Siege Revisions

[style.6173]

My main dislike of siege is related to arrow carts. It discourages fighting which is not ideal. I'd just make two very small changes.

 

1. Make siege bunker ability reduce AC damage by 75% on players.

2. Increase AC damage against siege significantly.

 

Why? No one wants to fight siege instead of actual battling players. Siege should be used to slow down enemies, not single-handily stop attacks. As for point #2, it will be a good way to counter flame rams. Attackers should need to be smarter and use shield gens vs just throwing down rams.

 

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

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

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

> > > > > how is this allowed and possible? then people say acs are fine lmao.

> > > > >

> > > > > this is beyond pathetic

> > > > >

> > > > > [https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf](https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf "https://imgur.com/u9Vilnf")

> > > > >

> > > > > full album of absolutly boring gameplay

> > > > >

> > > > > [https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw](https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw "https://imgur.com/a/11uakJw")

> > > >

> > > > You broke into their inner and even lord's room, do you expect to walk in like a boss? How about asking anet to add orbital bombardment for you?

> > >

> > > how about reducing the ammount of acs that can cover a single gate? did you see last screenshot? do you think 60 people + 10 or 12 if not more acs is somewhat normal? that's hell.

> > > if you need that many sieges to hold a gate you don't deserve to hold it at all

> >

> > Erm? You broke through the gate, they didn't hold it at all, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Furthermore, shield generators negate all of those damage, even if they have 100 of them.

>

> Heh.

> Either the enemy probably let them break outer to try and farm them when they came in, or they were too chicken to go out because that looked like an entire zerg sitting in there building siege instead of looking to counter the attack outside. It's funny that your view is not the crazy amount of arrow carts in there, which is by far one of the worse ever displayed(sorry yb your crown has been taken), but to build shield generators to counter it while walking from southeast garrison outer gate to north inner gate. A 25 man zerg would have failed to take that garrison as sieged up as it was. Yet people wonder why it takes a huge blob to take a t3 structure, it's because of how ridiculous it can be sieged up as seen in those images.

>

> Yes they built a shield generator right up on the gate when they were attacking north inner, and the defenders probably should have done something at that time too because they were all cowering in there. Like I said, if you have a t3 structure loaded with siege and a zerg to counter the enemy but do nothing but hide in it and rely on siege to do all the work for them, you deserve to have it ripped open and taken from you.

 

I have seen much more well placed sieges than that. Those are just last minute sieges.

[XenesisII.1540]

Last minute siege that an entire zerg/blob decided to build instead of countering the enemy at the gates. It looked like at every point they were trying to setup siege to farm them when they came through the chokes.

 

They deserved to lose that garrison.

[Calanthe.3857]

> **Replace the refresh mechanic entirely with a repair/upkeep mechanic**

>

> Siege last X amount of time "for free", but after that they will continually drop in hp. You can repair them for supply. Basicly, a cost for having so much siege up constantly. For example, current siege has a decay of 60m that can be refreshed forever. Change that to 30m free (no option to refresh), after that it will drop by 10% hp every 15 minutes. Repairing 10% of a siege would cost... say 2 supplies. Introduce a new mastery with "Siege repair" with perks for repairing siege to use all those worthless mastery points we got. Repairing would not be possible while in combat. Some siege would be considered too "complicated" to fix for average bookahs, such as golems. Either they would cost alot more to maintain or they would simply be unrepairable under this system and eventually self-destruct.

>

 

How about replacing siege decay timers with **siege decay based on usage of the siege weapon's skills**? Like ammo.

[Skill.3260]

Wouldn't it be possible to add a damage debuff to arrowcarts while they are being used?.. so you can have as many arrowcarts as you would want within an area, but as more arrowcarts are being used, the damage of arrowcarts would been reduced.

 

See it as you having 2 arrowcarts covering 1 gate. If they are within 500 range from eachother and both being used, they would give eachother a 5-10% damage debuff. Meaning they would still do more damage than 1 arrowcart would. So if someone would put down 5 arrowcarts for 1 gate, the damage output would be decreased with 25-50% while all arrowcarts are manned. It would also mean that placing arrowcarts down by inner gates of Stonemist wouldn't interfear with the arrowcarts damage from top floor in SM.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

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

> > > > >Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

> > > >

> > > > How much of a numbers advantage should attackers need?

