Siege Revisions

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Gorani.7205" said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

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

>

>

> Burning Oil

> This is still a death trap nobody uses. You have to make it more effective to use an the user to survive the AoE attack from below:

> * increase the basic radius of the splash from 240 to 320 (and from 300 to 360 with the mastery)

> * apply Stability and Restistance for 2 seconds everytime the user uses a skill (recharge is 3 sec, so you can't perma the effect without a build with boon duration extensions; also, the boons can still be stripped or corrupted)

> * reduce the recharge on Burning Shell to 20 sec (from now 40 sec)

>

> Trebuchet

> I am a supporter of the current mechanic (and not the PvP ground target one), but I still want improvements

> * replace the charge up bar/channel with a percentile value, so you can give more consistent follow up shots

>

> Ballistae

> The worst thing about the ballista is it hitting the rim of the tower walls when it has to shoot down at a slight angle

> * can you please raise the point of origin of the bolt a bit, so you start shooting from a "tripod" kind of perspective

>

> Catapults

> Catas could get a similar treatment to Trebs + Gravel improvements

> * replace the charge up bar/channel with a percentile value, so you can give more consistent follow up shots

> * Increase the raw damage of Gravel shots by 100% and add 2 seconds of Cripple on top of the bleeding effect

>

> Mortars

> * replace the charge up bar/channel with a percentile value, so you can give more consistent follow up shots

>

> The more advanced changes I would like to be tried out are:

> * Use minimum range for catas so you can't put them right next to a wall

> * Add a special action key to reset the siege decay timer when you are close to the siege (320 radius?), perhaps tied to a new mastery? This would make taking care of siege a lot easier for stewards of the land.

 

Very good points u made there Gorani

 

@TheBravery.9615, im with u on this:

Reduce AC radios a bit.

Catapult damage should be determined by the travel distance of the boulder, not by how much it's charged, this woudl fix the usage of catapults on places that is impossible to hit with siege, or from structure.

 

 

 

 

[Korgov.7645]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> **General**

>

> Siege Masteries: We will be enabling all siege abilities by default. This should allow new players to participate on even footing without being shunned off of siege (or worse...kicked off!) all due to lacking the appropriate mastery.

>

> Siege Tiers: While in the past we had hoped to add a sense of progression from Normal siege into Superior, we noticed that the usage of so called "paper" siege has led to further negative reactions. This led to only Alpha Golems to be used more often than other Normal siege. In order to simplify this most important game play, we will only have 1 type of siege that will use the Normal siege supply amounts. The Guild Siege will be using our upcoming Guild Customization so Guilds can brand their identity on the battlefield (more on that _soon_). All of which will be purchasable from the usual vendors, and drop from the same boxes.

>

> Siege Times: In the past, a player would be able to reset the time by simply interacting with siege. We are no longer allowing that, and will set siege to the average play time of 2 hours. The previous method benefited servers with more coverage. While this won't solve coverage (that we will look into later) it will give more value to supply, and its strategical usage with the moment to moment game play. Incidentally, this allows those "builders" out there to participate more often!

>

> **Siege Equipment**

>

> * Catapult: Despite players still using them in close proximity to walls we feel this piece of equipment does what it sets out to do: siege walls. Where it falls short is Gravel Shot. We will be removing this temporarily. Their shield is short enough in duration it will go unchanged. In an effort of experimentation, we will be adding a new shot in hopes of players using it at range in conjunction with newer builds involving fall damage reduction. Yes, we are serious. Just don't be blocked by a shield gen! Disastrous. That or you can ignore Dev Dave on this one.

> * Fire Personnel: Climb aboard, and launch yourself a distance depending on strength. Fall damage inflicted upon impact equal to the percentage of the shot's power.

>

Fully agree on removing mastery progression, the useless normal siege tier, and the need for siege refreshing.

 

Fire Personnel... haha. Maybe for April Fool's day. The damage inflicted on enemies should similar to [Windfall](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Windfall).

 

 

[Gibberish.4970]

My bizarre suggestion would be to make Siege into stationary "Capture Points" on the map. They are captured slowly, but faster with more allies. Enemies can delay it by having either 50% or equal numbers on the point (also by killing them, since it creates a stationary place for them to target). The Siege points would be set at specific points around towers and keeps, and deal periodic damage to the nearby walls, just by holding that point. There would also be a battering ram capture point. More damage is done if the "connected" Camp is also under your control.

