Siege Revisions

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > You shouldn't have to rely on siege to do most of the work for you, to defend something with a large amount of attackers

>

> Thats the reason defense siege exists.

>

>

 

No, siege exists is to balance fights between a stronger (or larger) and a weaker (or smaller) group. The stronger group forces fights by taking a disadvantageous position, and the weaker group attempts to defend. If they fail, the stronger group can move on to stonger objectives in more disadvantageous positions, which further aids the weaker group in taking them on.

 

As such, siege is a BALANCING measure helping you deal with population issues. Except so many have taken siege to the level where it's their primary means of defense that it just screwed up population balance and tiers up more than fixing it; while pretending that's how the game is supposed to work.

 

Defense siege exists to HELP defenders. If your defense literally IS siege, and nothing but siege, then yes you should lose every objective. This thread is also full of people who do not grasp how easy it is to beat a group (without siege) abusing the advantage that is fighting inside your own objective. It gives one group considerably more freedom of movement than the other.

If you can't fight with these advantages, including defensive siege, then you deserve to lose the objective. In the current state siege is so overpowered it promotes boring and frankly exceptionally bad gameplay while rewarding it for camping siege and personal structures.

 

15 players being able to defend against 50 **INCREASES **population inbalance; not decreasing it. It allows these population balances in the same tiers to persist over time. In fact, as you cannot flip T3 structures 40 vs 30 and often 40v30, players still refuse to fight open field this has nearly no impact on PPT and thus on population balance through matchmaking.

 

Siege exists to promote and facilitate healthy gameplay; to aid defenders against larger and stronger groups giving them the opportunity of balanced fights despite a population or skill mismatch between both groups. It does not exist to prevent the enemies from taking your stuff except them being exceptionally bad. And i'm sorry but having to 60v30 drain several maps of supply throughout serveral hours, or playing treb and countertreb wars with gens for several HOURS is not what I'd call desirable.

[dynomite.5834]

As a poster said earlier - "Siege is not a substitute for fighting". Let's remember that...use siege to help delay but at the end you WILL need to be fighting to defend (or attack).

[Rezzet.3614]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > You shouldn't have to rely on siege to do most of the work for you, to defend something with a large amount of attackers

> >

> > Thats the reason defense siege exists.

> >

> >

>

> No, siege exists is to balance fights between a stronger (or larger) and a weaker (or smaller) group. The stronger group forces fights by taking a disadvantageous position, and the weaker group attempts to defend. If they fail, the stronger group can move on to stonger objectives in more disadvantageous positions, which further aids the weaker group in taking them on.

>

> As such, siege is a BALANCING measure helping you deal with population issues. Except so many have taken siege to the level where it's their primary means of defense that it just screwed up population balance and tiers up more than fixing it; while pretending that's how the game is supposed to work.

>

> Defense siege exists to HELP defenders. If your defense literally IS siege, and nothing but siege, then yes you should lose every objective. This thread is also full of people who do not grasp how easy it is to beat a group (without siege) abusing the advantage that is fighting inside your own objective. It gives one group considerably more freedom of movement than the other.

> If you can't fight with these advantages, including defensive siege, then you deserve to lose the objective. In the current state siege is so overpowered it promotes boring and frankly exceptionally bad gameplay while rewarding it for camping siege and personal structures.

>

> 15 players being able to defend against 50 **INCREASES **population inbalance; not decreasing it. It allows these population balances in the same tiers to persist over time. In fact, as you cannot flip T3 structures 40 vs 30 and often 40v30, players still refuse to fight open field this has nearly no impact on PPT and thus on population balance through matchmaking.

>

> Siege exists to promote and facilitate healthy gameplay; to aid defenders against larger and stronger groups giving them the opportunity of balanced fights despite a population or skill mismatch between both groups. It does not exist to prevent the enemies from taking your stuff except them being exceptionally bad. And i'm sorry but having to 60v30 drain several maps of supply throughout serveral hours, or playing treb and countertreb wars with gens for several HOURS is not what I'd call desirable.

 

if your scenario is a common occurence the problem is in the attacking server being brain dead , the only way a 15 vs 50 would end with 15 ontop would be if the 50 attackers tried to use Rams under fire from 4 + ACs instead of using catapults or attacking walls , by the way catapults were buffed a while back so they hit harder the longer they are charged so long range attack is viable

 

and part of why players refuse to engage in combat is because regular combat as a whole is far Greatly more imbalanced , we see nothing but scourge and firebrand blobs , sprinkle some mesmers and warriors , this 4 professions completely dominate large scale combat with their AoE .

so lets stop pretending like siege is less healthy gameplay than what we currently got as regular combat.

 

and believe it or not i ve seen many times 30+ player blobs out sustain 4+ AC fire and still ram through a gate successfully , this will most likely be a common occurrence after the AC nerf now

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > > You shouldn't have to rely on siege to do most of the work for you, to defend something with a large amount of attackers

> > >

> > > Thats the reason defense siege exists.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > No, siege exists is to balance fights between a stronger (or larger) and a weaker (or smaller) group. The stronger group forces fights by taking a disadvantageous position, and the weaker group attempts to defend. If they fail, the stronger group can move on to stonger objectives in more disadvantageous positions, which further aids the weaker group in taking them on.

