Siege Revisions

[Xillllix.3485]

You should be able to auto attack on the ram.

Bring back arrow carts damage to how it was at launch.

 

Doing this won't save WvW however.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"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.

>

 

They m8 actually change that, but get ready for blobs melt walls under 30 seconds.

Larger tops, but, T3 will be has strong has t2.

 

> @"Xillllix.3485" said:

> You should be able to auto attack on the ram.

> Bring back arrow carts damage to how it was at launch.

>

> Doing this won't save WvW however.

 

 

Imagine if rams required 3 players on each side :), and the damage would result with the ram skill casting sync. :D ahah (3,2,1 RAM! 3,2,1,RAM!!)

Cata damage changed to weak damage at proxy structures, while also damagign nearby siege, the longer the boulder arc is the more damage it does.

 

IMO siege needs to have some trade off in desigm to be not just hupping siege and spam wich is the actual issue, there should be something else envolved, like team work, each one having its own usage.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

 

> 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...

 

Yeah right. "I joined a zerg once." Lol ok sure you did.

 

Siege is unfair. That's the whole point of it. It's explicitly designed to be unfair. No player skill in the game has a 50 target cap and can be fired safely behind a wall from 2k range. But siege is also incredibly unfun. It slows the game down and it serves as an easy out for players who can't fight. Ben hasn't told us what he means by making siege "useless." My suggestions would keep siege in the game but make fighting much more important at the same time. There would still be rams and catas and acs and cannons and mortars for people to sit on although I would seriously tone down those as well.

 

The main inspiration was probably DAOC because ESO came out after GW2 and Crowfall and CU haven't even been released.

 

But so what? It doesn't matter what WvW initially drew inspiration from it doesn't have to be that way now and obviously Anet realizes that which is why they're thinking of making changes to the game mode and if Anet actually wants to differentiate their product in this market and take advantage of this massive market of players who just want to fight other players they will want to consider making this game the game that actually focuses on fighting rather than siege warfare.

[zhonnika.1784]

1. Make 3rd floor smc a siege-free zone. No trebs, no acs, no catas, no ballistas, nothing. Keep the cannons and mortars.

2. Somehow disable AFK trebbing.

3. Allow less and less siege the more upgraded a structure is. Give the structure itself more defense so defenders can come (buff iron gates/walls?), but don't make it so that a GINORMOUS blob can sit in a t3 defended anything and spam ACs until the cows come home. This gives smaller groups a better chance to defend things, without having to call the zerg. The smaller groups wouldn't need gobs of siege to defend. It would also make T3 siege choices more meaningful since you'd have to be careful with placement. Give t3 keep/tower/smc/camp siege a 1-hr timer that can't be refreshed to prevent trolling by all of our favorite trolls.

4. Give cannon/mortar/oil users more defense. Most are pointless to even try using, because you'll blow up in 2 seconds to shades/meteors/pulls.

5. Add a 2-3 minute cooldown to 'dead' siege areas, so that crap can't just be instantly rebuilt on a wall.

6. Adjust ACs so they cannot fire though tiny cracks in the walls/doors (Docks in Bay, stairs inside Hills etc.) None of that BS.

7. Revamp the gravel shot on cata.

8. Add an enemy debuff area within spawn points to prevent spawn camping with siege. You can still use your bodies there to fight, but you can't sit outside someone's keep on siege with a blob and do nothing else. This tends to happen in accordance with #9 vs teams that are already outmanned. Why make it easier for the enemy?

9. Do not allow the construction of defensive siege in a keep you do not normally control. Red team caps Blue EBG keep? Cool, but no siege. Allow teams to reclaim their structures more easily. Would not apply to smc, for obvious reasons.

10. For the love of god, really, just DO NOT buff acs.

[Zero.3871]

-**Mortar** is fine, only some mortas Need to get replaced. for example: in undercroft on desert border some mortars are very useless because some parts of the cave Roof blocks the most shots of it.

