Siege Revisions

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> 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.

 

Agreed: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/28237/siege-towers#latest

 

Posted this based on the thread 'defense needs to be changed', or whatever it's name was.

 

Details certainly could change..

[TheGrimm.5624]

Would leave siege alone until after alliances are released since the alliance logic itself might change how people play and therefore how they use siege.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> Would leave siege alone until after alliances are released since the alliance logic itself might change how people play and therefore how they use siege.

 

I get people want alliances to come _soon_, but how exactly is it going to change siege behavior? The only way I see it happening is changing the map or changing the siege. I can't make the connection with population changes (e.g. Alliances).

 

So enlighten me.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

 

> if you remove line of sight restriction for eles or change the wall so it doesnt block line of sight anymore, then attackers can kill you behind the wall easily so you cant even get close to it.

 

they already can. Scourges just spam there marks and it is done. Battlements do nothing in that regard.

All I am asking for is that the small extension on the outer part of the wall, does not 'block' line of sight anymore, so you can fight back, without being completely in the open.

 

At the moment, attackers can kill everyone atop a wall, but fighting back is as much as impossible. Thanks to the stupid line of sight.

 

[gloflop.3510]

I have to say honestly ahead that I did not read through all replies so far.

 

From my perspecitve, the problem is that it is too hard to capture high tier structures. I have seen it more than once that a commander said "I dont want to take the keep/tower, I only want them to come so that we can fight". When I asked why they dont want to capture the structure, the reply was "its t3, will take too long". One reason is from my perspecitive the advantage of arrow carts. A defender needs 2-3 superior arrow carts and the enemy is laying on the floor. Especially hills on the alpine bl has the reputation of being impossible to capture when there are few intelligent defenders.

 

When it comes to "what to do", I read many very good responses already. The shields are very powerful and the arrow carts too strong. The rest can be a bit polished but it is in general "ok".

[Pi Slinger.5801]

Seige: Proposals for More Strategic Warfare

======

---

## **Seige Tiers v. Objective Tiers**

**ISSUE**: The effectiveness of seige against higher-tier objectives leaves something to be desired.

**PROPOSAL**: Modify seige such that they are tiered and properly effective against the corresponding objective tier.

**DETAILS**:

 

* Basic Seige (Tier 1) - Effective against Tier 1 objectives.

* Superior Seige (Tier 2) - Effective against Tier 2 objectives.

* Guild Seige (Tier 3) - Effective against Tier 3 objectives.

 

**EXAMPLE(S)**:

 

* Basic Ram (Tier 1) brings down a Tier 1 objective's gate as fast as a Guild Ram (Tier 3) can bring down a Tier 3 objective's gate, etc.

* Basic Ram (Tier 1) brings down a Tier 2 objective's gate half as fast as a Superior Ram (Tier 2) brings down a Tier 2 objective's gate, etc.

 

---

## **Make Seige a Limited Resource**

**ISSUE**: Seige is too easily available and seige is used frivolously. When seige is lost, there is little to no weight to the loss.

**PROPOSAL**: Make seige a time-generated and limited resource that is pooled by world.

**DETAILS**:

 

* Seige is generated over time.

* Generated seige is pooled on a World basis.

* Maximum capacity of World for seige is determined by number of controlled Keeps and Towers.

* Seige capacity granted by control of Keeps and Towers is determined by Tier of the Keeps/Towers.

* Towers offer less Seige capacity than Keeps.

* When seige is at capacity, losing a Keep/Tower loses the seige in excess of the new capacity.

* Seige generation is enhanced through control of Supply Camps.

* Basic Seige (Tier 1) generates faster than Superior Seige (Tier 2) which generates faster than Guild Seige (Tier 3).

* Seige is used directly from the World's pool rather than being carried by players. (To prevent cheating the capacity/limit)

* Eligibility for seige-use/access to the World's seige pool, is restricted to players who have been a citizen of their current World for at least 3 months and have a participation of Tier 3 or above.

* Could further restrict access based on party/squad size. (Eligibility for seige-use while reducing trolling and without blocking roamer use is the tricky part of this approach)

* Allows control of amounts of seige of varying quality that players have access to, and enables ability to make seige more scarce than it is currently.

* Seige scarcity and weight will incentivize fights over seige and the capture and holding of objectives.

 

**EXAMPLE(S)**:

 

* Time duration reached for generation of Basic Seige. Equivalent amount of each type of Basic Seige added to World's pool. World-loyal roamer uses Basic Catapult from World's Pool to capture Tower.

 

---

## **Disloyal Seige**

**ISSUE**: Seige is currently loyal to and willing to die for the World from which it comes. Players must destroy perfectly good seige instead of using it for themselves.

**PROPOSAL**: Make seige usable by all Worlds' players and make seige capturable/able to be picked up.

**DETAILS**:

 

* All players of any World in a match can use any placed seige.

* Via a channeled interaction, players can take any seige that isn't in use.

* Placed seige will have a set duration of time that must pass before it is able to be captured/picked up.

* Capturing the seige adds it to the World's seige pool if not at capacity.

* Captured Seige must be rebuilt using supply to use.

* Seige becomes safe from friendly-fire from the World that most recently used it. It becomes susceptible to friendly-fire from the remaining two Worlds.

 

**EXAMPLE(S)**:

 

* World A's zerg has an Arrow Cart on top of hill and abandons it to attack World B's zerg at the bottom of the hill. A thief from World B sneaks behind World A's zerg and uses the Arrow Cart they left behind to surprise them with Arrow Cart damage from behind.

* World A powers through a wall using 4 catapults to capture a tower. They leave them behind and forget about them after their conquest. World B comes along and uses them to recapture the tower.

* World A powers through a wall using 4 catapults and fails to capture a tower. World B picks up the catapults for their own use after defending the tower from World A.

[Kiroshima.8497]

I forgot something about the siege gameplay as of this moment. GW2 siege is very boring for groups because the majority of players on BOTH teams are mostly standing around doing very little. Firebrands might heal the damage from ACs and whatnot, but for the most part only the siege users are actually doing anything. This is a huge problem for defense since they just mindlessly use countersiege, but also an issue for attackers.

 

Adding a cost to siege use (except golems/rams) would make EVERYONE actively participate. Defenders need to hit camps, attackers need to control camps, supply needs to be run to and from siege, etc. Now no one is idle, which would help WvW as a whole.

[MUDse.7623]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

>

> > if you remove line of sight restriction for eles or change the wall so it doesnt block line of sight anymore, then attackers can kill you behind the wall easily so you cant even get close to it.

>

> they already can. Scourges just spam there marks and it is done. Battlements do nothing in that regard.

> All I am asking for is that the small extension on the outer part of the wall, does not 'block' line of sight anymore, so you can fight back, without being completely in the open.

>

> At the moment, attackers can kill everyone atop a wall, but fighting back is as much as impossible. Thanks to the stupid line of sight.

>

 

then if they are close enough at the wall you still need to go to the edge into the AoE, like now.

[Nyta.4769]

I haven't read through all these suggestions, so some of these might have already been brought up, but a few siege-related things I'd like to see:

 

Give ballistas a way to take out third floor SMC trebs. I'm glad that deployable cannons didn't stay, but that was one use for them that I wish had been passed to ballistas.

 

Fix skill descriptions for siege skills that are unlisted combo fields.

 

Allow stability to prevent a player who is using siege from being forced to let go of it.

 

Since catas don't do damage to siege through gates, display the 0. It's hard to convince people that they aren't actually hurting enemy siege when they see numbers, even though the numbers are from hitting players.

 

For the sake of visibility, please display damage dealt _to_ siege in a different color. It would help with that cata situation, and also when you have to do awkward angle AC shots and can't see if you're hitting the catas around the corner and half way up the wall, and when you're firing trebs/mortars at trebs or rams you can't see.

[HCMPro.5463]

changes I would like to see:

Bubbles on siege (golems and catapults) should work against arrow carts,

Golem needs higher damage resistance (NOT a corruptible boon) to make up for six years of PowerCreep,

Golems become significantly weaker (in some way attack/defence) when more than 5 are grouped together,

Shield generators get increased (double?) minimum range, (perhaps also reduced duration and size of bubble, if we're going all-in),

Ballista should penetrate bubbles (the #1 skill only)

Golem skins for gemstore!

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"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.

 

Five people is not a fight. A zerg of 25 may have their attention, but it isn't a fight.

 

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. You didn't even give any details about whether defenders had a force able to respond, upgrade status, tactivator status, etc. (IMHO it should have only taken you 20 people for a 2:1 offense to defense ratio). This is why I suggested in my first post on this thread that Anet should be doing their own data analysis on the what/where/why upgraded objectives flip: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/525271/#Comment_525271

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> 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.