 

Fending off a siege and de-capping a siege point could disable that point (or all nearby points) for a certain amount of time, giving defending players a reward and moment of respite from long continuous sieges, and a chance to repair their walls. Same with knocking down a wall disables repairing of that wall, allowing the offensive player a chance to get into the castle without the wall constantly being repaired from 0

 

This creates areas of actual gameplay aside from arrow cart spam, and one guy on a catapult/ ram hitting 1. also stops the bizarre situation of "catapults" being placed in melee range of walls and in odd places. Just feels weird to have a catapults best position to be in melee range of a cliff that technically hits the wall.

 

Offense players will need to defend their point but also want to defend the supply camp for a duration (instead of just cap and drain it) because of the damage boost

 

Defense players will need to attack the supply camp to slow down the attack, as well as keep enough of a threat on their point that they could potentially take it back. Defensive siege like arrow carts and wall mounted cannons could also be implement as high damage, but temporary Defensive Capture points that only enable when Offensive capture points are taken. Taking them gives you a window of opportunity to retaliate and take the Offensive Point back, but if the Attackers weather the storm, then you need to wait a while before trying again.

[Bast.7253]

Expiring siege is annoying and frustrating imo. But it’s also annoying having to place your siege somewhere an ele or necro wont just aoe it and you down. Defeats the purpose of siege if you can’t use it to pressure the people attacking. Especially in outnumbered situations when the only way to defend would be to use siege. It would also force people to be more strategic like using siege in a captured tower across from it instead of bombing the siege on the walls and losing that pressure.

 

Another thing would be targeting mechanics. I personally refer using the target treb in Kylo vs guesstimating distance even if the latter is more realistic and not overly difficult.

 

Maybe another added siege. Something similar to a golem but faster? A multi seater battle machine that can be used as a structure damaging siege with one person driving it and using that and maybe a bubble, with additional people on the siege weapon able to use attached arrow carts or ballista? It would have to require more supplies than all the others to keep people from just spam building them but could be fun.

 

Shield generators could use a pass at their abilities. Other than the bubble most of the others are pretty pointless. Having the one that creates a line people cannot cross would be a lot more effective if it were a large ring that traps or at least wall length line.

 

 

Another suggestion would be something that could potentially benefit out numbered servers and small group defenders. - A lower cost barricade that keeps people from being able to enter. Like the hallways leading into the lords room in stone mist. It may ultimately be pointless if ranged nuke it down but could add some fun gameplay and trap creation

[TheBravery.9615]

Can we also get some wvw ability to enhance siege throwing? This is not for balance or anything, but to add some ~~flavor in the game.~~ SALT

 

e.g.

 

You can now move while throwing siege

 

thrown balista/AC siege deals damage to enemies

 

thrown flame ram/catapult/shield gen siege knocks back enemies

 

trebuchet build sites will now explode into a cloud of smoke, blinding enemies and knocking down enemies

 

golem siege blueprints deal massive damage to downed players

 

 

[Etheri.5406]

It's been made significantly easier to defend in the last years with the additions of tactivators, automatic upgrading and various objective upgrades.

 

But this has just promoted full defensive gameplay where you rather avoid and siege enemies than meet or fight them, ever. Frankly this should not be the goal.

 

Defensive siege and tactivators should be there to delay the enemies, giving your side time to respond and defend appropriately with people. Instead it's being used as a primary means of defense, stacking ACs and other siege in unhittable positions to completely avoid fighting.

 

Having defensive siege which you need to take out is fine. This slows down an assault on a defended objective giving the enemies time to formulate a real defense. Even tanking some is completely fine.

Having defensive siege be your real defense, spammed constantly as a means to avoid fighting is not fine. Especially if the only available counterplay is "build shieldgens and rotate them permanently" as it's trivial to build siege on spots that cannot be hit.

 

A very good example is desert bl, where there are a LOT of locations on inner and outer keeps for ACs that simply can never be hit.

 

Currenly siege spam with tactivators is the real means of defense. You will find a large amount of siege on inner and possibly outer, but the moment you breach the defenders leave. You got past their siege & tactivators which means, to them, the objective is lost. This is true too, it's far easier to defend while holding a heavily siege-spammed position. Once they breach it's too late.