 

-**Cannons and oil** have same Problem, you cannot use it because enemy can easily pressure that siege so you cant use it without dying in seconds. maybe some dmg reduction buffs(like iron Skin) while you are using it could help.

 

-**trebs** could do more dmg and i like the idea i read before in this channel, of percentage values added to the bar while loading the shoot. (same for mortar, cata etc.)

 

-**catas **are fine

 

-**ac's **are fine

 

-i think **shield Generators** are way too strong. if a fractions outnumbered another they just Need to build 3 shield gen and 6 rams at a gate and they are unstoppable. and can conquer every Building without any Chance for the defenders. smaller radius of bubbles would help a lot. than you could work with range aoe of disabler to disable them. but atm shield gens bubble the siege and itself completely so they are unstoppable.

 

-**Alpha Golems** could be a Little faster (same Speed as Omegas).

 

**in General to the siege wars:**

 

-the siege despawn timer of 1 hour due to a lot of unfunny work to tap them every hour 1 time to stop the despawn. on the other side. if 60 enemies attack your Keep and you dont have siege already there, they break through the walls or gate before you have build up something, so you Need to build a lot of siege BEFORE enemies are attacking on every spot they mabe could attacking, to have a Chance as Defender. and you have to reset the despawn timer every hour. thats Kind of annoying mechanic.

 

would be nice to have an Option for insta build some siege so you dont Need to spam acs all the day on the wall to be safe. maybe a tactivator that gives 1 person a buff that allow him to through already builded siege (maybe with Counter of 3 or something like that). if a Keep get attacked the scout can insta build up 1 ac and 1 shieldgen and so on to defend the Keep, when it is needed. that would reduce the requirement to build up 100 acs in a Keep and reset despawn timer all the day.

 

 

 

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

>

> > 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...

>

> Yeah right. "I joined a zerg once." Lol ok sure you did.

>

> Siege is unfair. That's the whole point of it. It's explicitly designed to be unfair. No player skill in the game has a 50 target cap and can be fired safely behind a wall from 2k range. But siege is also incredibly unfun. It slows the game down and it serves as an easy out for players who can't fight. Ben hasn't told us what he means by making siege "useless." My suggestions would keep siege in the game but make fighting much more important at the same time. There would still be rams and catas and acs and cannons and mortars for people to sit on although I would seriously tone down those as well.

>

> The main inspiration was probably DAOC because ESO came out after GW2 and Crowfall and CU haven't even been released.

>

> But so what? It doesn't matter what WvW initially drew inspiration from it doesn't have to be that way now and obviously Anet realizes that which is why they're thinking of making changes to the game mode and if Anet actually wants to differentiate their product in this market and take advantage of this massive market of players who just want to fight other players they will want to consider making this game the game that actually focuses on fighting rather than siege warfare.

 

You don’t seem interested in having a conversation, just arguing, but I’ll give you one last benefit of the doubt...

 

“Siege is unfair”... then go spend your time in Spvp. Don’t complain about a mode that has seige built in to be an integral part of the mode... Ben already established that siege isn’t going anywhere, so get use to it. If you want more fair and balanced fights then it’s available to you with the click of a button in the heart of the mists. WvW is an RvR mode, it’s a “mist war”, not a glorified “fight club” mode where enemies are suppose to play the way you want them to play.

 

The games I mentioned are RvR tailored games, and are more appropriate comparisons to wvw. Unlike the “overwatch” comparison you are trying to make with wvw... You don’t seem to grasp the “medieval” Realm vs Realm vs Realm concept very well.

 

Because missed the previous 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.”

[Zephyr.8015]

So after skimming over some of the paragraphs of stories about "updating" siege. One siege is in a decent place in WvW. Know how to use siege and knowing how to counter siege is a thing people need to get used to in WvW. Everytime you to go attack a well sieged keep you need to know how to place your siege so you can effectively keep yours safe as well as your zerg. I can't speak for what T2-4 match ups are like in terms of amounts of siege in keeps, towers, etc. But here in T1 WvW siege can get up to a cancerous level depending on the opponent. I have never personally broken a Waypointed keep on one attempt when it is heavily sieged, you go in and you break the siege and you go after a wall/door that does not have a lot on it. Siege can be a great deterrent for a lot of groups I've gone up to keeps as a commander and been like I don't want to deal with this. For better or worse its part of the game, but overall its fine and its a general annoyance about 90% of the time.

 

**Arrow Carts**: do not need an update at all they are fine and have been fine. The sheer amount of these that can be placed and the fact that most servers who enter T1 know where to place them so they can't be hazed makes AC's entirely fine.

 

**Shield gens**: also fine I have seen tons of play and counter play with these that is what they are made to do, I have also seen a lot of groups get around them by being sneaky and timing their disables.

 

**Catapults**: gravel does not get used so I can agree that needs revisited but the damage and their use in general is fine.

 

**Trebuchets**: I wouldn't mind some tweaking to the damage whenever I've had to long siege objectives I feel it is underwhelming. It doesn't do a lot of damage for the trade off in supply. While the cow utility I have seen used in very interesting ways it is very effective. Healing oasis I have not seen used very much if at all.

 

**Ballista**: I have seen them used to take out enemy flying players but overall its mostly used as counter siege taking out things you can't reach with your group; or if you don't have the numbers to fully take an objective to take out siege that is hitting a keep. I could agree and see some reworking of this item to make it more useful.

 

**Flame Ram**: Fine, no rework or update needed. It does what it is supposed to do, used in tandem with golems and shield gens makes a gate melt, or even a lot of rams.

 

**Golems**: Fine, no real need to do anything with these.

 

Now I saw someone say mortars on desert BL need to be revisited. While I feel mortars damage and skills are in a fine place, The ones on Fire keep really need to re-looked at. Some of them cannot be used because the terrain on that beautifully designed map cannot be used **AT ALL**.

 

Now lets touch on the auto siege keeps and towers get from upgrading. Mortars, Cannons, and Burning Oils. These are all the first things to go whenever a group is intent on taking a structure. This is ultimately due to the ease of haze-ability. They are on the outer parts of a structure and can be reached by anyone with a ranged weapon. If you want to make these "better" you'd have to start with putting them in less accessible areas that could still hit people to deter them off a structure. Cannons and Mortars are fine overall, Burning Oils I rarely see get used and the masteries on this item feel underwhelming. So I wouldn't mind seeing a rework to said item.

 

Overall in closing, WvW and Siege is fine. There are minor QOL updates I would like to see on Mortars, Trebuchets, Catapults in terms of a % showed when charging. I'd like to see some of the lesser used siege options revisited and reworked. Other than that this will not "save" the game type. Quite honestly other than that I'd maybe like to see the siege radius cap increased by a small amount. People just need to know how to use siege and how to counter play it.

 

 

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"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?

>

 

People stack for various reasons, ultimately, they have a common purpose and that is to win. So, it is still issues caused by the stackers. You are making justification on a so-called solution to a problem that only caused by the stackers, nothing to do with core of the game. Why not for once, stop stacking? Of course, to get people to stop stacking is a lot of work but it is the ultimate solution to your suppose problem.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> >

> > > 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...

> >

> > Yeah right. "I joined a zerg once." Lol ok sure you did.

> >

> > Siege is unfair. That's the whole point of it. It's explicitly designed to be unfair. No player skill in the game has a 50 target cap and can be fired safely behind a wall from 2k range. But siege is also incredibly unfun. It slows the game down and it serves as an easy out for players who can't fight. Ben hasn't told us what he means by making siege "useless." My suggestions would keep siege in the game but make fighting much more important at the same time. There would still be rams and catas and acs and cannons and mortars for people to sit on although I would seriously tone down those as well.

> >

> > The main inspiration was probably DAOC because ESO came out after GW2 and Crowfall and CU haven't even been released.