> > > >

> > > > How much of a crutch should siege be able to provide defenders?

> > > >

> > >

> > > One need to look at entirety than one single perspective. AC for example has not been buffed since 2013, elsewhere team sustain has improved since than Furthermore, shield generator was introduced with capability to negate it. Plainly put, ac has become less effective over the years.

> > >

> > > From classes balance perspective. Compare to past, it is not that easy to fight 1:2 ratio anymore, let alone say 1:3.

> > >

> > > In this circumstance, it is quite easy to point finger at siege since it become decisive factor that affect the outcome for whoever holding it. However, again, one should not forget that siege damage (other than cata now scale with power) has not been buffed since 2013 while team sustains have improved since than. Thus, it is correct to say that siege itself is fairly balanced.

> > >

> > > Again, as mentioned previously, if one really want to pinpoint a clear unfair advantage that defender has, that will be the stats boost from claim buff. These stats simply can means harder to kill while doing more damage. Siege itself is fairly balance and contradicting to many wishes, I believe treb need to be adjusted to scaled increasingly with power as well.

> >

> > You didn't really answer either question in my view.

>

> I already answered it, siege is fairly balanced. You are looking for otherwise.

 

No you didn't. I asked you how much of a numbers advantage attackers should need to have in order to be able to take something. I asked you exactly how much of an equalizer siege should be in your view. You told me claim buffs are op. This is not an answer to my question.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Skill.3260" said:

> Wouldn't it be possible to add a damage debuff to arrowcarts while they are being used?.. so you can have as many arrowcarts as you would want within an area, but as more arrowcarts are being used, the damage of arrowcarts would been reduced.

>

> See it as you having 2 arrowcarts covering 1 gate. If they are within 500 range from eachother and both being used, they would give eachother a 5-10% damage debuff. Meaning they would still do more damage than 1 arrowcart would. So if someone would put down 5 arrowcarts for 1 gate, the damage output would be decreased with 25-50% while all arrowcarts are manned. It would also mean that placing arrowcarts down by inner gates of Stonemist wouldn't interfear with the arrowcarts damage from top floor in SM.

 

That's what I suggested with the aura on siege, if you build another piece of siege in within it's area it reduces the damage by like 50% (if they want that aura to be stackable then it'll have to start at small amounts like maybe 10% damage debuff per siege in the area up to like 50% max debuff).

The only problem is if you have siege trolls/spies that will do it on purpose.

 

But on the other hand, I don't really have a problem with ac damage, even if they hit my mara/zerk specs hard enough to stay out of it.

 

**So maybe change it to be a range reduction aura instead.**

 

[Fizzee.1762]

Imo defensive seige should be unable to drive off attackers without actual fighting. This is a PvP based game mode and seige should promote that instead of replace that.

 

Imho seige should do zero damage to players and should instead be used to slow attackers and make the defenders fight slightly more in their favour.

 

To this end, I'd propose ACs have their target cap reduced to 20, and have the following arrows:

 

1. Splintering arrow - does similar to current but damages seige only

2. Freezing rain - adds 5s of chill to enemies. 5s channel, 5 pulses of 5 targets per pulse. 10s cd

3. Crippling shot - adds 5s of cripple to enemies. 5s channel, 5 pulses of 5 targets per pulse. 10s cd

4. Revealing shot - removes stealth and prevents restealth for 5s, 1s cast 20 targets. 5s cd

5. Rearm - spend 10 supply to heal the AC - 5s channel 60s cd

 

Obviously play with the CDs and debuff duration, but in essence, 4-5 ACs should debuff an entire zerg, causing them to burn cleanses and resistance constantly.

 

This would make defending under AC easier for the players defending, but they still have to actually PvP if they want to repel/kill the attackers.

[Tammuz.7361]

> @"Calanthe.3857" said:

> > **Replace the refresh mechanic entirely with a repair/upkeep mechanic**

> >

> > Siege last X amount of time "for free", but after that they will continually drop in hp. You can repair them for supply. Basicly, a cost for having so much siege up constantly. For example, current siege has a decay of 60m that can be refreshed forever. Change that to 30m free (no option to refresh), after that it will drop by 10% hp every 15 minutes. Repairing 10% of a siege would cost... say 2 supplies. Introduce a new mastery with "Siege repair" with perks for repairing siege to use all those worthless mastery points we got. Repairing would not be possible while in combat. Some siege would be considered too "complicated" to fix for average bookahs, such as golems. Either they would cost alot more to maintain or they would simply be unrepairable under this system and eventually self-destruct.

