Siege Revisions

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"wacounda.7421" said:

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

 

And what happens when you have a similar sized zerg in those same t3 keeps defending with a ton of siege? It's a drawn out fight for 3 hour of fighting in ac fire, cow gas, mortar fire for the attackers. Arrow carts need to be part of the game, they need to deny areas around your structure's borders, but not with with the range it has or stacking damage of having multiples of them in one area.

 

Siege should delay attackers not completely deny a fight.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"wacounda.7421" said:

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

>

> And what happens when you have a similar sized zerg in those same t3 keeps defending with a ton of siege? It's a drawn out fight for 3 hour of fighting in ac fire, cow gas, mortar fire for the attackers. Arrow carts need to be part of the game, they need to deny areas around your structure's borders, but not with with the range it has or stacking damage of having multiples of them in one area.

>

> Siege should delay attackers not completely deny a fight.

 

I have yet to see anywhere in this thread where ANET establishes the role of siege. Only that it can't be "useless."

 

D:

[Star.8401]

Remove AC's and Shield Generators

[Helly.2597]

I can't speak for the changes with regards to zergs and their thoughts on siege, but from a roamers perspective the change I would request the most would be golems no longer being able to contest camps. It doesn't require skill/ability to hop into a golem and spam CC abilities until your zerg shows up 10 minutes later.

 

Example video:

[morrolan.9608]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

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

> >

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

>

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

 

Siege should be there for defence in terms of countering other siege not in terms of making it easy to kill players.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

 

> WvW is a Realm vs Realm mode that drew inspiration from Dark Age of Camelot. Better comparisons would be DAoC, ESO, Crowfall, CU...

 

Just noting in ESO siege is far less effective against players than in GW2, unless the players are incredibly stupid, and the game is far better for it.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

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

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

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

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > entertaining content.

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > >

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

> >

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

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

>

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

>

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

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

>

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

 

Sadly that's how the majority plays the game. That's why i don't play it that much, and when i do i either roam alone or in small groups harassing camps and towers.

I've seen people get picked of blobs by single players without the rest of them even reacting. That's a 1v50 WINING! Then they come here and complain sieges last too long or that defending is too strong, because no one's here for the combat or the strategy!

Again, the people that care about WvW, about what it's supposed to be, are the small minority, most people are there for the PPT, just like most ppl in sPvP just want those pips.

Arena Net dumbed down the rewards so much for the sake of getting people into the game modes it ended up just polluting the game mode, and their feedback.

Best days of WvW were back in 2012-2013, before people started bandwagoning to SFR (i am, and have always been in that server) when we were winning matchups severely outnumbered and just kept climbing on strategy and playing smart. Now it's just blobs.

[Tammuz.7361]

arrow carts have been reducing player engagement, and reducing ‘pvp’ in this game mode for years now... if you want to make the game mode more interesting:

1) radically reduce ac damage to other seige equipment (makes little real world sense that shooting a large metal pole (flame ram), or big metal tank (golem) full of arrows is an effective way to destroy these objects)

2) increase supply cost of arrow carts to build / lower limit of number that can be built near an enterance point. or even better, make them use 1 supply every time they are fired. (its kinda rediculous and unrealistic that the defenders have the supply advantage when seiging an objective)

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"Napo.1230" said:

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

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

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > entertaining content.

> > >

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

> > >

> >

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

> >

>

> 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.

 

No... I imagined a scenario where the walls actually server to help the defender (which is their job), not hinder them.

There's a lot of tools for attackers to kill defenders on walls, and i never said that defenders should have a better range on walls (although that would be the realistic approach, if not the most balanced).

But the current scenario where defenders **must** get on the lip of a wall to even just be able to target someone, while enemy aoes are just hugging the whole width of the wall is just stupid. It was stupid in 2012 when i first called it to attention (although back then it was probably more impactful since siege was much more expensive in relation to the average player's budget, so you'd rely on the bare minimum siege possible), and it's stupid today. It just removes counter-play and reduces the defender's options to spamming arrow carts. If they ever nerf arrow carts, like a lot of people are asking, without adressing the line of sight issue on walls, might as well just remove the walls entirely, because defenders will be helpless.

[Kiroshima.8497]

First: Siege (except Golems and Rams) cost supply to use. This will preven siege turtling, especially for things such as T3 SMC Trebs. This means you have to split more man power for defense (1 siege user, 1 supply runner), or there will be gaps in siege usage since the solo sieger must run back for supply (allows for counter attack/trades). Or it forces defenders out in order to fight for either the enemy siege or for the camp supply. Also forces aggressive zergs to either split (to have more siege fielded you need more camps) and to invest in dedicated roamers to havoc enemy camps or guard their own.

