Siege Revisions

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

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.”

>

 

Hilariously, you are being condescending to someone who not only uses all the tools in the mode including siege, but has longer hours doing so than you. He has far greater experience in this mode than you and has a more informed viewpoint. It's a pity that you are so upset at the thought of having to get off your ac that you aren't able to be objective and ask if its overpowered. Roamer lol.

 

Overpowered skills and mechanisms get changed all the time. SMC stealth fountain duration or airship damage for example, not to mention changes to numerous skills. Siege has to change, it's one of the reasons people get fed up of the game and leave.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

 

> 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.

 

..... Is it winning if you outnumber the enemy AND still use superior siege? Or is it wanting to win for the sake of winning despite being awful at using your weapon skills?

 

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"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.

 

What mentioned as children are non-stacked servers where filled with many fresh players since those servers are normally open for freshies to join unlike stacked servers that historically stacked upon over and over again while closed from time to time due to overpopulation. This is not comparison to your group of people who just want to siege since you particularly mentioned T1.

 

Your issue is with the first fraction that do whatever it takes to win, that is your source of problem since you mentioned there is certain T1 server. I am sure they fight better than fresh blood.

 

You entire basis is base on some bad sheeps and a revision that will condemn all other servers that can be outpopulated from time to time. Pretty much the same mentality why people kept on opposing blowing up servers since years ago.

[DeceiverX.8361]

- Remove refreshing siege but extend the base duration by 30 mins. This helps issues with low-pop servers being completely unable to attack anything in their prime time without getting immediately squashed.

 

- Normalize normal/superior/guild siege. There's really no reason to have a strong tier of siege. It just makes superior the baseline, makes it harder to balance, and devalues Badges of Honor. I used to think anti-player siege should retain normal siege damage values, but profession powercreep from scourge and firebrand in particular is too potent that capped normal AC's can't kill anyone in an organized zerg. Ballistae are no longer effective generally speaking. Maybe take the AC's to their normal siege damage, but give them a buff which increases their outgoing damage by 10% per target standing within their effect radius. A solution to a "ball of players"-killer should not be to ball up.

 

- To correlate the above, catapult structure damage should be reduced to the normal siege levels and Flame Rams should have their damage vs structures increased to their superior siege counterparts. **These changes should only occur if and only if the watchtower effect radius on towers is reduced to in intermittent one rather than 100% uptime.** This means blobs will want to take the riskier ram route that demands more fights, while the cata route will help havoc groups take resources without just attracting the whole enemy server, while being slower to actually take the objective, allowing for an actual player response for defense.

 

- Keep siege at their superior siege health and defenses across all tiers.

 

- Burning Oil needs a crazy defense modifier to the player using it (better than Iron Hide) if not additional immunity to CC (as then a fear will just negate this). It's too risky to even bother with and AoEs are too potent today due to powercreep of professions.

 

- Ballistae need better projectile physics/tracking. There's so much mobility in the game right now that it's overly-difficult to hit players let alone kill them.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"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.

 

> 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.

 

Not really. Take yesterday for example. Fun fight near an unupgraded smc. Green outnumber us a bit but whatever. They throw down 3 sup ac's. Open field. ?????? They weren't trying to take smc. We were just scrapping. There was nothing to win.

 

It's the siege up and don't try mentality in general. I do wonder if you guys all realise where that would end if everyone turtles - we're getting there already.

It ends with every server spending their populated time zone sitting on siege bored to death wondering why no one attacks. Interaction between servers deliberately avoided. The only time you'd grab enemy points is by map blobbing them in their weak time zone - thus reinforcing the cries of 'we need stronger siege!!!!!'. Or by throwing 15 sup catas out of watchtower range and ninjaing something in less than one minute IF you are lucky enough to find a dazed alt tabbed scout not paying attention because what they're doing is super boring. Sounds great right?

 

 

 

 

[elitegamerz.4965]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"elitegamerz.4965" said:

>

> > Overall I just thing everything in WvW is "too fast". Spvp is where quick decaps and fast outplays are meant to thrive. WvW is suppose to be a week long three way war. Grand strategy and planning should reign king here. There should be a constant weighing of risk/reward. You want to build an army of golems to rush smc? Alright, but it should take a large amount of precious supply. If you succeed you gain a huge tactical advantage, but if you fail your keeps and towers are left starved of supply and

> > vulnerable to attack. As of right now there isn't any risk for building anything really.