 

Ladders would be great lol. I was thinking they should be 1 ladder per person though.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Kiroshima.8497" said:

> I forgot something about the siege gameplay as of this moment. GW2 siege is very boring for groups because the majority of players on BOTH teams are mostly standing around doing very little. Firebrands might heal the damage from ACs and whatnot, but for the most part only the siege users are actually doing anything. This is a huge problem for defense since they just mindlessly use countersiege, but also an issue for attackers.

>

> Adding a cost to siege use (except golems/rams) would make EVERYONE actively participate. Defenders need to hit camps, attackers need to control camps, supply needs to be run to and from siege, etc. Now no one is idle, which would help WvW as a whole.

 

Your post reminds me of this feedback I wrote for the desert BL beta test:

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9917/archive-the-long-siege-and-player-interest

 

@"SkyShroud.2865" you should read this too as it is relevant to what we've been discussing.

[shiri.4257]

Structure Decay:

 

Fine keep the T3 structures. Create a decay rate for walls/gates once it hits t3. 1-3%/tick or something. the walls/gates can be repaired with supplies per usual. but it needs to be maintained. Keeps/SMC primarily.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> Structure Decay:

>

> Fine keep the T3 structures. Create a decay rate for walls/gates once it hits t3. 1-3%/tick or something. the walls/gates can be repaired with supplies per usual. but it needs to be maintained. Keeps/SMC primarily.

 

As someone who sees the value of fights and seige, I can see this as a potential positive. The amount would need to be a fixed amount.

 

Of course, there are some (with good reason ) that will say this only helps the pip farmers, as they will continuously burn supply to keep getting pips, but..

 

This is at least something to think about. Haven't seen this suggested before.

[neven.3785]

As a wvw player, ive been in fight guilds, havoc guilds, and once even a straight up ppt guild. I've also defended home BL through running yaks, keeping camps flipped, offensive roaming, and even sieging up objectives. So i acknowledge that siege is an integral part of WvW just as small AND large scale pvp is.

 

Overall siege seems to be somewhat manageable even as a small group. If there's more than one group on a map hitting objectives or fighting ,you can easily deseige many objectives. Sometimes you just need to accept it will take 2 or 3 attempts just to crack open an objective. Here are a couple tweaks i would make.

 

1. all Siege no longer scales off player stats, use base lvl 80 stats for scaling. As much fun as it is to hop on an AC with a build meant to ramp up bleeds to ridiculous amounts and watch people instantly down and then the people rezzing them down, then the third fourth round of downs... i'd much rather be out playing with my guild in a build that is more meant for group play. This in itself will be a nerf to AC damage that majority of respondants seem to want, if its still not enough look at nerfing it 10-20% more.

 

2. it still can be difficult to distinguish mortar fire in the general aoe spam.

 

3. shield gens should have a very high distance required between them so only one may be used to protect. Having the ability to permanently invuln an area through multiple gens seems counter to anets previous stance on this (ie. rotating swirling winds that eles were pidgeon holed to do at the start of the game)

 

4. 4 rams should be the max to hit a gate, there is no real benefit to allowing more to stack except to promote capped out raids ktraining empty maps faster.

 

5. catas should be required to be spaced more apart, this will help limit chaining cata bubbles.

 

6. Camp golems have got to go. I agree with the previous statement that they should be treated like an invuln player in a circle. i generally take them for a joyride when i find my side resorting to this low.

 

7. Objective Auras Too strong! attributes to power creep, blood lust was already brought down due to this, please follow through with the objective aura. Minor blood lust levels seems acceptable.

 

8. Tactivations need a round of changes aswell some examples:

-Move Dunerollers to keeps/towers tier 2 (these are fun, but rarely do they get used)

-Add "Reinforcements!" to replace duneroller in camps (spawns a veteran guard and veteran scout for several minutes) (replaces dune roller)

-rebalance centaur and turtle banners so they get used as much as dragon banners

-add 1 minute reveal to keeps

-replace invuln fortifications with EM Pulse, Disables ALL siege for both sides for same duration within objective territory.

-iron guards needs a small nerf

-Auto Turrets needs to be removed, it is fairly useless so would rather they not drop from skirmish chests

-Presence of the keep, should bring the stat boosts in line with major blood lust.

