an arrow cart or a ballista or a cannon and that's why so many terrible players defend it whenever this conversation comes up and they use the canard of '5v25' to justify it. But if it can be used to help 5 defend against 25 it can also be used by 50 to defend against another 50.

>

> Siege is the ultimate crutch for bad players and it kills the pacing and fun of this gamemode for everyone except people who lack the skills and organization necessary to kill other players in an actual fight. These devs have consistently catered to the lowest common denominator player and that's why we've lost so many good guilds and players over time to other games that actually reward fighting to one degree or another even if they're not MMOs.

>

> Siege needs to be drastically tuned down. If a defending force, regardless of numbers, cannot defend an objective by actually fighting for it then they should lose it 100 percent of the time.

 

Lets agree to disagree then. :)

 

[reddie.5861]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> Hey everyone!

>

> We're currently looking to make some siege revisions. We'd like your feedback! I know several posts have been made in the past, but we'd like to get the feedback in one thread for review.

> 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.

>

> So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently!

 

here best one if AC can reach X spot then any skill like meteor shower or necro marks or ranger longbow 5 skill should be able to do the same.

meaning no more AC's on save spot battering the gates while u cant do a shit about it.

 

 

also would like to see generator having X range set around it so u cant place 2 near each other anymore.

cus attackers just put down 2 gens next to each other and they cover siege + them self

deffenders can just keep wall permanent under bubble so u cant do crap about that also forcing you to leave by 2 players basically..

[Pagan Highlander.5948]

1-Either introduce underwater siege, or at least allow Rams to be used underwater against underwater gates.

2-Redo Eternal battleground Map. SMC is too dominant with trebuchets that can't be countered

3- ACs are fine, its the World Population problem that's the problem.

4- Having colored timers on siege would be nice, like a small Yellow balloon if under 30 minutes, and Red balloon if under 10 minutes. Since no one gets Pipps for Tapping siege or for scouting (unless given Participation by a Squad), there needs to be a new method to notify your server. Of course these would only be seen by your side.

5- Instead of an Overall Siege Cap, possibly have a Siege cap for each type of siege based on the size of the structure (I.E. 5 ACs for a tower, 12x ACs for a Keep, 16x ACs for SMC).

6- If a Server loses its Keep or Garrison, or has no supply camps on a map, have a Supply camp appear in their Spawn (just like the EOTM one) that allows players to get 15 supply. This would go a long ways towards helping a server that is in trouble.

[Chaba.5410]

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065"

 

Siege revisions make me nervous because anything you do to them will affect offense/defense balance. Example: within the first year of the game when the damage on arrow carts were buffed attackers had to increase the size of their force in order to successfully siege a keep. This lead to defender complaints about such large forces to the point where desert BL was designed originally to favor defenders more. Defense had to be nerfed on desert BL after release as a result. Today arrow carts are still sufficiently strong enough to force attackers to need larger forces. A lot of players get turned off from long sieges.

 

I do think there is merit in doing a lot of your own data analysis on when/what/where upgraded objectives flip and in matches where such activity is low, why is it low? Reset night is always very active and one has to wonder if that is due to the fact that no one owns upgraded objectives. The offense/defense balance on reset night is influenced by players on the field, not objective upgrades.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> Unfair advantages of attackers at borderland attacking Bay.

> The trebuchet fire coming from the south west camps (bluevale / redvale) are not block by invisible wall/ barrier.

> where as from the keep to the camp there is an invisible wall, therefore making it impossible to counter treb the attackers.

>

> see picture

> [https://goo.gl/aPNLCw](https://goo.gl/aPNLCw "https://goo.gl/aPNLCw")

 

You can counter treb actually, the only problem is if shield generators are also set up, which like in most cases of this will require you to bring a force to get to them instead.

Build the treb behind the oil on the gate, it will hit back there.

 

 

> @"guildabd.6529" said:

> Honestly, what's with the complaints about arrow carts dealing too much damage? Since when did you got full kill with an ac? Those things hit like a wet noodle, and usually down 1 or 2 at best.

