hunkamania.7561 Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 > @"Rezzet.3614" said: > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > > > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree because the defense/offense balance favors the defenders often. Has nothing to do with skill (we really talking about skill when discussing siege?) and everything to do with tactivators and plenty of supply. Even better for the defenders when they have a map queue available to zone in with an emergency waypoint after delaying the 25 for a long time. Remember, arrow carts' AoE target cap is 50, larger than the 25. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are assuming that people are stupid enough to sit in ac long enough for ac to kill them. And your example is not stopping a 25 zerg, your given example is delaying a 25 zerg, that is vast different. 5 person can never stop a 25 zerg. The technical usage of words need to be concise and correct, otherwise, the arguments will be just moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lot of people reasonings of nerfing ac is because they hate a blob hugging towers or keep with sieges. Of course, there also other people with hidden agenda of nerfing ac because they want a easy ktrain like eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't pretend there is a vast difference with word usage. There is no difference between a zerg being delayed long enough until they quit from some constraint (i.e. map queue, time, supply, boredom) and a zerg being "stopped". The end result is the same. There is no skill involved in that, only "how much supply we got?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It isn't a hidden agenda to point out an imbalance between offense/defense. Tactivators and things like fortified gates buffed defense but what did offense get? Charr car? So I don't blame people when they request nerfing AC damage or increasing the damage on walls from trebuchets. I won't ignore either how the defensive playstyle has become one of the more efficient ways to win a match. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a difference but for you is not. It is pretty much the argument of whether some cash shop item is p2w or not p2w. But, the fundamentally philosophy doesn't change. Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deterrence is not same as impenetrable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking time to take an objective? I've seen a solid commander take 3 hours to take a fully blobbed out and sieged up keep. Do you think anyone wants to get showered with AC's for 3 hours to get a champ bag at the end and some PPT that doesn't mean anything? Come on dude. Defensive gameplay is ruining the game and everyone knows it except siege humpers and DEVS! > > > > > > > > > > Stop blobbing and no siege is needed. But nooo the zerglings want to be in that precious group pressing skill 1. Well you have to deal with siege then. > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? I have no clue at all. How can you take a keep with 5 guys vs a defending force? It's not possible at all. Only way you can do that if there's no1 playing. You need a large force to take any of these T3 keeps and towers. plz stop. > > > > > > And it should take a large force to take a T3 keep, you want to take it with 5 guys? Of course it is not possible to get that, and it should not be possible ever. > > > > But it's not even possible with 20-30 unless there's no1 in there. You literally need a blob to take it unless the defenders are all bad at pressing 1 on a AC > > Try catapults then Good one. Defending is just too OP and needs nerfing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > It is pretty much the argument of whether some cash shop item is p2w or not p2w. But, the fundamentally philosophy doesn't change. Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm. > > > > > > > > Deterrence is not same as impenetrable. > > > > > > LOL. It is not, but ok. > > > > > > You started out talking about the skill of the zerg. Let's talk reality where a zerg doesn't get the tower not because they cannot get the tower but because people don't want to play that game. Is that healthy, getting a "win" because people don't want to play? > > > > > > And then you keep insisting that pointing out how defense has been buffed over offense is just some sort of hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain. Do you not understand why players are not ktraining in EOTM? For the same exact reason they are not spending time getting that tower. People want fights. You don't get fights from ktraining in EOTM. A zerg of 25 is not getting a fight from 5 defenders in a tower. They're trying to attract a fight to that tower. The problem with a buffed defense is that the defender's larger force doesn't have to respond as much anymore, meaning less fights. > > > > > > Again, I will not ignore the fact that the defensive playstyle has become the more efficient method of winning a match-up, which is why we see more people/guilds/servers doing it and less and less of the old time three way big fights over/around objectives. > > > > Your logic is getting mixed up but if I interpret correctly then...no. If people want fights, by sieging the objective, they already get the attentions they wanted. It is simple as that. What you are arguing is you want to cap the tower before people can respond, please read back your own post. > > Looks like you aren't interpreting correctly. I know the intent and content of my own posts. They're about offense/defense balance. I'm sorry you are unable to discuss that subject objectively without conspiracy theories about hidden agendas. > > Here, like me highlight how your logic is mixed. **And then you keep insisting that pointing out how defense has been buffed over offense is just some sort of hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain.** I didn't mention about the additional "defense", you are the one that did. And the best part is, how is buffing defend equivalent to wanting to ktrain, don't make sense. That alone already means your logic thinking already mixed up. But out of goodwill, I interpret as "Those that want to nerf ac has hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain". But, it seems that you are more interested in winning argument than the content of the arguments itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 > @"Rezzet.3614" said: > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > > > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree because the defense/offense balance favors the defenders often. Has nothing to do with skill (we really talking about skill when discussing siege?) and everything to do with tactivators and plenty of supply. Even better for the defenders when they have a map queue available to zone in with an emergency waypoint after delaying the 25 for a long time. Remember, arrow carts' AoE target cap is 50, larger than the 25. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are assuming that people are stupid enough to sit in ac long enough for ac to kill them. And your example is not stopping a 25 zerg, your given example is delaying a 25 zerg, that is vast different. 