LetoII.3782 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said: > > > > @"Spurnshadow.3678" said: > > > > > @"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). > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I don't disagree with these changes, when was this feedback requested? I never remember it, and I'm an avid forum watcher. Was it in the forums? Reddit, cause, I never read that and it's not the official GW2 forums? Was it just in game? What? Again, good changes, just the feedback thing I have an issue with. > > > > > > It was this thread from a few weeks ago. Not sure how you missed it! > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/40496/siege-revisions/p1 > > > > > > > In all fairness Ben, it was only 14 pages long... :grimace: > > And it was closed. :3 Many passionate discusses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirine.5839 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > Are we really going to go through the 5v30 scenario again? Yep, well tell me what else can we do in that scenario. Just jump out and try to get to the next tower then? If AC is not to defend against a larger force than wth is it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > So, how long should 5 be able to delay 30? What is too little time, and what is too long? > > And why ever fight to defend except as an absolute last resort when you're out of supply everywhere and all the siege is dead? > > So for example let's say I am defending a keep and I've got about 40 people and the attackers have about 40 people with rams or proxy catas shouldn't I just build ACs to counter that? And if they build further back shouldn't i just build ballis to counter that? And if they build shield gens for their further away catas shouldn't I just try to disable the shield gens and hit the catas with trebs or ballis to counter that? And if they build trebs shouldn't I just build shield gens to block the walls and then try to hit their trebs with mortars or counter trebs? Is there ever a point where the safer bet to defend an objective is to actually try to fight instead of just build more siege? So... have to admit you lost me here @"Israel.7056" 5 shouldn't be able to delay more than a couple of minutes vs 30 unless the 30 are incompetent. Long enough only for a force to arrive to fight the larger one. But if no one is coming, the 5 shouldn't be able to hold it. Yes, 40 inside a keep will be able to hold off a long time vs 40 outside. Getting them to come out is, as you put it, is about culture. If the 40 are going to stay in as long as the walls are up, they likely won't fight when they come down either. Breaking a wall faster or slower won't change that. And with the changes, 5 can stall 30 for a couple of minutes to allow response from a larger force. But not for 10-15 minutes. Or longer. With the shield gen aspect by itself, there is a way to disable seige. That will allow for some counterplay. Again, to stall for a few to allow for others, but not allow the ACs to wreck the seige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > Are we really going to go through the 5v30 scenario again? > > Yep, well tell me what else can we do in that scenario. Just jump out and try to get to the next tower then? If AC is not to defend against a larger force than wth is it for? No. Now you can at least disable the shield gens by getting out. The changes actually will allow you to stall better if you think it through. To allow for a larger force to arrive. If that force doesn't arrive, you should Lose the structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirine.5839 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > > > > Are we really going to go through the 5v30 scenario again? > > > > Yep, well tell me what else can we do in that scenario. Just jump out and try to get to the next tower then? If AC is not to defend against a larger force than wth is it for? > > No. Now you can at least disable the shield gens by getting out. > > The changes actually will allow you to stall better if you think it through. To allow for a larger force to arrive. > > If that force doesn't arrive, you should > Lose the structure. Of course it will be lost, there is noway 5 can win against even 20. But I should get at least a chance to do something against a larger force. Or else defending and scouting is for nothing. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirine.5839 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > So, how long should 5 be able to delay 30? What is too little time, and what is too long? > > And why ever fight to defend except as an absolute last resort when you're out of supply everywhere and all the siege is dead? > > So for example let's say I am defending a keep and I've got about 40 people and the attackers have about 40 people with rams or proxy catas shouldn't I just build ACs to counter that? And if they build further back shouldn't i just build ballis to counter that? And if they build shield gens for their further away catas shouldn't I just try to disable the shield gens and hit the catas with trebs or ballis to counter that? And if they build trebs shouldn't I just build shield gens to block the walls and then try to hit their trebs with mortars or counter trebs? Is there ever a point where the safer bet to defend an objective is to actually try to fight instead of just build more siege? I have never seen 40 inside a keep and not jumping out to attack the other 40. Hell even 20 go out on my servers to try and do it. Should the 40 defenders have it easier because of siege? Yes of course they have the advantage of owning the structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we really going to go through the 5v30 scenario again? > > > > > > Yep, well tell me what else can we do in that scenario. Just jump out and try to get to the next tower then? If AC is not to defend against a larger force than wth is it for? > > > > No. Now you can at least disable the shield gens by getting out. > > > > The changes actually will allow you to stall better if you think it through. To allow for a larger force to arrive. > > > > If that force doesn't arrive, you should > > Lose the structure. > > Of course it will be lost, there is noway 5 can win against even 20. But I should get at least a chance to do something against a larger force. Or else defending and scouting is for nothing. :/ I disagree. Scouting implies for a larger group. If that group can't/won't respond to a call out, that is a server issue. Defending with that large of a disparity should be a delay tactic, or, in the case of some incompetent commanders, if they build there stuff up against the wall and are repelled by a small force then that's on them, not the seige. The biggest plus for me is the shield gen change. Maybe now, people will start to move seige away from tower and (most) keep walls to allow for forcing people to engage them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirine.5839 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we really going to go through the 5v30 scenario again? > > > > > > > > Yep, well tell me what else can we do in that scenario. Just jump out and try to get to the next tower then? If AC is not to defend against a larger force than wth is it for? > > > > > > No. Now you can at least disable the shield gens by getting out. > > > > > > The changes actually will allow you to stall better if you think it through. To allow for a larger force to arrive. > > > > > > If that force doesn't arrive, you should > > > Lose the structure. > > > > Of course it will be lost, there is noway 5 can win against even 20. But I should get at least a chance to do something against a larger force. Or else defending and scouting is for nothing. :/ > > I disagree. Scouting implies for a larger group. If that group can't/won't respond to a call out, that is a server issue. Defending with that large of a disparity should be a delay tactic, or, in the case of some incompetent commanders, if they build there stuff up against the wall and are repelled by a small force then that's on them, not the seige. > > The biggest plus for me is the shield gen change. Maybe now, people will start to move seige away from tower and (most) keep walls to allow for forcing people to engage them. Yeah kinda agree, also little disagree. It's not uncommon on some days that the larger force is running like mad to help defend a map. Let's take the reset night for instance where you have paper structures to response must be fast and sometimes fights take longer than expected. First question from the commander is always can you hold a little until we finish the current group. I think we should be able to respond, sure we have some AC's we can hold them off for a short while.. If it is a tower it's almost certainly gone when you have no siege, even if you have some its gone because of the insane necro and ele spam. But that is another topic :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Haired Savage.5430 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we really going to go through the 5v30 scenario again? > > > > > > > > Yep, well tell me what else can we do in that scenario. Just jump out and try to get to the next tower then? If AC is not to defend against a larger force than wth is it for? > > > > > > No. Now you can at least disable the shield gens by getting out. > > > > > > The changes actually will allow you to stall better if you think it through. To allow for a larger force to arrive. > > > > > > If that force doesn't arrive, you should > > > Lose the structure. > > > > Of course it will be lost, there is noway 5 can win against even 20. But I should get at least a chance to do something against a larger force. Or else defending and scouting is for nothing. :/ > > I disagree. Scouting implies for a larger group. If that group can't/won't respond to a call out, that is a server issue. Defending with that large of a disparity should be a delay tactic, or, in the case of some incompetent commanders, if they build there stuff up against the wall and are repelled by a small force then that's on them, not the seige. > > The biggest plus for me is the shield gen change. Maybe now, people will start to move seige away from tower and (most) keep walls to allow for forcing people to engage them. With the nerf to ACs I'd think you'd run into the opposite issue, build the siege close where it's harder for trebs/catas to hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 You're suppose to delay until you can get an equal force mounted up, what do people not understand about this? That is the reason for upgraded walls and gates, tactivators, waypoints, siege, disablers, it's to buy you time for your side to respond. You're not suppose to outright stop 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or a map blob with 5 people on siege unless of course the attackers are dumb and lazy to place their attacking siege in obviously dumb places. But if you can't muster 20 people to counter 20 people from all 4 of your maps, then you lose the structure, move on to the next one. Defenders seem to be under the impression you're suppose to hold stuff for 7 days, but when barely anything flips or no field fighting is going on it actually makes for very boring game play. Your job as a defender is to delay then repel the attack, if you can't then you lose, move on to the next objective rinse and repeat until you have an equal force. Defenders need to accept that you cannot and will not be able to hold everything, but everything you do helps delay attacks so your side can respond, it's a thankless job but it's really helpful when you have a server to back you up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > Breaking a wall faster or slower won't change that. It's not exactly about how fast or slow the walls come down. It's about humans weighing their options to try to find the most efficient and least risky way of accomplishing their goal. In this case the goal is to defend a structure. At every "decision interval" of a defense, defenders are given a choice between fighting and building more siege. My point is that if siege is strong enough then the most efficient and logical choice at every single 'decision interval' is simply to build more siege regardless of numbers regardless of context and there is never a good reason to fight if one has the option of building siege. This is why we get these "long sieges" where it's 4 hours of siege wars and then maybe one or two fights at the end when there's no supply left to build siege and all the siege is dead. It's only at the end of the "long siege" when all the defensive siege has completely failed that the most efficient choice to defend is to fight. This is how overpowered siege has been. It's been the better choice if given the choice between building defensive siege and fighting regardless of numbers. Maybe that will change with the patch, I kinda doubt it to be honest but I will have to play it before I can adequately judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"aspirine.5839" said: > I have never seen 40 inside a keep and not jumping out to attack the other 40. Are you on EU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shagaliscious.6281 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. > > > > > > > > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight. > > > > > > > > > > So, how long should 5 be able to delay 30? What is too little time, and what is too long? > > > > And why ever fight to defend except as an absolute last resort when you're out of supply everywhere and all the siege is dead? > > > > So for example let's say I am defending a keep and I've got about 40 people and the attackers have about 40 people with rams or proxy catas shouldn't I just build ACs to counter that? And if they build further back shouldn't i just build ballis to counter that? And if they build shield gens for their further away catas shouldn't I just try to disable the shield gens and hit the catas with trebs or ballis to counter that? And if they build trebs shouldn't I just build shield gens to block the walls and then try to hit their trebs with mortars or counter trebs? Is there ever a point where the safer bet to defend an objective is to actually try to fight instead of just build more siege? > > I have never seen 40 inside a keep and not jumping out to attack the other 40. Hell even 20 go out on my servers to try and do it. Should the 40 defenders have it easier because of siege? Yes of course they have the advantage of owning the structure. I lost count how many times I've watched YB have a bigger group compared to the group attacking a structure, and they still sit on siege and then /laugh when you inevitably pull off. I've also lost count how many times I have made a callout that a small group of like 6 are attacking a keep or tower, and I ask for a few roamers to help, and the response I get is "just build an arrow cart". It's amazing how many people don't want to help defend something because 1 piece of siege can do the job of 4 players. Like others have said, if all you can muster up is 5 people to try and defend a T3 structure against 20+, you should lose that structure. There should be no situation outside of the attacking group making bad siege placement decisions or just general laziness by not destroying cannons/oil/mortar, where 5 people can stop 20+ from taking anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neven.3785 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Any relook at siege imo is a good change. Structures are supposed to be lost when you have no coverage. They are also supposed to be lost when your groups are too slow or too busy to respond. These changes do not make it more hopeless, they bring it back towards prehot defense which imonis not quite far enough. You still have supply drain cows, supply traps, disabled (you can bait the bubbles fyi before actually using it), you still have access fire on the people below. You are meant to be a pest when outnumbered. Embrace that role, it is part of what havoc used to be about. You will lose objectives, you will even lose waypoints, oh well, they will eventually be upgraded again. Since maguuma seems to be the focus here, try looking at it from a different angle. 