 

Second: Nerf supply per yak. Separate Speedy Yaks to be upgrade driven (double speed), adjust Packed Yaks to carry current supply but doesn't count as 2 trips. Also, based on the supply change per yak, increase supply generation of camps and their capacity. With more camp driven gameplay (at least for tiering up structures), we'll get more people out of keeps and towers. Instead they'll be fighting all over, walking yaks, camps, sentries, anything having to do with supply is increased in value since structures don't hoard supply all the time.

 

Third: Gates max out at Reinforced, not Fortified. T3 Structures a super long time to break down, and while I'm all for siege warfare (starve out the opponent of their supply), not everyone is. Gates are some of the most difficult things to crack due to the fact it can often be hit by cannons, mortars, and oil all together. There is HUGE risk for no payout when you could just safely proxy cata most walls down. By making gates cap out at Reinforced Tier, there is now a Risk/Reward location for ALL structures. Also, since Rams and Golems cost NO supply to use, there also is an option for budget offense at the cost of increased risk from siege fire (oil/cannons/etc). This also promotes better scout usage, since you need to keep an eye out on all the gates.

 

Fourth: Rewards back to yak walking. Make it diminish with the number of players (more than 5). Scouts need things to do that pay them, otherwise all you get are BORED players sitting in keeps/towers (that are vulnerable). Ideally, there needs to be 2 yak events. At about the sentry between each camp and structure is where it would trigger. This is because we don't want a scout going all the way from the camp to the keep since that would leave things unguarded for too long (even with speedy). Instead, promote a walker at the camp, who gets the yak to the half way point before passing it to the keep scout. Because there are 2 yak events, both camp guards and structure guards receive payment without risking too much. Obviously if they get into a skirmish you'd want to pull more scouts.

[Crescendo Forte.4821]

So sort of seige, in adding one. Could we get a physical watchtower seige object? Make it have to be built like cannons or oil. This makes it more counterable besides setting up long range trebs/catas.

[Panicbutton.9426]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"Panicbutton.9426" said:

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

> >

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

> >

>

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

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

>

>

 

Totally agree with you, changes need to support different group sizes. Good point. Tough to find the right balance with this stuff!

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

well, it would help a lot if line of sight would be revised.

 

Especially for eles. And maybe revert the meteor shower nerf on hitting siege.

 

 

At the moment, as an ele defender, you have to stand on the very outer lip of a wall to do ANYTHING.

 

Good thing the attackers can either pull you down or the scourges, who dont even need to stop, spam you to death.

 

So, what does a smart defender do? Use the arrow card. Anything else is suicide.

 

So, if you want to nerf ACs. Fine. But then make defending easier. It is stupid that a defender can see the enemy but not hit them, because of some tiny ledge, but at the same time is eaten alive by scourge aoe spam.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> I have yet to see anywhere in this thread where ANET establishes the role of siege. Only that it can't be "useless."

 

Nor have they ever established before how big or small of a role siege should play in wvw either, that's up to debate, all that has been given is the purpose for each, up to the players to use it however, as long as you can counter it. It's clear which way most players prefer, and it's not the 3 hour slug it out over siege warfare, that's not what makes wvw fun for most players, except for those that just like tagging for easy loot. More than enough complaints about siege these days to prompt Anet to look into suggestions and maybe help make wvw a little more enjoyable than it is now.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Crescendo Forte.4821" said:

> So sort of seige, in adding one. Could we get a physical watchtower seige object? Make it have to be built like cannons or oil. This makes it more counterable besides setting up long range trebs/catas.

 

I wouldn't mind that. It would be a faster way to know the tower is under attack. Honestly, too many people use Watchtower as a crutch. When I see it up and the walls are not fortified, it's an easy cap.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > I have yet to see anywhere in this thread where ANET establishes the role of siege. Only that it can't be "useless."

>

> Nor have they never established before how big or small of a role siege should play in wvw either, that's up to debate, all that has been given is the purpose for each, up to the players to use it however, as long as you can counter it. It's clear which way most players prefer, and it's not the 3 hour slug it out over siege warfare, that's not what makes wvw fun for most players, except for those that just like tagging for easy loot. More than enough complaints about siege these days to prompt Anet to look into suggestions and maybe help make wvw a little more enjoyable than it is now.

>

 

From Ben... “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.”

 

The key word was “important”, as it has always been by design.

 

Here’s the thing... I’ve seen smaller groups of players take well defended structures. I’ve also seen huge zergs fail to take well defended structures. So what is the difference? It’s the human element, not siege. It’s how players use the tools they are given and how well they strategize... Some groups are better organized and use better tactics, while some groups don’t... and I’m sure you’ve seen it too.