5 person can never stop a 25 zerg. The technical usage of words need to be concise and correct, otherwise, the arguments will be just moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lot of people reasonings of nerfing ac is because they hate a blob hugging towers or keep with sieges. Of course, there also other people with hidden agenda of nerfing ac because they want a easy ktrain like eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't pretend there is a vast difference with word usage. There is no difference between a zerg being delayed long enough until they quit from some constraint (i.e. map queue, time, supply, boredom) and a zerg being "stopped". The end result is the same. There is no skill involved in that, only "how much supply we got?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It isn't a hidden agenda to point out an imbalance between offense/defense. Tactivators and things like fortified gates buffed defense but what did offense get? Charr car? So I don't blame people when they request nerfing AC damage or increasing the damage on walls from trebuchets. I won't ignore either how the defensive playstyle has become one of the more efficient ways to win a match. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a difference but for you is not. It is pretty much the argument of whether some cash shop item is p2w or not p2w. But, the fundamentally philosophy doesn't change. Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deterrence is not same as impenetrable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking time to take an objective? I've seen a solid commander take 3 hours to take a fully blobbed out and sieged up keep. Do you think anyone wants to get showered with AC's for 3 hours to get a champ bag at the end and some PPT that doesn't mean anything? Come on dude. Defensive gameplay is ruining the game and everyone knows it except siege humpers and DEVS! > > > > > > > > > > Stop blobbing and no siege is needed. But nooo the zerglings want to be in that precious group pressing skill 1. Well you have to deal with siege then. > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? I have no clue at all. How can you take a keep with 5 guys vs a defending force? It's not possible at all. Only way you can do that if there's no1 playing. You need a large force to take any of these T3 keeps and towers. plz stop. > > > > > > And it should take a large force to take a T3 keep, you want to take it with 5 guys? Of course it is not possible to get that, and it should not be possible ever. > > > > But it's not even possible with 20-30 unless there's no1 in there. You literally need a blob to take it unless the defenders are all bad at pressing 1 on a AC > > Try catapults then They don't know to use sieges, I guess the many keeps that were taken so many times when with handful defending against a zerg must be a pure illusion. They are the kinds that will stand under ac aoe to be killed by it. Then can QQ how op ac are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balkarrie Legacy.9175 Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 Make buildable siege in captured keeps / towers usable by captors , maybe a slightly shorter despawn time say 45 mins for captured siege.. Do something about the asinine placement of cannons and mortars on keeps / towers , especially the border ones. If you want someone who actually understands how castles are supposed to work instead of the ' people ' who design your`s I`ll happily point out every mistake you`ve made . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > It is pretty much the argument of whether some cash shop item is p2w or not p2w. But, the fundamentally philosophy doesn't change. Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm. > > > > > > > > > > Deterrence is not same as impenetrable. > > > > > > > > LOL. It is not, but ok. > > > > > > > > You started out talking about the skill of the zerg. Let's talk reality where a zerg doesn't get the tower not because they cannot get the tower but because people don't want to play that game. Is that healthy, getting a "win" because people don't want to play? > > > > > > > > And then you keep insisting that pointing out how defense has been buffed over offense is just some sort of hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain. Do you not understand why players are not ktraining in EOTM? For the same exact reason they are not spending time getting that tower. People want fights. You don't get fights from ktraining in EOTM. A zerg of 25 is not getting a fight from 5 defenders in a tower. They're trying to attract a fight to that tower. The problem with a buffed defense is that the defender's larger force doesn't have to respond as much anymore, meaning less fights. > > > > > > > > Again, I will not ignore the fact that the defensive playstyle has become the more efficient method of winning a match-up, which is why we see more people/guilds/servers doing it and less and less of the old time three way big fights over/around objectives. > > > > > > Your logic is getting mixed up but if I interpret correctly then...no. If people want fights, by sieging the objective, they already get the attentions they wanted. It is simple as that. What you are arguing is you want to cap the tower before people can respond, please read back your own post. > > > > Looks like you aren't interpreting correctly. I know the intent and content of my own posts. They're about offense/defense balance. I'm sorry you are unable to discuss that subject objectively without conspiracy theories about hidden agendas. > > > > > > Here, like me highlight how your logic is mixed. > > **And then you keep insisting that pointing out how defense has been buffed over offense is just some sort of hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain.** > > I didn't mention about the additional "defense", you are the one that did. And the best part is, how is buffing defend equivalent to wanting to ktrain, don't make sense. That alone already means your logic thinking already mixed up. But out of goodwill, I interpret as "Those that want to nerf ac has hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain". But, it seems that you are more interested in winning argument than the content of the arguments itself. I see that you are greatly confused. We started talking about how many defenders can repel a zerg of 25. After saying it was related to skill, you then veered off on word usage rather than discuss the actual things that influence siege warfare balance like tactivators, fortified gates, charr cars, etc. When I brought those things up your responses were about hidden ktrain agendas. You didn't even want to discuss about how the defensive playstyle has become the more efficient method of winning a match-up. It was all about ktrains and some attempt to tell me what my argument and logic is. **"A lot of people reasonings of nerfing ac is because they hate a blob hugging towers or keep with sieges. Of course, there also other people with hidden agenda of nerfing ac because they want a easy ktrain like eotm."** **"Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm."** Now you talk about "winning" arguments. What even is your argument? That a zerg of 25 is unskilled at taking a tower from 5? I really feel that I'm repeating myself when I have to keep typing about tactivators, siege balance, defensive playstyle as most efficient method, etc. in the hopes that you'll address those items for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lLobo.7960 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Siege uses should consume supply. - Slightly reduce the supply needed to build the siege. - Siege weapons can store supply (normal - 10; superior/guild - 15) - Make so that each shot consumes a minimum supply (1 for basic skills, 2-3 for special skills). - Balance supply consumption between repair and siege so that they are on similar lvls. Ex: - Ram slam - 0 supply; - Ram fire - 1 supply; - Catapult boulder shot - 1 supply; - Catapult gravel shot - 2 supply; - Catapult bubble - 3 supply; This would make supply starving an objective a viable tactic as the place would run out of ammo for defense and repairs. It would increase the importance of supply and supply runners. This would also make it harder for people to hug sieges as they will drain supply fast. Also, make that changing (or simply leaving) maps reset your supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iozeph.5617 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Siege, in and of itself, isn't the problem. It's a combination of many little things -player numbers balance versus servers(or coming alliance) and allowing the use of strategy and role fulfillment within a given map to certain professions/play groups. You've set us a place to play a game of warfare but you've weighted it highly in favour of whichever realm/alliance manages to have the best round the clock coverage. Nominally we shouldn't have crossed swords on objectives. This to allow smaller groups or split armies to attack them using surprise. What we've seen time and again from servers with numbers advantages is that they encourage leaving an objective they know to be under attack until the walls are breached in order to continuously farm a lesser realm for bags. This is wrong. 1) You need to enforce map caps for each realm and it needs to be lower, not strictly a cap for all realms included so that each team has a chance of mounting a tangible offence defence. 2) There needs to be a cost for instant, early warning and it should come in the form of supply. In order to have a crossed swords on a keep or on a tower there needs to be two levels of warning. The first being a bell, located at the top/lord room, for on-map warning. Have them able to be built at tier zero. This will show crossed swords on the specific map and will require a player to man it as with any other piece of siege equipment. The second level, alliance wide crossed sword alert comes in the form of signal fire. This is also built beginning at tier zero. It will have to be constantly fed with supply in order to keep it burning. When activated it will allow the player to see crossed swords on an objective regardless of which map they are currently playing on. No crossed swords whatsoever on supply camps. 4) Placement and usability of siege based on logic. All tower and keep walls need to be made deeper structures. Siege placed for object defense shoudln't be assailable without the use of counter siege. A necromancer or elementalist or range shouldn;t be able to use a ground targetted area effect spell to take down siege placed on a wall for defence. The wall needs to be deep enough for defenders to place them far from the leading edge of it so that this doesn't happen. In turn there needs to be an internal flag for siege built on walls which makes it so that the camera angle isn't changed or restricted for the person manning it. Right now this benefits attackers and removes the point of defensive siege being a force multiplier for the defender. 5) Increasing returns for defensive siege. All defensively placed siege should have increasing returns for damage done to players. Say if a catapult or arrow cart is being used to hit enemy players attacking a tower or keep who've placed catapults right beside the wall. Players who continuously stand in catapult, arrow cart, trebuchet, cannon, and boiling oil blast areas should have a stacking debuff applied to them called "Shellshocked"(similar to the debuff applied to doors by flame rams) which greatly increases all damage done to them with every stacking application. This to discourage simply rolling up to the side of a wall building a stack of siege with a blob which then ignores counter fire from inside- either by healing through it or ignoring it via bubbles. Each area where this occurs should have a lasting field of about five to ten seconds duration called "no man's land" where players enterring that area slowly begin to accrue stacks of Shellshocked over time similar to how they gain debuff stacks from getting too near to the dragon during the "Claw of Jormag" world event. 6)Rewards for clever placement. There need to be gains in range for ballistic trajectory siege weapons, based upon elevation compared to the projectile's destination, to encourage placement anywhere but right beside a wall. This should be specifically applied to catapults, trebuchets, arrow carts, and ballistae. All battlegrounds should have terrains altered to provide at least one or two such possible vantages(but let players find them for themselves) for any given objective. The point of these changes to to give an inferiour force a better chance to fight back attacks by a superior number of attackers. To give an outnumbered force a chance to take objectives and change the axis of conflict by using surprise, and to give smaller roaming groups a role such as early warning, and camp flipping/defence. This so that playing war actually has the feel of playing war rather than just having crossed swords act as a dinner bell for realms with an obvious numbers advantage. Given that I still don't believe the server changes will be the cure-all to our problems. It woudl be better to have these sorts of changes in place so that balance and fun in WvW doesn't become a matter os players policing themselves. Something we've proven over time incapable of doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiawal.2351 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said: > One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless. > > So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently! That's very bad "news", though it's nothing new, you just finally acknowledged it... At least **make siege vs. player damage scale just like falling damage does**; taking a percent of health, so you can tweak it, without forcing glass builds out of siege wars game. Also check mortar and cata special shots, currently those can kill in a single shot on full glass characters. Twink twice before asking everyone to adopt a "tanky" condi thing, like dire and co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree because the defense/offense balance favors the defenders often. Has nothing to do with skill (we really talking about skill when discussing siege?) and everything to do with tactivators and plenty of supply. Even better for the defenders when they have a map queue available to zone in with an emergency waypoint after delaying the 25 for a long time. Remember, arrow carts' AoE target cap is 50, larger than the 25. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are assuming that people are stupid enough to sit in ac long enough for ac to kill them. And your example is not stopping a 25 zerg, your given example is delaying a 25 zerg, that is vast different. 5 person can never stop a 25 zerg. The technical usage of words need to be concise and correct, otherwise, the arguments will be just moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lot of people reasonings of nerfing ac is because they hate a blob hugging towers or keep with sieges. Of course, there also other people with hidden agenda of nerfing ac because they want a easy ktrain like eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't pretend there is a vast difference with word usage. There is no difference between a zerg being delayed long enough until they quit from some constraint (i.e. map queue, time, supply, boredom) and a zerg being "stopped". The end result is the same. There is no skill involved in that, only "how much supply we got?". > > > > > > > > > > > > It isn't a hidden agenda to point out an imbalance between offense/defense. Tactivators and things like fortified gates buffed defense but what did offense get? Charr car? So I don't blame people when they request nerfing AC damage or increasing the damage on walls from trebuchets. I won't ignore either how the defensive playstyle has become one of the more efficient ways to win a match. > > > > > > > > > > There is a difference but for you is not. It is pretty much the argument of whether some cash shop item is p2w or not p2w. But, the fundamentally philosophy doesn't change. Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm. > > > > > > > > > > Deterrence is not same as impenetrable. > > > > > > > > Taking time to take an objective? I've seen a solid commander take 3 hours to take a fully blobbed out and sieged up keep. Do you think anyone wants to get showered with AC's for 3 hours to get a champ bag at the end and some PPT that doesn't mean anything? Come on dude. Defensive gameplay is ruining the game and everyone knows it except siege humpers and DEVS! > > > > > > Stop blobbing and no siege is needed. But nooo the zerglings want to be in that precious group pressing skill 1. Well you have to deal with siege then. > > > > What are you talking about? I have no clue at all. How can you take a keep with 5 guys vs a defending force? It's not possible at all. Only way you can do that if there's no1 playing. You need a large force to take any of these T3 keeps and towers. plz stop. > > And it should take a large force to take a T3 keep, you want to take it with 5 guys? Of course it is not possible to get that, and it should not be possible ever. No, it really should. WvW is designed to scale from 1 player to full border - that's how it remains playable throughout the week and throughout the years. You got to start somewhere and that's 1 player joining a map. It's gonna be *harder* the less players you have, that's very true. I mean some people can barely cap a T0 camp. The idea that its impossible is why WvW already grind to a halt when objectives become T3. People give up. They ignore. They go around. We're not even talking 5 people here. We're talking 10. Or 20+ for any serious effort. 5 people is rarely gonna take on a keep because they know if just *one* enemy goes in an build an ac... Forget about it. You can just leave the siege you got there and then. They dont want to take up that fight. Defenses are too strong, siege is too strong. That's not the gameplay you want to encourage by saying "it should not be possible ever". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samug.6512 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 1. Shield Generators need their minimum range extended, so they can't cover themselves with the bubble. 2. Stealth Traps are countered by Deadeyes who can remove Revealed with their Elite. 3. Siege Disablers can be body-blocked by a person with Aegis. If there's a character with Aegis on the Siege Disabler's trajectory, it simply says "Blocked!", nothing gets disabled, item is wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeolus.3615 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > > > > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree because the defense/offense balance favors the defenders often. Has nothing to do with skill (we really talking about skill when discussing siege?) and everything to do with tactivators and plenty of supply. Even better for the defenders when they have a map queue available to zone in with an emergency waypoint after delaying the 25 for a long time. Remember, arrow carts' AoE target cap is 50, larger than the 25. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are assuming that people are stupid enough to sit in ac long enough for ac to kill them. And your example is not stopping a 25 zerg, your given example is delaying a 25 zerg, that is vast different. 5 person can never stop a 25 zerg. The technical usage of words need to be concise and correct, otherwise, the arguments will be just moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lot of people reasonings of nerfing ac is because they hate a blob hugging towers or keep with sieges. Of course, there also other people with hidden agenda of nerfing ac because they want a easy ktrain like eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't pretend there is a vast difference with word usage. There is no difference between a zerg being delayed long enough until they quit from some constraint (i.e. map queue, time, supply, boredom) and a zerg being "stopped". The end result is the same. There is no skill involved in that, only "how much supply we got?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It isn't a hidden agenda to point out an imbalance between offense/defense. Tactivators and things like fortified gates buffed defense but what did offense get? Charr car? So I don't blame people when they request nerfing AC damage or increasing the damage on walls from trebuchets. I won't ignore either how the defensive playstyle has become one of the more efficient ways to win a match. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a difference but for you is not. It is pretty much the argument of whether some cash shop item is p2w or not p2w. But, the fundamentally philosophy doesn't change. Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > Deterrence is not same as impenetrable. > > > > > > > > > > Taking time to take an objective? I've seen a solid commander take 3 hours to take a fully blobbed out and sieged up keep. Do you think anyone wants to get showered with AC's for 3 hours to get a champ bag at the end and some PPT that doesn't mean anything? Come on dude. Defensive gameplay is ruining the game and everyone knows it except siege humpers and DEVS! > > > > > > > > Stop blobbing and no siege is needed. But nooo the zerglings want to be in that precious group pressing skill 1. Well you have to deal with siege then. > > > > > > What are you talking about? I have no clue at all. How can you take a keep with 5 guys vs a defending force? It's not possible at all. Only way you can do that if there's no1 playing. You need a large force to take any of these T3 keeps and towers. plz stop. > > > > And it should take a large force to take a T3 keep, you want to take it with 5 guys? Of course it is not possible to get that, and it should not be possible ever. > > But it's not even possible with 20-30 unless there's no1 in there. You literally need a blob to take it unless the defenders are all bad at pressing 1 on a AC if 20-30 players cant take a stucture from just a few defenders those -20-30 are bad enough.... since 4 or 5 superior arrows carts can only delay slightly a group of that size if they know what they are doing. Major problem is that groups just want proxy catas, aoe walls to clean players and siege wich is what walls are ment for... besides delay offensive players to reach the capture zone. > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > @"MUDse.7623" said: > > > > a minimum distance for catapults would help you more, for example the boulder has to fly at least 80% of the distance when you just tap the skill 2 on even terrain, hitting a wall before that will result in 0 dmg. then you have to build the catapults on a distance. with catapults on a distance. you are still not safe from their range spiking you on the wall then. but if they do that, they are not at their catapult wich can be taken out by someone else in that time. through gates you can already hit with AoE from range while LoS is blocked so you are pretty safe doing it and dont need to get on top of the gate. > > > > > > How do you envision sieging this western inner breakable wall with a minimum distance catapult? Or perhaps you know of a trebuchet placement that can reach it? Maybe a small havoc team can sneak some omega golems back there? > > >  > > > > > > > Bam problem solved! > > > >  > > > > Joking aside, don't know how much of a minimum distance are asking for, but there are a lot of places where walls don't have a lot of space next to it and would require you to bring the catas out from there which exposes them more to siege fire, like the north outer wall in hills too. I understand why people are asking for the minimum distance, just not sure I agree with it much as I think there should be a close siege option for walls like rams for gates. > > > > Agreed. I think people aren't thinking the minimum distance thing through thoroughly. One suggestion was 600 range, another 800, which would push the catas back to where you drew them. In that bay keep location, that is a far more risky/exposed position for those catas than under AC fire against the wall. Supply would then be better invested in rams and shield gens at the gate. It does two things: completely removes any utility from having that wall breakable and two, that wall is a common "hidden" location used by havoc teams to try to breach inner while a larger force is distracting defenders. Removing it as an option removes a kind of strategy from the siege game. > > Edit: And I ain't even gotten to talking about Desert borderland where walls are the preferred locations to attack because the defensive structure of gates was buffed. If catapults cant be used, let supose range and boulder needs its arc and range for damage, use something else...... hill from camp on north side right next to the wurm, trebs there can directly fustigate inner bay walls, protect rams on north gate, think of something else, strucutures design is ment to be defensive not ment to make the offensive team use whatever they want to use...theres plenty other ways.......plenty of them why u just want to use catas everywhere??? **Why keeps and castles in history had their own design??? for sure it wasnt to be bewtifull....** I must add strucutres design in this game are weird, they can punish defensive team wich leads to extreme siege hopping rather than decent defensive gameplay, wich is another problem i would not mind ANet to adress..... Some structures really need to be changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > > It is pretty much the argument of whether some cash shop item is p2w or not p2w. But, the fundamentally philosophy doesn't change. Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm. > > > > > > > > > > > > Deterrence is not same as impenetrable. > > > > > > > > > > LOL. It is not, but ok. > > > > > > > > > > You started out talking about the skill of the zerg. Let's talk reality where a zerg doesn't get the tower not because they cannot get the tower but because people don't want to play that game. Is that healthy, getting a "win" because people don't want to play? > > > > > > > > > > And then you keep insisting that pointing out how defense has been buffed over offense is just some sort of hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain. Do you not understand why players are not ktraining in EOTM? For the same exact reason they are not spending time getting that tower. People want fights. You don't get fights from ktraining in EOTM. A zerg of 25 is not getting a fight from 5 defenders in a tower. They're trying to attract a fight to that tower. The problem with a buffed defense is that the defender's larger force doesn't have to respond as much anymore, meaning less fights. > > > > > > > > > > Again, I will not ignore the fact that the defensive playstyle has become the more efficient method of winning a match-up, which is why we see more people/guilds/servers doing it and less and less of the old time three way big fights over/around objectives. > > > > > > > > Your logic is getting mixed up but if I interpret correctly then...no. If people want fights, by sieging the objective, they already get the attentions they wanted. It is simple as that. What you are arguing is you want to cap the tower before people can respond, please read back your own post. > > > > > > Looks like you aren't interpreting correctly. I know the intent and content of my own posts. They're about offense/defense balance. I'm sorry you are unable to discuss that subject objectively without conspiracy theories about hidden agendas. > > > > > > > > > > Here, like me highlight how your logic is mixed. > > > > **And then you keep insisting that pointing out how defense has been buffed over offense is just some sort of hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain.** > > > > I didn't mention about the additional "defense", you are the one that did. And the best part is, how is buffing defend equivalent to wanting to ktrain, don't make sense. That alone already means your logic thinking already mixed up. But out of goodwill, I interpret as "Those that want to nerf ac has hidden agenda of wanting to ktrain". But, it seems that you are more interested in winning argument than the content of the arguments itself. > > I see that you are greatly confused. We started talking about how many defenders can repel a zerg of 25. After saying it was related to skill, you then veered off on word usage rather than discuss the actual things that influence siege warfare balance like tactivators, fortified gates, charr cars, etc. > > When I brought those things up your responses were about hidden ktrain agendas. You didn't even want to discuss about how the defensive playstyle has become the more efficient method of winning a match-up. It was all about ktrains and some attempt to tell me what my argument and logic is. > > **"A lot of people reasonings of nerfing ac is because they hate a blob hugging towers or keep with sieges. Of course, there also other people with hidden agenda of nerfing ac because they want a easy ktrain like eotm."** > > **"Just because a zerg do not want to spend time to get the tower doesn't mean the zerg cannot get the tower. If people want to ktrain, they should go to eotm."** > > Now you talk about "winning" arguments. What even is your argument? That a zerg of 25 is unskilled at taking a tower from 5? I really feel that I'm repeating myself when I have to keep typing about tactivators, siege balance, defensive playstyle as most efficient method, etc. in the hopes that you'll address those items for once. > > I was saying delaying is not the same as stopping but you insist it is, regardless. I said numerous times before a handful cannot stop 25 which you simply refuse to agree even when you are the one flatly said **delaying**. Then, you move on to argue if people delay long enough, they will stop. Honestly speaking, you really think 5 person can delay significantly long enough for a zerg of 25 to stop? You believe so, I play along with you, I then said what I said, just because zerg don't want to spend time taking it doesn't means they can't take it. The fact doesn't change regardless even you add all other things in, all of those are just delaying. It doesn't stop the zerg from taking it. It is simply delaying them long enough for helps to arrive. A handful can never stop a zerg. Everything you mentioned point to one thing, you want to ktrain. Skill thing, I think a few posters already mentioned this, if a zerg can be stopped by a handful, the zerg is bad, simply bad, period. Skills can be refer to knowledge and understanding of how to use sieges. Accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dukotje.4382 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 - Realistically what needs to happen is a nerf to ac's. a few suggestions of how that could go down: 1. Reduce the amount of ac's / siege in an area to avoid stacking 5 or 6 ac's on a single wall /gate 2. Reduce damage done to players drastically, i'm talking 40-60%! and lower the damage done to siege by 10-30%. 3. I've read a good suggestion to make siege use supply on use, but i can't figure that one out myself. - trebs are fine as it is. i think functions as intended and can be used to for extreme long range stuff. The only revision to siege would be to lower the range on it so they can't be used inside SMC walls to treb keeps/towers. - Flame rams do whats ok. make the skill 1 act like the skill 3.. knock back ppl trying to repair the gate. and remove the damage delay on Superior Flame Rams. - shield generators shouldn't be destroyed so quickly. they are there to protect other siege weapons from getting destroyed so why not make them a little harder to kill. remove the range indicator on placing domes close to the siege itself. - Catapults are fine. Bubble could last a little longer, and the gravel shot seems like a big waste of time. maybe add a buff in that slot instead, that the next shot hits for 50% more damage, and increase the cooldown on it. On to towers/keeps/SMC: 1. Gates shouldn't be able to get fortified. it takes forever to get inside and with all the siege covering its nearly impossible to break through. 2. Walls should be slimmer. Ac's are uncatchable by any form of AoE's making it impossible to counter play against the siegewars. 3. Contesting a structure / wp is extremely easy. it takes 1 aa to any guard from that structure to contest a wp for 3 minutes. Make it harder to contest by increasing the hits before the white swords appear, have them kill all guards protecting a gate before it gets contested, or make it so any breakable part of that structure to get 5% damage before getting contested. Make shrines have defenders. just standing on 1 spot to clean or cap a shrine is too easy. give it a few guards or let the cannon auto fire (auto build too) on enemies inside the capping square/circle. upon neutralizing the point, destroy the cannon and guards but make it so that you have to kill the guards protecting it first. Camps are too easy as well. increase the damage done or toughness from guards in a camp. make the veteran tougher too. these seem like realistic changes that needs to be done to siege, in order to bring back the fun in wvw. ps: can scourges be catagorized as siege? pls nerf! :smirk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klypto.1703 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 We need moar siege like maybe mounts for siege like airships and charr tanks. Maybe throw in a ufo or twelve ya know got your 70 member guild group already to mow over 1 guy and then all of a sudden teleported to 200 different places on the map. Really tho be awesome to have a charr tank as a mobile ram just drive that sucker right into that gate and do more damage if everyone wearing all magi gear. Better yet if you siege cap any area it calls kralkatorik in and he brands the entire objective that would be lots of fun. Oh yes and don't forget like lockboxes with endless siege blueprints add that in there like a branded superior catapult fires jewelry balls at stuff. Also rewards for defending and taking stuff of high value like T3 stuff so people crawl out of ebg once in awhile and give them sun glasses so their eyeballs don't instantly get vaped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slesh.3157 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 How about Siege Units? After a keep has been captured the commander could choose to build one of several massive siege units in said keep. An example of that could be a slow moving airship with strong damage against structures. The process of building it would be slow and it would change the keep visually in some way (so that enemy scouts would have a chance to spot it) -and ofc building it would require supplies as well. * This way the commander will have to make a few strategic decisions: build it in a keep at the edge of their territory so that the siege unit can arrive faster at it's target destination? or build it deep in their territory where it can be better defended and potentially harder to spot by enemy scouts? * These slow moving siege units would provide dynamic objectives for the players to meet as well: the team that built said weapon will try to defend it while the enemies would do their best to take it down before it reaches its destination. (I think it would keep the gameplay more fresh as opposed to having just some static giant points to capture). To counter them there could be some defensive options as well such as the ability to build defensive turrets at your keeps (anti air/anti ground/anti