Siege Revisions

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

how is this allowed and possible? then people say acs are fine lmao.

 

this is beyond pathetic

 

[https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf](https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf "https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf")

 

full album of absolutly boring gameplay

 

[https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw](https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw "https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw")

[Aeolus.3615]

@LINKAZZATORE.8135

wow that's really awfull, still not a siege issue for most part of the problem.... mostly like players are forced to have that behavior, since walls are useless, so they stack tons of siege.

 

Walls need to make defenders defend there and play there, while siege needs o be cutted...

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> @LINKAZZATORE.8135

> wow that's really awfull, still not a siege issue for most part of the problem.... mostly like players are forced to have that behavior, since walls are useless, so they stack tons of siege.

>

> Walls need to make defenders defend there and play there, while siege needs o be cutted...

 

make walls more safe so they can builds more acs that you can't destroy and have more people camping on them

 

sounds like a smart solution... wait it isn't.

 

what about instead of sitting on the wall you jump down and fight us? maybe learn how to use your class instead of turning with arrows and clicking skills with the mouse from 1 to 0?

 

Hallo, in order to improve general WvW-quality [TT]/[Ez] provide several resources that may aid in that on ez.gw2discord.eu. Check it out!

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @LINKAZZATORE.8135

> > wow that's really awfull, still not a siege issue for most part of the problem.... mostly like players are forced to have that behavior, since walls are useless, so they stack tons of siege.

> >

> > Walls need to make defenders defend there and play there, while siege needs o be cutted...

>

> make walls more safe so they can builds more acs that you can't destroy and have more people camping on them

>

> sounds like a smart solution... wait it isn't.

 

No (that was not what i said....), makes walls where they arent a death trap for defenders, while make harder to drop tons of siege on walls, maybe increase the radios where siege is deployed, to avoid that overstacking humping of siege.

 

Would actually result in more players on wall rather than siege, siege would have to be placed, more spaced(way more), and in better clever spots, the point is that would result in players fighting in both sides with siege support rather than be players fitgh siege humping...

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @LINKAZZATORE.8135

> > > wow that's really awfull, still not a siege issue for most part of the problem.... mostly like players are forced to have that behavior, since walls are useless, so they stack tons of siege.

> > >

> > > Walls need to make defenders defend there and play there, while siege needs o be cutted...

> >

> > make walls more safe so they can builds more acs that you can't destroy and have more people camping on them

> >

> > sounds like a smart solution... wait it isn't.

>

> No (that was not what i said....), makes walls where they arent a death trap for defenders, while make harder to drop tons of siege on walls, maybe increase the radios where siege is deployed, to avoid that overstacking humping of siege.

>

> Would actually result in more players on wall rather than siege, siege would have to be placed, more spaced(way more), and in better clever spots, the point is there players fighting in both sides with siege support rather than be players fitgh siege humping...

 

safer walls will make that no matter how you see it... red border has way higher and safer walls and guess what? it's hated by most expecially those who have quit wvw, and you can still build a fucking ton of sieges everywhere and never get it (because it's fun gameplay right????)

just early we had to get inside fire keep under 8 guild arrow carts and 60 of them inside camping on that crap. F U N G A M E P L A Y

if you don't want to nerf acs damage then you have to make them stack less/have general structure cap for acs, but then the counter of that is that any troll can build a tons of useless sieges in a corner and make it impossible to build anywhere else.

 

so yeah, what i said it's the only solution. halve the fucking damage of those trash carts because having to push inside a gate with 60 people behind it + 15 acs and trebs shooting at you is fucking retarded

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > @LINKAZZATORE.8135

> > > > wow that's really awfull, still not a siege issue for most part of the problem.... mostly like players are forced to have that behavior, since walls are useless, so they stack tons of siege.

> > > >

> > > > Walls need to make defenders defend there and play there, while siege needs o be cutted...

> > >

> > > make walls more safe so they can builds more acs that you can't destroy and have more people camping on them

> > >

> > > sounds like a smart solution... wait it isn't.

> >

> > No (that was not what i said....), makes walls where they arent a death trap for defenders, while make harder to drop tons of siege on walls, maybe increase the radios where siege is deployed, to avoid that overstacking humping of siege.

> >

> > Would actually result in more players on wall rather than siege, siege would have to be placed, more spaced(way more), and in better clever spots, the point is there players fighting in both sides with siege support rather than be players fitgh siege humping...

>

> safer walls will make that no matter how you see it... red border has way higher and safer walls and guess what? it's hated by most expecially those who have quit wvw, and you can still build a kitten ton of sieges everywhere and never get it (because it's fun gameplay right????)

> just early we had to get inside fire keep under 8 guild arrow carts and 60 of them inside camping on that crap. F U N G A M E P L A Y

> if you don't want to nerf acs damage then you have to make them stack less/have general structure cap for acs, but then the counter of that is that any troll can build a tons of useless sieges in a corner and make it impossible to build anywhere else.

>

> so yeah, what i said it's the only solution. halve the kitten damage of those trash carts because having to push inside a gate with 60 people behind it + 15 acs and trebs shooting at you is kitten kitten

 

DBL ..... that happenned cause Anet is a slacker and dont care about make true improvements, **they drop unfinished changes that require more changes further** and dont bother to improve them.

I play full zerker+assassin gear and i dont recall the last time i died to a superior ac's cause i can stand away form them, proxy catapults arent the only way to take stuff, so no i dont complain about ac's damage, i do agree make their radios smaller and make harder if not impossible to hump siege arround each other.

 

 

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

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

> > > > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > > @LINKAZZATORE.8135

> > > > > wow that's really awfull, still not a siege issue for most part of the problem.... mostly like players are forced to have that behavior, since walls are useless, so they stack tons of siege.

> > > > >

> > > > > Walls need to make defenders defend there and play there, while siege needs o be cutted...

> > > >

> > > > make walls more safe so they can builds more acs that you can't destroy and have more people camping on them

> > > >

> > > > sounds like a smart solution... wait it isn't.

> > >

> > > No (that was not what i said....), makes walls where they arent a death trap for defenders, while make harder to drop tons of siege on walls, maybe increase the radios where siege is deployed, to avoid that overstacking humping of siege.

> > >

> > > Would actually result in more players on wall rather than siege, siege would have to be placed, more spaced(way more), and in better clever spots, the point is there players fighting in both sides with siege support rather than be players fitgh siege humping...

> >

> > safer walls will make that no matter how you see it... red border has way higher and safer walls and guess what? it's hated by most expecially those who have quit wvw, and you can still build a kitten ton of sieges everywhere and never get it (because it's fun gameplay right????)

> > just early we had to get inside fire keep under 8 guild arrow carts and 60 of them inside camping on that crap. F U N G A M E P L A Y

> > if you don't want to nerf acs damage then you have to make them stack less/have general structure cap for acs, but then the counter of that is that any troll can build a tons of useless sieges in a corner and make it impossible to build anywhere else.

> >

> > so yeah, what i said it's the only solution. halve the kitten damage of those trash carts because having to push inside a gate with 60 people behind it + 15 acs and trebs shooting at you is kitten kitten

>

> That happenned cause Anet is a slacker and dont care about make true improvements, they drop unfinished changes and dont bother to improve them.

 

100% ignorance, passive gameplay, and ultra casual people make that situation not only anet. we are spreading builds since well over a year now, vabbi has never lost a single matchup for kills/deaths since we made it main server again, last matchup we ended with 2.5 k/d, current one we have 3 k/d... if people would start to play propelly you wouldn't need that ammount of can cer sieges and the game would be more healthy.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

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

> > > > > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > > > > @LINKAZZATORE.8135

> > > > > > wow that's really awfull, still not a siege issue for most part of the problem.... mostly like players are forced to have that behavior, since walls are useless, so they stack tons of siege.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Walls need to make defenders defend there and play there, while siege needs o be cutted...

> > > > >

> > > > > make walls more safe so they can builds more acs that you can't destroy and have more people camping on them

> > > > >

> > > > > sounds like a smart solution... wait it isn't.

> > > >

> > > > No (that was not what i said....), makes walls where they arent a death trap for defenders, while make harder to drop tons of siege on walls, maybe increase the radios where siege is deployed, to avoid that overstacking humping of siege.