>

> Uhmm. It takes literally HOURS to take a defended t3 keep. And building an army of golems drains your keep, smc, or both. How long do you think the siege portion of a fight should take? And how much supply?

 

In what way does it take hours to defend a t3 keep? A t3 keep with cannons and buttloads of arrow carts can be defended with pugs. The problems I have is the availaibility of siege and supply. In pre-HoT WvW siege like golems were a rare sight. When a commander wanted to golem rush it took the whole server running supply and escorting yaks. It was something that required the teamwork of the whole server. Now one guy can fill a keep with golems in 10 minutes. Rams should be a cheap siege low risk/low reward, catas should be medium risk/medium reward, golems high risk/high reward, and trebs a safe but slow and costly investment. Right now You can just as easily build a golem or a treb as you can a ram.

 

I just don't want the siege spam that is so common now. I don't want to decrease the time it take to take objectives, I just want people to think about how they are going to attack/defend. Lowering the availability of supply would actually make direct fights more common. Its easy to hide behind an arrow cart when it can immediately be replaced once its destroyed. It would encourage people to leave their keep and directly attack enemy siege positions instead of sitting safely behind a wall and spamming their 1 key.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

 

> What mentioned as children are non-stacked servers where filled with many fresh players since those servers are normally open for freshies to join unlike stacked servers that historically stacked upon over and over again while closed from time to time due to overpopulation. This is not comparison to your group of people who just want to siege since you particularly mentioned T1.

>

> Your issue is with the first fraction that do whatever it takes to win, that is your source of problem since you mentioned there is certain T1 server. I am sure they fight better than fresh blood.

>

> You entire basis is base on some bad sheeps and a revision that will condemn all other servers that can be outpopulated from time to time. Pretty much the same mentality why people kept on opposing blowing up servers since years ago.

 

My primary contention is that the tools the "children" use to "prevent being overwhelmed" are the same tools that "fraction A" uses to win by "any means necessary." If it can be used by 5 to defend against 25, which is the usual canard, then it can also be used by 50 to defend against another 50.

 

My secondary contention is that the tools that the "children" use to "prevent from being overwhelmed" also prevents them from developing any real skill at the game which further exacerbates the "skill gap." It keeps them "children" because it's a safety net that catches them when they fall. As the "skill gap" widens it becomes harder and harder for the "children" to ever feel like they can catch up so it creates a feedback loop whereby the bad players get worse and the good players get better.

[XenesisII.1540]

Couple things to add and support.

 

* I'm starting to like the idea of having a fixed duration for siege, especially for my next suggestion.

* Maybe give siege a permanent aura that reduces power of nearby siege by like 50%, with a radius of like 240-480. In order to force players to spread siege out, apply to everything but rams, maybe smaller radius for catapults. This way players still have the freedom to build wherever but the smart builders are still rewarded for good placement, and spammers are penalized. The only problem is siege trollers on your team.

* Percentage display on any charge bars, although personally I usually use my mouse pointer to mark the place on the bar to easily determine repeat shots, what else am I using the mouse for during this time anyways.

 

 

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

>

> > What mentioned as children are non-stacked servers where filled with many fresh players since those servers are normally open for freshies to join unlike stacked servers that historically stacked upon over and over again while closed from time to time due to overpopulation. This is not comparison to your group of people who just want to siege since you particularly mentioned T1.

> >

> > Your issue is with the first fraction that do whatever it takes to win, that is your source of problem since you mentioned there is certain T1 server. I am sure they fight better than fresh blood.

> >

> > You entire basis is base on some bad sheeps and a revision that will condemn all other servers that can be outpopulated from time to time. Pretty much the same mentality why people kept on opposing blowing up servers since years ago.

>

> My primary contention is that the tools the "children" use to "prevent being overwhelmed" are the same tools that "fraction A" uses to win by "any means necessary." If it can be used by 5 to defend against 25, which is the usual canard, then it can also be used by 50 to defend against another 50.