> If anything, arrow carts should be buffed, not nerfed.

 

Since people put up 3-4 in an area, that many can kill you. The problem isn't with it's damage, it's with people stacking ac's, no different that what happens with zergs stacking certain classes.

 

 

> @"Fizzee.1762" said:

> My only real issue with any of the siege is ACs... they need a huge nerf to damage or number of people hit.

> 5 people on ACs should never be able to hold off 50-80 people from entering a choke (wall or gate).

 

But that's kind of the point of them, to clear an area of players, shield gens with mastery will also null ac fire that's why they're used with rams a lot these days.

There are multiple ways into most structures in the game, if one is clogged then try another, if that doesn't work then you need the long range option. Too many times I've seen commanders go back to the same spot 4-5 times when an enemy has built more siege in that area, instead of trying another gate or wall that may be loosely defended. People also need to not be so lazy, if all you want to do is go back the same damn spot you deserve to get farmed by ac's.

 

My problem with acs is again their range is too great at the moment and being able to stack a lot of them in a small area.

[hobotnicax.7918]

Siege is a tough one to balance to be honest.

But here goes:

- Remove Superior siege from reward boxes and drops, make it CRAFTABLE only again, that way superior siege would have more worth and wouldn't be spammed, also guild siege would be more important again.

- Arrow carts should have an ammunition mechanic, 10x each skill, then 30s cool down

- Remove bubble from catapults, hence requiring the use of Shield generators a bit more

- Place a siege limit radius around Gates, 900-1000 range with 5 friendly & enemy siege limit

- Reduce Trebuchet splash damage radius; most notably because of Red Keep on EBG firing on SM, or fix that some other way

 

Ideas disregarding the points above:

- Make it so one can get hit by only 2 pieces of siege at a time

- Expand the Siege bunker mastery line that reduces damage taken from siege, keep the 10% for the points required as is, add 5 more levels, each costing 250 points and further reducing damage taken by 5% per level.

- Add a new siege type - "Beacon" - requires 100 supply to build, outputs pulsing boons each 5s for 3s duration: regeneration, swiftness, protection, vigor, 600 range, 10 player limit. Can add a new mastery line that extends the duration to 6s.

 

I'd like to see you focus on promoting and rewarding FIGHTING in WvW and not PPT. At the same time, objectives (towers, keeps...) should not be so easily capped as they are right now.

 

Helen McWolf

[SweetPotato.7456]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> > Unfair advantages of attackers at borderland attacking Bay.

> > The trebuchet fire coming from the south west camps (bluevale / redvale) are not block by invisible wall/ barrier.

> > where as from the keep to the camp there is an invisible wall, therefore making it impossible to counter treb the attackers.

> >

> > see picture

> > [https://goo.gl/aPNLCw](https://goo.gl/aPNLCw "https://goo.gl/aPNLCw")

>

> You can counter treb actually, the only problem is if shield generators are also set up, which like in most cases of this will require you to bring a force to get to them instead.

> Build the treb behind the oil on the gate, it will hit back there.

 

I actually did have some sieges on the outer wall, before retreating to the inner after I found out they were trebbing the inner at the same time, and the outer sieges were all destroyed. thanks for the pointer.

 

I was running back and forth from the sheild generator to my trying to counter treb LOL its not a good job to do, and its not fun as a game to constantly getting rolled over by zerg

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> Your own map will be impossible to defend because your team cannot be in Bay, hills or garri at the same time. So all that will happen is it flipping over and over again.

> Doesnt sound right to me.

 

Your team isn't meant to be in all three keeps at the same time. The side keeps are owned by the two attacking sides by default (when the map is fresh) because borderlands is supposed to be a three-way map with an advantage given to the home team.

 

Defending team is supposed to use so-called map politics to fend off the natural 2v1: i.e. focus your forces on one of the attackers to get them to attack the third team.

