Siege Revisions

[XenesisII.1540]

Not just the tower but are there catas up on that hill next to danelon? :relaxed:

[Israel.7056]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> Not just the tower but are there catas up on that hill next to danelon? :relaxed:

 

Right good question.

[babazhook.6805]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> 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.

 

Oh it can work quite well. As example they are often build when there too few to take a towr and there a Treb in that tower taking out a wall on bay. Attackers can also set up an AC in the lords room aimed at the entries so as to kill reinforcements that might arrive.

[XenesisII.1540]

Thought we were talking about it's use on offense... why not just use a balista in the ruins for that treb? you just need 2 people for a quick build.

[Meetshield.1756]

Removing Arrow Carts from the game would improve the average pug's skills. They would learn that they can't just sit on the cart and wait for someone else to kill the Siege. However, Removing them is an unfair advantage to the attacker, so reducing effectiveness is actually the right move. Maybe this is enough of a nerf.

 

I play on GOM we are always outnumbered, and I'm always frustrated by the 20 dudes I have dieing on the walls running arrow carts, when I need them to just jump off bomb and get back inside. If we did that instead of arrow carts we could kill the siege and save the keep. I end up having to switch to ele and do it myself over and over...

[babazhook.6805]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> Thought we were talking about it's use on offense... why not just use a balista in the ruins for that treb? you just need 2 people for a quick build.

 

Going to an enemy tower and taking out a treb is offense. It faster using an AC then a balli. An Ac does more area damage and can whittle down the Treb even as it forces people off it due to loss of health.

 

Added to that just as an AC can be used to cover a choke point such as that going into Hills lords over that bridge, the attacking team can set up an AC quickly at the other end and respond in kind. Attacking teams might be lacking in scourges and Eles to take out siege on walls. ACS can act as a fill in used by the offensive team. Usually the attacker does not have to bother with this as they have the numbers and the professions needed to bull ones way in, but if you ony have a slight edge in numbers ACS set in the right place can help turn a battle.

 

Teams that flip SMC will often throw up an AC quickly as they attack the lord. This used to fire down one of the halls when the enemy team arrives to defend the Lord and can often delay long enough to get a flip. When you are trying to take an objective , you are on the offense and nohing prevents a group on the offense from using ACs. Again this generally done by a group that is smaller that knows the enemy has a larger group enroute.

[XenesisII.1540]

Arrow carts were always meant to be anti personnel not anti siege weapon, that's why it's siege damage has been nerfed twice already.

Yes it can be used on offense, not that it was used much in that way other than what we both already mentioned chokes and lords room.

 

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

 

> Going to an enemy tower and taking out a treb is offense. It faster using an AC then a balli.

 

Completely false

Just like the hammer weilding burn guardians. Why do you keep making these rediculous claims?

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

>

> > Going to an enemy tower and taking out a treb is offense. It faster using an AC then a balli.

>

> Completely false

> Just like the hammer weilding burn guardians. Why do you keep making these rediculous claims?

>

 

Its sort of true though, its much faster to take out a treb using the outer edge of AC AoE than it is using a ballista that cant possibly hit the treb no matter where you place it.

 

There are only a couple towers where a ballista can hit trebs.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> >

> > > Going to an enemy tower and taking out a treb is offense. It faster using an AC then a balli.

> >

> > Completely false

> > Just like the hammer weilding burn guardians. Why do you keep making these rediculous claims?

> >

>

> Its sort of true though, its much faster to take out a treb using the outer edge of AC AoE than it is using a ballista that cant possibly hit the treb no matter where you place it.

>

> There are only a couple towers where a ballista can hit trebs.

 

So ballistae that can't hit their target do less damage than an ac that can.

 

<,<

 

Learned my new thing for the day

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > >

> > > > Going to an enemy tower and taking out a treb is offense. It faster using an AC then a balli.

> > >

> > > Completely false

> > > Just like the hammer weilding burn guardians. Why do you keep making these rediculous claims?

> > >

> >

> > Its sort of true though, its much faster to take out a treb using the outer edge of AC AoE than it is using a ballista that cant possibly hit the treb no matter where you place it.