>

> My secondary contention is that the tools that the "children" use to "prevent from being overwhelmed" also prevents them from developing any real skill at the game which further exacerbates the "skill gap." It keeps them "children" because it's a safety net that catches them when they fall. As the "skill gap" widens it becomes harder and harder for the "children" to ever feel like they can catch up so it creates a feedback loop whereby the bad players get worse and the good players get better.

 

5 can't really stop 25, is just a deterrence. Also, you assume that the children will grow up to have same mentality as the adults that just use only siege. As for developing skills, I think those that overwhelm others would be less likely to further their skills than those that got overwhelmed. With those said, your issue is still with fraction A.

[Dreamwolf.7423]

Another idea that came to me after my initial post:

 

Make firing siege cost supply. I have seen suggestions for an ammo system, but why not this instead? Using a siege skill costs one supply. When you run out of supply, someone else can take your place while you run back to get more.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> 5 can't really stop 25, is just a deterrence. Also, you assume that the children will grow up to have same mentality as the adults that just use only siege. As for developing skills, I think those that overwhelm others would be less likely to further their skills than those that got overwhelmed. With those said, your issue is still with fraction A.

 

It depends on a lot of variables but generally speaking 10-15 can shut down 25-40 at most major objectives if they know what they're doing. 25+ can stall out a map q if they understand how to use defensive siege properly.

 

My issue is with siege. It just so happens that on this particular issue C and A are largely indistinguishable in terms of playstyle so we can't talk about nerfing siege without effecting them both.

[Diku.2546]

> @"Dreamwolf.7423" said:

> Another idea that came to me after my initial post:

>

> Make firing siege cost supply. I have seen suggestions for an ammo system, but why not this instead? Using a siege skill costs one supply. When you run out of supply, someone else can take your place while you run back to get more.

>

Might be Good Idea to reduce grief & encourage team.

 

Building upon your idea...How about:

 

1) Player must use a Load Ammo node (Ammo auto loads set number) before using the current Siege's Separate Fire interface

2) Player auto-kicked off siege when Siege Ammo = 0

3) Player auto-kicked if player is in-active

4) Other players can "Click" & Load Ammo node to keep Siege going with a steady supply of Ammo

 

---

 

This solution will depend upon if there is already a lot of grief going on.

 

This might Grief smaller groups trying to defend against a larger force. Veteran players on the smaller group would be saddled with complexity & less hands on deck to fight...where folks just want to focus on fighting.

 

Might be a Complex solution looking for a Simple or Non-existent problem...after my initial consideration.

 

Developers should observe & document if there really is a big problem with Grief 1st.

 

---

 

**I'd like to see a range "Reticule Map Bubble" for Siege that help with showing a player the weapon's MAX & MIN range on our Mini-Map, or...better yet...a colored ring directly in our filed of vision.**

 

---

 

3 rounds in 20 seconds

[DeadlySynz.3471]

Myself, and I'm sure many others would like Arrowcarts & Shield generators removed outright. This is because how they essentially make structures nearly impossible to take and quite frankly seems to bore groups to the point they won't even bother trying. Remember this Anet, one of the most integral parts of WvW is often avoided because of these 2 pieces of siege. They must be either removed outright or come with heavy restrictions. I highly doubt you'll remove them, so consider these changes and/or work off of them

 

1. Make Arrowcarts and Shield Gens a 1 time use deal. You build them, then there is a 10s timer for someone to get on it before it disappears. Once someone is on the siege and they jump off, it disappears. No leaving these 2 things in structures with a siege decay timer; they need to be used as they are built, then disappear once the person leaves it.

 

2. Allow only 1 Shield generator per tower, and 2 per keep (including SM). For Arrow carts only allow 1 per Tier of the structure. A recently captured objective = 0 Arrow carts. T1 = 1, T2 = 2, T3 = 3

 

3. Consider adding a new widespread siege disabler, that specifically targets Shield Gens and Arrow Carts and give it say a 3000 AoE when used. Have it cost no more than 50 badges or so. All a person needs to do is go semi-close to the structure, cast the siege disabler and all Arrowcarts and Shield Gens are rendered useless for 1m. We all know people will constantly be using these making Arrow carts and Shield Gens useless, which is basically the players saying "hey we don't like these, remove them".