[Mini Crinny.6190]

Either Nerf Acs damage or limit how many people can put in one place

[Ringsound.7806]

> @"Mini Crinny.6190" said:

> Either Nerf Acs damage or limit how many people can put in one place

I think the damage is fine, the AOE limit need to be reduce, and combined with total rework on siege hard cap

5 sieges/1000 unit need to rework to suit specific location (i.e. tower/keeps.castle)

4 AC repelled 50 players is absurd (yeah, I did that on last night)

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Ringsound.7806" said:

> > @"Mini Crinny.6190" said:

> > Either Nerf Acs damage or limit how many people can put in one place

> I think the damage is fine, the AOE limit need to be reduce, and combined with total rework on siege hard cap

> 5 sieges/1000 unit need to rework to suit specific location (i.e. tower/keeps.castle)

> 4 AC repelled 50 players is absurd (yeah, I did that on last night)

 

I don't think it is fine. When Anet increased the damage from ACs early in this game, attackers needed to bring bigger numbers to siege a keep and it still is that way.

 

There should be diminishing returns on the damage from an AC when more are placed. Their target cap is 50. That's way beyond what player skill target caps are.

[Jski.6180]

I like to see blista get some type of shot that dose not need line of sight to counter siege and maybe gravel shot on catas do more dmg vs siege.

[Gorani.7205]

1) The fundamental problem with siege is, that the "rock, paper, scissors" system to fight siege with siege (or structure type with siege) is broken and 2) that supply consumption is out of balance since we have auto-upgrades.

Let me explain:

 

A) The Catapult problem

Catapults should be the primary siege to attack walls at a distance. The game rewards you for putting it right next to a wall, because the walls are designed badly. Walls should protect the defenders from "men on foot" below. The game allows pretty much every professions to drop AoE fields and effects on top of the wall, by attacking the edge. The defenders on the other hand have a LoS problem to attack the attackers and the catapult below, because they need to be able to see over the edge to get a target lock.

How can this be solved by looking at catapults only: catapults need a minimum range of effectiveness, before they do damage to a wall, like 600 or 900 range increments.

The other way to "fix the problem" would be to "draw a moat" or "no building zone" around the walls of the structures, which I assume would be far more difficult to change or program.

 

b) The Burning Oil problem

The burning oil instalments should be the primary counter to the rams at the gates. The at the current state of the game they completely useless, with one exception: Some of the burning oil in EOTM is placed better than in the borderlands, because it is built to the sides of the gate and IIRC even a bit higher up. Again, the main problem is not the fact that there are one or three rams at the gate, but the AoE spam attackers can put on the user of the oil.

How can that be solved by looking at the oil only: there are a few suggestions already out in this thread, like adding Iron Hide to the user or giving him Stability and Resistance over a long period time, pulsing or whenever he uses a skill. This would have to be tested, but I strongly believe that a single defender should have very good chances to defeat the rams at the gate, when less than 10 people attack.

 

C) The Ballista problem

Ballistae should be be main siege to battle other siege - in other words: this should be the best counter siege option by design. At the current state of the game, it isn't for both sides: The defenders suffer from severe LoS problems, which does not allow them to shoot with ballistae built on walls (unless they are built at the edge and destroyed by anything more than melee range). The attackers do not bother with ballistae, because it is a lot easier to use a ranged weapon to kill every siege on the wall manually. For both sides, building a ballista is the worse of all options 90% of the time.

How can this be solved by looking at the ballista only: the siege has to have some sort of "tripod", not visually, but in terms of where the bolt is originating from the siege engine. Right now it feels like it starts "to shoot from your ankle and not from your shoulders". If defenders can place the ballista on the back edge of a wall and still hit something fairly close to the outer edge, it would help a lot, especially when you combine it with the "minimum range catapult" suggestion (e.g. ballista should be able to hit the catapult). For the attackers the ballista should be far better at clearing siege off a wall. To achieve this, ballistae should be a viable counter to Shield Generators, too. Skill #3 should be able to pierce through the Force Dome and e.g. knock the user off the generator.