infantry etc). Also some glider kits(/charr jetpack?) to allow players to attack flying siege units such as the airship used in this example. Other siege units could be some charr tanks/ground vehicles (there are some sweet unused models around ascalon etc). There could be even an alternative of smaller/cheaper units such as charr bikes and such or even guild variations on said siege units. Too much to hope for? Probably -but I'll leave this here anyway -good day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristalyan.5728 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 I read all the posts in this debate. In my opinion, changing only the way the siege engines works will not solve too many problems. Changing some numbers for range/damage/duration/cooldowns will not solve the issues with stacking the siege engines, or with the difficulty to take a T3 structure. I think the devs should look at WvW at whole and to try to eliminate the annoying aspects flagrantly contradicting the common sense: - Conditions affecting objects. This is absurd. I know it was a huge complain from the condi users that they cannot destroy anything in the game. I consider the decision of the devs. to give them satisfaction to be wrong. How can be an Oil Pot affected b y poisoning? How you can destroy a cannon with bleeding? A condi user is strong against players. Remove the conditions affecting objects and some of the issues will disappear. - The walls are supposed to protect the defenders. This is why in real life sieges the defenders were able to resist even in a 1 vs 10 siege. Make the skills to not be able to target the top of the walls (except maybe the ranger skills). Yes, this means the defenders will have no worries about being killed on the wall. That means they can drop anything on the head of the attackers. But who stops the attackers to build their own siege engines at a safe distance? Forcing the defenders to go out from the fortress to take down the sieges. - Stacking the siege engines - in theory this is simple - make an exclusion zone around every siege engine stopping another siege of the same type to be placed. Different engines are OK. If you want to stack a ram on top on an AC, is OK. But not 2 AC too close one of another. In practice - I don't know if we will see this. Think about the exclusion zone around the interactable objects demanded for more than 3 years without any result. - Make the fortifications to have the same strength regardless of the tier. A superior tier means more supply, more guards, maybe a stronger Lord. But keep the fortification the same. - Eliminate the different models for each siege engine. AC /Superior AC/Guild AC etc. Replace all the models with one standard model. In this way the balance will be easier. The only modifiers should come from Mastery. Maybe the suggestions will not please everyone. Maybe the suggestions are not even good enough. Still, I keep my opinion that the devs should look at WvW at whole and to try to avoid changing only the siege engines. Because this will solve (almost) nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urelementar.6120 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Hey, I wanted to add some feedback about my experience with Sige. I mostly play in small groups (3-15ppl). I mainly enjoy the combat system and fighting over advantages like key strategic positions or valuable options of play. I am that buy that builds rams open field to get the Iron hide buff and Ballistas in camps for the extra cc skills or you find me buffing siege with specific buffs to improve there effectiveness. I like the overall concept of siege and how each has a specific/ distinct use. Here are some problems that I see in the siegegameplay: 1. Arrowcard stacking in save spots: At some positions in keeps and towers you can put 4 or more Arrowcards on one spot that can not be cleared. This one is especially annoying to deal with if there are multiple save spots on the wall/gate you want to attack and surviving in 8 or more Superior-/ Guildarrowcards is pretty painful if you do not play on a tanky build. I suggest adding an Internal damage cooldown like on Coalescence of Ruin so that multiple Arrowcard can not damage one player as much while still being effective versus large groups of enemies. Alos normal Arrowcards have so little Damage it feels there are not worth to build. 2. Hardened Gates in Tier 3 Stonemistcatle. Stonemist castle is one of my favorite places to fight, but there is one thing I hate and that is braking a T3 gate with that Guildbuff, it takes several minutes depending on how much Rams/catapults you put down, also you have to deal with save spot Arrowcards and potentially Trebs, Cannons, Mortars, and enemy Schildgen's making a Siege take possible Hours just to breach the gate. I do not enjoy using a ram and hitting 1 for an hour, and being unable to support my team. 3. General use of siege. I do not enjoy using siege. Siege gameplay is very stale and often involves pressing 1 Button for several minutes without having any means to interact with the fight. 2 exceptions are the Cannon/Arrowcard where you have a choice in the attack and the Schildgen, which I actually enjoy. Especially the ability to use 2 or 3 different types (normal. superior and guild) at the same time (They do not share cooldowns!). I would suggest adding an autopilot Mode or Blueprint for rams/ catapults(the pure offense once) so players can participate in the fighting. Maybe give it less Hp to balance the additional players defending it. One other thing is that sometimes when I defend a Keep. you got enough players on the siege that could easily fight the enemies off, but they stay behind and can not participate in the fight. 4. Countering Siege. Sometimes you need Specific classes to deal with defensive siege (core/scourge necro / Staff Elementalist/Longbow Ranger, they have unique/rare targeting skills), which makes it really annoying to clear siege in small groups. Especially if those classes are not that good at fighting. You need to wap traits/gear to clear the siege and then jun out of combat to fight with your enemy that wants to protect its siege. 