 

While some of this benefits my current play style, others definitely counter it. I am in the camp that the scales need to shift to a more pvp-centric environment, even though it may not be my guilds strong suit. Having people enticed to not take risks has prevented people from learning how to play their characters effectively and caused the game to stagnate. You do not need to be the best, just competent and everyone benefits. This applies both to people hiding in middle of a "fight" blob or hiding behind walls on siege. Oh the nostalgic memories of how it used to be. PPT pug zergs, fight guilds running only 20 strong, havoc squads of 10-15, BL upgraders actually roaming,.... Each element had a risk and people accepted it.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Pi Slinger.5801" said:

> ## **Disloyal Seige**

> **ISSUE**: Seige is currently loyal to and willing to die for the World from which it comes. Players must destroy perfectly good seige instead of using it for themselves.

> **PROPOSAL**: Make seige usable by all Worlds' players and make seige capturable/able to be picked up.

> **DETAILS**:

>

> * All players of any World in a match can use any placed seige.

> * Via a channeled interaction, players can take any seige that isn't in use.

> * Placed seige will have a set duration of time that must pass before it is able to be captured/picked up.

> * Capturing the seige adds it to the World's seige pool if not at capacity.

> * Captured Seige must be rebuilt using supply to use.

> * Seige becomes safe from friendly-fire from the World that most recently used it. It becomes susceptible to friendly-fire from the remaining two Worlds.

>

> **EXAMPLE(S)**:

>

> * World A's zerg has an Arrow Cart on top of hill and abandons it to attack World B's zerg at the bottom of the hill. A thief from World B sneaks behind World A's zerg and uses the Arrow Cart they left behind to surprise them with Arrow Cart damage from behind.

> * World A powers through a wall using 4 catapults to capture a tower. They leave them behind and forget about them after their conquest. World B comes along and uses them to recapture the tower.

> * World A powers through a wall using 4 catapults and fails to capture a tower. World B picks up the catapults for their own use after defending the tower from World A.

 

I like the idea but if the stipulation is that you have to "rebuild" captured siege you can simplify this idea **alot** by doing this:

 

* When siege is "destroyed", its a burning wreck any side can harvest a limited amount of supplies from for 5 minutes

* If fully harvested or timer expires it explodes like normal.

 

 

Rebuilding siege at a discount. Simple concept and easy implementation.

[Drinks.2361]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> Five people is not a fight. A zerg of 25 may have their attention, but it isn't a fight.

>

> Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. You didn't even give any details about whether defenders had a force able to respond, upgrade status, tactivator status, etc. (IMHO it should have only taken you 20 people for a 2:1 offense to defense ratio).

 

Yeah this 5 defenders 25 attackers hypothetical situation definitely isn't my experience in WvW. [Goes more like this, a bunch of people sitting in a tower on siege shooting at small groups](https://gfycat.com/AdvancedDeliriousHousefly "https://gfycat.com/AdvancedDeliriousHousefly")

 

 

[NeroBoron.7285]

- **Players in Golems should not prevent capturing and not be able to res people.** Add a tactic to prevent/delay capturing instead.

 

- Better topdown view for some siege would be great

 

- Auto attacks on rams and catapults

[henchmen.1856]

my ideas:

 

1. shield generator minimum range needs to be increased. wrong that the shield bubble can protect both the shield generator and other siege.

 

2. numbers of rams that can be built at a gate needs to be reduced. ive seen blobs building 9 rams at a gate. thats crazy. gates melt faster than defenders can get there... even if there was a scout. not right.

 

3. delete normal siege except alpha golem. pointless now that you can buy superior siege with currency.

 

4. nerf disablers. last too long and too easy to perma disable siege. imo duration should be reduced. make using it more strategic.

 

5. don't nerf ac damage. since damage was buffed in 2013 there has been so much power creep with elite specs that ac damage already does nothing to a good group. especially with necro torch 5 being able to burst acs down so easily. but imo same as my #2 idea, number of acs that can be built in one area should be dropped.

[inubasiri.8745]

Independent on actual game mechanics or balance:

Siege doesn't make sense with the key holding for bigger power. If you used a catapult or trebuchet or mortar irl, you would set both direction and power.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

I want to see the return of structures using supplies to upgrade. Less supplies, less sieges, less time bashing head on gate under a rain of ac, bubbles and disablers for hours.

 

Nerf bubbles, nerf disablers.

At least find ways to make bubbles interactive or difficult, not just ground target bubbles spam making treb and catapult useless instantly.

 

Maybe reduce ground targetting range or only allow it to bubble on top of the shield gen.