But this forces very very uninteractive gameplay. One side trying to force their way into an objective, the other side trying to keep them out strictly using siege and tactics. No combat between players whatsoever. As soon as one side breaches, the other side leaves and gives up. The issue is that siege is seen as the main form of defense.

 

If siege is clearable, it will not be the main means of defense. It will be a delay that forces defenders to come and actually defend. Siege needs to help defenders even the odds against the attacking side. It shouldn't act as a barrier "Can you get past these 10 acs, if yes you get the objective for free, if no you won't get this objective at all, either way you will not see enemies".

 

Also consider revisiting when you get loot from tagging players with siege. There are servers which have taken the avoidant gameplay so far they'll build siege whenever available to hit the two enemy sides fighting. Trebs (and occasionally acs) being used just to shoot into the battlefield as much as possible, to gain kills of whoever dies on either side. This can be done mostly without risk, gives loot and PPK to both servers and further rewards avoidant gameplay where you interact with siege, rather than with your enemies.

If the only damage your server has done to the enemies is siege, you probably shouldn't get loot for it. Having people go out of their way to shoot siege at you in any way possible, particularly the third server while the other two have groups.

 

Siege should be there to even out the interaction between players, helping the losing / struggling side. It should be a defensive tool to even the scale. It should NOT be the primary defense of objectives, allowing you to avoid interaction between players at all. It should NOT be a primary offensive tool to gain kills and loot either. It should be there to even the scales, to promote healthy interaction between players. Not promote no interaction at all.

 

AC's can stay as strong as they are, I don't even care. They should not stay unlimited in objectives. Siege cap should either be more strict for things like ACs, or various spots with unhittable acs need to be removed (I suggest making siegecap reached far more easily, 1-3 acs that aren't hitable is quite tankable. 10+ is an issue. Building 10+ is not an issue and fairly straightforwards at the moment).

[Ringsound.7806]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

>

> 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.

 

I have to agree with you, the sole reason I join WvW is the overall game play, it is not just another Team Death Match like many many other MMO and FPS, we have an objective to do, and you can't just force you way in.

Soldiers play a part in campaign, but it is the tactical and strategic planning win a war. Soldiers shouldn't have superpower to break over structure. Little bit like Foxhole!, soldiers are still the main focus on the game, but soldier alone have minimum impact on the outcome of the war, it is the supply logistic, siege/weapon advancement, tactics, and commanding ability that change the tide.

 

If player looking for pure 50 vs 50, i think it is better to post it in PvP forum asking for a new mode.

I see Zerg are more to hold a frontline allow supply and reinforcement from to back to reach it safely, and using siege to counter defensive structure. Roamer to cut off opponent supply, to create diversion. Of cause the zerg can also be use as guerrilla group. Ultimately the focus should be capturing strategical point, and score the highest for your homeland. This is what I think the siege rework should be aiming for.

 

Yet, the problem would be siege allow smaller players number to able to defense a keep or stronghold, and attacker require more siege to over come the defense advantageous, it could simply become a siege race, and when both attacking and defensing team have equal number of players, it make attacker so much harder to break through the stronghold. With current supply/capture system, it is quite difficult to use "cut off opponent supply" tactic to "starve" their siege. I think developer have to start introducing restriction on siege number depending on what type of siege, location of deployment, restriction where the siege can be deployed, not just a general hard cap. Furthermore, current sieges need some rework too, like AC with such damage and 50 AOE limit, they are way too powerful, my party fend off a zerg of 30+ with just 2 superior AC. Ballista, I haven't see them in ages. Wall and burning oil are death trap. With tune down AC and some defensive siege, I think no AOE should be able to hit the players on the wall, projectile should still be allow to hit them if not obstructed

[Ansau.7326]

> @"Ringsound.7806" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> >

> > 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.

>

> I have to agree with you, the sole reason I join WvW is the overall game play, it is not just another Team Death Match like many many other MMO and FPS, we have an objective to do, and you can't just force you way in.

> Soldiers play a part in campaign, but it is the tactical and strategic planning win a war. Soldiers shouldn't have superpower to break over structure. Little bit like Foxhole!, soldiers are still the main focus on the game, but soldier alone have minimum impact on the outcome of the war, it is the supply logistic, siege/weapon advancement, tactics, and commanding ability that change the tide.

>

> If player looking for pure 50 vs 50, i think it is better to post it in PvP forum asking for a new mode.

> I see Zerg are more to hold a frontline allow supply and reinforcement from to back to reach it safely, and using siege to counter defensive structure. Roamer to cut off opponent supply, to create diversion. Of cause the zerg can also be use as guerrilla group. Ultimately the focus should be capturing strategical point, and score the highest for your homeland. This is what I think the siege rework should be aiming for.

>

> Yet, the problem would be siege allow smaller players number to able to defense a keep or stronghold, and attacker require more siege to over come the defense advantageous, it could simply become a siege race, and when both attacking and defensing team have equal number of players, it make attacker so much harder to break through the stronghold. With current supply/capture system, it is quite difficult to use "cut off opponent supply" tactic to "starve" their siege. I think developer have to start introducing restriction on siege number depending on what type of siege, location of deployment, restriction where the siege can be deployed, not just a general hard cap. Furthermore, current sieges need some rework too, like AC with such damage and 50 AOE limit, they are way too powerful, my party fend off a zerg of 30+ with just 2 superior AC. Ballista, I haven't see them in ages. Wall and burning oil are death trap. With tune down AC and some defensive siege, I think no AOE should be able to hit the players on the wall, projectile should still be allow to hit them if not obstructed

 

But the reality is not like that. Siege nowadays plays a greater than healthy role in WvW, to the point where it neither satisfies people who enjoys sieging structures and people who prefer to fight zergs.

I've lost the amount of times when one server is sitting inside a structure and the other waiting outside without interaction between them for several minutes. One doesn't want to get out of the range of their OP siege, the other doesn't want to get closer just to be forced to retrieve as there is no way to resist being sieged.

 

Basically, current state of siege is preventing players to interact with the enemy. Siege is so OP that it only requires 3-4 players with arrowcarts to nullify an entire zerg, and this results in sneaking into structures without the presence of the enemy to become the only valid strategy to steal them. Moreover, it is not entertaining to spend 30min searching supplies across the maps to burn them in 3 min after your siege is completely destroyed by the 4-5 guys sitting on their walls.

 

It is not about how WvW should be played, it is about siege being too strong and forcing both sides to takes strategies based on little to no interaction with the enemy to achieve the goals of WvW.

[Offair.2563]

> @"Draeyon.4392" said:

> Reduce Arrowcart damage to players by 50% or reduce the number of people it hits down to 5 or 10.

>

> ALSO, Please for the love of Quaggan have a look at placement of mortars on Desert Borderlands. On Stoic Rampart alone I dont think they I have seen anyone trying to use them.

> See screenshot for reference. What is this supposed to hit?

> 

>

 

^This. Only mortars i see some use there are the ones at south gate and north whenever enemies bother to build trebs on the cliffs. Other then that completely out of touch.

[Calibria.6489]

I think something you may want to try is allowing the guild who claimed the tower or fort to place the cannons/mortars on the walls of the fort/tower for 30 minutes after the upgrade is done, or with a tactivator with a 1 hour cooldown (numbers not safe) this way.

 

As far as buildable siege is concerned: I think the problem is with how walls function, not with the siege itself. The balance between siege is fine (arrowcarts/cannons beat rams, catapults beat arrowcarts, ballistas beat catapults, trebs beat everything but take long).

 

As it goes now, walls give the attackers an advantage, not the defenders like they are supposed to, since you can fire aoes onto the walls, but not fire aoes down without coming forward since you are obstructed. This leads to issues with unreachable catapults or defensive siege being clearable without any spending of the attackers supply.

Therefor i would propose a rework on the walls mechanics, maybe let the engine count them as broken for the defenders team by default (as far as obstruction is concerned, no idea if the engine can do that) or give ranged aoes a hightcap below walls so you cannot be in danger unless you step too far forward.

[GildedCreed.3518]

To be honest the balista upgrade to shoot down people on gliders is rarely used (since you're never really gliding into enemy territory and even then you don't go very far before birds start pecking your eyes out) and even then you're going to be focusing on shooting down opposing siege than players inside zones like SMC or the large hill to the south of the Red Side's Keep in EBG. Maybe some QoL changes to other siege that'll make it up, for example changing the Alpha/Omega Siege Golem's grab to be able to pluck people out of the air?

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

This is the reason acs need damage nerf. And also the reason people hate red border... you can do such can cer and there's it's almost impossible to counter them other than 4 shields

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/440861864553873426/447733839117418508/Memes_LI.jpg

[Eventine.8024]

> @"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!