> > > >

> > > > Would actually result in more players on wall rather than siege, siege would have to be placed, more spaced(way more), and in better clever spots, the point is there players fighting in both sides with siege support rather than be players fitgh siege humping...

> > >

> > > safer walls will make that no matter how you see it... red border has way higher and safer walls and guess what? it's hated by most expecially those who have quit wvw, and you can still build a kitten ton of sieges everywhere and never get it (because it's fun gameplay right????)

> > > just early we had to get inside fire keep under 8 guild arrow carts and 60 of them inside camping on that crap. F U N G A M E P L A Y

> > > if you don't want to nerf acs damage then you have to make them stack less/have general structure cap for acs, but then the counter of that is that any troll can build a tons of useless sieges in a corner and make it impossible to build anywhere else.

> > >

> > > so yeah, what i said it's the only solution. halve the kitten damage of those trash carts because having to push inside a gate with 60 people behind it + 15 acs and trebs shooting at you is kitten kitten

> >

> > That happenned cause Anet is a slacker and dont care about make true improvements, they drop unfinished changes and dont bother to improve them.

>

> 100% ignorance, passive gameplay, and ultra casual people make that situation not only anet. we are spreading builds since well over a year now, vabbi has never lost a single matchup for kills/deaths since we made it main server again, last matchup we ended with 2.5 k/d, current one we have 3 k/d... if people would start to play propelly you wouldn't need that ammount of can cer sieges and the game would be more healthy.

 

The game forces and helps players in that kind of behavior wich is one of the things i would love Anet to change...**Dont forget gw2 is ment for those ultra casual...**

Trust me, im not asking to make walls a safe place... but atm is a death trap due the ammount of aoe spam the game has.

 

 

Theres alot of factors for that, player population, players dont want to engage in ground fights, most servers that have high K/D farm players from siege on SMC at least on NA side, then blob much smaller groups... its a simpton of the game, cause it is what the game is made for.... ktrains, and siege humping i think ANet sees that has the counter for the ktrain...well both are mistakes, and need to be changed IMO.

 

Players ended hating DBL walls cause they cant easy win nor hide back while it feels punishive for defender as well to walk to structures but that is another topic, yet siege hitting those walls that are harder to aoe, could actually make players on top KD(that would require teamplay rather thank afk on siege) or something has a punishive way, also siege on wall being trebbed / catted would make sense to take some part of the damage, siege hitting walls could start to damage siege for a balance reason, wich imo actually would make sense >_> and would force the defensive team to pull on melee.

 

[XenesisII.1540]

Ok, well, not going to respond to all that one sided argument, clearly still doesn't understand that players are going to spam siege regardless of what you do to walls.

 

Making walls safer will just make it even worse for safe siege spam.

 

And farming high kdr from siege in smc, lol.

I mean think about it, who would be worse in that scenario? the ones on the siege or the ones that keep feeding them the kills to supposedly get a high kdr?

[High House Dobby.5316]

Make it so that siege can only be acquired using gems. Boom, get dat money $$$ anet!

[Meetshield.1756]

DRAGON BANNERS - either Nerf them into newb only toys, or make the carrier of them a vulnerable massive blinking target that is unmistakable. A pulsing blue light beam above their head that extended to cloud level would be a good start. Pushing into a choke in a fair guild vs guild situation and having some pug nobody jump off a wall and dragon banner your squad to death is a real punch in the guts. Its even worse when only a few players in your guild notice it and the Commander is still yelling at you all of for die-ing an hour later..

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> how is this allowed and possible? then people say acs are fine lmao.

>

> this is beyond pathetic

>

> [https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf](https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf "https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf")

>

> full album of absolutly boring gameplay

>

> [https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw](https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw "https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw")

 

You broke into their inner and even lord's room, do you expect to walk in like a boss? How about asking anet to add orbital bombardment for you?

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

 

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

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

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

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

> >

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

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

>

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

 

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

[ilMasa.2546]

As of right now there is no siege war, its just a blatant spam:

* Spam Arrowcarts for defense

* Spam Catapults for offense

 

Even tho the game offers you different types of sieges with different types of range each, its been years since i saw a **SINGLE** commander set up 2 trebs at distance and actually **SIEGE** a tower.