> >

> > There are only a couple towers where a ballista can hit trebs.

>

> So ballistae that can't hit their target do less damage than an ac that can.

>

> <,<

>

> Learned my new thing for the day

I strive to share my vast and treasured knowledge.

 

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"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.

>

>

>

 

I'm sorry, but no. You do not get to defend with just acs. You literally do not deserve to keep them out. It should not take HOURS to force you to play the game. If it takes hours of breaking into a castle, players will straight log off. The population difference of 30v5 won't be noted; and you'll be happy you're an amazing defender despite not doing ANYTHING useful other than inflating your PPT so you can be outnumbered some more.

 

It should be a DELAY. And yes, disablers allow you to delay. Going on ANY gate without gens means you'll get siege and treb and you cannot kill these. Building catas is still open to countertrebs, mortars and balis. Depending on location you can build defensive gens which draws out the siege for hours. Proxy catas with gens on inner again makes it literally take longer than it takes to upgrade yet at no point are you engaging in combat. Just prolonged siege warfare, which is incredibly boring AND BAD for population balance. You are the ones - by insisting you defend heavily outnumbered purely off siege - that maintain the population inbalance. And yes as you say "It's a tool to avoid fights we lose". Nobody cares about what you think about balance - this thread isn't about regular balance. It's about your server getting your asses whooped and thus building siege like every other server in this game.

 

Lose fight -> hide with siege while QQ'ing about meta / enemies / lame / ... then going "it's required, it should take hours to break into a keep". No, it is not. If you can't get a force to defend in a reasonable time of 10-20 minutes, then you very much deserve to lose it. So yes, you are bad. Every meta players cry about what is strong and what is not; and frankly it's irrelevant. Some things are better than others, and if you dislike that and / or lose to other groups you lose. Building ACs isn't an answer - and it only makes you go up against more cancer groups and numbers. If few defenders can hold a keep for hours without ever having to fight or abandon the safety of their keep; then frankly they will trivially hold it and the enemies will likely log off. You literally want it to take a full guildraid to flip a single keep... that's plain absurd.

 

Lets see : you can fight and enter the tower as soon as you go low; you can build siege on supply depots and use guerilla tactics, you can kill siege using regular goddamn skills, you can let them in and hold the choke, you can use tactics, you can disable, you can use stealth. "But I can't freecast on them from the wall" whooptedy fucking doo.

 

Just learn to play, or go down to a tier where you fight other bad players. Don't insist on being exceptionally bad yet being rewarded for it. Mag situation is funny enough - aren't you saying you need to defend and PPT? Aren't you saying you're not capable of fighting any groups? You want to defend and PPT; but now you're upset mag is beating you... Hmh.

 

If mag is capable of getting into your towers without tryharding for 3 hours per keep jsut because there's monkeys with siege going "haha i'll show these mag noobs!!! payback bitches!" then they might actually ktrain and go up. But frankly they see the 15 acs, log off or go hide in SM just like you hide in your structures and play your lame style except lamer and better. And you? You keep it in stand by constantly, 24/7, PPT'ing rather than ever improving at fights.

 

At no point do you want to fight. Surely you'd be happier fighting other bad players - I mean amazing players who just don't run anything even close to meta and press random buttons because friendly casuals :)) - than constantly getting blobbed by mag struggling to PPT to more interesting matchups because they're bored to death of fighting doors under siege fire.

 

[aspirine.6852]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"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.

 

Usually this tower has all the siege it can store. Many AC's on wall/stairs. Cata behind Door. Trebs on ramp. Tactivators on cooldown like they always are. 500/500 supps. Lets make this ideal for sups. Canons (lol) and oil are also available.

Catas on hill between keep and tower.

5 defenders and zerg fighting to keep T3 Bravost.

[Etheri.5406]

Sorry but if you can't 5v20 defend T3 ql with siege then you're trash. Even T2 should be easy enough to hold. Rams aren't even a possibility for 20 players. You have enough supply for 3 gens and 2 rams and it'd take forever. If one of the defenders cows before they build they fucked by default.

Proxy catas it is. Most places can be hit by various mortars, trebs, balistas from several places including hill, keep, qL itself and so forth without countersiege being easily removed. Removing countersiege will drain more supply, and if the players are split YOU JUMP OUT AND KILL THEM. (Oh wait defenders doing player combat xD)

 

There's at least 3 players on catas and possibly more on catas or gens. You're left fighting 5v10 open field in front of your keep, with the ability to respawn considerably more quickly and the use of mortars and them having to prevent damage on catas. This isn't even too bad of a fight to take; to be honest. If they get in, you close wall; shoot siege into lordsroom and considering they have to keep you out and kill lord, you have decent chances. You've delayed at least 10 minutes if doing this half decently, and if you do it well you can stall the assault several times in a row.

 

If its T0 then frankly, yes they should be able to ktrain it in a matter of 5 minutes if you cannot fight them. Why do you expect to defend outer non upgraded towers? Why do you expect to upgrade outer towers while you're outnumbered on the maps?

 

And after qL, next is what... Langor? If you can't defend langor you're monkaS.

 

If it's a zoneblob and T3 ql, between cow'ing when they get on gate (don't blame me if your primary scouts are too dumb to use treb or for expecting to def qL against a zerg without treb in it - its T3) - tadah half their sups gone. If it's more than 50 you can just build catas / trebs / balista's on the hill behind and spam those; as well as ACs inside. Past 50 players you can hit gens through bubbles as the bubbles only hit 50 players; same for rams. Despite gens you'll still kill the rams and the gens that are inside them...

If you disable ONE gen, you have window to kill them all without much difficulties. If you get freecasters on the ledge behind you can kill them with regular damage easily enough too. You can hit certain edges of the structure and hit players with splash damage avoiding the gens to knock them out of the bubbles; which is fairly easy to do from top / behind them.

 

If they get catas then you have invuln, defensive bubbles and you can easily stall several minutes through this. Then once they get in, you still get to close wall if wanted and shoot siege inside for extended periods of time + having zerg localised easy to kill with damage.

 

ITT : rangers expecting to kill zergs on their zerk longbow ranger. Just L2P.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> > @"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 .

 

Yes, there is... a lot of defensive siege you gotta deal with. A 30 man group with full supply has about 600 sups. It's pretty rare to see pug groups manage this. With some supply traps or cows, it goes down to 450 without much issues.

 

4 gens is 160 supply. 4 gens and 5 rams is fine for an outer tower, but not for an inner tower or keep against good defence. Then you're suprised people zerg keeps - except your siege monkeyism litterally makes it a requirement to blob you down.

 

"Chronomancer has AoE" ok then. 4 classes in the meta? I'm sorry there are 6 in blobbing meta, and the others are all part of roaming meta. If you think revs and weavers aren't a thing (they have plenty of non-projectile damage, like literally more than scourge for both) then i'm sorry but as i was saying - you don't know how fighting works.

 

This isn't a thread about zerg balance. This is a thread about siege balance. "I'm a ranger and I die 24/7 so I build acs" isn't a reason for ACs to be OP; and yes, defense and ACs are very OP. "They all play AoE sustainy zergs". NO SHIT; if you come on something like a medium tower near 3-5 acs you literally just die. Even if you cata it open, you get inside and you can't survive the general pressure.

 

YOU AND YOUR SIEGE MAKES PEOPLE PLAY THIS WAY AGAINST YOU. Either just realise you're weaker, lose and go down in tiers OR learn to play appropriately without relying entirely on ACs to win combat for you, and you won't have as much problems with population and general balance. It's the "we don't wanna fight or play against these people but we still wanna hold our objectives and win" attitude that gives you all the problems. You don't deserve to keep your structures if you don't want to fight the enemies for them. You deserve to lose them all.

 

50v15 I expect literally everything, including EBG and garri to flip after several hours. Not to keep outer towers and still spend 3 hours on inner keeps.

[aspirine.6852]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> Sorry but if you can't 5v20 defend T3 ql with siege then you're trash. Even T2 should be easy enough to hold. Rams aren't even a possibility for 20 players. You have enough supply for 3 gens and 2 rams and it'd take forever. If one of the defenders cows before they build they kitten by default.