 

D) The Canon problem

Canons are mostly built at the worst spot imaginable to defend a gate. The only use they currently have is to use it on another part of the structure or shoot an inner wall canon at a breach in the outer walls. In terms of death traps for defenders, they are close to the burning oil siege.

How can this be solved by looking at the canon only: If the devs do not want to move the locations of the canons, this siege either needs a defensive treatment like described with the burning oil or a much more effective shell to fire. The base damage has to go up by 100 to 200%. for each type of shot. Adding 1 sec of Daze to the base shot, 2 sec or cripple to the Grapeshot and 2 sec of Immobilize to the Ice shot would make this dangerous again and force attackers to throw down one or two ballistae to take out canons quickly. Canons have a lot of blind spots and LoS issues, so ballistae are still a great way to counter them, despite the lesser range compared to canons.

 

E) Why the Arrow Cart is not really a problem

OMG, with so many people wanting to nerf the ACs, why can you say that it is no problem!

The AC is an anti infantry siege engine. It is supposed to pose a threat to players on a wall or on the field in front of the tower or at the gate. If a person is shooting at a person ramming a gate, this ram-user should not be able to sustain the fire for long and retreat to heal or get healed by allies. With HoT and PoF there are so many skills to block, evade or destroy missile fire, the AC has never posed a lesser danger in WvW than at the moment. It is quite difficult for a player at an AC to kill another player that actively tried to get away or to take cover.

The true problem of ACs is quantity on the battlefield due the the almost never ending chain of supply one or both sides can generate

 

F) The supply problem and siege engines

When you look back at the old days of WvW, before "auto-upgrades via numbers of dollies" supply had a very large impact on how much siege could be built. Supply was needed to upgrade structures, unlock emergency way points, upgrade walls etc. Defenders had to make hard decisions whether to set up siege or use the supply to upgrade a wall. Not having supply would hold the ability to develop you strategy and tactics. All of that supply that was used for upgrades is still in game now. Camps generate it at the same rate and dollies deliver it as fast as before. This means that the ability to use supply for a lot of siege has gone up enormously when the auto upgrades were introduced. With supply masteries and "Presence of the Keep" even attackers can bring more than twice the supply to the fight compared to the initial design of the game mode. This, in conjunction with no local cap on what you can build in one spot, has lead to huge batteries of ACs placed in keeps and garrisons, which a lot of "open field fighters" have learned to hate.

 

G) Long term restructuring - balancing siege and supply

If supply can be turned into a useful resource again, siege will be harder to put up again. Giving us a special action key (like used in LS or Raids) to reset the decay timer by paying supply will make an arsenal of ACs in SMC very expensive to keep. You could go back to "medieval realism" and actually try to make the enemy starve by denying them supply to their well fortified castle. If they can't reset their 24 ACs, those will eventually be gone. The enemy would have to come out of their keep to open up supply routes or hit the siege at long rage that is slowly weakening the walls, while you have no supply left to repair them.

 

This was way too much text, thanks to those for reading that reached the end. :)

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Panicbutton.9426" said:

> TL:DR summary at the bottom of the post.

>

> Rather than just eliminate siege or nerf arrow carts into oblivion I would like to see more options for players themselves to mitigate the damage of siege. As an example, a party covered by a Guardian's shield 5 skill should take literally zero damage from ACs, Cannons, Mortars and oil. So, I’d like to see a pass on player abilities to provide more options to mitigate siege damage.

>

 

I found the rest of your post insightful but this bit bothers me. As someone who used to do an awful lot of havok before Anet introduced the ridiculously overpowered crap that came with HoT, i'd like to think any changes to siege would also benefit smaller groups and possibly make havok a little more fun again. Smaller groups simply don't have the luxury of bringing specific classes to counter siege, very often their focus needs to be on speed to get away from the blobs responding to 'mendons 5 ppl with a cata'.