> >

> > But so what? It doesn't matter what WvW initially drew inspiration from it doesn't have to be that way now and obviously Anet realizes that which is why they're thinking of making changes to the game mode and if Anet actually wants to differentiate their product in this market and take advantage of this massive market of players who just want to fight other players they will want to consider making this game the game that actually focuses on fighting rather than siege warfare.

>

> You don’t seem interested in having a conversation, just arguing, but I’ll give you one last benefit of the doubt...

>

> “Siege is unfair”... then go spend your time in Spvp. Don’t complain about a mode that has seige built in to be an integral part of the mode... Ben already established that siege isn’t going anywhere, so get use to it. If you want more fair and balanced fights then it’s available to you with the click of a button in the heart of the mists. WvW is an RvR mode, it’s a “mist war”, not a glorified “fight club” mode where enemies are suppose to play the way you want them to play.

>

> The games I mentioned are RvR tailored games, and are more appropriate comparisons to wvw. Unlike the “overwatch” comparison you are trying to make with wvw... You don’t seem to grasp the “medieval” Realm vs Realm vs Realm concept very well.

>

> Because missed the previous 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.”

 

You're just making a nonsensical argument.

 

They're clearly thinking of making changes to siege otherwise Ben wouldn't have made this thread.

 

You're arguing about why things shouldn't change in a thread made by a dev looking for suggestions on how to change things....

 

We don't have to accept anything as it is or has been. This is a video game it can always be changed. WvW can be anything the devs want it to be.

 

Just because this game drew initial inspiration from DAOC doesn't mean it can't draw inspiration now from Overwatch. There's absolutely nothing preventing that except developer whims.

 

They're asking for suggestions and so my suggestion is to radically tone down siege. You're trying to argue that because it has been a certain way that it must continue to be that way. That's a very silly argument to be making particularly in a thread of this kind.

 

 

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > >

> > > > 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...

> > >

> > > Yeah right. "I joined a zerg once." Lol ok sure you did.

> > >

> > > Siege is unfair. That's the whole point of it. It's explicitly designed to be unfair. No player skill in the game has a 50 target cap and can be fired safely behind a wall from 2k range. But siege is also incredibly unfun. It slows the game down and it serves as an easy out for players who can't fight. Ben hasn't told us what he means by making siege "useless." My suggestions would keep siege in the game but make fighting much more important at the same time. There would still be rams and catas and acs and cannons and mortars for people to sit on although I would seriously tone down those as well.

> > >

> > > The main inspiration was probably DAOC because ESO came out after GW2 and Crowfall and CU haven't even been released.

> > >

> > > But so what? It doesn't matter what WvW initially drew inspiration from it doesn't have to be that way now and obviously Anet realizes that which is why they're thinking of making changes to the game mode and if Anet actually wants to differentiate their product in this market and take advantage of this massive market of players who just want to fight other players they will want to consider making this game the game that actually focuses on fighting rather than siege warfare.

> >

> > You don’t seem interested in having a conversation, just arguing, but I’ll give you one last benefit of the doubt...

> >

> > “Siege is unfair”... then go spend your time in Spvp. Don’t complain about a mode that has seige built in to be an integral part of the mode... Ben already established that siege isn’t going anywhere, so get use to it. If you want more fair and balanced fights then it’s available to you with the click of a button in the heart of the mists. WvW is an RvR mode, it’s a “mist war”, not a glorified “fight club” mode where enemies are suppose to play the way you want them to play.

> >

> > The games I mentioned are RvR tailored games, and are more appropriate comparisons to wvw. Unlike the “overwatch” comparison you are trying to make with wvw... You don’t seem to grasp the “medieval” Realm vs Realm vs Realm concept very well.

> >

> > Because missed the previous 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.”

>

> You're just making a nonsensical argument.

>

> They're clearly thinking of making changes to siege otherwise Ben wouldn't have made this thread.

>

> You're arguing about why things shouldn't change in a thread made by a dev looking for suggestions on how to change things....

>

> We don't have to accept anything as it is or has been. This is a video game it can always be changed. WvW can be anything the devs want it to be.

>

> Just because this game drew initial inspiration from DAOC doesn't mean it can't draw inspiration now from Overwatch. There's absolutely nothing preventing that except developer whims.

>

> They're asking for suggestions and so my suggestion is to radically tone down siege. You're trying to argue that because it has been a certain way that it must continue to be that way. That's a very silly argument to be making particularly in a thread of this kind.

>

>

 

I’ve provided much more rational input than you have. You want to argue that wvw should be more fight based to determine outcomes, but wvw was designed to be a multi layered combat and capture objective experience. You’re trying to impose your fight club mentality to change the whole mode into more of a structured pvp environment. No, that’s not how it’s gonna go... You don’t grasp RvR, you want “fair fights” and think players who smartly smash your zerg sitting at a door with siege “unfair” and cowardly... Instead of complaining about enemy siege, get better at taking a defended structure (just like I’ve seen many quality commanders and teams accomplish) and don’t expect the devs to hand you your victories just because you were out played and out smarted.

 

I’ve ran with one of the top gw2 havoc/roamer guild and your trying to educate me about “fights”. You try to tell me I don’t understand how wvw functions, yet I have a far better understanding of how the mode was designed... and here you bring up “overwatch” as some example... You want fair fights then go to spvp.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"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?

> >

>

> People stack for various reasons, ultimately, they have a common purpose and that is to win. So, it is still issues caused by the stackers. You are making justification on a so-called solution to a problem that only caused by the stackers, nothing to do with core of the game. Why not for once, stop stacking? Of course, to get people to stop stacking is a lot of work but it is the ultimate solution to your suppose problem.

 

But why is everyone not equally good at the game? Why are some people better and some people worse? Is it just coincidence? No clearly not.

 

Everyone on every server wants to win fights but not everyone is actually good enough to do it. There are only two things anyone has to do to get better at fighting: practice and contemplative reflection. Siege lets players skip practice so they never improve and over time the people who do practice a lot outpace everyone who hasn't and you end up with massive disparities in ability. It's no coincidence that all the best players come from GvG guilds.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"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?

> > >

> >

> > People stack for various reasons, ultimately, they have a common purpose and that is to win. So, it is still issues caused by the stackers. You are making justification on a so-called solution to a problem that only caused by the stackers, nothing to do with core of the game. Why not for once, stop stacking? Of course, to get people to stop stacking is a lot of work but it is the ultimate solution to your suppose problem.

>

> But why is everyone not equally good at the game? Why are some people better and some people worse? Is it just coincidence? No clearly not.

>

> Everyone on every server wants to win fights but not everyone is actually good enough to do it. There are only two things anyone has to do to get better at fighting: practice and contemplative reflection. Siege lets players skip practice so they never improve and over time the people who do practice a lot outpace everyone who hasn't and you end up with massive disparities in ability. It's no coincidence that all the best players come from GvG guilds.

 

You still don't get it, do you? I already said people stack for various reasons. Let put it into simple fractions of reasons. There are people who stack to win matchup, this is one fraction. There are people who want to play with other skills players, that is another fraction. Regardless of the reason to stack, they caused problems.

 

The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

 

The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

 

Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

 

> I’ve provided much more rational input than you have. You want to argue that wvw should be more fight based to determine outcomes, but wvw was designed to be a multi layered combat and capture objective experience. You’re trying to impose your fight club mentality to change the whole mode into more of a structured pvp environment. No, that’s not how it’s gonna go... You don’t grasp RvR, you want “fair fights” and think players who smartly smash your zerg sitting at a door with siege “unfair” and cowardly... Instead of complaining about enemy siege, get better at taking a defender structure and don’t expect the devs to hand you your victories just because you were out played and our smarted.

>

> I’ve ran with the top gw2 havoc/roamer guild and your trying to educate me about “fights”. You try to tell me I don’t understand how wvw functions, yet I have a far better understanding of how the mode was designed... and here you bring up “overwatch” as some example... You want fair fights then go to spvp.

 

Just because you tagged along behind a roaming guild or followed a commander once doesn't mean you know anything about fighting. Anyone can do that.

 

All you've said to me so far is "this is the way it is and has been so this is how it must be." That is not a reasonable argument and it has no place in a suggestions thread of all places.

 

We all know how it is and has been you don't need to tell us that. This is a thread where we talk about how it **COULD BE**. The game **COULD BE** anything the devs **WANT IT TO BE**. It doesn't have to be like it is or has been. It doesn't have to be like any other RvR game that is or ever was or ever will be.

 

We also don't have to accept cowardly and unfair behavior as if it's a given. It can also be changed. Change the rules of the game and you change the way the game is played.

 

 

 

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

>

> The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

>

> Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

 

So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

> >

> > The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

> >

> > Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

>

> So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

 

Continuing sophistry doesn't win you argument, you know?

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

>

> > I’ve provided much more rational input than you have. You want to argue that wvw should be more fight based to determine outcomes, but wvw was designed to be a multi layered combat and capture objective experience. You’re trying to impose your fight club mentality to change the whole mode into more of a structured pvp environment. No, that’s not how it’s gonna go... You don’t grasp RvR, you want “fair fights” and think players who smartly smash your zerg sitting at a door with siege “unfair” and cowardly... Instead of complaining about enemy siege, get better at taking a defender structure and don’t expect the devs to hand you your victories just because you were out played and our smarted.

> >

> > I’ve ran with the top gw2 havoc/roamer guild and your trying to educate me about “fights”. You try to tell me I don’t understand how wvw functions, yet I have a far better understanding of how the mode was designed... and here you bring up “overwatch” as some example... You want fair fights then go to spvp.

>

> Just because you tagged along behind a roaming guild or followed a commander once doesn't mean you know anything about fighting. Anyone can do that.

>

> All you've said to me so far is "this is the way it is and has been so this is how it must be." That is not a reasonable argument and it has no place in a suggestions thread of all places.

>

> We all know how it is and has been you don't need to tell us that. This is a thread where we talk about how it **COULD BE**. The game **COULD BE** anything the devs **WANT IT TO BE**. It doesn't have to be like it is or has been. It doesn't have to be like any other RvR game that is or ever was or ever will be.

>

> We also don't have to accept cowardly and unfair behavior as if it's a given. It can also be changed. Change the rules of the game and you change the way the game is played.

>

>

>

>

>

 

This is how wvw will continue on with siege... “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.”... This thread is about revisions to siege, not revisions to change wvw into a glorified spvp experience that you’re hoping to achieve.

 

And yeah... “We also don't have to accept cowardly and unfair behavior as if it's a given.”... Try to sell that mentality to the devs and see where it goes...

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

> > >

> > > The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

> > >

> > > Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

> >

> > So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

>

> Continuing sophistry doesn't win you argument, you know?

 

So you concede the point?

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

 

> This is how wvw will continue on with siege... “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.”... This thread is about revisions to siege, not revisions to change wvw into a glorified spvp experience that you’re hoping to achieve.

>

 

He can always change his mind. Anyways none of the suggestions I made would make siege useless.

[Drinks.2361]

> @"GWMO.4785" said:

> 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 kitten 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 kitten 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.

 

I agree with you, we used to be able to roam around with groups of say 4, though up a cata & take a northern tower if the defenders didn't come out & deal with us. Now they'll just glide in & build siege with like 1000 supply until eventually we need to leave because we can't build another cata & they fully rep the wall. No pvp skill involved

 

 

Now Havok has pretty much devolved from hoping to pull a small fight into maybe ninja-ing a tower while nobody is watching. The amount of supply defenders have with no risk of being killed means that you need to blob up to take a structure now. Small fights in gw2 are really fun, but there is no longer anyway to force an enemy server to engage without a blob if they don't want to, they don't really risk losing ppt anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see the posts in this thread saying "the walls aren't safe" in various flavors, but really it's an issue of if you see red circles maybe you should consider moving or dodging out, the same as the attackers need to, or anywhere else in the game. Just because you're spamming siege doesn't mean you should be immune to trying to avoid damage.