 

Thanks for the post. I've seen a lot of good ideas from which you can harvest. But I want to point out another thing that emerged among a post in the Italian community group. The WvWvW is a sort of combination between an RTS and a massive PvP (mainly used as Guild vs Guild in heroic fights very much appreciated and Blob vs Blob with strong servers -hi Vabbi- ), so I think you should push up in both that directions with more effort. I try to make examples:

- RTS direction: you can give importance to buildings, like "you cannot take the Keep if there are at least 2 towers belonging to the team", and "if enemys take the keep, your world gets huge debuffs" or "keep, and each upgrade give buffs to player in the map", ...

Moreover you can make the supply/caravan mechanics even more driving/hard, so that roamers and party roaming have huge objectives. And you can puts some more strat.

- massive PvP: lower a lot the damage that sieges to to players, or as suggested, make the Acs as the cannons/mortars. You can develp/improve siege to do, instead of damage, conditions like crepple or chill, or boons.

 

Hope to has been helpful

[Napo.1230]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"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.

 

Actually no i said delete the siege and make walls safe to stand on.

 

[reddie.5861]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> 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.

 

how can u be a roamer and actually know the pain of a siege in ur ass?

i mean i roam also but i never had people unloading 3/4/5 AC's on me while im trying to fight 1 guy out of their tower/keep ill just get jumped..

top of that i wouldnt even fight near any structure.

 

the point is that if u have for example 25vs25 and people are using 4 ac's u bet the ones that use AC's will win.

AC's need to be limited and best of all be put in a spot that any1 with range attacks can hit them why? because why not?

 

maybe they need make mortar arc smaller? in order to hit near walls maybe they should make it so cannons are immune to condi dmg and have reduced dmg taken and person using it doesnt take dmg at all? so the cannons wont be useless i dont know, but having towers fully packed with tons of AC's that can annoy a whole blob is pathetic.

 

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Napo.1230" said:

> > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> Actually no i said delete the siege and make walls safe to stand on.

>

 

OMG, imagine a world with only rams and maybe trebs/catas and where you can actually fight people down from walls.... That would be a fun game indeed.

 

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Napo.1230" said:

> > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > > @"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.

> >

> > Actually no i said delete the siege and make walls safe to stand on.

> >

>

> OMG, imagine a world with only rams and maybe trebs/catas and where you can actually fight people down from walls.... That would be a fun game indeed.

>

 

Yeah but that won't ever happen so making walls safe would only make everything worse (which was my point... camping a wall... such entertaining content)

[Ragmon.6350]

Devs, please take a looks at Planetside 2. It has a very similar concept to GW2's WvW. There are a lot of things to learn from that game when it comes to WvW.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"Napo.1230" said:

> > > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > >

> > > Actually no i said delete the siege and make walls safe to stand on.

> > >

> >

> > OMG, imagine a world with only rams and maybe trebs/catas and where you can actually fight people down from walls.... That would be a fun game indeed.

> >

>

> Yeah but that won't ever happen so making walls safe would only make everything worse (which was my point... camping a wall... such entertaining content)

 

As opposed to mindlessly following an icon on the map to the point where you shut down your brain entirely and dive of a cliff if the commander does that?

Because that is without a doubt the most engaging game play in the world.

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > @"Napo.1230" said:

> > > > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > > > Actually no i said delete the siege and make walls safe to stand on.

> > > >

> > >

> > > OMG, imagine a world with only rams and maybe trebs/catas and where you can actually fight people down from walls.... That would be a fun game indeed.

> > >

> >

> > Yeah but that won't ever happen so making walls safe would only make everything worse (which was my point... camping a wall... such entertaining content)

>

> As opposed to mindlessly following an icon on the map to the point where you shut down your brain entirely and dive of a cliff if the commander does that?

> Because that is without a doubt the most engaging game play in the world.

 

that's what you do if you have no awareness of the game

 

this is what happens if you follow a tag door to door with brain turned off https://imgur.com/hz3ZrUd

first enemy you encounter you get steamrolled even if you have higher numbers

 

that's the result of sitting on top of walls with acs and never fighting other players

[MithranArkanere.8957]

* I think giving siege a fixed expiration date would be good to increasing dependency on supply lines and their importance, but having the same fixed duration for all siege would not do.