Siege changes need to weaken, reduce the availability of, or reduce the amount possible in a smaller area, of all siege in general. Don't use player abilities to fix siege and leave the smaller groups facing twice their number sitting on siege in their t3 tower :/

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Gorani.7205" said:

> 1) The fundamental problem with siege is, that the "rock, paper, scissors" system to fight siege with siege (or structure type with siege is broken) and 2) that supply consumption is out of balance since we have auto-upgrades.

> Let me explain:

>

> A) The Catapult problem

> Catapults should be the primary siege to attack walls at a distance. The game rewards you for putting it right next to a wall, because the walls are designed badly. Walls should protect the defenders from "men on foot" from below. The game allows pretty much every professions to drop AoE fields and effects on top of the wall, by attacking the edge. The defenders have a LoS problem to attack the attackers and the catapult below, because they need to be able to see over the edge to get a target lock.

> How can this be solved by looking at catapults only: catapults need a minimum range of effectiveness, before they do damage to a wall, like 600 or 900 range increments.

> The other way to "fix the problem" would be to "draw a moat" or "no building zone" around the walls of the structures, which I assume would be far more difficult.

 

I really take issue with the idea of not allowing catapults to be placed next to a wall. I don't think you guys suggesting this have really thought this suggestion through. This is because there isn't suitable replacement siege spots for many breakable inner walls. Can you even get 600 minimum range on the breakable inner southwest wall of bay? It will just make defense stronger. Placing catas against a wall is already risky if the defenders are prepared with ACs (placing catas against a wall is only advantageous when defenders don't have that preparation). But adding a minimum range forces attackers to set up siege in riskier spots for inner walls and extend the "rock, paper, scissors" siege play you intended to reduce.

 

 

[Celsith.2753]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> Not all of them of course. But picture a reset night on the alpine or even desert borderlands without siege. Your own map will be impossible to defend because your team cannot be in Bay, hills or garri at the same time. So all that will happen is it flipping over and over again.

> Doesnt sound right to me.

 

Learn intelligent use of supply traps and cow drain. But if you have a smaller force defending a paper keep, you SHOULD lose it if reinforcements don't come to you or you don't know how to delay long enough. And no, sorry, sitting on an ac with 10 other people waiting to spam it on attackers isn't what you should be doing. The tools are available to delay, including invulnerable and eWP if you hold it long enough.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065"

>

> Siege revisions make me nervous because anything you do to them will affect offense/defense balance. Example: within the first year of the game when the damage on arrow carts were buffed attackers had to increase the size of their force in order to successfully siege a keep. This lead to defender complaints about such large forces to the point where desert BL was designed originally to favor defenders more. Defense had to be nerfed on desert BL after release as a result. Today arrow carts are still sufficiently strong enough to force attackers to need larger forces. A lot of players get turned off from long sieges.

>

> I do think there is merit in doing a lot of your own data analysis on when/what/where upgraded objectives flip and in matches where such activity is low, why is it low? Reset night is always very active and one has to wonder if that is due to the fact that no one owns upgraded objectives. The offense/defense balance on reset night is influenced by players on the field, not objective upgrades.

 

Reset night when nothing is T3 is the only actual fun left in this game mode.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > Not all of them of course. But picture a reset night on the alpine or even desert borderlands without siege. Your own map will be impossible to defend because your team cannot be in Bay, hills or garri at the same time. So all that will happen is it flipping over and over again.

> > Doesnt sound right to me.

>

> Learn intelligent use of supply traps and cow drain. But if you have a smaller force defending a paper keep, you SHOULD lose it if reinforcements don't come to you or you don't know how to delay long enough. And no, sorry, sitting on an ac with 10 other people waiting to spam it on attackers isn't what you should be doing. The tools are available to delay, including invulnerable and eWP if you hold it long enough.

 

Yea, lol it is amazing how many people seem to not understand how a supply trap is a far more efficient use of supply for defense than setting up defensive siege.

[Pagan Highlander.5948]

Gorani.7205. I just want to say your Comment is right on and well thought out. I agree with almost everything you said.