But to be honest sieges arent that huge problem and can be easily fixed:

 

**Sieges shuld have a min distance,based on range, at which they could be placed from towers and Keeps**:

* Close Range - **RAMS**

* Medium Range - **CATAS**

* Long Range - **TREBS**

 

Here is your avarage WvW "siege war": blobs come in,stacks unders the wall,builds 5 catas and thats it.

And the best part is when a Tag actually loses those catas : just move to an other "objective" instead of getting ,for istance, more distance and build 2 damn trebs.

 

Here the problems:

* Attackers on the ground can clear a wall from any sieges in a matter of 15 seconds with AoEs

* Attackers on the ground can turn walls into a deathtrap with the same AoE spammage

* Attackers on the ground while AoE spamming,are behind those walls,being defacto **Out of Sight**,they just need to aim to the highest point of the wall to cover the whole catwalk.

* Defenders on the other hand,have to survive the catwalk first then they have **to lean from** the wall to siege disable,to AoE or use any kind of attack.

* Indistructible walls are often exploited and used as cover for siege placement: they just have to aim for those steps 8 meters away from doors or walls...the CRAZY splash dmg will reach anyways,so why be precise.

* You cant be extremely precise with your defensive sieges either,if the attackers are stacked behind your outer wall,there is noway to land a precise hit,unless u move to an other Tower.

Most of the Time your shots will land on your wall,too far over your wall or just nullified by the bubbles of those 5+ catas right under your wall.

 

If im defending a FORTIFIED TOWER and im INSIDE,i shuld have atleast a form of utilty from it,but its not the case: EVER.

 

Attackers shuld not be ABLE to cover the WHOLE catwalk with AoEs from the ground.

Attackers shuld not be ABLE to clean defensive siege with 4 AoEs from the ground => build a balista and use THAT,maybe next a beautifull cata placed at some distance from the walls,atleast attackers HAVE to USE the power meter on sieges,instead of 1click at point blank as soon as the CD permit it (lol...wish i could do the same while defending)

Catas Bubbles or Shield Gen: both are redundant. Replace the Cata Bubble with a temporary fire rate increase or something else.

 

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > how is this allowed and possible? then people say acs are fine lmao.

> >

> > this is beyond pathetic

> >

> > [https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf](https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf "https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf")

> >

> > full album of absolutly boring gameplay

> >

> > [https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw](https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw "https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw")

>

> You broke into their inner and even lord's room, do you expect to walk in like a boss? How about asking anet to add orbital bombardment for you?

 

how about reducing the ammount of acs that can cover a single gate? did you see last screenshot? do you think 60 people + 10 or 12 if not more acs is somewhat normal? that's hell.

if you need that many sieges to hold a gate you don't deserve to hold it at all

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

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

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

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

 

Your post fail no mentionvthat while damage is roughly the same since the masteries, fortification toughness has skyrocketed through the roof due to the new upgrade system, guild claims/tactivators and shield generators.

 

Lets not forget the "fixed" waypoints as well that moved battles toward stopping attacks with siege instead of players.

[Oogabooga.3812]

How about some experimental new golems? Anti-infantry golems like the Molten Firestorm in fractals, a party support like the Mark P Support Golem from CoE, or a ranged attacker like the Mark P Battle Golems.

[Zushada.6108]

> @"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.

 

I disagree here. On my server there are times when we are outnumbered for the vast majority of the afternoon or the number of players in a zergs outnumber our zergs. Siege is the only defence we have during those time periods. In fact my server is outnumbered on so many maps at this period, they have pretty much stopped defending all together. On the other hand, the game gives zero reason to defend in the first place. Players get nothing beneficial for successfully defending so most seem take the stance "oh well, we will just re-cap in a few mins." In my mind it is a matter of working smart when outnumbered and not wanting to give up the T3 Keep or Tower.

 

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

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

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

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

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

> Your post fail no mentionvthat while damage is roughly the same since the masteries, fortification toughness has skyrocketed through the roof due to the new upgrade system, guild claims/tactivators and shield generators.

>

> Lets not forget the "fixed" waypoints as well that moved battles toward stopping attacks with siege instead of players.

 

The new upgrade system doesn't change the fundamental T3 design. T3 still a T3.

Guild buffs, I mentioned that.

