Siege Revisions

[aspirine.5839]

> @"Silver.2076" said:

> Maybe you'll learn to organize instead of hiding alone in fortresses. Yes, WvW has something to do with player mass and it is always hair-raising when the opponent is constantly hiding behind siege. Yes yes, some still swear on their solo roaming and PPT after 5 years of playing, but it's never too late for you to understand that this doesn't enhance interaction with players, but prevents it. Because interaction keeps the game alive, not the care of your lonely island.

>

> But admittedly, ANET must now work even harder on the player ballance. The alliance system must now slowly come around just to create the balance.

 

Sorry but that is just ignorant. Defenders are not hiding in towers, they are doing what the name suggests: defending. Do you think you can defend better inside or outside? Not everyone enjoys the zerg fest so let them play the way they want. Give them options to hold of a larger group, the whole reason AC's were made in the first place.

 

And someone else said defenders think they should be untouchable on walls, not at all. But also not the other way around, right now the walls are the most dangerous places while defending an object in the game. The whole reason for high ground should be to be able to fend of a larger force. But in this game defenders are the sitting ducks.

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> Hey folks!

>

> A few weeks ago we gathered some feedback on the current state of siege weapons. We've gone through the feedback and have come up with a list of changes. The changes below are the first group of them. We may do additional changes down the line, but these were some of the quickest we could do (didn't require new code/UI). Feedback is welcome!

>

> * You can no longer be hit more than once every .5 seconds by arrow cart attacks.

> * Arrow Cart damage against siege has been reduced by 50%.

> * The number of targets that can be hit by one arrow cart attack has been reduced from 50 to 25.

> * Shield generators can no longer put domes on other shield generators.

> * Shield generator domes no longer destroy unblockable projectiles.

> * Burning Oil Mastery 3 now also reduces condition damage. Damage reduction for both direct damage and conditions has been increased from 33% to 66%.

> * Catapult Gravel shot now shoots projectiles in a fan shape.

> * Updated Ballistas to make them more reliable.

> * Slowed the velocity of Ballista's Greater Reinforced shot to give it an arc. This should make it easier to hit stationary targets (siege).

>

 

Hmm realistically this does not seem like a good feedback response ,maybe you have bowed to pressure from the blob servers that are in a hurry as it seems to be only these servers that complain about the ac, I am all for it IF you decrease the AOE cancer on walls so the defenders as a smaller group can actually put up some defence , so theoretically with a blob of 50 you only have 50% effectiveness , why not just have if said blob comes the gates swing open and let them straight in I am sure that would make said blobs exceptionally happy no effort required. Forget the AC change until you drop AOE on seige damage . OIl change is welcome but you still have the ridiculous AOE.

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Kitta.3657" said:

> > @"Kitanin.8394" said:

> > > @"Kitta.3657" said:

> > > I like the outlook of these changes and I am looking forward to see their effect ingame.

> > >

> > > To those who still complain to this day about attackers trying to counter them sitting on arrow carts: use stability and learn how to properly place siege, this is entirely a player issue and not a game issue. I NEVER get pulled on walls or die to a wall bomb because I keep my awareness up. Besides as was previously mentioned you aren't meant to hold against enemies that triple or even quadruple your numbers!! You should be delaying to get reinforcements. Structures should not be impenetrable because 15 players just want to sit on siege inside of it and I find your viewpoint to be what causes a lot of boredom in this game mode.

> >

> > You're right, I should totally use all those stability-granting skills on the right side of my toolbar... that are disabled while I'm operating siege. (Seriously, are arrow carts breath-powered? HOW CAN I NOT SHOUT WHILE OPERATING AN AC!?)

> >

> > Or should I get off the AC, cast stability, get back on the AC, re-adjust my view so I can target something because getting back on the AC has ever so helpfully reset my camera, then get melted by five meteor showers, fifteen wells, and a dozen mesmer clones because they melted the other siege while I was adjusting my camera and can now focus on me?