> >

>

> How about replacing siege decay timers with **siege decay based on usage of the siege weapon's skills**? Like ammo.

 

or just make ACs take 1 supply to fire each time they are shot?

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Zushada.6108" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > I consider that as a balance issue than a siege issue. The question is are both server stacked server or only one of them is stacked? This can result in skill differences due to stacking. For starters, compare the two blob average wvw levels. If skill differences too great to overcome, it is natural they go for extreme measure. So what is the real solution here? Stop stacking servers so you can fight people of your own skills.

> >

> > It's a siege issue. Siege gives people an easy out if they can't win a fight legit. Take away the siege and they will have to try the fight.

>

> I disagree here. On my server there are times when we are outnumbered for the vast majority of the afternoon or the number of players in a zergs outnumber our zergs. Siege is the only defence we have during those time periods. In fact my server is outnumbered on so many maps at this period, they have pretty much stopped defending all together. On the other hand, the game gives zero reason to defend in the first place. Players get nothing beneficial for successfully defending so most seem take the stance "oh well, we will just re-cap in a few mins." In my mind it is a matter of working smart when outnumbered and not wanting to give up the T3 Keep or Tower.

>

>

 

Being outnumbered, that is fine. He's talking about people need to come out and fight when defenders have closer numbers to attackers. When we are talking about offense/defense balance when sieging an objective, the question becomes what should be the ratio of attackers to defenders and how long should defenders be able to hold out? Example: Should 15 defenders be able to hold out against 30 attackers for 2 hours? If there are 25 defenders to 30 attackers, shouldn't those defenders be incentivized to try to fight instead of using defensive siege or should attackers receive some sort of advantage to balance it out? Maybe there should be some sort of defense bonus progress bar where you start to lose your defender advantages as your numbers increase in relation to attackers.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

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

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

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

> > > > > >Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

> > > > >

> > > > > How much of a numbers advantage should attackers need?

> > > > >

> > > > > How much of a crutch should siege be able to provide defenders?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > One need to look at entirety than one single perspective. AC for example has not been buffed since 2013, elsewhere team sustain has improved since than Furthermore, shield generator was introduced with capability to negate it. Plainly put, ac has become less effective over the years.

> > > >

> > > > From classes balance perspective. Compare to past, it is not that easy to fight 1:2 ratio anymore, let alone say 1:3.

> > > >

> > > > In this circumstance, it is quite easy to point finger at siege since it become decisive factor that affect the outcome for whoever holding it. However, again, one should not forget that siege damage (other than cata now scale with power) has not been buffed since 2013 while team sustains have improved since than. Thus, it is correct to say that siege itself is fairly balanced.

> > > >

> > > > Again, as mentioned previously, if one really want to pinpoint a clear unfair advantage that defender has, that will be the stats boost from claim buff. These stats simply can means harder to kill while doing more damage. Siege itself is fairly balance and contradicting to many wishes, I believe treb need to be adjusted to scaled increasingly with power as well.

> > >

> > > You didn't really answer either question in my view.

> >

> > I already answered it, siege is fairly balanced. You are looking for otherwise.

>

> No you didn't. I asked you how much of a numbers advantage attackers should need to have in order to be able to take something. I asked you exactly how much of an equalizer siege should be in your view. You told me claim buffs are op. This is not an answer to my question.

 

I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Zushada.6108" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

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

> > > > I consider that as a balance issue than a siege issue. The question is are both server stacked server or only one of them is stacked? This can result in skill differences due to stacking. For starters, compare the two blob average wvw levels. If skill differences too great to overcome, it is natural they go for extreme measure. So what is the real solution here? Stop stacking servers so you can fight people of your own skills.

> > >

> > > It's a siege issue. Siege gives people an easy out if they can't win a fight legit. Take away the siege and they will have to try the fight.

> >

> > I disagree here. On my server there are times when we are outnumbered for the vast majority of the afternoon or the number of players in a zergs outnumber our zergs. Siege is the only defence we have during those time periods. In fact my server is outnumbered on so many maps at this period, they have pretty much stopped defending all together. On the other hand, the game gives zero reason to defend in the first place. Players get nothing beneficial for successfully defending so most seem take the stance "oh well, we will just re-cap in a few mins." In my mind it is a matter of working smart when outnumbered and not wanting to give up the T3 Keep or Tower.