[ImperialWL.7138]

> @"The Last Hobbit.6492" said:

> I think you should be asking how we feel about siege right now, rather than asking us to design the solution. We're not experts, you are.

>

> Personally, I interact with the siege very rarely because I don't have the mastery. And I don't invest in the mastery for any siege because I rarely get to use it (someone else always jumps on). I'm not really that bothered about that though and am happy for others to use it.

>

> What I like about siege is allowing smaller groups to hold objectives against zergs. That's why I love the 50 target cap. The main issue is when people spam siege close to one another and make it impossible to push/capture. I'd like to see them limited, either to specific placement areas or limited in number.

>

> I also think Arrow Carts should only be used to defend objectives. So you should only be able to build them near or inside objectives you own.

>

> Additionally, I think Trebuchets should do no damage to walls or gates. It sucks to have certain areas constantly hit by trebuchets. It's not interactive. You end up with one player completely removed from the fight, spamming a treb shot at one location... and another player spamming the shield generator... or not bothering.

 

In this case you are wrong. Anet developers have no clue about PvP or WvW, you can see this as evident from the low ranks they have, most of the WvW population are much more knowledgeable and are the experts. This is also why the PvP and WvW balance in this game is a joke.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

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

> > > > The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

> > > >

> > > > The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

> > > >

> > > > Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

> > >

> > > So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

> >

> > Continuing sophistry doesn't win you argument, you know?

>

> So you concede the point?

 

If fallacy is how you win an argument, then sure. I have no interest to deal with people who just want to win for the sake of winning.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

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

> > > > > The first fraction that want to win matchup, they will do whatever it takes to win matchup, that is where your issue of sieges come from.

> > > > >

> > > > > The second fraction that want to play with other skills players cause imbalance isuse where they end up steam rolling non-skill players, then, QQ about lack of challenge. One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regardless, this is nothing but issues caused of stackers; players issue. Not a core game issue, don't confuse core game issues with consequences of players' actions.

> > > >

> > > > So really there's a third "fraction" of players who are the "children" who can neither win fights nor have the will to do what is necessary to learn how win fights, right?

> > >

> > > Continuing sophistry doesn't win you argument, you know?

> >

> > So you concede the point?

>

> If fallacy is how you win an argument, then sure. I have no interest to deal with people who just want to win for the sake of winning.

 

"One can come and say from a high moral stand point that they can practice but a child cannot become a adult overnight and an progressive adult will never stay at the same level to wait for you to catch up. Fresh players are always at the several disadvantage, both in skills and morale."

 

Explicitly states that there is a group of players who fall into neither fraction A or B who you compare to "children" who either don't know how to win or lack the will to win. I'm literally just restating your premise.

[LONGA.1652]

Siege building and press 1 several times in a minute is not engaging experience.

Please let small unorganized team have better way to breach outer defense of keep like mercenaries. That can be flip side based supply you feed them or can be directed to camp and act as mule for player thus small team have the tool to mask their presence on the map and act as objective for defender as well.

 

But not all the siege weapon should be doing that something like Balista,Arrow cart, Shield generator since thier main function is not for breaching the wall.

 

[Celsith.2753]

> @"MesmerizedNYC.2479" said:

> Suggestion: Make renewing siege reward a little WXP to encourage more people to keep it from timing out. This also rewards those hard working guilds and players that actively maintain keeps and towers.

 

No. Actively maintaining a keep or tower does not involve sitting in it alt tabbed and refreshing siege once an hour, which is the only definition that would not reward you wexp.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"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.

>

 

I hate the rare occasion I die on a wall but I have to say.. you do realize what you imagined there is a totally broken one sided scenario where you gleefully aoe down all day while taking 0 damage right? It would have to be balanced with allowing Thief or similar 'Pick Lock' skills to get in the unbroken keep. Or introduce siege ladders.