> >

> > Also, I find the idea of being able to get 15 people to defend something hilarious. (Or, honestly, the idea of getting reinforcements, but that's more of a complaint about the dubious quality of the tags in our current server alliance.) And your dismissal of anyone who enjoys playing and succeeding as defenders as "what causes a lot of boredom in this game mode" is annoying as kittens.

>

> It's called awareness, if you think you can fire away and not be touched and not have to react to an attack, that's your fault. I see a zerg moving close to the wall? I get off the AC pop stab get back on. If I didn't see it? I have a stun break which you should have in WvW (and a lot of them come WITH stability) and I can use it so I don't fall off the wall. How about Warrior, per example, won't be pulled off a wall because a pull will proc the passive balanced stance and make him immune to that pull. There are easy and obvious ways to deal with your issue and you are being stubborn in not learning how to handle it better or pretending that these solutions aren't at your disposal. Put your AC at the top of stairs where meteor shower cannot hit you... Hello, safe spots. There are also other ways to defend than sit on arrow carts.

>

> I am not dismissive of people who enjoy defensive play (I would absolutely love if it was meaningful & if winning mattered), I am dismissive of the ones who can't understand how the game works and would rather hide than fight in a PvP gamemode while claiming stuff that is simply fixed with learning to play better.

>

> Be ready instead of turning off your brain on your AC :)

 

PVP game mode really?? 50-60 vs 15 is fighting yep so evenly poised is that battle ,work for your entry. This joke about fights and fight guilds is laughable you want gvg fights plenty of spare areas to go do that ,obsidian comes to mind .

[Ognimod.9713]

> @"Kunzaito.8169" said:

> I think I like a lot of these changes as a start. The one thing I see a huge glaring hole with is the "shield cannot put domes on other shield gens" one.

>

> It's well-intentioned and works to solve the "unstoppable assault" zergs can currently manage where their shield provide perfect protection to themselves and siege. But I think this will become a defensive nightmare.

>

> Either through deliberate trolling or through ignorant placement, it will be possible to nullify entire areas that need shield protection by building another gen. Trolls could build them on top of a cluster of defensive siege or a treb that's being protected so that it can't be anymore. They could build one on or near a wall or gate that needs to be bubbled and completely stop its ability to be protected. There are already difficulties placing defensive shields with LoS to the areas they need to protect where they can't be instantly destroyed by ele/scourge bombs. This will make it ten times harder.

>

> Defensive siege has to be carefully set up in advance, with the expectation that a small number of people with limited or no ability to build additional pieces can use it effectively. An offensive zerg is a walking supply hoard that can instabuild whatever; if someone trolls their placement likely they can just let the defense kill that piece or pivot to a new strategy. Plus the troll has to be present in the moment. To troll a defense they can get there any time, place some bad shields, and rely on well-intentioned tickers to keep it working.

>

> I don't know what modification could be made so that the original problem can be solved while protecting defensive interests but I did want to bring awareness to the big potential for abuse.

>

>

 

Pretty sure the Shield Gen change will just make it so they won't get the 'bubble-buff' from other(any?) Gens. So anyone damaging them will cut right through. That seems the easiest way to code it, and Ben says they're only putting in easy changes. Could be wrong though, but if I'm right, there won't be a troll-zone.

[Ognimod.9713]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> So after reading most of the posts on this page, I've come to the conclusion that most people in the conversation are in the camp that they just want to fight all the time. **So if we're nerfing defensive siege so it's basically useless, lets remove all walls while were at it, and gates, and any hills, and lets throw in any npcs, water, and ruins. Lets just have a flat open field with no obstructions and no where to run to. I feel that's the only way to make the "fighting players" happy.**

>

> I personally don't like the idea of the changes because the lower tier servers already have a hard enough time. They are in t3/t4 for a reason (except mag, they just want easy bags/wins) after all, and not all of that boils down to just player skill, but also how many guilds left/joined your server. Coverage is a big deal as well, and so when there are less players around but it's another servers prime time I basically should just give them the keys and leave. I don't think so.

>

> It's not like you see too many people crying out that Catas are too powerful because they knock down walls (although if this goes live I'd say Catas will be more powerful now with no counter play since AC's were used to deter people from building super close to walls). All siege has it's role to play, AC's did their job pretty well. If you were getting wrecked by AC fire, it might be time to get out of Zerk gear.