30 men show up to mags westkeep at 7pm PST. You call it out, use defensive siege,maybe have a few stragglers who are waiting for ebg to pop come help.. The 40 man queue on ebg doesn't budge, they are too busy spawn camping the weakest of the two opponents. You provide updates, numbers, advertise free walking bags, maybe a couple more show up. You might be lucky to have 7 people by then. So those against the changes actually want buffs instead. They think these 7 should hold off these 30 until they get bored and move on? I personally think mowing down the 30 with 5 AC's is not healthy for the game. At least this way t3 structures won't be held with skeleton crews for a prolonged time, if no one is on map, a keep should be able to be flipped in 2 or 3 attempts max. The point of the tiers is to even the playing field a bit coverage wise. As much as people like to think of servers being organized groups, there really is only one organized group and they are on sbi's link ATM. Everywhere else seems to be keeping it chill until alliances come out. Just for perspective, I run with CTH on mag, we enjoy a well rounded game experience and we don't even comp up and half the time not even in comms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirine.5839 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > I have never seen 40 inside a keep and not jumping out to attack the other 40. > > Are you on EU? Yep on 2 servers. Only servers I can think of that do this are the german ones, because they truly hate to fight. But have not seen them do this yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katniss.6735 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 If people were in the various Mag discords, you'd see very few people are actually playing gw2 outside of NA prime which is like 8pm+ EST or something. lol As of 5:22pm EST, 1 person out of 25 of my guild are in gw2, 18 out of 117 from Mag server discord are in gw2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"katniss.6735" said: > If people were in the various Mag discords, you'd see very few people are actually playing gw2 outside of NA prime which is like 8pm+ EST or something. lol As of 5:22pm EST, 1 person out of 25 of my guild are in gw2, 18 out of 117 from Mag server discord are in gw2. Lol. No one believes that about BG either. Welcome to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"neven.3785" said: > Since maguuma seems to be the focus here, try looking at it from a different angle. 30 men show up to mags westkeep at 7pm PST. You call it out, use defensive siege,maybe have a few stragglers who are waiting for ebg to pop come help.. The 40 man queue on ebg doesn't budge, they are too busy spawn camping the weakest of the two opponents. You provide updates, numbers, advertise free walking bags, maybe a couple more show up. You might be lucky to have 7 people by then. So those against the changes actually want buffs instead. They think these 7 should hold off these 30 until they get bored and move on? I personally think mowing down the 30 with 5 AC's is not healthy for the game. At least this way t3 structures won't be held with skeleton crews for a prolonged time, if no one is on map, a keep should be able to be flipped in 2 or 3 attempts max. 40 people in queue to ebg, but blames the people already in ebg for not showing up on another borderland. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDchiaScrub.3241 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 OP starts topic about siege changes (admittedly leaving out that _goal_ again or thought process behind the changes), but then players somehow manage to involve servers as they continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios. Never seen that happen before... Anyway to resolve this issue? D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said: > OP starts topic about siege changes (admittedly leaving out that _goal_ again or thought process behind the changes), but then players somehow manage to involve servers as they continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios. Never seen that happen before... > > Anyway to resolve this issue? > > D: Wait wait wait..... You are a forum frequenter... You see this ALL the time. It's what we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDchiaScrub.3241 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said: > > OP starts topic about siege changes (admittedly leaving out that _goal_ again or thought process behind the changes), but then players somehow manage to involve servers as they continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios. Never seen that happen before... > > > > Anyway to resolve this issue? > > > > D: > > Wait wait wait..... You are a forum frequenter... You see this ALL the time. > > It's what we do. YOU CAUGHT ME! #Exposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > I have never seen 40 inside a keep and not jumping out to attack the other 40. > > > > Are you on EU? > > Yep on 2 servers. Only servers I can think of that do this are the german ones, because they truly hate to fight. But have not seen them do this yet. It's pretty common on NA. Only been on EU for a month but I haven't seen even half of the siege turtling that I am used to seeing on NA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"aspirine.5839" said: > > > > I have never seen 40 inside a keep and not jumping out to attack the other 40. > > > > > > Are you on EU? > > > > Yep on 2 servers. Only servers I can think of that do this are the german ones, because they truly hate to fight. But have not seen them do this yet. > > It's pretty common on NA. Only been on EU for a month but I haven't seen even half of the siege turtling that I am used to seeing on NA. Certainly you haven't faced Kodash yet then? And I'm surprised you started addressing the 5v30 scenarios again. Hehe. I feel like the other thread explains everything pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinkTinkPOOF.9201 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 ACs on walls are not only visible, they can be hit with player skills, if you attack a structure with face rolling tactics, you deserve to get melted. Clearing siege is a thing, can't hit it with skills? You have counter siege, my 4 man group does this easy, people just want the ktrain mindset and anything that slows them down they don't like. Boy, if these people only played before ACs got their first nerf, when a single AC could down a zerg, rams and golems. I guess now I can just shower in AC on my zerk guard now. I mean hell, I used to do it before, if you died to an AC even before this nerf, it wasn't because ACs were OP. Add to that when on a wall, as already stated here, you were at the disadvantage. When being on the wall should be a huge advantage, in most cases it's instant death, any group with at least any kind of tactics will pull people off of the wall. It's my groups favorite thing to do, we don't even care if we cap, it's so easy to pull people off of walls, and I don't mean standing up on the very edge either. When people put in effort to build and refresh ACs, attackers should be required to put in effort to take them out or deal with the consequences. Those who are asking for removal of siege etc, there is a thing called PvP, it doesn't have structures either, it's 100% PvP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobbah.3102 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 > @"Rampage.7145" said: > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > > Mag had the outmanned buff most of the time I was on this week. While you might feel like "those 7 defenders" in the tower that just flipped should be able to hold, if half of you got off the siege in every structure on the map, you'd have a substantial offensive force. > > > > Except Mag is intentionally tanking. 2 weeks ago they were in first and when they came back to t4 they are deliberately not winning. Also, look at Mag's KDR, it's all they care about so they want "easy wins". > > > > Siege is necessary and should be powerful, however it should also encourage strategy. For example, if an AC is causing you problems, build out of it's range. If Balli's are a problem, shield gen or counter-balli. If having more problems, build a treb way out of range and force people to come to you. I don't see issues with siege. I see it as strategy, something many of the t1 servers don't have since they just blob, and they are the ones upset by "OP siege" > > > > Also, most of the time I see defense happening in times that aren't NA Primetime. 7 people defending that tower is all that's on the map. How can we mount a good fighting force exactly when there are bigger groups on our maps? There are times my server doesn't have a tag at all (which recently has been a lot more of the time). > > Your server is just dead 7 people shouldn't be able to defend anything to start with, u should just be a linked server, part of a bigger server so u actually had people on your side aswell, and u would need no siege just PvP zerg vs zerg like a normal person. So the problem is not that u need siege the problem is you need a capable server to play with, it is just Arenanet's busted matchmaking system that is hurting your game experience nothing to do with siege. A lot of other players are not zerglings like t1 servers who moan about siege ,use some initiative and strategy ,ahh but no you want to drop catas and rams in close proximity and then moan because you get ac fire .what about the toxic mess the zergs drop all over the walls and pulls through walls. about time to quit complaining and take your medicine if you cannot use strategy but then once a blobber always a blobber . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now