Shield generators can be used by both attackers and defenders, therefore it is fair by itself.

Tactivators is debatable but for most part, it doesn't defeat the enemies. For example, invulnerability is a delay tactic and if the attackers can't deal with that duration, it just means the zerg is not capable enough to cap it. A objective that is destined to fall, will fall, regardless of the delay. Chilling fog on the other hand, due to the current classes balance, it does give the defender a bit of advantage but if the attackers can break into inner to get affected by the fog, then, I am sure they can take it on another try. For banners, both side have access to them. Iron hide while give lord a prolong life due to damage reduction, we must not forget that current classes balance result in damage itself has skyrocketed and without that, the lord will simply melt.

"Fixed" wp, I assume you meant the timer, I think that is a competitive fix. It just isn't fair that people can port in between the time gap. On a second thought, I am not sure what you are complaining if you mention this, this fix reduce the defenders' advantage, it kinda suggest you simply hate siege?

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > how is this allowed and possible? then people say acs are fine lmao.

> > >

> > > this is beyond pathetic

> > >

> > > [https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf](https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf "https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf")

> > >

> > > full album of absolutly boring gameplay

> > >

> > > [https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw](https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw "https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw")

> >

> > You broke into their inner and even lord's room, do you expect to walk in like a boss? How about asking anet to add orbital bombardment for you?

>

> how about reducing the ammount of acs that can cover a single gate? did you see last screenshot? do you think 60 people + 10 or 12 if not more acs is somewhat normal? that's hell.

> if you need that many sieges to hold a gate you don't deserve to hold it at all

 

Erm? You broke through the gate, they didn't hold it at all, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Furthermore, shield generators negate all of those damage, even if they have 100 of them.

[Zushada.6108]

Thoughts in a nutshell:

1. I think the decay timer on build sites is unnecessary as there is no need for them to self destruct. To me it is a waste of supplies. Once it is built, there shouldn't be a decay timer either. You get no ppt for building and refreshing siege so there is zero benefit to these cooldowns.

2. My guildies and I have talked about needing a way to destroy our own siege. Sometimes we take over a tower that was previously ours but we lost it 5 mins prior and our "old" siege is still there but is useless due to location etc but we can't do anything to move it or destroy it to rebuild.

3. I don't see a need to nerf ACs ; they kick my butt just as much as they kick the enemies butts.

4. With regards to Mortar's, Cannon's and Burning Oil... I would like to see a label in the location they will eventually spawn as I have seen many faithful siege builders place ACs and Ballista's on top of a future Mortar site making it a challenge to interact with either.

5. I would also like to see the functionality of Burning Oil changed with better range and less LOS issues

6. There needs to be some protection for those using siege. I see far too many ppl get "stuck" in a cata or AC and die because they are being hit while using siege. I know there are Mastery's but those with it trained represent a small portion of the community.

7. Ballista needs an overhaul as it has the potential to be a great siege weapon, it just doesn't function effectively

8. Develop siege specific to underwater - I don't mean an entire new set I just mean a "watering ram" and others that suit the environment. Alternatively change the functionality of current siege so it morphs into an UW version of itself. Similar to how my druid spirits turn into dolphins. ;- )

9. Create a "stealth" detection siege that identifies (not reveals) players in stealth. Different from the current trap, it would detect stealthed characters around the perimeter of the area. In my previous game, if I was in stealth and an enemy was in stealth and we came within 15 metres we could see an outline of each other but were not revealed. We also had a class with a "stealth detector" that helped a fair bit as well. I see part of the problem with the stealth classes as more related to the lack of counter or detection skills rather than them being OP.

 

In the end, zergs know perimetre siege is there and take it out in advance if they can. So while it does help in a pinch, I don't see siege as a useful long-term means of defence b/c even guild siege gets nuked quickly by the enemy. Siege is meant to be a supporting resource and I think it is doing its job pretty well atm. I just think the supply cost versus the benefits are not balanced especially when they are so easily shattered by the enemy. I also see many of the issues with siege as more related to a "younger" (as in rank young) WvW generation who may not always understand the approaches some of the veteran players take. This is an education piece imo and that is up to the community to address.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

> > > > how is this allowed and possible? then people say acs are fine lmao.