 

Hyperbole much? Calm down and let them subtly make some changes. These changes look to be overwhelmingly positively received, unlike no downstate.

[penguin.9271]

Finally some decent changes. Ty Anet

[Tammuz.7361]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > @"Tammuz.7361" said:

> > Great changes, especially to ACs. Will hopefully encourage more actual PvP combat instead of people relying too much on siege during peak hours.

>

> I do not think this will lead to more PvP. The reason many people fight "defensively" is because they are generally outnumbered on a battlefield. They might have 15 guys against a zerg of 40. They are not going to engage that group directly unless they just want to act as bags. When the ability to defend a structure removed that smaller group will jus move to another map where they can join a larger or backflip places they feel they can take before the blob arrives.

>

> Without changes to the population imbalance It my opinion the number of battles open field will in fact drop.

 

Dissagree, vs a fight server like vabbi its ridiculous the lengths servers will go to in order to dodge a fight even when they have numbers... often times we know this because we see that they have a queue on multiple maps and still avoid fighting us without at least a 5 arrow cart advantage.

 

WvW should be about large scale pvp, not avoiding fights and ninja capping on borderlands where your enemy isnt.

[Coronus.4693]

Thanks for the AC nerfs! Finally some of the servers finally have to learn to fight like actual players and not AC bots. =D

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Shadowzerk.4715" said:

> a group of zerg has 30~50 ppl @ a T3 tower

> with 10 cata 4 shield gen.

>

> question: anet, how could u def a T3 tower with 10~20 men?

> u could do it in Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online (RvR)

> but not in Guild Wars 2, no way. waste all supply and port asap is the best option.

>

> siege weapons on def are almost useless against shield gen.

The answer is that at your most extreme end (10v50), you're not supposed to.

 

You are supposed to call for reinforcement. 10 catas will be through in like 20 seconds, arrowcarts or no. Its better to cut your losses, keep scouting, drain their supps and meeting them at the next objective. Thats a zerg and you probably need a zerg to beat it.

 

The answer at the not so extreme end (20v30) is that they would spend literally all their supply on one measly unimportant tower (probably recapped on cd) where 20 people could defend inside, jump on the backline as they breach and kill them because 20v30 is a highly possible fight.

 

I dont really see the issue here.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Shadowzerk.4715" said:

> > a group of zerg has 30~50 ppl @ a T3 tower

> > with 10 cata 4 shield gen.

> >

> > question: anet, how could u def a T3 tower with 10~20 men?

> > u could do it in Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online (RvR)

> > but not in Guild Wars 2, no way. waste all supply and port asap is the best option.

> >

> > siege weapons on def are almost useless against shield gen.

> The answer is that at your most extreme end (10v50), you're not supposed to.

>

> You are supposed to call for reinforcement. 10 catas will be through in like 20 seconds, arrowcarts or no. Its better to cut your losses, keep scouting, drain their supps and meeting them at the next objective. Thats a zerg and you probably need a zerg to beat it.

>

> The answer at the not so extreme end (20v30) is that they would spend literally all their supply on one measly unimportant tower (probably recapped on cd) where 20 people could defend inside, jump on the backline as they breach and kill them because 20v30 is a highly possible fight.

>

> I dont really see the issue here.

 

Good summary.

 

Siege weapons in GW2 are supposed to supplement, not replace PvP.

[aspirine.6852]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Shadowzerk.4715" said:

> > a group of zerg has 30~50 ppl @ a T3 tower

> > with 10 cata 4 shield gen.

> >

> > question: anet, how could u def a T3 tower with 10~20 men?

> > u could do it in Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online (RvR)

> > but not in Guild Wars 2, no way. waste all supply and port asap is the best option.

> >

> > siege weapons on def are almost useless against shield gen.

> The answer is that at your most extreme end (10v50), you're not supposed to.

>

> You are supposed to call for reinforcement. 10 catas will be through in like 20 seconds, arrowcarts or no. Its better to cut your losses, keep scouting, drain their supps and meeting them at the next objective. Thats a zerg and you probably need a zerg to beat it.