 

We don’t need to nerf game elements to appease the inexperienced players, or the ones who are mentally stuck and aren’t changing up their tactics, they just need to get better and try different strategies.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

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

>

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

 

Five arrow carts with a target cap of 50 each = 250 players. That's a ton of damage. Elementalists with meteor shower are jealous!

 

This is why I say there should be some sort of diminishing returns on the damage put out by arrow carts. If it were one arrow cart there, they should still be able to do some damage to whoever is attacking. But if the defending force has enough people to be building and manning five arrow carts before the attacking force can get inside, they most likely have relatively even numbers to be able to actually fight the attacking force with player skills (while the defending force still has defender's advantage from objective auras, etc.).

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Kiroshima.8497" said:

> Third: Gates max out at Reinforced, not Fortified.

 

This is a good point. Gates used to max out at reinforced before HoT.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> From Ben... “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.”

>

> The key word was “important”, as it has always been by design.

>

> Here’s the thing... I’ve seen smaller groups of players take well defended structures. I’ve also seen huge zergs fail to take well defended structures. So what is the difference? It’s the human element, not siege. It’s how players use the tools they are given and how well they strategize... Some groups are better organized and use better tactics, while some groups don’t... and I’m sure you’ve seen it too.

>

> We don’t need to nerf game elements to appease the inexperienced players, or the ones who are mentally stuck and aren’t changing up their tactics, they just need to get better and try different strategies.

 

Yeah well my havoc group use to cap t3 keeps in 3 mins with 7 people. Yes human element, planning and organization makes a difference, believe me I've seen enough dumb idiots on siege, like someone using the 3rd floor cannon to take pot shots at a roamer coming through a broken wall instead of the giant blob at the gate with 4 rams down. Numbers make a difference, if 50 people are up in their t3 keep defending with a boatload of siege for 3 hours from 50 attackers and no one wants to get out and fight they deserve to get their keep ripped open and taken from them.

 

I have not suggested anything to make siege useless. I see a role for siege, but I also see where it's outright stupid sometimes and a couple things need adjustments. Shield generators made a huge difference to the battlefield and yet little to nothing was done to adjust them over 3 years. Countering siege had a place well before the shield gens which can put a hard stop to that. So I dunno what you all are arguing with me over, go argue with the guys who just want siege deleted from the game.

 

 

 

[Tammuz.7361]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

>

> 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.

 

agree, it takes absolutely 0 skill and organization for people to build arrow carts on the back ends of walls where they cant be hit and spam 1 on the attackers / seige until attackers run out of supply and cant continue. this sort of “anti-pvp” behavior is killing whats left of the game at the moment. WvW is at its core is a PvP part of the game, and should always try and encourage and reward players to fight other players, not empty towers and doors, and not spamming 1 on an arrow cart only to run away if enemy actually gets inside. Right now WvW is rewarding the opposite. Whats even scarier to me is that some people are actually feeling like they are “skilled” for being able to do this.

 

1) make ACs do less damage to seige

2) make ACs use 1 supply every time they are fired

3) consider increasing the points for enemy player kills obtained without the use of seige

4) consider closing down the borderlands zones during non primetimes (when there isnt going to be a queue to EB) to avoid having group from server one dodging group from server 2 and reduce the amount of PvD that goes on.

 

By encouraging players and servers to participate in PvP rather than hiding behind walls and spamming 1 on arrow carts, you will ultimately make the game mode more intersting to everyone who plays it, people who used to play it, and encourage players to acquire the gaming and teamwork skills that will benefit them here in GW2 and MMOs beyond.

[MadLass.3821]

I would like to apologise ahead of time because I have ideas, too many very hard ones. Sorry ArenaNet.

 

 

My opinion on siege/WvWvW changes.

 

Ballista: Too under powered due to inability to turn fast or look up. I would make it so the player can control it by looking around and that the damage is reduced to make up for the advanced maneuverability.

 

Arrow Carts: Too OP, if you have 4 or more of them they can destroy an entire 50 person zerg in a matter of minutes. Lower the damage down a ton and make them able to turn. I know turning is an advantage but if you remove a lot of the damage it makes it better, and it makes them able to hit inside and outside without having to swap siege.

 

Cannons: Too under powered and not enough health, a single person can take it down in a minute.

 

Burning Oils: Nobody uses these anymore because they aren't as effective against siege or players. Make them more powerful against siege so they are a priority to get rid of first, and make them either do more damage or more/longer burning damage.

 

Mortars: Say you have a trebuchet on SMC which you are using to destroy the walls on a keep, mortars should be able to hit halfway or a quarter way there, not three quarters.

 

Trebuchets: They should not be able to hit the Keeps from SMC. I also suggest a flaming ball option rather than always having the ground burn afterwards(unless this is already true, I haven't unlocked skill 5 yet).

 

Catapults: too long a range, they should be able to throw over the rivers in the Borderlands, not from a tower to a yak trail.