 

There is a whole other issue with these which doesn't have to do with siege per say but more-so player behavior and how passive play is rewarded while player engagement is punished. This kind of goes with what GDchiaScrub in the 2nd post said; Anet having a goal in mind like "increasing player engagement". Once I figure out how to word it i'll make a new thread.

[Jeknar.6184]

I think siege for most part is fine where it is, but I have a few grips...

 

* Shield Generator is the biggest offender in reducing players interaction because of siege. If you try to treb a objective to draw people out, the defeding team just build a few Shield Generators and rotate bubbles until you get bored of trebbing. Since you problably don't want to remove Shield Generators, at least make Force Dome protect Players from damage but not Sieges and Structures.

* Ever since the Catapult update that increase damage by time channeled, there is hardly any reason to ever build a Trebuchet... Why should I bother building 2 Superior trebs when I can build 6 guild catas at a already safe distance (From all siege bar trebs) for the same supply cost? And don't even get me started on how catas can just rotate bubbles against counter siege while trebs need shield generators on them. Either increase Trebuchet damage or reduce their Supply Cost.

* Golem contesting camps is the most ridiculous stalling tactic I ever seen... As if playing in a small group wasn't bad enough, sometimes you have to deal with people stalling circles with multiple golems until their zerg arive. Golems should not be able to contest circles. If you want to contest, get off it and fight.

* Structural Siege is useless for most part because you'll just melt trying to use it, principally now that Scourge exist. Honestly, I would suggest making the player invulnerable while using it, but that would need cannons to be tonned down a bit. I don't really have a real solution for this one.

[Ansau.7326]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> >

> > > What mentioned as children are non-stacked servers where filled with many fresh players since those servers are normally open for freshies to join unlike stacked servers that historically stacked upon over and over again while closed from time to time due to overpopulation. This is not comparison to your group of people who just want to siege since you particularly mentioned T1.

> > >

> > > Your issue is with the first fraction that do whatever it takes to win, that is your source of problem since you mentioned there is certain T1 server. I am sure they fight better than fresh blood.

> > >

> > > You entire basis is base on some bad sheeps and a revision that will condemn all other servers that can be outpopulated from time to time. Pretty much the same mentality why people kept on opposing blowing up servers since years ago.

> >

> > My primary contention is that the tools the "children" use to "prevent being overwhelmed" are the same tools that "fraction A" uses to win by "any means necessary." If it can be used by 5 to defend against 25, which is the usual canard, then it can also be used by 50 to defend against another 50.

> >

> > My secondary contention is that the tools that the "children" use to "prevent from being overwhelmed" also prevents them from developing any real skill at the game which further exacerbates the "skill gap." It keeps them "children" because it's a safety net that catches them when they fall. As the "skill gap" widens it becomes harder and harder for the "children" to ever feel like they can catch up so it creates a feedback loop whereby the bad players get worse and the good players get better.

>

> 5 can't really stop 25, is just a deterrence. Also, you assume that the children will grow up to have same mentality as the adults that just use only siege. As for developing skills, I think those that overwhelm others would be less likely to further their skills than those that got overwhelmed. With those said, your issue is still with fraction A.

 

Don't know which WvW are you playing, but 5 can perfectly stop a group of 25 sieging a tower or keep. All you need is 2 arrowcarts and someone to drop a disabling siege trap in stealth.

[davedaverson.3751]

> @"anonymous.7812" said:

> Has anyone mentioned custom siege skins available for Gems ? Maybe random drops in BLCs too!

>

> Also, besides siege, it'd be nice to have custom tower/keep/camp models, and be able to decorate custom layouts for your guild. Could add that to the Gemstore as well for all I care.

 

This 100% -- so much room for customization and being able to show your guild's personality off.

[Dreamwolf.7423]

> @"Diku.2546" said:

> Might be Good Idea to reduce grief & encourage team.