>

> The answer at the not so extreme end (20v30) is that they would spend literally all their supply on one measly unimportant tower (probably recapped on cd) where 20 people could defend inside, jump on the backline as they breach and kill them because 20v30 is a highly possible fight.

>

> I dont really see the issue here.

 

20 VS 30 is not the problem. That would make an ok fight. But what you are saying is that ac is useless against the zerg right now. But people still like the nerf? Should they not get an upgrade to make them better instead of worse. .

[HazyDaisy.4107]

The servers that abuse acs now will still abuse acs with this change, it won't make a bit of difference to them, because, if a server has enough people to seige cap a structure and refresh that seige every hour, then they have enough people to respond to an attacking force at a moments notice. Balancing seige for everyone based on what a fraction of the servers are capable of doesn't help, it just makes it so that that fraction can still defend their stuff and more easily take yours to boot.

[Tammuz.7361]

the thing is they were being used / abused for servers to dodge fighting all together and still win PPT... if a server is loosing the fights, or especially if they are fight dodging consistently during primetime, you really shouldnt be winning the PPT in this game mode.

 

What it comes down to is the core point of WvW is PvP, not PvD.

 

as has been mentioned, seige should supplement skilled pvp, not replace it...

 

AC massing shouldnt be the answer to a zerg fight during primetime, especially when the opposing server can field an equal number of players. If a zerg is attacking, youll now need to organize a zerg of your own and engage them, not sit safely on ACs spaming 1 key until they run out of supply or are all dead while your zerg attacks somewhere else. The nerf is long overdue.

[babazhook.6805]

> @"Tammuz.7361" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > > @"Tammuz.7361" said:

> > > Great changes, especially to ACs. Will hopefully encourage more actual PvP combat instead of people relying too much on siege during peak hours.

> >

> > I do not think this will lead to more PvP. The reason many people fight "defensively" is because they are generally outnumbered on a battlefield. They might have 15 guys against a zerg of 40. They are not going to engage that group directly unless they just want to act as bags. When the ability to defend a structure removed that smaller group will jus move to another map where they can join a larger or backflip places they feel they can take before the blob arrives.

> >

> > Without changes to the population imbalance It my opinion the number of battles open field will in fact drop.

>

> Dissagree, vs a fight server like vabbi its ridiculous the lengths servers will go to in order to dodge a fight even when they have numbers... often times we know this because we see that they have a queue on multiple maps and still avoid fighting us without at least a 5 arrow cart advantage.

>

> WvW should be about large scale pvp, not avoiding fights and ninja capping on borderlands where your enemy isnt.

 

Where do you get that WvW should be about large scale PvP? That an opinion and one not supported by the fact that there arekeeps towers and castles in the first place. Added to that if you play on a server that always has the numbers your experience different then those that do not. Again there persons that drop down tiers just because they do not like the large Scale WvW fights and prefer fights where smaller numbers involved.

 

I happen to play on a server that is usually outnumbered everynight on every borderland and especially when it bounced up tiers and especially as other servers deliberately tank so they can have "more fights". This bouncing up and bouncing down with that huge number disparity that then results is not condusive to wide scale because there only a small number of players that look forward to fights of 10V40 unless you are on the side with 40 just looking for bags.

 

To your personal experience. If you are that "good a server" and peoples on other servers fgo through such extents to avoid a fight, how on earth do you think this will lead to them wanting to fight more? Do you really feel that they going to change just because AC's nerfed? They are going to do as happens with many towers/keeps when they are about to fall. Jump out the back and move to another location. If 30 guys bust down a wall and there 5 inside defending the 5 are not going to say "well we have no arrow carts so let us stand and fight"

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Shadowzerk.4715" said:

> > > a group of zerg has 30~50 ppl @ a T3 tower

> > > with 10 cata 4 shield gen.

> > >

> > > question: anet, how could u def a T3 tower with 10~20 men?

> > > u could do it in Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online (RvR)

> > > but not in Guild Wars 2, no way. waste all supply and port asap is the best option.