[Khan.2374]

A few modest suggestions:

* Double damage siege (except arrow carts) does versus _other siege. _ (Due to siege HP buff from however long ago)

* Reduce arrow cart damage to players by 25% - if nothing else a good start for future balance, I don't know what the exact number should be.

* Make gravel shot useful - maybe have it function like a weaker, lower cooldown version on concussion barrage on mortar?

* Allow reinforced bolt on ballista penetrate shield bubbles.

* Allow oil to be used from a somewhat safer position or add further defensive buffs to it - zerg will clear oil anyways, but this way they have to at least destroy it before dropping rams.

 

A few more bold suggestions:

* Add a penetrating shot on trebuchet which allows it to ignore shield generators. Cooldown in the range of 30-45s, replacing the water-field skill.

* Make siege ammo-based (except ram). Using the siege drains a certain amount of supply from the user on every skill use.

[Taiaga.5983]

I've always wanted siege to have the damage it does based on the number of people present. More people present on your side, the less damage your siege does. Like say your server has outnumbered and all 5 people from your server on the map are rallied together to desperately try to defend the last thing you own (like garri) and the enemy comes in with a zerg of 40+.... I feel that the severely outnumbered people should do more damage with their siege than the big zerg with 40+ that comes along and builds 8 catas, 4 ACs and 2 gens. I'm also not saying the outnumbered people should be able to one shot with siege or anything, just give them a fighting chance. I'd be happy with just a reduction of siege damage for a group that has double your numbers. It would definitely help servers with dead times not lose everything they own when fighting a stacked server. However, with alliances coming out I guess that won't really matter...

 

Of course the man reason I've always wanted this is because I'm sick of people building butt tons of siege in open field fights when they already have double your numbers. (Heck, it even annoys me when they do it against even numbers...)

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > > @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > > Not all of them of course. But picture a reset night on the alpine or even desert borderlands without siege. Your own map will be impossible to defend because your team cannot be in Bay, hills or garri at the same time. So all that will happen is it flipping over and over again.

> > > Doesnt sound right to me.

> >

> > Learn intelligent use of supply traps and cow drain. But if you have a smaller force defending a paper keep, you SHOULD lose it if reinforcements don't come to you or you don't know how to delay long enough. And no, sorry, sitting on an ac with 10 other people waiting to spam it on attackers isn't what you should be doing. The tools are available to delay, including invulnerable and eWP if you hold it long enough.

>

> Yea, lol it is amazing how many people seem to not understand how a supply trap is a far more efficient use of supply for defense than setting up defensive siege.

 

I had an hilarious night a few weeks ago when my alt account server was grossly outnumbered with maybe 8 people on the map versus at least 25+. Rather than passively sitting on siege and crying I persuaded everyone to run ahead of the enemy dropping supply traps. They'd resup at smc, run out toward our side, hit 8 traps on the way, turn round and resupply, rinse repeat til they got so very frustrated with it and went to bug the third server. Not one siege shot fired, no damage done to our stuff, our players morale was so much higher than if they'd been hiding in the keep and chat was actually quite jolly and upbeat instead of being all doom and gloom. The mindset of always building siege and always being passive is not only very very boring while you wait around for someone to attack, but it damages your servers capacity to fight back in the long run because people just log out and exacerbate the problem. The problem by the way, is not siege not being strong enough, it's population disparity and THAT is what needs solving.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > My reaction is please finish alliances as a priority before making other changes.

> > >

> > > Having said that in answer to the query, nerf ACs. Siege should primarily be about be obtaining access to objectives not killing other players. Someone else has suggested restricting the number of players an AC hits like most aoes in the game this is a good suggestion..

> >

> > Nope, siege is also there for defence and slowing the blob a bit for reinforcements to arrive. If they are not strong enough you can literally take any keep on the map without problems if your blob is big enough. I assume that this is the case on your server.

>

> Are you implying that people only sit on siege when they don't have an equal sized force?

 

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.