>

> Building upon your idea...How about:

>

> 1) Player must use a Load Ammo node (Ammo auto loads set number) before using the current Siege's Separate Fire interface

> 2) Player auto-kicked off siege when Siege Ammo = 0

> 3) Player auto-kicked if player is in-active

> 4) Other players can "Click" & Load Ammo node to keep Siege going with a steady supply of Ammo

>

> ---

>

> This solution will depend upon if there is already a lot of grief going on.

>

Considering the number of times I've seen people yell at people for staying on siege when they don't have mastery, I'd say this would be a good way to force them to cycle off. Or not. Trolls and such.

[Grandtomatoe.2045]

Oil Pot is darn near worthless. Trying to defend walls is darn near useless actually too. The walls get so hot it favors the attackers not the defenders. Siege disablers get blocked all to easily, not just from bubbles but from aegis and who knows what else.

[XenesisII.1540]

If they remove acs then there's no anti personal siege in the game and everyone will just walk up to walls and gates and knock it down with no problems, we might as well turn wvw in eotm at that point. Unless you also have them increase effectiveness of cannons.

 

Also asking for removal of siege, don't be stupid, that's never going to happen especially for shield gens which is part of the HoT expansion. Ask for viable solutions. I hate acs like everyone else, but it's needed, reduce the range, fixed decay duration, give them area debuffs by either limiting their power when close to other siege, or not allowing so many to be built in a close area.

 

Fortified walls, fortified gates, and siege, are only meant to be ways to delay attackers until your own force can respond to defend, not prompting attackers into not even bothering to attack in the first place. While reset night might be fun with no upgrades on structures, keep in mind that is the only night where every single server has a massive amount of players on, it isn't the same for the rest of the week.

 

[misterman.1530]

A lot to read through, so will just throw this out there. Siege should be salvageable - so, you can salvage (remove) siege to get some small amount of supply back (factor in the "health" of the siege as well). For example, if a Superior Treb is at 100%, you could salvage it (up to a max of your supply capacity) - if I have a max of 25, then I get 25 back. If the treb is at 50%, I only get 12 supply back. Something like that.

 

Now, because siege would be salvageable, also make it usable by anyone. If Server A takes a tower that has siege in it, they can use it. If Server A leaves siege in the open field, players on Server B and C can use it/salvage it. You would also be able to destroy it as well, as per usual.

 

Do it for non-buildable siege as well. So, mortars, for instance. If Server A breaks through the outer wall of SM, they should be able to use the cannons and mortars. Siege is siege. It was always odd to me that I had to destroy a piece of siege. I should be able to use it.

[wacounda.7421]

Siege is fine. I dont have a problem with having t3 heavily defended by AC.

AC particpates in the balance of the game, allowing small groups to defend against large groups.

I think we need to avoid to go back to the time where WvW was just about hitting wood....

 

If you decide to decrease tthe damage of AC , then players should be able to defend from walls.n cause now its impossible to stand on a wall during an attack.

 

WvW should aim to have the players spread across the map instead playing in blobs.

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @"davedaverson.3751" said:

> > @"anonymous.7812" said:

> > Has anyone mentioned custom siege skins available for Gems ? Maybe random drops in BLCs too!

> >

> > Also, besides siege, it'd be nice to have custom tower/keep/camp models, and be able to decorate custom layouts for your guild. Could add that to the Gemstore as well for all I care.

>

> This 100% -- so much room for customization and being able to show your guild's personality off.

 

Only if we can replace the boulders thrown via catapults with quaggans.

[wacounda.7421]

However I would increase the damage done by trebs, and make them go through shields.

 

[wacounda.7421]

I would increase the importance of supply, camps and caravans.

[Ringsound.7806]

> @"wacounda.7421" said:

> Siege is fine. I dont have a problem with having t3 heavily defended by AC.

> AC particpates in the balance of the game, allowing small groups to defend against large groups.

> I think we need to avoid to go back to the time where WvW was just about hitting wood....

>

> If you decide to decrease tthe damage of AC , then players should be able to defend from walls.n cause now its impossible to stand on a wall during an attack.

>

> WvW should aim to have the players spread across the map instead playing in blobs.

 

AC have to be tune down either in damage or AOE limit, at current stage AC is a very good defense when you are out number by attacker, but become way too strong when you have equal number

i do agree Wall need to be fix, shouldn't be a death trap