> >

> > As such, siege is a BALANCING measure helping you deal with population issues. Except so many have taken siege to the level where it's their primary means of defense that it just screwed up population balance and tiers up more than fixing it; while pretending that's how the game is supposed to work.

> >

> > Defense siege exists to HELP defenders. If your defense literally IS siege, and nothing but siege, then yes you should lose every objective. This thread is also full of people who do not grasp how easy it is to beat a group (without siege) abusing the advantage that is fighting inside your own objective. It gives one group considerably more freedom of movement than the other.

> > If you can't fight with these advantages, including defensive siege, then you deserve to lose the objective. In the current state siege is so overpowered it promotes boring and frankly exceptionally bad gameplay while rewarding it for camping siege and personal structures.

> >

> > 15 players being able to defend against 50 **INCREASES **population inbalance; not decreasing it. It allows these population balances in the same tiers to persist over time. In fact, as you cannot flip T3 structures 40 vs 30 and often 40v30, players still refuse to fight open field this has nearly no impact on PPT and thus on population balance through matchmaking.

> >

> > Siege exists to promote and facilitate healthy gameplay; to aid defenders against larger and stronger groups giving them the opportunity of balanced fights despite a population or skill mismatch between both groups. It does not exist to prevent the enemies from taking your stuff except them being exceptionally bad. And i'm sorry but having to 60v30 drain several maps of supply throughout serveral hours, or playing treb and countertreb wars with gens for several HOURS is not what I'd call desirable.

>

> if your scenario is a common occurence the problem is in the attacking server being brain dead , the only way a 15 vs 50 would end with 15 ontop would be if the 50 attackers tried to use Rams under fire from 4 + ACs instead of using catapults or attacking walls , by the way catapults were buffed a while back so they hit harder the longer they are charged so long range attack is viable

>

> and part of why players refuse to engage in combat is because regular combat as a whole is far Greatly more imbalanced , we see nothing but scourge and firebrand blobs , sprinkle some mesmers and warriors , this 4 professions completely dominate large scale combat with their AoE .

> so lets stop pretending like siege is less healthy gameplay than what we currently got as regular combat.

>

> and believe it or not i ve seen many times 30+ player blobs out sustain 4+ AC fire and still ram through a gate successfully , this will most likely be a common occurrence after the AC nerf now

 

Yes, most players on both sides of the wall are exceptionally bad. It's GW2 we're playing. Do you really think that 50 man karmatrain is a highly trained fight guild? Oh wait; nope. But the funny part is -they're ALMOST- as bad as defenders, the majority of which repeatedly die on walls or afk shoot acs and port to spawn the moment you get in. I'm sorry but "we're shooting 30 players with 4 acs and they're literally tanking it !!!" How do you deserve to win this defense? You do not. It's literally even more braindead than the average ktrain zerg.

 

It's overpowered ACs that promote THIS. Nobody attacks upgraded and defended structures unless they're MUCH stronger; because you will have to deal with at least 5 acs and players. So why attack and feed your enemies bags - despite them refusing to ever fight you - if you'd just wipe on the wall instantly? Right; you log off or you kill the enemies until they do and THEN you attack.

And what about defending? Rather than knowing you need some force to defend properly, people spam acs. You spam acs, clear from your post, and hope to win with those. And if you do not? Well then you run, quickly. And it completely fucks up the rankings; because 5 players and 30 players is the same as long as they can defend with 5 acs. If you're 30v5 and you CANNOT FIGHT then you should lose some structures. The further your structures go back, the more upgraded and easier to defend - and based off this you have PPT which /can/ determine population balance to some extent. Not perfect, but that's how it's designed and it works as long as ACs cannot be primary means of defense.

 

About scourge FB zerg. Which calsses are strong at defending... Let's see. warrior guard necro mesmer ele rev are all meta. When fighting groups inside your structures, all range and gank classes are considerably easier too especially eles, thieves, mirages and holos, due to the massive terrain / space advantage being used to freecast / pick off players who cannot take the constant pressure while killing lord or clearing the structure.

 

Oh wait that's... all classes in the game but ranger. Because the ONLY classes bad against zergs are roaming ones who cannot come near - yet structures give them the advantage to still be useful. The only thing that remains pretty mediocre is ranger - which is still exceptionally easy to stay alive on and has certain uses. THE TERRAIN MAKES EVERYTHING USEFUL. So frankly, players QQ about "gvg blob, firebrand / scourge blob, too big blob, zerg, guild group, can tank acs, too organised" but it all just means "we can't fight them but we're entitled to being winners anyways! Mum told me i'm speciul." If this is what you expect, back to open world PvE. It's WvW, if you're heavily outnumbered or outgunned, you deserve to lose all your stuff. You get to make up some differences with structures and ACs; but ACs aren't a replacement for organisation and skill. And you're treating them as such.

 

It's really not difficult to pick off necros once they enter. "Scourge and firebrand blob" is an excuse from bad players as to why they can't win. Openfield is one thing - fair enough don't fight them open and never improve either; all good. But if you cannot win inside your own structures then you lose even with added advantages. If you lose while defending, you're so weak compared to the other side you genuinely deserve to lose. That is the balance of the game. Attackers in a disadvantage, defenders at an advantage, even with heavily nerfed siege. But if defenders still can't win, with the advantage, then they don't deserve to be fighting in that tier and need to go down to other servers with lower coverage and / or skill.

 

15 players shouldn't win from 50 unless they're considerably more skilled. Not because they manage to press 1 on ACs while ranting about the lack of safety on top of a wall. The best chance to defend is not to prevent them from opening; these are delay tactics, but to kill them while they're killing the lord. Especially in keeps 25v50 is pretty doable. 15v50 is a tad too lopsided, but guilds will still do it without issues. Here you are telling me "omagod we were shooting 4+ acs on 30 players and they didn't even go away !!". Obviously. Who do you think is playing better? 30 players who actually have to play together to live through 4 acs, or 4 randoms shooting an ac? And if you make acs stronger, they will simply bring more players to tank the acs; or not bother at all.

 

I believe you for 30 players tanking 4 acs and ramming the gate through it. Done it plenty of times. The fact that you expect to hold a structure by 4 guys pressing 1 2 3 from a safe spot against 30 players is very, very, very bad for WvW. The enemy side has to permanently sustain, properly, while DPS'ing gate and not getting attacked even by smaller groups; and prevent siege from being disabled, build, prevent supply drain, deal with tactics and so forth... All while the ONLY thing the defenders do is press 1 2 3 braindead from a safe location. And what do you tell me? It's awful that they can do this and they'll do it more!

 

If you can't "fight" without siege, then you need to lose some PPT. Because you're ruining WvW for the enemy as much as they are for you. You're not giving them fights or fun. You're just saying "hey we can't fight you so we won't bother, here's some siege". Siege monkeys PPT'ing up to tiers where they don't belong are just as bad as blob servers dropping to T4 to smash random pugs.

 

[Threather.9354]

The ac nerfs are welcome. Not sure if this will reduce the defensive gameplay enough, it is in the right direction though.

 

**I think they should still make following changes:**

- Reduce raw stats in claim buff by 50% (also affects too much open field/roaming fights not just defending)

- Make shield gen bubbles slightly longer cooldown (this is mostly for defense nerf, not attacker, because they can completely shut down trebs/catas/omega golems, even ballistas)

- Make omega golem projectiles pass through reflects/shield gens.

- Increase Banner tactic cooldowns to 30 minutes.

- Make gates/walls immune to any form of damage reduction such as Dwarf elite, Bulwark gyro, Turtle banner 3, Frost aura.

 

_Don't forget that the game should be balanced around open/closed raiding guilds because thats what keeps the server alive. If they're forced to stack guilds on 1 server just so they can take objectives, you end up with the unbalanced WvW we already got. I don't mean hardcore guilds, I mean guilds that already have decent builds._

[Aeolus.3615]

@Etheri.5406 if its 15+ vs 5 to take a structure even t3 it is easy done, if the larger group cant take a structure from just half force of their size and QQ due sup 5ac's they dont desert to take that structure, theres plenty of gimmicks to hits most structures,

THe problem with ac's is when there like 10-20 ac's :) and people cant find a way to get them.

 

**The thing is is that is not possible to hold a structure with 5 against 30 but those 30 are so so so bad that they cant take it from just 5 players, even 10-15 players are more than enough to take a structure from 5 players, it is just those 30 that are "special".**

There also the players that want to fight w/o actually fight, taking structures and then blame defenders and siege, if they cant do it w/o effort or a fight.

 

Issues when taking structures:

Most players fail cause they think proxy cata is the only solution then QQ about ac's

Most players fail cause they only know extremely overused places to drop siege wich those places are always over sieged.

IT is not that hard to melt or destroy siege @ range before start the main atack, still player dont do it.

 

 

If those 5 players delay and made the larger group quit, those 15-30 player are even badier than the 5 in ac's winch nowadays can be easily out-sustained...

 

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> @Etheri.5406 if its 15+ vs 5 to take a structure even t3 it is easy done, if the larger group cant take a structure from just half force of their size and QQ due sup 5ac's they dont desert to take that structure, theres plenty of gimmicks to hits most structures,

> THe problem with ac's is when there like 10-20 ac's :) and people cant find a way to get them.

>

> **The thing is is that is not possible to hold a structure with 5 against 30 but those 30 are so so so bad that they cant take it from just 5 players, even 10-15 players are more than enough to take a structure from 5 players, it is just those 30 that are "special".**

>

> Issues when taking structures:

> Most players fail cause they think proxy cata is the only solution then QQ about ac's

> Most players fail cause they only know extremely overused places to drop siege wich those places are always over sieged.

> IT is not that hard to melt or destroy siege @ range before start the main atack, still player dont do it...

>

>

> If those 5 players delay and made the larger group quit, those 15-30 player are even badier than the 5 in ac's winch nowadays can be easily out-sustained...

>

>

*lord I promised myself to never quote you again but here I go*

 

I am torn on the AC nerf to siege.

 

I kind of agree (God help me) with @"Aeolus.3615" about the attackers placing seige in range of ACs. (The exception being SMC inner)

 

If you are foolish enough to place your seige that close, then you deserve to lose your seige.

 

But AC damage to players could use some reduction and I hope that the pulse change will help with that.

 

Really like the shield gen change though.

 

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @Etheri.5406 if its 15+ vs 5 to take a structure even t3 it is easy done, if the larger group cant take a structure from just half force of their size and QQ due sup 5ac's they dont desert to take that structure, theres plenty of gimmicks to hits most structures,

> > THe problem with ac's is when there like 10-20 ac's :) and people cant find a way to get them.

> >

> > **The thing is is that is not possible to hold a structure with 5 against 30 but those 30 are so so so bad that they cant take it from just 5 players, even 10-15 players are more than enough to take a structure from 5 players, it is just those 30 that are "special".**

> >

> > Issues when taking structures:

> > Most players fail cause they think proxy cata is the only solution then QQ about ac's

> > Most players fail cause they only know extremely overused places to drop siege wich those places are always over sieged.

> > IT is not that hard to melt or destroy siege @ range before start the main atack, still player dont do it...

> >

> >

> > If those 5 players delay and made the larger group quit, those 15-30 player are even badier than the 5 in ac's winch nowadays can be easily out-sustained...

> >

> >

> *lord I promised myself to never quote you again but here I go*

>

> I am torn on the AC nerf to siege.

>

> I kind of agree (God help me) with @"Aeolus.3615" about the attackers placing seige in range of ACs. (The exception being SMC inner)

>

> If you are foolish enough to place your seige that close, then you deserve to lose your seige.

>

> But AC damage to players could use some reduction and I hope that the pulse change will help with that.

>

> Really like the shield gen change though.

>

 

When u say SMC inner, are u talking about SMC 2nd floor siege hitting the gates, or the siege on the choke points???

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @Etheri.5406 if its 15+ vs 5 to take a structure even t3 it is easy done, if the larger group cant take a structure from just half force of their size and QQ due sup 5ac's they dont desert to take that structure, theres plenty of gimmicks to hits most structures,

> > > THe problem with ac's is when there like 10-20 ac's :) and people cant find a way to get them.

> > >

> > > **The thing is is that is not possible to hold a structure with 5 against 30 but those 30 are so so so bad that they cant take it from just 5 players, even 10-15 players are more than enough to take a structure from 5 players, it is just those 30 that are "special".**

> > >

> > > Issues when taking structures:

> > > Most players fail cause they think proxy cata is the only solution then QQ about ac's

> > > Most players fail cause they only know extremely overused places to drop siege wich those places are always over sieged.

> > > IT is not that hard to melt or destroy siege @ range before start the main atack, still player dont do it...

> > >

> > >

> > > If those 5 players delay and made the larger group quit, those 15-30 player are even badier than the 5 in ac's winch nowadays can be easily out-sustained...

> > >

> > >

> > *lord I promised myself to never quote you again but here I go*

> >

> > I am torn on the AC nerf to siege.

> >

> > I kind of agree (God help me) with @"Aeolus.3615" about the attackers placing seige in range of ACs. (The exception being SMC inner)

> >

> > If you are foolish enough to place your seige that close, then you deserve to lose your seige.

> >

> > But AC damage to players could use some reduction and I hope that the pulse change will help with that.

> >

> > Really like the shield gen change though.

> >

>

> When u say SMC inner, are u talking about SMC 2nd floor siege hitting the gates, or the siege on the choke points???

>

 

I mean to get into inner, it's hard to be out if wall and seige range to drop a fate.

[Israel.7056]

Good lord it always comes back to 5v30.

 

Not only is that discussion a massive red herring for reasons I believe myself and others have pointed out repeatedly but there are also two explicit conflicting premises being presented in favor of the 'defensive siege as equalizer' argument as well as a third implied premise.

 

1. Defensive siege should be strong enough to potentially give 5 defenders an unspecified chance (one infers at least 50/50) to delay for an unspecified amount of time (one can infer at least 10 minutes) against even 30 attackers.

2. If the 30 attackers cannot figure out a way around this enormously powerful equalizer within 10 minutes they are just terrible players who don't understand strategy.

3. Defenders do not and cannot anticipate the second (or third or fourth) wave of defensive countermeasures that will be needed in order to counter the second (or third or fourth) wave of offensive measures the attackers will have inevitably have to attempt in order to circumvent the first wave of defensive countermeasures.

 

The first two are a sort of special pleading feel sorry for us we're just trying to have our cake and eat it too situation.

 

The third is just an absurdly false premise.

 

If I want to counter your proxy catas or rams on any gate or wall I can build preemptively build arrow carts everywhere there is a gate or a wall that can be hit with proxy catas. If I want to counter your potential long distance catas I can preemptively build ballis and/or trebs and shield gens everywhere there is an attackable wall. If I want to counter your potential trebs I can preemptively build defensive trebs and shield gens in what are usually completely unassailable positions. The third unstated premise is that no one knows about any of these preemptive defensive countermeasures and yet one sees them employed constantly by almost every NA server now.

 

On top of all that defenders get access to enormously powerful tactivators, enormously powerful slotted guild buffs for every claimed objective and usually spawn advantage which means that defenders will usually win by attrition by default no matter what else happens. Attackers get....wait for it.....nothing other than the potential for the element of surprise. That's it.

 

If you're a defender you apparently need every conceivable advantage in the game in order to be able to succeed but if you're an attacker you better be fast and sneaky because that's the only way you're taking stuff!! God bless.

 

 

 

 

 

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

okay, I like the reduction in AC damage. That is really nice. I am a bit lukewarm on the siege damage thing.