> Proxy catas it is. Most places can be hit by various mortars, trebs, balistas from several places including hill, keep, qL itself and so forth without countersiege being easily removed. Removing countersiege will drain more supply, and if the players are split YOU JUMP OUT AND KILL THEM. (Oh wait defenders doing player combat xD)

>

> There's at least 3 players on catas and possibly more on catas or gens. You're left fighting 5v10 open field in front of your keep, with the ability to respawn considerably more quickly and the use of mortars and them having to prevent damage on catas. This isn't even too bad of a fight to take; to be honest. If they get in, you close wall; shoot siege into lordsroom and considering they have to keep you out and kill lord, you have decent chances. You've delayed at least 10 minutes if doing this half decently, and if you do it well you can stall the assault several times in a row.

>

> If its T0 then frankly, yes they should be able to ktrain it in a matter of 5 minutes if you cannot fight them. Why do you expect to defend outer non upgraded towers? Why do you expect to upgrade outer towers while you're outnumbered on the maps?

>

> And after qL, next is what... Langor? If you can't defend langor you're monkaS.

>

> If it's a zoneblob and T3 ql, between cow'ing when they get on gate (don't blame me if your primary scouts are too dumb to use treb or for expecting to def qL against a zerg without treb in it - its T3) - tadah half their sups gone. If it's more than 50 you can just build catas / trebs / balista's on the hill behind and spam those; as well as ACs inside. Past 50 players you can hit gens through bubbles as the bubbles only hit 50 players; same for rams. Despite gens you'll still kill the rams and the gens that are inside them...

> If you disable ONE gen, you have window to kill them all without much difficulties. If you get freecasters on the ledge behind you can kill them with regular damage easily enough too. You can hit certain edges of the structure and hit players with splash damage avoiding the gens to knock them out of the bubbles; which is fairly easy to do from top / behind them.

>

> If they get catas then you have invuln, defensive bubbles and you can easily stall several minutes through this. Then once they get in, you still get to close wall if wanted and shoot siege inside for extended periods of time + having zerg localised easy to kill with damage.

>

> ITT : rangers expecting to kill zergs on their zerk longbow ranger. Just L2P.

 

Ok and now someone perhaps that knows what he is talking about. ?

Btw if you have 2 on siege and one on shield there are 2 left to go out and fight 17. Nice odds. You just killed 2 players so that is just 3 on siege and shield now. Nice going General suicide. Any more tips from someone that clearly has not defended a single moment in the game? ?

[Karnasis.6892]

 

 

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> I'm sorry, but no. You do not get to defend with just acs. You literally do not deserve to keep them out. It should not take HOURS to force you to play the game. If it takes hours of breaking into a castle, players will straight log off. The population difference of 30v5 won't be noted; and you'll be happy you're an amazing defender despite not doing ANYTHING useful other than inflating your PPT so you can be outnumbered some more.

>

> It should be a DELAY. And yes, disablers allow you to delay. Going on ANY gate without gens means you'll get siege and treb and you cannot kill these. Building catas is still open to countertrebs, mortars and balis. Depending on location you can build defensive gens which draws out the siege for hours. Proxy catas with gens on inner again makes it literally take longer than it takes to upgrade yet at no point are you engaging in combat. Just prolonged siege warfare, which is incredibly boring AND BAD for population balance. You are the ones - by insisting you defend heavily outnumbered purely off siege - that maintain the population inbalance. And yes as you say "It's a tool to avoid fights we lose". Nobody cares about what you think about balance - this thread isn't about regular balance. It's about your server getting your kitten whooped and thus building siege like every other server in this game.

>

> Lose fight -> hide with siege while QQ'ing about meta / enemies / lame / ... then going "it's required, it should take hours to break into a keep". No, it is not. If you can't get a force to defend in a reasonable time of 10-20 minutes, then you very much deserve to lose it. So yes, you are bad. Every meta players cry about what is strong and what is not; and frankly it's irrelevant. Some things are better than others, and if you dislike that and / or lose to other groups you lose. Building ACs isn't an answer - and it only makes you go up against more cancer groups and numbers. If few defenders can hold a keep for hours without ever having to fight or abandon the safety of their keep; then frankly they will trivially hold it and the enemies will likely log off. You literally want it to take a full guildraid to flip a single keep... that's plain absurd.