Since there's siege that will have to stick around longer like trebuchet, the duration of siege should depend on it supply cost. Something like (10 + half supply cost) mins. So an arrow cart would last 10+40/2=30 min, a trebuchet would last 10+100/2=60 min.

* If siege do get an expiration date, then it may be possible to reconsider repairing siege, since there could be a sacrifice. Every supply point spent repairing a piece of siege could decrease its remaining duration by 1 or 2 min. So that would allow making siege last longer in short term under fire, but reduce its longer term duration.

* It would also be nice if there was extra mastery ranks for the siege WvW abilities that add specialized player buffs when manning siege like "less damage from other siege" when manning a defensive siege like a shield generator, or "less damage from players and guards" when manning a siege machine meant to be used against players like a ballista.

* Or something we currently do not have "specialization abilities" instead having upgrades as lines, after a certain point, they could split, so it would not be possible to take all upgrades at the same time. For example, after getting the 5th Golem WvW ability, there would be 9 new abilities, split in 3 lines:

* The first line would have 3 abilities that make the golem into a tankier doorbreaker: any golem mounted would get the Alpha golem skill set but Pull is replaced with Armor Up, a 30s recharge skill that gives the golem a barrier equal to half of its missing health for 5s. Then increase damage against doors and increase damage in melee range. The last upgrade would reduce damage from melee attacks and from all enemy siege. In exchange for these buffs, these upgrades would reduce damage done to siege and players.

* The second would turn the golem into a siege hunter: Skill 2 always gives retaliation to self, skill 4 is always Pull, and pull now pulls 4 additional enemies near the target enemy. Increase damage against players manning siege and siege. Then greatly reduce damage from players and antipersonnel siege. These upgrades would greatly reduce damage against gates.

* The third would turn it into a squishier mobile artillery platform: any golem mounted would have the omega golem skill set with shield bubble replaced by a shield wall that lasts longer and reflects projectiles the first 2 seconds after it appears, whirling inferno is replaced by "Blowout" a skill that does little damage but launches enemies 750 units in the direction the golem is facing. Then increase the range of rocket punch and rocket salvo to 2000 units and their damage by 20%. Finally, Rocket Salvo now has 3 charges with a 60s recharge each, and fires 10 rockets with a much higher arc and speed, its count recharge is reduced by 2 seconds every time a rocket hits a target. These upgrades would halve the golem's health and reduce its defense by 20%.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"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?

 

[Dreamwolf.7423]

Since I've already seen a lot of the suggestions I would have made, I will add a few things:

 

1. When towers/keeps upgrade, in addition to cannons, mortars, and burning pots, AC and ballista spots should be added as well.

2. Camps should get designated AC spots as well as perhaps adding barricade spots so people can defend a camp.

3. Increase the cooldown on siege skills.

4. Contested swords should pop instantly when guards/walls/gates are hit, not 30 seconds later when a zerg is already in the lords room.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"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.

 

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...

 

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.”

 

[GWMO.4785]

The problem with siege is that they are WAY too powerful. Like i am spending serious amount of time in WvW, both Roaming (solo) and following blobs, groups, guilds /whatever. The situation i often encounter when i do this, is that we end up basically playing siege wars. In both the groups that attacks and defends. Especially in higher tier servers, people end up building 3 (if not more) shield generators first. Followed by other desired siege to take or defend the objective. This is where the problem starts:

 

Building 3 of shield generators already makes your compound impenetrable. All it takes is 3 people (on voice chat), to rotate their shields correctly. So it ends up in just waiting which group loosing their patience first to (dis)engage. And then there are arrowcards... Why do these damn things so much damage? I mean sure i get it, its useful to wear off the opponent group / zerg. But again 3 or more of these is already enough to hold off a blob of 50 man. Which in my believes is absurdly retarded and takes away the fun.

 

Now if you'd ask me, I would say remove the sieges entirely. This way there will be more room for fighting. and basically asks for manpower to both attack and defend. If you dont have enough people or strenght, you dont deserve to keep that objective. But again thats me, and others do like the siege wars i suppose. So to balance that I think it would be fair to nerf them in a certain way. Lets say the damage or limit how much you can deploy within a certain range. As for the other sieges, i dont really see a problem of those, For the exception of the bubble on the catapult. I think increasing the cooldown on that would do, if you mix it with the other suggestions i mentioned earlier.