 

But seriously, what we need is changes to the LOS issues on walls. Defenders can't defend because they are killed from below, while unable to fight back.

 

I have an idea to fix that:

permanent stability and resistance (and immun to any corruption) while you are defending on top of a wall (my second favorite solution: make necro marks and stuff strictly ground based. There is a wall? Wall is not ground. Tough luck).

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> Cropped

 

Correction. HOD is medium population while NSP is high population. We are not exactly the highest population of the groups, we never is. We simply more spread out in coverage than having all our population stacked in a few timezones.

[aspirine.5839]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

 

>

> If you're a defender you apparently need every conceivable advantage in the game in order to be able to succeed but if you're an attacker you better be fast and sneaky because that's the only way you're taking stuff!! God bless.

Ehh yes that is kinda the point of the object defense and offense right? Attack and be fast enough before the zone blob comes to deal with you? And the other way around, defend enough so the help is on time to well help you out.

You keep saying that it is so easy to defend, but let's hear it then. Let's take any T3 tower, QL as example. Zone blob is there. Only a few scouts and defenders. What options do you have in that case? AC? No impossible and useless. Ballista? pfff, useless. Canons perhaps you say? Nope also useless. But then for sure the Oil right? Nope also useless.

Only option left is treb, yes this usually works, but is 100% countered by shield gens. So..... What do we do now?

 

[babazhook.6805]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > Cropped

>

> Correction. HOD is medium population while NSP is high population. We are not exactly the highest population of the groups, we never is. We simply more spread out in coverage than having all our population stacked in a few timezones.

 

Correction noted. That said it even better makes the example. T3 Keeps towers and the like on HOD being flipped are not happening because HOD suddenly does not know how to defend a structure with Arrow Carts. It because at a given time the groups that flip it have more peoples on that map.

[babazhook.6805]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> okay, I like the reduction in AC damage. That is really nice. I am a bit lukewarm on the siege damage thing.

>

> But seriously, what we need is changes to the LOS issues on walls. Defenders can't defend because they are killed from below, while unable to fight back.

>

> I have an idea to fix that:

> permanent stability and resistance (and immun to any corruption) while you are defending on top of a wall (my second favorite solution: make necro marks and stuff strictly ground based. There is a wall? Wall is not ground. Tough luck).

 

I always felt there should be some sort of advantaage when one on top a wall defending but have an issue witrh this being the case when the enemy on top of the wall as well.

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

 

> I'm sorry you bring up air keep as an example... Air keep lordsroom is literally one of THE worst fight spots in the game. It's AoE catches people frequently and instantly strips stab. Every time it performs this attack it only requires range damage and you WILL kill players, who cannot run back. Defending air keep by FIGHTING is insanely easy, even without ANY siege once they're already inside. How on earth can you state you need ACs to defend air keep? The lord literally tells you exactly when and where to bomb, and against blobs it catches several players every single time. It's not a 50v50 or a karma train; it's an exceptionally easy defense and if you fail at defending by killing the enemies then you deserve, very very very very much to lose air keep.

>

> So how about you don't whine about how it's no issue that it takes 2-3 hours to get inside a keep through supply draining, where if they get in you're still able to win 2:1 outnumbered or worse due to positional advantage and the lord without any siege or tactics taken into account, and realise that the defenders advantage is massive. If despite these advantages you lose, in all honesty usually due to a lack of coordination and skill more than anything else, then yes you deserve to lose said objectives.

>

> You expect attackers to carefully drain supply from half the map while you demand to be able to defend heavily outnumbered without any organisation or skill; and when people say the balance is off you go on about how this isn't a 50v50 blob PvP mode. I'm sorry but we're not talking about removing structures or siege. We're talking about defense and siege giving you SO MASSIVE ADVANTAGES you can avoid fights completely; rather than defense and siege helping the losing side to win fights. Why? So you can maintain your position on the ladder and continuously kill matchups by being "too small"?

>

> ITT : people blaming mag for tanking down yet... they're constantly and heavily defending their structures from mag. You're literally outppt'ing mag, telling them you outppt them and you must be able to defend while going on about how they "tank" to kill you...

 

Okay, I never said anything about the lord and how awful it is to fight in there. But okay you made a valid point on it. But what I'm talking about and have always been talking about this entire thread is that I should be able to discourage folks from breaking into my keeps IN THE FIRST PLACE with AC's if I'm totally outnumbered. I should be able to stop a zerg from taking my stuff, just like they should be able to stop us from taking theirs. There should just be more than one way to do it, and right now there is. You have the choice of stopping a group with AC's, or Balli's, or delaying with disablers. But what happens when you nerf AC's into the ground and have nothing to stop people (good groups or bad) from building 2 feet away from a wall, where ballis are highly ineffectual because of LoS and the fact that being on walls are typically death sentences if the group has scourges and eles. I have NO way to slow down or stop groups from breaking in aside from siege disablers.... woooo oh boy I might as well not even tried. At least with AC's I'd be able to try to build it far enough back.

 

And we would love to use the built in cannons/oils if that wasn't a waste of time, either for the fact that it's placed awfully, or destroyed before attacking siege is even placed. So basically to defend a structure I have disablers and ineffectual siege if people had it their way.

 

It should take a couple hours to break into keeps. They are Castles, they should be hard to get into. Also balance is off, a good portion of my server anyway is sick of 15+ scourge groups with it condi aoe spam that gives you 5+ condi's. So yes, we'd MUCH rather "hide" in our towers with AC's over dealing that ridiculous setup. And we do fight if they break in, but siege is a tool, a deterrent, and a balance for many players that do not want to deal with fighting a losing a battle with aoe spam. Call us bad, call us unskilled, or brain dead, but so is running a zerg full of brain dead spam abilities.

 

Also, what position on the ladder, until TWO WEEKS AGO, my server was in dead last. Mag beat my server by at least 50+ points, like they always do. They moved up to t3, like they always do. The then "tank" to t4 again the next week, like they always do. And THIS WEEK, AND THIS WEEK ONLY, is my server ACTUALLY BEATING THEM. How is this hard to understand. MAG WANTS A LINK, and the easiest way is to tank by not playing and having less players in wvw. They've done this BEFORE. And they always wait till the last week of a current match-up. Again, how is this hard to understand. They might be saying otherwise, but we've been dealing with this Mag situation for at LEAST 4 months.

 

 

 

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

>

> >

> > If you're a defender you apparently need every conceivable advantage in the game in order to be able to succeed but if you're an attacker you better be fast and sneaky because that's the only way you're taking stuff!! God bless.

> Ehh yes that is kinda the point of the object defense and offense right? Attack and be fast enough before the zone blob comes to deal with you? And the other way around, defend enough so the help is on time to well help you out.

> You keep saying that it is so easy to defend, but let's hear it then. Let's take any T3 tower, QL as example. Zone blob is there. Only a few scouts and defenders. What options do you have in that case? AC? No impossible and useless. Ballista? pfff, useless. Canons perhaps you say? Nope also useless. But then for sure the Oil right? Nope also useless.

> Only option left is treb, yes this usually works, but is 100% countered by shield gens. So..... What do we do now?

>

 

You lose the tower, plain a simple. A handful of people should not be able to defend against 20+ attackers. Use tactics to buy time to get adequate backup, or lose the tower.

[babazhook.6805]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"aspirine.5839" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> >

> > >

> > > If you're a defender you apparently need every conceivable advantage in the game in order to be able to succeed but if you're an attacker you better be fast and sneaky because that's the only way you're taking stuff!! God bless.

> > Ehh yes that is kinda the point of the object defense and offense right? Attack and be fast enough before the zone blob comes to deal with you? And the other way around, defend enough so the help is on time to well help you out.

> > You keep saying that it is so easy to defend, but let's hear it then. Let's take any T3 tower, QL as example. Zone blob is there. Only a few scouts and defenders. What options do you have in that case? AC? No impossible and useless. Ballista? pfff, useless. Canons perhaps you say? Nope also useless. But then for sure the Oil right? Nope also useless.

> > Only option left is treb, yes this usually works, but is 100% countered by shield gens. So..... What do we do now?

> >

>

> You lose the tower, plain a simple. A handful of people should not be able to defend against 20+ attackers. Use tactics to buy time to get adequate backup, or lose the tower.

 

The thing is against 20 attackers with a handful of defenders you lose the tower NOW. If a handful of defenders can hold a tower against 20 plus attackers, it not because AC's that good, it because those attackers that bad or just want to move on to the next target.

[aspirine.5839]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"aspirine.5839" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> >

> > >

> > > If you're a defender you apparently need every conceivable advantage in the game in order to be able to succeed but if you're an attacker you better be fast and sneaky because that's the only way you're taking stuff!! God bless.

> > Ehh yes that is kinda the point of the object defense and offense right? Attack and be fast enough before the zone blob comes to deal with you? And the other way around, defend enough so the help is on time to well help you out.

> > You keep saying that it is so easy to defend, but let's hear it then. Let's take any T3 tower, QL as example. Zone blob is there. Only a few scouts and defenders. What options do you have in that case? AC? No impossible and useless. Ballista? pfff, useless. Canons perhaps you say? Nope also useless. But then for sure the Oil right? Nope also useless.

> > Only option left is treb, yes this usually works, but is 100% countered by shield gens. So..... What do we do now?

> >

>

> You lose the tower, plain a simple. A handful of people should not be able to defend against 20+ attackers. Use tactics to buy time to get adequate backup, or lose the tower.

 

Probably yes. Hmm weird, I thought from the comments in this topic that AC was so OP that it could hold of 20 people from taking a tower for sure. The sight of one AC would have a zerg running in fear towards the next object according to some of the people here.

[Rezzet.3614]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> > > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > > > You shouldn't have to rely on siege to do most of the work for you, to defend something with a large amount of attackers

> > > >

> > > > Thats the reason defense siege exists.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > No, siege exists is to balance fights between a stronger (or larger) and a weaker (or smaller) group. The stronger group forces fights by taking a disadvantageous position, and the weaker group attempts to defend. If they fail, the stronger group can move on to stonger objectives in more disadvantageous positions, which further aids the weaker group in taking them on.

> > >

> > > As such, siege is a BALANCING measure helping you deal with population issues. Except so many have taken siege to the level where it's their primary means of defense that it just screwed up population balance and tiers up more than fixing it; while pretending that's how the game is supposed to work.