> > > >

> > > > this is beyond pathetic

> > > >

> > > > [https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf](https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf "https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf")

> > > >

> > > > full album of absolutly boring gameplay

> > > >

> > > > [https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw](https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw "https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw")

> > >

> > > You broke into their inner and even lord's room, do you expect to walk in like a boss? How about asking anet to add orbital bombardment for you?

> >

> > how about reducing the ammount of acs that can cover a single gate? did you see last screenshot? do you think 60 people + 10 or 12 if not more acs is somewhat normal? that's hell.

> > if you need that many sieges to hold a gate you don't deserve to hold it at all

>

> Erm? You broke through the gate, they didn't hold it at all, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Furthermore, shield generators negate all of those damage, even if they have 100 of them.

 

Heh.

Either the enemy probably let them break outer to try and farm them when they came in, or they were too chicken to go out because that looked like an entire zerg sitting in there building siege instead of looking to counter the attack outside. It's funny that your view is not the crazy amount of arrow carts in there, which is by far one of the worse ever displayed(sorry yb your crown has been taken), but to build shield generators to counter it while walking from southeast garrison outer gate to north inner gate. A 25 man zerg would have failed to take that garrison as sieged up as it was. Yet people wonder why it takes a huge blob to take a t3 structure, it's because of how ridiculous it can be sieged up as seen in those images.

 

Yes they built a shield generator right up on the gate when they were attacking north inner, and the defenders probably should have done something at that time too because they were all cowering in there. Like I said, if you have a t3 structure loaded with siege and a zerg to counter the enemy but do nothing but hide in it and rely on siege to do all the work for them, you deserve to have it ripped open and taken from you.

[Calanthe.3857]

Not sure what you're considering, but I hope you'll let us take polls and/or try temporary changes before making big permanent changes.

 

My first idea is **Wheels**. Some siege weapons--arrow carts, ballistae, and catapults have been depicted as having wheels. Why do they have wheels if they can't be moved around? What if we could wheel them around to different locations or even move them across the map? To prevent abuse, players wheeling siege weapons could incur speed reductions like they already do when using Siege Golem suits. And they would be prevented from placing and using the weapons in areas that are already siege capped.

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

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

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

> > > > > how is this allowed and possible? then people say acs are fine lmao.

> > > > >

> > > > > this is beyond pathetic

> > > > >

> > > > > [https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf](https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf "https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf")

> > > > >

> > > > > full album of absolutly boring gameplay

> > > > >

> > > > > [https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw](https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw "https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw")

> > > >

> > > > You broke into their inner and even lord's room, do you expect to walk in like a boss? How about asking anet to add orbital bombardment for you?

> > >

> > > how about reducing the ammount of acs that can cover a single gate? did you see last screenshot? do you think 60 people + 10 or 12 if not more acs is somewhat normal? that's hell.

> > > if you need that many sieges to hold a gate you don't deserve to hold it at all

> >

> > Erm? You broke through the gate, they didn't hold it at all, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Furthermore, shield generators negate all of those damage, even if they have 100 of them.

>

> Heh.

> Either the enemy probably let them break outer to try and farm them when they came in, or they were too chicken to go out because that looked like an entire zerg sitting in there building siege instead of looking to counter the attack outside. It's funny that your view is not the crazy amount of arrow carts in there, which is by far one of the worse ever displayed(sorry yb your crown has been taken), but to build shield generators to counter it while walking from southeast garrison outer gate to north inner gate. A 25 man zerg would have failed to take that garrison as sieged up as it was. Yet people wonder why it takes a huge blob to take a t3 structure, it's because of how ridiculous it can be sieged up as seen in those images.

>

> Yes they built a shield generator right up on the gate when they were attacking north inner, and the defenders probably should have done something at that time too because they were all cowering in there. Like I said, if you have a t3 structure loaded with siege and a zerg to counter the enemy but do nothing but hide in it and rely on siege to do all the work for them, you deserve to have it ripped open and taken from you.

 

"Either the enemy probably let them break outer to try and farm them when they came in, or they were too chicken to go out because that looked like an entire zerg sitting in there building siege instead of looking to counter the attack outside."

 

the second one is correct for every screenshot (and for the last 2 matchups we had)