> >

> >

>

> Being outnumbered, that is fine. He's talking about people need to come out and fight when defenders have closer numbers to attackers. When we are talking about offense/defense balance when sieging an objective, the question becomes what should be the ratio of attackers to defenders and how long should defenders be able to hold out? Example: Should 15 defenders be able to hold out against 30 attackers for 2 hours? If there are 25 defenders to 30 attackers, shouldn't those defenders be incentivized to try to fight instead of using defensive siege or should attackers receive some sort of advantage to balance it out? Maybe there should be some sort of defense bonus progress bar where you start to lose your defender advantages as your numbers increase in relation to attackers.

 

That would be a really awkward way to incentivize it. We already have such a buff and are you more or less likely to fight the enemy with teeth and claws when outnumbered or when you loose the buff?

 

Either this has nothing to do with the balance of siege vs fortifications. Siege vs players is secondary - you cant use siege vs players as effectivly if enemies are inside the objective to fight you because they where actually able to get in in the first place.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> Either this has nothing to do with the balance of siege vs fortifications. Siege vs players is secondary - you cant use siege vs players as effectivly if enemies are inside the objective to fight you because they where actually able to get in in the first place.

 

Offense/defense balance is a larger discussion encompassing both siege against fortifications and players. What I mean by defender's advantage when talking about offense/defense isn't just the walls. It includes tactivators, upgrade tier, and objective auras.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

 

What is an argument trap? You said that equal numbers defenders should win so I'm trying to figure out exactly how many more attackers than defenders there should be before the odds should go in the attacker's favor. 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1? How skewed in favor of defense do you think the game should be?

 

Let's assume for the sake of this hypothetical that both sides are equally skilled.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

>Siege vs players is secondary - you cant use siege vs players as effectivly if enemies are inside the objective to fight you because they where actually able to get in in the first place.

 

Um yes you can??

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> Ok, well, not going to respond to all that one sided argument, clearly still doesn't understand that players are going to spam siege regardless of what you do to walls.

>

> Making walls safer will just make it even worse for safe siege spam.

>

> And farming high kdr from siege in smc, lol.

> I mean think about it, who would be worse in that scenario? the ones on the siege or the ones that keep feeding them the kills to supposedly get a high kdr?

 

Mag and BG(i think it was Bg trying to do it whan nsp was on t1, but MAg does it by alot... pitty that many fall for their kdr farm zone lol) on smc :P and most servers and pugs fall for it... it is the real players quality u have in this game.

 

About siege spam, that wont happen if siege spam isnt alowed due the "built in radios" and imagine if trebs can still damage siege and kd players on the wall that is hitting wich imo should actually be fun^^ at least would promote more teamplay for stability on wall, prots etcm and at also could promote groups to go on ground pushes instead of spam tons of siege on walls (wich imo i find wrong as well).

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

>

> What is an argument trap? You said that equal numbers defenders should win so I'm trying to figure out exactly how many more attackers than defenders there should be before the odds should go in the attacker's favor. 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1? How skewed in favor of defense do you think the game should be?

>

> Let's assume for the sake of this hypothetical that both sides are equally skilled.

 

It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph. I would like to say from 13:25 gradually to 100:100. But, the game doesn't support 200 well or even 300 for three ways.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph.

 

Why?

 

 

[Gorani.7205]

Sorry for not replying to individual posters, but this is just too much text to sort through

 

1. Historical towers, keeps and fortresses etc.

Medieval castles have always been built at very advantageous positions so enemies could not get close easily or get close with siege weaponry. Walls were high and walls were thick, so there was very little chance to break them down with e.g. a catapult. The weak spot has always been the gate, that's why there are gatehouses, portcullis. moats etc. and towers and turrets to protect the gate. The way to break a wall could be to dig tunnels under wall and blow them up to make the wall on top of it cave in. Usually a siege was one by treason (someone opened the gate) or surrender (when the supply inside, which usually was way more than the attacking army had, was gone).

A small number of people with spears, crossbows and good scouting could defend against a hundred soldiers laying siege (which mostly meant cutting the castle off supply). Even if you go back to antiquity times (when armies were a lot larger than in the middle ages) around a thousand inhabitants of Masada (the vast majority of them civilians) held the fortified structure against two Roman legions (around 8000 Legionaries) for over a year.

 

2. GW2 WvW can only mimic and not be historical

GW2 only tries to mimic historical battles for obvious reasons, because of many things, which are roughly three topics: Structures are build at very weak defensive positions. Siege weapons is designed to take down walls and gates. And finally - supply management for attackers and defenders is handled very differently during siege situations.

 

There are two major problems I have identified after reading in this thread:

1. Shield Generator in general

2. Upgraded structures with lots of siege and defenders just sitting inside in large numbers

 

Possible solutions:

There are several good ideas for dealing with stacking of Shield Generators on this thread already, like tweaking the mastery, reducing the radius of the dome skill, reducing the immunity to AC fire to the effect of Ironhide etc. I also favour the suggestion of giving ballistae the ability to pierce the shield with its skill number three shot.

The second problem I would try to tackle via the supply routes and not limiting siege in general. What if each structures would have a "maintenance" score, that is determined by its number of walls and gates, its evolution and the amount of siege inside. A fully upgraded tower should be able just maintain itself if its supply dollies all arrive on schedule. Walls and gates would deteriorate each tick up until 50% if not supplied by the depot and siege would lose 10% each tick if not supplied by the depot.

Lets make a rough example for an Alpine tower like Sunny: It has three walls and a gate, a canon and oil on a T1 status. maintaining the walls and gate would cost 20 supply each tick and another 10 for the oil and canon. One dolyak each tick will sustain this tower. For defences, someone builds two ACs and a shield generator inside. Now the additional siege increases the maintenance and one dolly alone can't sustain it. The reserves in the depot will go down and after that the walls and siege will get weaker. The server holding the tower can just sit there and wait, they have to go out and get camps and supply caravans going, picking up supply at camps manually to repair or build new siege. They are forced to come out of their hiding places and spread out on the map.

With this idea, tactics and improvements like Supply Drop, Speedy & Packed Dolyaks get so much more valuable and important to sustain in a siege.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

> >

> > What is an argument trap? You said that equal numbers defenders should win so I'm trying to figure out exactly how many more attackers than defenders there should be before the odds should go in the attacker's favor. 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1? How skewed in favor of defense do you think the game should be?

> >

> > Let's assume for the sake of this hypothetical that both sides are equally skilled.

>

> It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph. I would like to say from 13:25 gradually to 100:100. But, the game doesn't support 200 well or even 300 for three ways.

 

You seem to be forgetting time as a variable and focusing only on numbers of defenders and attackers.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> You seem to be forgetting time as a variable and focusing only on numbers of defenders and attackers.

 

Location too every unique objective in the game has differing level of difficulty for either defense or attacking. So for instance blue side ebg back towers are very easy to defend because mortars and trebs from the keep can be used to hit all the build spots for both the walls and the gates.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph.

>

> Why?

 

It is fair chance to get a keep, not absolute chance to get it. The larger numbers one have, the more tactics and strategies one can utilize while on the other hand, a static defense will still have the same limitation of building areas and supplies availability while tactics and strategies available being constrained with defending primary objective.

 

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

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

> > > > I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

> > >

> > > What is an argument trap? You said that equal numbers defenders should win so I'm trying to figure out exactly how many more attackers than defenders there should be before the odds should go in the attacker's favor. 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1? How skewed in favor of defense do you think the game should be?

> > >

> > > Let's assume for the sake of this hypothetical that both sides are equally skilled.

> >

> > It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph. I would like to say from 13:25 gradually to 100:100. But, the game doesn't support 200 well or even 300 for three ways.

>

> You seem to be forgetting time as a variable and focusing only on numbers of defenders and attackers.

 

Trying to put a bias factor on time is same as putting a unfair factor into formula. That is simply nothing more than someone acting like a god, decided the result before the battle even begin.

 

Also, coming from pvp mmorpgs, I find it hard to relate to what seems like casual mentality here. it isn't uncommon to spend 6 hours defending against persistent invaders. Likewise, the bandwagoning and stacking, I look down on them.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph.

> >

> > Why?

>

> It is fair chance to get a keep, not absolute chance to get it. The larger numbers one have, the more tactics and strategies one can utilize while on the other hand, a static defense will still have the same limitation of building areas and supplies availability while tactics and strategies available being constrained with defending primary objective.

>

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

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

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

> > > > > I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

> > > >

> > > > What is an argument trap? You said that equal numbers defenders should win so I'm trying to figure out exactly how many more attackers than defenders there should be before the odds should go in the attacker's favor. 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1? How skewed in favor of defense do you think the game should be?

> > > >

> > > > Let's assume for the sake of this hypothetical that both sides are equally skilled.

> > >

> > > It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph. I would like to say from 13:25 gradually to 100:100. But, the game doesn't support 200 well or even 300 for three ways.

> >

> > You seem to be forgetting time as a variable and focusing only on numbers of defenders and attackers.

>

> Trying to put a bias factor on time is same as putting a unfair factor into formula. That is simply nothing more than someone acting like a god, decided the result before the battle even begin.

>

> Also, coming from pvp mmorpgs, I find it hard to relate to what seems like casual mentality here. it isn't uncommon to spend 6 hours defending against persistent invaders. Likewise, the bandwagoning and stacking, I look down on them.

 

What is the long list of quotes? In the entertainment industry (comedy, movies, games, etc.) **Timing** is one of the universal elements that is shared. Idc if you're an animator, **Timing** is important. Idc if you're a game designer, **Timing** is important. It is also sometimes called _Pacing_. Choosing to ignore time only limits yourself. This is why I find it very hard to listen to player's "balance" suggestions. Usually the whole picture isn't view...

 

It really does go along with Garry Newman said oh so long ago. The [Link](https://www.polygon.com/2015/6/25/8841003/rust-penis-size-garry-newman-interview "Link").

 

"Players are useful at conveying a mood and a feeling," Newman said. "They're not game designers, their ideas generally involve making it so they can win at the game more.

 

>! "Paying $20 for a game in early access gets you a copy of the game," Newman said, echoing the sentiment of another designer, The Long Dark's Raphael van Lierop from this year's GDC. "It doesn't buy you a chair at the head of the designers' table."

>!

>! "That said, players are awesome at finding and reporting bugs.​ Posting on Reddit asking for any bugs or annoyances fills your project management system up. Acting on those problems swiftly and decisively makes your game better and wins fans."

>!

>! But the long and the short of it, so to speak, is that Newman and his team are in charge of Rust. Players are encouraged to enjoy the ride.

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> Trying to put a bias factor on time is same as putting a unfair factor into formula. That is simply nothing more than someone acting like a god, decided the result before the battle even begin.

 

What? There already is a time-factor involved. A long siege takes about 3 hours (roughly based on experience). Siege is an attrition game. You don't design attrition games without a time limit otherwise defenders would never win. You never seen the movie THX-1138 where 1138's pursuers eventually give up recapturing him because the time and effort (cost) involved in the pursuit exceeded their efficiency/worth calculation? This is why we are even having this discussion: has the time and effort to siege a T3 objective reached a point where the majority of the WvW playerbase has determined it exceeds their efficiency/worth calculation? Anecdotally the answer is yes due to the general sentiment on this forum. The actual evidence is in the number of upgraded objectives that get flipped and the activity levels between reset and the rest of the week, which proper data analysis would show.

 

> Also, coming from pvp mmorpgs, I find it hard to relate to what seems like casual mentality here. it isn't uncommon to spend 6 hours defending against persistent invaders. Likewise, the bandwagoning and stacking, I look down on them.

 

Casual mentality? Really? Again you offer bad faith reasons rather than talking about mechanics intrinsic to the game. Sad. Six hours is well beyond the length of a timezone's primetime. At six hours you're "winning" due to coverage (and if this is uncommon that's a good example of how overtuned defense is). How about we talk about what happens when the majority of players are online, not the smaller population of players who overtime?

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> It is fair chance to get a keep, not absolute chance to get it. The larger numbers one have, the more tactics and strategies one can utilize while on the other hand, a static defense will still have the same limitation of building areas and supplies availability while tactics and strategies available being constrained with defending primary objective.

 

What is a "fair" chance to get a keep? 50/50? 70/30 in favor of defense?

 

How many attackers vs how many defenders before you think the attackers have a 50/50 chance? And how long can they reasonably expect to have to attack before they can get in and get a fight for gods sake?

 

No one wants to play a game for 6 hours just to get one or two fights when they can play other games and hop in and fight people right away. Most people have jobs and other irl commitments that make even 4 hrs a day a serious investment.