> > >

> > > siege weapons on def are almost useless against shield gen.

> > The answer is that at your most extreme end (10v50), you're not supposed to.

> >

> > You are supposed to call for reinforcement. 10 catas will be through in like 20 seconds, arrowcarts or no. Its better to cut your losses, keep scouting, drain their supps and meeting them at the next objective. Thats a zerg and you probably need a zerg to beat it.

> >

> > The answer at the not so extreme end (20v30) is that they would spend literally all their supply on one measly unimportant tower (probably recapped on cd) where 20 people could defend inside, jump on the backline as they breach and kill them because 20v30 is a highly possible fight.

> >

> > I dont really see the issue here.

>

> 20 VS 30 is not the problem. That would make an ok fight. But what you are saying is that ac is useless against the zerg right now. But people still like the nerf? Should they not get an upgrade to make them better instead of worse. .

 

Because I dont really think ac vs the zerg is the problem. Its merely an annoyance. It's always been that, given the narrowminded sieges of most commanders. A zerg can build 5 trebuchets and completely ignore the arrowcarts if they want. They can walk through the rain with 10k+barriers on the entire zerg. The bigger the size difference between the two forces, the easier it becomes. Even if they fail at one angle due to acs, they can instantly try another. The zerg has sooooooo many choices on how to clear acs.

 

The nerf is needed because the *smaller* forces stand no chance. You know, those that can build like 2 catas. Or a ram. And they go up against an objective defended by an equal or larger force that can just sit in the objective with a dozen arrowcarts to choose from. Even in a "fair" 10v10 fight, 1 guy nearby on an arrowcart pretty much wins the fight before it begin. So people dont attack objectives defended by acs. And that's sad.

 

Will this nerf make all the difference? Meh I doubt it. But every little bit that creates more action helps.

[XenesisII.1540]

All this siege in the hands of a zerg camping up in there.

Might look like a wet dream to some of you, but it isn't healthy for the game.

 


 

[Tammuz.7361]

I think that this change forces them to organize and put up a fight rather than pretending like they have fewer numbers during primetime (which they don't) and sitting on seige while fight dodging.

 

In your 30 v 5 scenario: the 5 people on the inside should call the other 25 who are online to come help out and fight, rather than pretend that 5 is all you have during primetime (which im fairly sure Anet can look at the numbers and confirm that this isnt generally the case). this change encourages them to call the 25 and put up a fight rather than just jumping and moving to another location (which will get attacked next). Alternatively if they cannot put up any fights at all during primetime, they really have no buisness being in a high tier matchup, and that spot really should go to a server that can put up a fight.

 

now night coverage is a seperate issue: ive always been for Anet reducing the effect of PPT or even stopping all PPT during non primetime hours (thus not punishing or rewarding servers for off time coverage when everyone is sleeping, at work, etc). Sadly we weren't able to convince them of this.

 

servers “deliberately tanking matchups to get more fights” is a real problem and hopefully this will go a ways to solving the need for servers to do this to get fights, instead ultimately tending more twords a system pairing fight servers against each other and non-fight servers against each other.

[katniss.6735]

1 Mag death should count as 5 kills just to be fair.

[X T D.6458]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > The reduction to damage against siege by arrow carts is probably the most problematic part for me, especially when combined with shield gens and you make it impossible to defend or stall.

>

> But where they ever meant to even fill that particular role? Arrows? *Against wood*?

>

> Fact is arrowcarts make it incredibly easy to sit in objectives and defend against smaller forces (ie a couple of catas or similar) because normal siege *melt* to acs and superiors doesnt fare much better without a 50 man saturating the area.

>

> Hopefully this change means a little more dynamic anti-siege play than just doubling down on acs.

 

Here is my view on arrow carts, I absolutely hate when it is used to fight players. When I see entire map sized zergs sitting on siege and avoiding fights, or towers and keeps filled with arrow carts, I want to leave WvW in disgust and frustration. With that being said I dont have a problem with them being used for actual defense like when outnumbered, or against siege which really should be its primary function so there has to be a sensible middle ground when it comes to balancing. What I wanted to see was to have it do more damage against siege and less against players with a rework of the siege cap so you can't just build so much siege all over the place.