> > >

> > > Defense siege exists to HELP defenders. If your defense literally IS siege, and nothing but siege, then yes you should lose every objective. This thread is also full of people who do not grasp how easy it is to beat a group (without siege) abusing the advantage that is fighting inside your own objective. It gives one group considerably more freedom of movement than the other.

> > > If you can't fight with these advantages, including defensive siege, then you deserve to lose the objective. In the current state siege is so overpowered it promotes boring and frankly exceptionally bad gameplay while rewarding it for camping siege and personal structures.

> > >

> > > 15 players being able to defend against 50 **INCREASES **population inbalance; not decreasing it. It allows these population balances in the same tiers to persist over time. In fact, as you cannot flip T3 structures 40 vs 30 and often 40v30, players still refuse to fight open field this has nearly no impact on PPT and thus on population balance through matchmaking.

> > >

> > > Siege exists to promote and facilitate healthy gameplay; to aid defenders against larger and stronger groups giving them the opportunity of balanced fights despite a population or skill mismatch between both groups. It does not exist to prevent the enemies from taking your stuff except them being exceptionally bad. And i'm sorry but having to 60v30 drain several maps of supply throughout serveral hours, or playing treb and countertreb wars with gens for several HOURS is not what I'd call desirable.

> >

> > if your scenario is a common occurence the problem is in the attacking server being brain dead , the only way a 15 vs 50 would end with 15 ontop would be if the 50 attackers tried to use Rams under fire from 4 + ACs instead of using catapults or attacking walls , by the way catapults were buffed a while back so they hit harder the longer they are charged so long range attack is viable

> >

> > and part of why players refuse to engage in combat is because regular combat as a whole is far Greatly more imbalanced , we see nothing but scourge and firebrand blobs , sprinkle some mesmers and warriors , this 4 professions completely dominate large scale combat with their AoE .

> > so lets stop pretending like siege is less healthy gameplay than what we currently got as regular combat.

> >

> > and believe it or not i ve seen many times 30+ player blobs out sustain 4+ AC fire and still ram through a gate successfully , this will most likely be a common occurrence after the AC nerf now

>

> Yes, most players on both sides of the wall are exceptionally bad. It's GW2 we're playing. Do you really think that 50 man karmatrain is a highly trained fight guild? Oh wait; nope. But the funny part is -they're ALMOST- as bad as defenders, the majority of which repeatedly die on walls or afk shoot acs and port to spawn the moment you get in. I'm sorry but "we're shooting 30 players with 4 acs and they're literally tanking it !!!" How do you deserve to win this defense? You do not. It's literally even more braindead than the average ktrain zerg.

>

> It's overpowered ACs that promote THIS. Nobody attacks upgraded and defended structures unless they're MUCH stronger; because you will have to deal with at least 5 acs and players. So why attack and feed your enemies bags - despite them refusing to ever fight you - if you'd just wipe on the wall instantly? Right; you log off or you kill the enemies until they do and THEN you attack.

> And what about defending? Rather than knowing you need some force to defend properly, people spam acs. You spam acs, clear from your post, and hope to win with those. And if you do not? Well then you run, quickly. And it completely kitten up the rankings; because 5 players and 30 players is the same as long as they can defend with 5 acs. If you're 30v5 and you CANNOT FIGHT then you should lose some structures. The further your structures go back, the more upgraded and easier to defend - and based off this you have PPT which /can/ determine population balance to some extent. Not perfect, but that's how it's designed and it works as long as ACs cannot be primary means of defense.

>

> About scourge FB zerg. Which calsses are strong at defending... Let's see. warrior guard necro mesmer ele rev are all meta. When fighting groups inside your structures, all range and gank classes are considerably easier too especially eles, thieves, mirages and holos, due to the massive terrain / space advantage being used to freecast / pick off players who cannot take the constant pressure while killing lord or clearing the structure.

>

> Oh wait that's... all classes in the game but ranger. Because the ONLY classes bad against zergs are roaming ones who cannot come near - yet structures give them the advantage to still be useful. The only thing that remains pretty mediocre is ranger - which is still exceptionally easy to stay alive on and has certain uses. THE TERRAIN MAKES EVERYTHING USEFUL. So frankly, players QQ about "gvg blob, firebrand / scourge blob, too big blob, zerg, guild group, can tank acs, too organised" but it all just means "we can't fight them but we're entitled to being winners anyways! Mum told me i'm speciul." If this is what you expect, back to open world PvE. It's WvW, if you're heavily outnumbered or outgunned, you deserve to lose all your stuff. You get to make up some differences with structures and ACs; but ACs aren't a replacement for organisation and skill. And you're treating them as such.

>

> It's really not difficult to pick off necros once they enter. "Scourge and firebrand blob" is an excuse from bad players as to why they can't win. Openfield is one thing - fair enough don't fight them open and never improve either; all good. But if you cannot win inside your own structures then you lose even with added advantages. If you lose while defending, you're so weak compared to the other side you genuinely deserve to lose. That is the balance of the game. Attackers in a disadvantage, defenders at an advantage, even with heavily nerfed siege. But if defenders still can't win, with the advantage, then they don't deserve to be fighting in that tier and need to go down to other servers with lower coverage and / or skill.