 

Flame Rams: Get rid of the flame attack around them or beef it up, it's useless as is. Otherwise it's fine.

 

Shield Generators: Make them reduce damage from trebs and completely block ballista and arrow cart attacks. Also make them last longer and have a health bar so it's more of a real shield.

 

Siege Golems: Make Alpha and Guild run as fast as Omega and make Omega run as fast as a normal character. I would also make them able to defeat more than one player alone so that they are more of a target(and used more) and not just something to kill while passing by. I would also make them more useful on gates and walls.

 

I also have some changes for the other parts of WvWvW.

 

Keeps: Too easy to penetrate if players aren't in there, one 10 person squad and it's gone.

 

SMC: Too hard to penetrate. You need a full 50 person squad to get in and kill the Lord before the other zerg gets in.

 

Towers: Make it so it is possible to get with a 5 or 10 person squad, don't make it so the zerg needs to get it.

 

Camps: Needs more defenses, too easily flipped.

 

Support of Allies: too easy for a passing zerg to wipe out or claim.

 

Walls and gates: Reduce the hit box so trebs and catas can't hit two corner walls at the same time.

 

Contesting/Tapping/White Swords: Too easy to exploit by one roamer wandering and killing some guards. Make it so that they only pop if 10 or more players are nearby and on the same world and at least tone is sieging.

 

Orange Swords/Zerg Collisions: Make them be more accurate and refresh every 10 seconds to the middle of the collision so that A: Players and Commanders are noticed sooner. And B: So that if the fight moves it doesn't take forever to figure out where they went or wait for the refresh.

 

Yaks: Too slow and easy to kill as they almost never fight back and when they do it does almost nothing.

 

Guards: Shouldn't immediately attack everyone within a 10 foot radius. They should be guards, not trigger-happy mercenaries.

 

New Siege: I recommend at least one new siege that has been said before. A respawn pole that costs supply to respawn at. I would even make them at every guard or just scattered for permanent use as long at you are withing the range of them. I would say however that it should not cost 15 supply as supply breaker traps remove it and most new player only hold that much, I would make it depend on how close it is: 10 for the closest it can be to you and 1 for the farthest it can be from you and obviously some scaling involved, but you cannot teleport if you are alive and/or not close enough to it. It makes dying more painful as you have to travel ALL the way back especially if you have your keep tapped and/or SMC if you have it.

 

Misc Changes: I would make mounts a mastery as well, but if this is added, make a roof over all buildings so that way Springer's don't get in by jumping the wall, and a griffon squad can't just dive bomb from the top of SMC to the keeps and take them. I would make it so they can divebomb into the courtyards still because ambushes are very useful and would make stealth more useful than brute force. A flare gun would be useful so that way tower watchers don't need to type in chat for the tower being destroyed, the tower saved, and/or a zerg or group passing by, and so that way directions are easier so they don't have to memorize the layout or pull up the map.

 

 

 

Now ArenaNet, my friend who probably thinks I have a problem. I know I have way too many ideas and I would like things that are probably impossible. I know it most likely won't be put in, but I want to put the option for my ideas out there so that way you at least see them and maybe implement them in the future. I'm not upset if these don't get in because I understand it's harder than I think it is and you probably don't see it as practical. Again sorry I have too many very hard ideas.

[Lenneth.7642]

1) Fix ballista LoS issue on tower by increasing it's height (maybe by adding a pole beneath it). At least higher than the wall on the tower wall.

 

2) Add a new siege item "tower" where it serve as height levitation for players (and can hold limited player on the tower or maybe just 1) which can be used offensively or defensively. The player on the tower will have 100% longer skill range and deal around 50% more damage. The tower itself of cause will be vulnerable to siege attack from ballista and others. If the tower is destroyed, the player on the tower will suffer fall damage due to height.

[samo.1054]

Severely limit the amount of ACs that can be built, limit their range and/or make them hard(er) to aim. ACs have too much of an impact for being a simple point, click and profit.

Increase the treb damage to t3 structures.

[Helly.2597]

> @"Lenneth.7642" said:

> 2) Add a new siege item "tower" where it serve as height levitation for players (and can hold limited player on the tower or maybe just 1) which can be used offensively or defensively. The player on the tower will have 100% longer skill range and deal around 50% more damage. The tower itself of cause will be vulnerable to siege attack from ballista and others. If the tower is destroyed, the player on the tower will suffer fall damage due to height.

 

This is a horrible idea. I can't wait to roam and come across soulbeasts sitting in towers hitting me from 3k range for 50% more dmg. Beyond stupid.

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Ansau.7326" said:

> > @"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.

 

I hate to say this but that would means the 25 zerg is really lowly skilled and they deserve to be stopped by only 5.