 

The changes that I focused on in my post do seem problematic to me when you combine it with other changes. Siege weapons had their hp doubled in a past update, shield gens blocking arrow carts attacks is good for attackers, but bad for defenders. The change to domes no longer stopping unblockable projectiles means more proxy catas will be used, and gens will be almost useless for defensive purposes. Golems which have way too much hp might also be used more. This change will give attackers an advantage, so trying to defend or stall will become extremely difficult now. However the dome change will also help defenders if they use catas/trebs defensively against rams since gens will no longer be able to protect the rams from treb/cata shots.

 

These changes might be more likely to benefit larger groups trying to capture objectives. We should be careful about encouraging too much pvd and ktraining. It will drive away a lot of dedicated and experienced players.

 

 

 

[babazhook.6805]

I would just contrast EOTM with WvW proper. In EOTM , which I have not been in for some time, there was little desire to hold towers or keeps. It was basically just move with the blob from one to the next and flip it for the karma. With no one defending structures and using the reasoning some use here, that it would lead to more open field fights, why was it that I did not experience a heck of a lot of those? I had a lot more fights in WvW even with people defending keeps and towers. These changes, wherein defensive siege weakened so larger groups can roll up a map faster will IMO lead to even more of the Karma train mentality. The blobs will jump map to map and flip all structures as quickly as they can.

 

I really think the cart is being put before the horse here where the major issue is in fact population imbalances through many hours of the day and the weakening of siege so as to make it harder for a smaller group to hold a structure will simply result in those smaller groups abandoning a given map which will just make those population imblances more extreme and which will NOT lead to more fights.

 

I can tell you this for a fact and I am sure it happens across all servers. The largest battles open field happen outside the major keeps When they have been upgraded to t3. More importance is put on holding a T3 structure. When a structure is paper there much less incentive to defend it. Outside of EBG the larger groups are formed with the singular purpose of knocking a t3 down. That is a PRIZE which offers some sense of accomplishment. When a structure paper and falls in a few minutes there not even enough time for the opposing team to gather the players needed to defend let alone the incentive.

 

When we make a map call to defend a paper Bay there never the response in numbers that there is when a map call made to defend a t3 bay with WP and when those numbers are not happening , your fights are not happening.

 

 

[Burkhard.6478]

Waiting for actually experience infight to check how much this patch effects defending/conquer objects, but maybe adding outnumbered buff with increased dmg for ac's should fix the problems caused by these changes, when defending your last objects against a map blob.

[X T D.6458]

> @"Burkhard.6478" said:

> Waiting for actually experience infight to check how much this patch effects defending/conquer objects, but maybe adding outnumbered buff with increased dmg for ac's should fix the problems caused by these changes, when defending your last objects against a map blob.

 

Outnumbered is an "effect" not a buff, so you cannot change it to give any sort of advantage to any side. It serves 2 main purposes, to indicate when the other 2 servers have more people and to give a small incentive to play on the map.

[shaggy.2768]

I think these are a waste of effort, fixing scourge should be

[Burkhard.6478]

You know what i mean...actually outnumbered doesn't effect your fighting abbilities.

Bloodlust for example does, without being a buff.

 

So, why it should not get an effect to increase your dmg? Maybe "+50% dmg while using an ac".

[Etheri.5406]

I'm seeing a lot of "you just want to blob and defending is useless now !" posts. Also some "walls are useless!" issues. These posts all completely ignore the advantages defenders have.

 

* You have a closer spawn, allowing you to win attrition. Especially in keeps, it's not very difficult to make it incredibly hard for the assaulters to regroup with their downstates. When attacking a T3 garri which is actually defended; for each player you lose you need to kill 5+ enemy players or you will fail the attack. That is assuming you get in; because frankly I've seen servers with 50+ players just spam build ACs and not come out at all.