>

> 15 players shouldn't win from 50 unless they're considerably more skilled. Not because they manage to press 1 on ACs while ranting about the lack of safety on top of a wall. The best chance to defend is not to prevent them from opening; these are delay tactics, but to kill them while they're killing the lord. Especially in keeps 25v50 is pretty doable. 15v50 is a tad too lopsided, but guilds will still do it without issues. Here you are telling me "omagod we were shooting 4+ acs on 30 players and they didn't even go away !!". Obviously. Who do you think is playing better? 30 players who actually have to play together to live through 4 acs, or 4 randoms shooting an ac? And if you make acs stronger, they will simply bring more players to tank the acs; or not bother at all.

>

> I believe you for 30 players tanking 4 acs and ramming the gate through it. Done it plenty of times. The fact that you expect to hold a structure by 4 guys pressing 1 2 3 from a safe spot against 30 players is very, very, very bad for WvW. The enemy side has to permanently sustain, properly, while DPS'ing gate and not getting attacked even by smaller groups; and prevent siege from being disabled, build, prevent supply drain, deal with tactics and so forth... All while the ONLY thing the defenders do is press 1 2 3 braindead from a safe location. And what do you tell me? It's awful that they can do this and they'll do it more!

>

> If you can't "fight" without siege, then you need to lose some PPT. Because you're ruining WvW for the enemy as much as they are for you. You're not giving them fights or fun. You're just saying "hey we can't fight you so we won't bother, here's some siege". Siege monkeys PPT'ing up to tiers where they don't belong are just as bad as blob servers dropping to T4 to smash random pugs.

>

 

Solid argument except for one teeny tiny details

 

There is

more

than

1

siege

 

so yes it is perfectly justified that 4 players on an AC can severely harm a group of 30 if they sit on a spot like fools , thats the whole purpose of siege to promote tactics

if attacks are smart they will move to another spot or heck use catapults or trebuchets wich are Safe from arrow carts

heck theres also shield gens so the blob can hit the front gate just fine , what's stopping the 30 man blob from making 4 shield gens ? if they really wanna ram the gate that badly

 

in normal circumstances sure i dont expect a 30 man blob to lose against 4 AC players, but i also shouldnt expect siege to be so useless it gets countered by stacking

 

WvW's problem is twofold

 

Siege and players

 

player abilities are breaking WvW right now, defensive siege is useless because somehow players can bypass walls and dump abilities directly ontop of walls dead center,

then theres the projectile hate , projectile hate is possibly the biggest offender to wvw balance , its the main reason 4 professions dominate the game mode , spellbreakers have their massive anti boon and projectile bubbles, mesmers have their projectile reflect , and long range laser beam that bypasses anti projectiles as well as AoE and tons of CC as chronomancer , firebrand has access to more anti projectile and lots of support and offense as well as some CC and can attack via non projectile AoE, scourge is nothing but non projectile aoe spam, wich performs both offensive and defensive purposes necromancers also have an anti projectile field that applies weakness to those who enter it, so its basically both anti projectile and anti melee .

[babazhook.6805]

Do not forget that attacking players can build those "1 guy holding off a zerg of 20 plus" arrow carts too.

[XenesisII.1540]

Why would they build an ac while attacking? to hold off the 20 players on the wall that apparently already get pulled and bombed on every single time anyways? to kill the siege that it is going to be less effective to kill with? Only times an attacking zerg will need to set up acs is to fight in a choke or lords.

[Slow Lightning.4592]

Its obvious these changes are a 'nerf' to defenders. The siege bubble change isnt that huge, they have massive range so just build them further back from wall / gate.

 

Why not make it that AC damage scales depending on how many defenders there are (and attackers) i.e. if there is blob bunkering inside too scared to fight, make it ACs do very little damage so that blob has to fight... vice versa if there is very few defenders and a very large attacking blob then ACs do normal (or more) damage.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Slow Lightning.4592" said:

> Its obvious these changes are a 'nerf' to defenders. The siege bubble change isnt that huge, they have massive range so just build them further back from wall / gate.

>

 

Well, with this change the gens can be hit by seige. And by disablers, which in turn make the catas/rams vulnerable.

 

It is a nerf in general. The AC part is a nerf to defenders.

 

But the shield gen is the opposite to attackers.

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

> Ehh yes that is kinda the point of the object defense and offense right? Attack and be fast enough before the zone blob comes to deal with you? And the other way around, defend enough so the help is on time to well help you out.

 

That is one way to think about defense and offense yes. I would say that's basically the way the game is now and has been for several years at least. I don't think it has to be this way though.

 

> You keep saying that it is so easy to defend, but let's hear it then. Let's take any T3 tower, QL as example. Zone blob is there. Only a few scouts and defenders. What options do you have in that case? AC? No impossible and useless. Ballista? pfff, useless. Canons perhaps you say? Nope also useless. But then for sure the Oil right? Nope also useless.

> Only option left is treb, yes this usually works, but is 100% countered by shield gens. So..... What do we do now?

 

Let's try to be as specific and precise as possible if we're really going to try to run a proper pen and paper hypothetical on a forum. Exactly how many people defending, exactly how many people attacking? Is there any siege built in the tower beforehand? If so, how much and where is it built? How much supply is in the tower? What offensive methods are the hypothetical attackers using? Are the defenders expecting any reinforcements? What tactivators are present if any? I'm sure there's more but that's all I can think of for now.