5. Ballista Skill1. Sometimes you can only clear Siege with the Ballista's skill 2 and 3 which are not bad but still take a relatively long time to fight enemy siege especially if the enemy's Ballista Skill1 can hit you. I suggest unifying the stack type (ballistic projectile OR Ray), so that you can fight a fair 1v1 with Ballista. Allow I sometimes have the problem to not fight enemies to fight if I want to, running to north camp while roaming the map without seeing an enemy is really disappointing. I suggest adding Sentry Turret from Edge of the Mists fo normal WvW maps ( they work like Sentry and give away the location of nearby enemies). See you all fighting in WvW, :) Urelementar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavandaria.3079 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 From my point of view what should be done is as it's been said, amp the damage of siege to other siege/ structures and remove shields. My reasons for this is that defenders already have a great advantage on their role with a close waypoint, while attackers struggle with theirs and overextend it alot. Siege should be fun and relatively quick, right now it takes a long period of time and it's dull. Make it so that both sides are more or less balanced, defenders have a close waypoint that makes holding their ground and replenishing their numbers easier, fine, but make attackers have another edge aswell by making them do more damage to structures and/or removing shields, making engagements occurr more often. By doing something along these borders, sieging should become more important and a more staple role both on defending and attacking sides as players will feel more engaged in defending their structures and get better at using them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > The fact doesn't change regardless even you add all other things in, all of those are just delaying. It doesn't stop the zerg from taking it. It is simply delaying them long enough for helps to arrive. A handful can never stop a zerg. Everything you mentioned point to one thing, you want to ktrain. To which I responded: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/527301/#Comment_527301 "Do you not understand why players are not ktraining in EOTM? For the same exact reason they are not spending time getting that tower. People want fights." "people don't want to play that game. Is that healthy, getting a "win" because people don't want to play?" "Again, I will not ignore the fact that the defensive playstyle has become the more efficient method of winning a match-up." Are you ready to talk about this in good faith or still keep accusing people of just pushing an agenda? Are all these posters above who have comments related to the defensive playstyle also pushing that agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glass.3245 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 The goal should be to create mechanics that make combat more fun, rather than buff mechanics that prevent or stagnate combat. Siege should be expensive and devastating, and disabling or destroying siege should become a priority for both attackers and defenders. The way things are at the moment, the defenders definitely have an advantage due to the strength of ACs and shield generators, and when they rely on this siege it makes combat extremely boring. I like the idea of using supply at your objectives as a running cost for certain siege, to prevent overuse or building too many without introducing a more severe hard cap. Shields are a good example of overpowered equipment with a detrimental effect on the game. They prevent combat and slow the game down. I appreciate that sometimes that can be a tactical advantage while waiting for reinforcements, but there should be a cost or risk associated with hiding behind them. If they were to drain supply from the objective, like a power running cost, and switch off when supply is drained, then they would be used much more tactically and would just delay combat rather than prevent it. Arrow carts are often balanced in locations where they can only be reached by elementalist meteor showers, and they are often used to excess. It can't really be acceptable that the only way to counter these is with a single skill on one specific class. They could be made line-of-sight, but again if they drained supply or had a longer cooldown they would have to be used much more tactically. Trebuchets are currently just weak, slightly longer-ranged catapults. If you fail to open an objective, you build a couple of these inside a nearby tower and everyone who isn't on one goes to grab a coffee. It's boring. They should be expensive and far more powerful - building a trebuchet should create the same buzz and excitement as putting down a couple of golems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 > @"Chaba.5410" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > The fact doesn't change regardless even you add all other things in, all of those are just delaying. It doesn't stop the zerg from taking it. It is simply delaying them long enough for helps to arrive. A handful can never stop a zerg. Everything you mentioned point to one thing, you want to ktrain. > > To which I responded: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/527301/#Comment_527301 > > "Do you not understand why players are not ktraining in EOTM? For the same exact reason they are not spending time getting that tower. People want fights." > > "people don't want to play that game. Is that healthy, getting a "win" because people don't want to play?" > > "Again, I will not ignore the fact that the defensive playstyle has become the more efficient method of winning a match-up." > > Are you ready to talk about this in good faith or still keep accusing people of just pushing an agenda? Are all these posters above who have comments related to the defensive playstyle also pushing that agenda? > > And which I already said if you want attention, you already got it by attacking the towers. What other kind of attentions do you need to get fights? Also, on a side note, just now I cap a keep that has 10ish defenders that have about 7 acs with 30+ zerg. The defending side must be really overpowering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage.7145 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 MAKE IT SO PEOPLE CAN CLIMB WALLS, next siege should be one of those medieval siege towers so we can actually get up on the walls instantly if u cant make cannons more powerful hell make it so players can build cannons in certain spots on the walls, make people who use oil, cannons, and mortars invulnerable to damage or take 90% reduced damage, remove ACs and shield gens completely and the game is saved. siege towers should be really slow moving or whatever cost a ton of supply and only be used on outter walls, but give us an option so we can get into the outter walls right away that way we can start fighting people inside immediately instead of waiting 1 hour or whatever for the first wall to go down make the game fun, sitting under AC fire for hours isnt fun Areananet if you played your stupid game u would know this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogiepop Void.6473 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 What annoys me the most is just how much inventory clutter siege causes, as well as making it hard to take whatever character you want/your team needs into WvW because of having to make sure you have these in the character inventory and the difficulties of moving so much around. It's also annoying running up and finding a ton of unusable siege from other teams blocking the way. Either despawn once you cap or make them non-team specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiri.4257 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 siege isn't the problem. the fortified gates/walls are. reinforced is sufficient. mayyybeee fortified walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drinks.2361 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" So with these new Amazon servers, think we could manage the desert bl oasis event again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts