Siege Revisions

[Felipe.1807]

> @"LINKAZZATORE.8135" said:

> > @"Napo.1230" said:

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

>

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

>

> entertaining content.

 

I agree with that, GW2 have no logic at all, only game where defenders on walls are more vulnerable then people on the ground lol...nerfing siege must be done extremelly carefull, right now that is the only thing that allow a somewhat organized small group defend a structure from a zerg and stall it till help comes

[hunkamania.7561]

https://i.gyazo.com/64b8ee90c532a1b6563f8d50553534c6.png

 

Says it all right there. Sit in a tower with your guild group and spam 1. Game has turned into a joke. If people in this thread think siege and structures don't need nerfing they're not playing the same game.

[Kovu.7560]

Introduce the Trojan Dolyak.

[XxsdgxX.8109]

Add something fun like a massive Gatling Gun/Turrent thing. :+1:

Idk to be honest, just anything to punish blobing maps 24/7

[TheMaskedGamer.5708]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> Hey everyone!

>

> We're currently looking to make some siege revisions. We'd like your feedback! I know several posts have been made in the past, but we'd like to get the feedback in one thread for review.

> 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!

 

One idea I have in mind is for Siege Weapons to be recyclable. Only people who use the blueprint can do this. Being able to eliminate siege weapons that no longer serve a purpose after it's use. (Rams are the best example.) And if you recycle it, you get at least half or even a third of the materials used to make the weapon in the first place.

[ImperialWL.7138]

From a very experienced WvW player's point of view, I don't really have too much of an issue with siege, except that siege damage to players should be reduced across the board, but what I do have an issue with is certain tactivators such as wall/gate invulnerability and reduced damage to siege from players that are frankly ridiculous.

[Ok I Did It.2854]

Put a distance on how far apart siege has to be, its stupid to get into a tower/keep and there are 15 AC's built right on top of each other, the damage is insane.

 

This game needs less siege and more incentive to get out there and fight other players, while your looking into siege why not get into WxP aswell, I am I getting 40-50 WxP for killing NPCs in seconds yet I can kill a real player and get 3 WxP, no incentive to actually fight real players, I feel your looking at all the wrong things for WvW.

[Sykper.6583]

Why not give Arrow Carts a limited amount of Ammo that refills on a per minute basis? Or at least something where the spam gets dropped down a bit, but they can still be popped repetitively if coordinated correctly?

 

5 charges maximum, ammo recharge is 15 seconds, you can technically blow through all 5 charges before the first recharge, but in practical use where a couple of ACs are just constantly throwing up arrows on a gate, it reduces the amount of spam.

[Shadowcat.2680]

> @"Kovu.7560" said:

> Introduce the Trojan Dolyak.

 

It would be a mechanical yak that would need to be built like any other siege and then would need to be piloted to a keep to pretend to be stuck in the gate (the guards wouldn't aggro to the fake yak). Then a player on the opposing team would confuse the fake yak (with an enemy inside, ideally a mesmer) with an actual one and let it in. Anet should also introduce a mechanic to allow trapped, friendly yaks into the keep with this change.

[avey.4201]

Give us personal siege, eg paper catapult 20 superior 25 supply when outnumbered buff

[Cronos.6532]

Could you re-introduce cannon blueprints, but balance them so that they're not as powerful as the cannon blueprints people did not like? The more types of siege we can deploy ourselves (preferably lower supply costs for some roaming play) the more fun and diverse WvW is.

[vesica tempestas.1563]

For me the problem with siege is that its so boring to setup when you are only solo or duo and have to run and back between your siege and a camp. My thoughts are make siege creatable with 15 resources, but maybe quadruple or so the time it takes to setup? (could also lower resources at camps to compensate there too) This would also make it more viable for open warfare, e.g you see a battle, so your small group sneakily set-up some siege and launches a surprise burst onto a zerg. making projectiles travel faster would help as well

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"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.

[Victory.2879]

One suggestion made sense- that of capping siege to a fixed timer rather than being able to refresh. This in itself will lower the amount of defensive siege we see.

 

On the other hand, I see a lot of people still haven't learned how to clear siege (especially AC) from walls and just stand under it then come on here and complain when 4 sup a/cs down them...

 

I'm a big fan of throwing down the odd ballista near choke points if the enemy is trying to lure us onto a bridge:-)

 

Movable cannon would be great - have to be towed by two players and movement speed cannot be boosted above 75% of normal. Cannot be moved into or built in any structure.

 

How about siege towers? Used to use them to get under AC fire, so how about having them?

[The Last Hobbit.6492]

I think you should be asking how we feel about siege right now, rather than asking us to design the solution. We're not experts, you are.

 

Personally, I interact with the siege very rarely because I don't have the mastery. And I don't invest in the mastery for any siege because I rarely get to use it (someone else always jumps on). I'm not really that bothered about that though and am happy for others to use it.

 

What I like about siege is allowing smaller groups to hold objectives against zergs. That's why I love the 50 target cap. The main issue is when people spam siege close to one another and make it impossible to push/capture. I'd like to see them limited, either to specific placement areas or limited in number.

 

I also think Arrow Carts should only be used to defend objectives. So you should only be able to build them near or inside objectives you own.

 

Additionally, I think Trebuchets should do no damage to walls or gates. It sucks to have certain areas constantly hit by trebuchets. It's not interactive. You end up with one player completely removed from the fight, spamming a treb shot at one location... and another player spamming the shield generator... or not bothering.

[Jexir.6378]

I think that adding the ammo count mechanic to siege or certain siege skills could help to balance things out. Just looking at the Arrow Cart, the ammo mechanic could add some realism by having some down-time (reload time) for the skills instead of being able to just constantly spam arrows.

 

 

[zidale.9873]

Just an idea here, the ability to dismantle placed enemy siege for returns as a new WvW skill line. Example; dismantle a enemy arrow cart and get back 25% (or closest rounded number of that) of supply used to build it and at higher levels of the skill line you get a copy of the blue print used to build it.

 

Note: did not read the pages before this to see if someone had already proposed this idea, if it was proposed before then my bad :)

[Fluffball.8307]

Seine currently allows smaller numbers to defend a tower against bigger numbers and that makes REALLY good gameplay.

 

I do not think there should be any change to siege.

A lot of people will jump at the opportunity to make a change so they can say they made a change that went live.

[Carighan.6758]

I want to see siege / possessions / buildings be an actual **strategic** element.

 

That is, they take a long time to get/deploy, but if you take control of something, you cannot lose it when you look away for 1 minute. It should take a significant amount of time to, well, **siege** it. In return if you do manage to take it, you cannot lose it again quickly.

[Regnum.7102]

Make it so the shield gen's bubble doesn't block projectiles when those projectiles are unblockable.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"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.

 

Unfortunately for you, siege isn’t going anywhere. Your only option is to learn how to play this mode with siege in it.

 

You’re not going to impose the “fight club” mentality on the devs to remove siege weapons or warfare, so you have to adopt new levels of tactical gameplay for gaining objectives and winning fights... However, the devs created a mode for players such as yourself, and that’s called Structured PvP... There you can find more like-minded players and the “honorable warrior” fights that you’re looking for.

 

Also, being able to use an array of “tools” and tactics is the beauty of sandbox gameplay. Makes wvw unpredictable, and tests critical thinking and decision making skills.

 

GL

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Swagger.1459" 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.

>

> Unfortunately for you, siege isn’t going anywhere. Your only option is to learn how to play this mode with siege in it.

>

> You’re not going to impose the “fight club” mentality on the devs to remove siege weapons or warfare, so you have to adopt new levels of tactical gameplay for gaining objectives and winning fights... However, the devs created a mode for players such as yourself, and that’s called Structured PvP... There you can find more like-minded players and the “honorable warrior” fights that you’re looking for.

>

> Also, being able to use an array of “tools” and tactics is the beauty of sandbox gameplay. Makes wvw unpredictable, and tests critical thinking and decision making skills.

>

> GL

 

What? Critical thinking and decision making? Where to place the ac's so you can get as many as possible in one area? What decisions? What to watch on your other screen while you sit around waiting for a passerby to shoot siege at? Sitting on siege is the most passive, thoughtless play possible.

 

And to mimic your own tone to Israel. The developers designed an entire pve map just for you. It's called Silverwastes. You can go there and sit on an ac or even an oil all day if you like, without having to deal with pesky people who believe servers 'fighting' over land should at some point include actual 'fighting'.

[Shamus.7249]

I think we need more siege with more advanced siege weapons as while we have golems which could be seen as advanced. In the main story of the game, we are making machines that can take on elder dragons and more advanced airships and portals that don't need gates on the other side. While the two game modes are separate it would be nice to advance the medieval weapons we are using to match the development of the technology we are advancing in the main game.

[Shining One.1635]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> That would substantially skew the fights in favor of defense. All balance should be done under balanced situations. Furthermore, it has already been suggested that players on defensive siege be given stab/defiance bar, which is a far more fair change.

>

> In a 25v25 situation, would we really want one group to stay on a wall all day for easy stab? There are skills that provide such a boon already so the tools are there already. It is imperative balance not be driven too much by 5v25, or else we risk ruining many more engagements. Even the stab/defiance bar on defensive siege can be over come by enough numbers, and coordination of CC. Should we punish a group for actually organizing multiple pulls at the same time? I would think not.

I'm trying to give defenders a reason to stand on walls and fight instead of sitting on top of the stairs in a "safe" spot on an arrow cart. This would give both defenders and attackers something to do during a siege. You do bring up a valid point on even-numbered situations though. Perhaps each wall segment can have a cap on how many players receive the pulsing stability.

 

What suggestions do you have to increase player involvement during sieges?

 

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > That would substantially skew the fights in favor of defense. All balance should be done under balanced situations. Furthermore, it has already been suggested that players on defensive siege be given stab/defiance bar, which is a far more fair change.

> >

> > In a 25v25 situation, would we really want one group to stay on a wall all day for easy stab? There are skills that provide such a boon already so the tools are there already. It is imperative balance not be driven too much by 5v25, or else we risk ruining many more engagements. Even the stab/defiance bar on defensive siege can be over come by enough numbers, and coordination of CC. Should we punish a group for actually organizing multiple pulls at the same time? I would think not.

> I'm trying to give defenders a reason to stand on walls and fight instead of sitting on top of the stairs in a "safe" spot on an arrow cart. This would give both defenders and attackers something to do during a siege. You do bring up a valid point on even-numbered situations though. Perhaps each wall segment can have a cap on how many players receive the pulsing stability.

>

> What suggestions do you have to increase player involvement during sieges?

>

 

Well they could try getting off the wall?