* You have a positional advantage - you can use the terrain of the structure to kite enemies. Don't forget they have to push through several chokes, kill a lord and clear a lordsroom. This alone gives the defenders a clear advantage. There are complaints about how well eles kill defensive siege; but truthfully eles have no means of sustaining in a T3 objective. Playing ele defensively - once the gate or wall opens bombing whoever comes in, moving to the tail and killing those, dancing around the structure avoiding the enemy group but constantly pressuring them / their stragglers is far easier than playing it offensively : pushing through several chokes and siege, surviving and counterpressuring the enemies whom can just jump out of the structure if they are low.

* ACs are still an easy, safe way to do significant amounts of damage to enemies.

* ACs can be built on every level of defense. They are first built on outer, then inners, then outside to shoot you while you're on inner. Once attackers are past the outer it's usually not difficult to deny them respawns. In reality this means taking ANY upgraded keep forces you to continuously tank ACs.

 

Currently, siege defense does not promote fights. It promotes DEFENSE. Once you get through the lines and lines and lines of ACs, there's no amazing fight. There's no fight at all; they just port. "Yeah but you're fighting for the objective!!". No we're shooting siege and trying to stop the monkeys trying to disable & siege us to death before they port to spawn. There's no interaction at all. Yet this is a standard for defense for most servers. You don't send players or organise; you just build more ACs.

 

Both structures and ACs help balance into the defenders favor. This hasn't changed at all. What should change, is how PPT based matchmaking does not work because defenders can "win" matchups without interacting with enemies. Avoidant PPT is currently a better strategy than fighting other players. And this is quite problematic : it means that PPT'ing up means you get LESS decent enemies because it's filled with AC monkeys; yet dropping gives you lower tier worse enemies too. The ranking system cannot work if low-skill defenders can halt both better and huge groups without issues at any given time; because defense is quite frankly overpowered.

 

I'm also seeing, yet again, buffs to smart defenders rather than clueless ones. Mindlessly shooting ACs should not grant you succesful defenses, and so the nerf is very helpful.

At the same time, shieldgens are also nerfed. You can snipe players inside gens. You can use unblockable disables, which are currently not preventable. It's really not that hard to get a disable off, and there is honestly nothing attackers can do about it other than killing you before you get it off. You have stealth, invulns and dodges and so forth.

 

**If the enemy group is significantly bigger or better than yours at a certain time; and you do not have the players to match then you probably should lose parts of the map. **That way the rating system does its job at avoiding dead matchups where one side has players but no enemies; and the other sides can't deal with the difference in group size or player skill. The issue is that very often, having significant differences in skill or coverage doesn't lead to noteworthy PPT. It's very easy to defend against pug blobs with several ACs. This allows defense-oriented servers to constantly PPT themselves into a position where they go "why do you all blob us?!" while still PPT'ing as hard as they can to fight more and bigger blobs which they'll never ever fight... It's healthier if these lesser populated and / or lesser skilled servers fight eachother in T2-T4 and the heavy blob servers fight eachother in T1; at least both can have what they consider to be more enjoyable gameplay.

 

Servers PPT'ing up only to go "oh, we cannot beat these enemies so we will not play" is just as problematic as fight servers "dropping" for fights. It creates dead matchups and we've had quite a few T1 matchups with each server having more or less most of "their side" upgraded throughout entire EU prime. This limits the space of the map for groups significantly; as there are nearly NO available places to fight where pugs won't build siege to shoot in your general direction; and a lack of small objectives for weaker / roamer / ... to hit and draw fights.

 

Nerfing ACs is good. Nerfing defenders is good. They've gotten continuously buffed since pre-HoT and it's gotten quite out of hand. (Desert bl, auto upgrades, tactics including hardened guards, gates, EWP and invulns), more accessible supply due to autoupgrade and no supply requirements for upgrades, faster upgrading (desert bl), gliding for defenders (movement, ability to jump off the edge at any time to survive; reset and rejoin the fight). Furthermore, trebwars are considerably less feasible because gens and the overflow of supply make them literally take hours.

 

If you play for "defense", you're still going to have a good contribution towards PPT. You'll just need to be better at it than before. Frankly the same is true for attackers, who can't just afk inside gen bubbles.