I wouldn't even mind if it becomes a wind up shooting mechanic similar to a catapult.

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> Five people is not a fight. A zerg of 25 may have their attention, but it isn't a fight.

>

> Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. You didn't even give any details about whether defenders had a force able to respond, upgrade status, tactivator status, etc. (IMHO it should have only taken you 20 people for a 2:1 offense to defense ratio). This is why I suggested in my first post on this thread that Anet should be doing their own data analysis on the what/where/why upgraded objectives flip: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/525271/#Comment_525271

>

 

Erm, I mean it with reference to your reasoning and what I mentioned earlier. *Delaying* long enough for force to respond. Thus, by attacking a objective, you already gaining attentions and thus possibility attract more people during that duration. On the point of whether or not if there is force to respond, that is a population balance issue, nothing to do with siege.

 

Also, I would like to remind you that you hijacked a conversation that is about 5 with ac capable of stopping a 25 zerg. It is different from 5 delaying a zerg long enough to respond. For latter complain, I would relate that as wanting to ktrain thus don't want 5 to delay long enough to respond. It also different from whatever you were conversing with others. Also, it is different from people hiding in tower as a blob, I see that as a population imbalance issue than a siege issue. Imbalance in a way of mentality. That population simply house similar type of people that depend on siege, this I see as consequences of stacking. People don't just stack to fight, there are people stack to win matchup regardless the cost and that include everybody hugging sieges. I think there was discussion on this before, it is important to have balance mix of ppt and fight people, not just one kind of people.

 

As for if people not trying hard enough for wvw anymore. Well, again, I doubt is siege issue. Stopping a zerg with handful has always been possible, it isn't hard but not with sieges, we have something called supply traps. Capping towers and keeps are also pretty easy with the right amount of supplies, siege placements and siege types. During the time I still tagged daily, important to note tactivator etc exist too, I notice a lot of commanders are pretty noob in their understanding on sieges and how to bring down keeps/towers despite under the countersiege firing. Of course, players understanding of using sieges matter too.

 

It is important to note that WvW is already around for half a decade, the game lost a lot of players and that include a lot of try hard players. Likewise, the current stale, classes and population issues even less likely to drive people to try hard. It is simply a lot of cultural change. Nerfing sieges will not cause a cultural change. Unless people start focusing on PPT once again and therefore resort to all kind of tactics and strategies, you won't see people actively doing a lot of things or even start learning how to do things right. For example, if a blob insist to hug sieges, just have people hitting multiple places at the same time. We used to have a lot of havoc guilds in game, don't see much of them anymore.

[Israel.7056]

The 5v25 hypothetical is a useful red herring because it only tacitly concedes the larger arguments around siege being too strong while simultaneously attempting to refocus the discussion around a quasi impossible scenario which is supposed to make us feel sympathy for the defenders. Why don't we talk about 25v25? Or 40v40? Those are more realistic scenarios. We don't talk about those scenarios because everyone knows those outcomes from experience if the defenders decide to build a ton of defensive siege. You get a "long siege" and very few people actually enjoy those.

 

The other useful red herring is always something to the effect of "well have you tried attacking more than one place at once?" or "if you build enough rams really fast defensive siege isn't an issue and you can get to lords room without a serious fight." Both again tacitly concede the larger issue of defensive siege being too strong because the fundamental assertions are something like "the best way to deal with siege is to not deal with siege" but they attempt to redirect the conversation towards criticizing the attackers tactics as if attacking a structure head on with a zerg looking to fight something is just for morons who don't understand the game. But if the two best ways of taking stuff involve tactics that are designed to **circumvent enemy defenses and avoid a fight** then defensive siege is clearly too strong.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> It is important to note that WvW is already around for half a decade, the game lost a lot of players and that include a lot of try hard players. Likewise, the current stale, classes and population issues even less likely to drive people to try hard. It is simply a lot of cultural change. Nerfing sieges will not cause a cultural change. Unless people start focusing on PPT once again and therefore resort to all kind of tactics and strategies, you won't see people actively doing a lot of things or even start learning how to do things right. For example, if a blob insist to hug sieges, just have people hitting multiple places at the same time. We used to have a lot of havoc guilds in game, don't see much of them anymore.

 

There's a reason you don't see a lot of havoc guilds doing their thing too much anymore.

There's a reason for the "cultural change" and less focus on PPT.

 

And the 500-pound gorilla in the room is...