>

> Lets see : you can fight and enter the tower as soon as you go low; you can build siege on supply depots and use guerilla tactics, you can kill siege using regular kitten skills, you can let them in and hold the choke, you can use tactics, you can disable, you can use stealth. "But I can't freecast on them from the wall" whooptedy kitten doo.

>

> Just learn to play, or go down to a tier where you fight other bad players. Don't insist on being exceptionally bad yet being rewarded for it. Mag situation is funny enough - aren't you saying you need to defend and PPT? Aren't you saying you're not capable of fighting any groups? You want to defend and PPT; but now you're upset mag is beating you... Hmh.

>

> If mag is capable of getting into your towers without tryharding for 3 hours per keep jsut because there's monkeys with siege going "haha i'll show these mag noobs!!! payback kitten!" then they might actually ktrain and go up. But frankly they see the 15 acs, log off or go hide in SM just like you hide in your structures and play your lame style except lamer and better. And you? You keep it in stand by constantly, 24/7, PPT'ing rather than ever improving at fights.

>

> At no point do you want to fight. Surely you'd be happier fighting other bad players - I mean amazing players who just don't run anything even close to meta and press random buttons because friendly casuals :)) - than constantly getting blobbed by mag struggling to PPT to more interesting matchups because they're bored to death of fighting doors under siege fire.

 

I have a feeling we'll see an increase of catas at walls (more than it already happens) and people will be upset (at any tier). But hey, you get what you want. I mean I doubt anything I've said will change anything, as the devs are doing these changes no matter what.

 

I'll try the changes when they go live and again maybe I was overreacting.

 

However, telling me to go down tiers because I'm bad is wrong. You don't know my play style, well you might after this post XD. Just because I'm advocating for ac's to be powerful doesn't mean I hide behind them all day. I do fight, I scout (occasionally), I roam, I havok. I just hate blob v blob fighting. It's boring, and if my server is outnumbered, it comes down to how many scourges do they have and do I have right now. Hence when outnumbered if someone starts attacking our walls/gates we throw up defensive siege. It's not usually there ready to go, and even if it's effective to stop a group from taking my keep/tower wall the first time, I can tell you I'm not hanging out waiting for them to return. I'm usually out taking camps, or hitting towers solo or with a small havok group and respond when swords pop.

 

I rarely zerg, because it's not interesting. Solo/duo/roaming can be. havoking can be. And I think that's why we have vastly different opinions on how siege should function. And I'm not saying the enemy shouldn't break in, I'm saying they should use strategy to break in and it's the people that just want to break in by placing siege right at the wall that are mostly upset by ac's right now. Also I understand rams HAVE to be at the gate, but I'm more talking about catas 2 feet from walls. Havoking has taught me a bunch of interesting places to put catas that aren't even close to to being countered by AC's, I mean balli's can probably do the job, but they are still designed to take out siege so I'm not upset by that XD.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > Sorry but if you can't 5v20 defend T3 ql with siege then you're trash. Even T2 should be easy enough to hold. Rams aren't even a possibility for 20 players. You have enough supply for 3 gens and 2 rams and it'd take forever. If one of the defenders cows before they build they kitten by default.

> > Proxy catas it is. Most places can be hit by various mortars, trebs, balistas from several places including hill, keep, qL itself and so forth without countersiege being easily removed. Removing countersiege will drain more supply, and if the players are split YOU JUMP OUT AND KILL THEM. (Oh wait defenders doing player combat xD)

> >

> > There's at least 3 players on catas and possibly more on catas or gens. You're left fighting 5v10 open field in front of your keep, with the ability to respawn considerably more quickly and the use of mortars and them having to prevent damage on catas. This isn't even too bad of a fight to take; to be honest. If they get in, you close wall; shoot siege into lordsroom and considering they have to keep you out and kill lord, you have decent chances. You've delayed at least 10 minutes if doing this half decently, and if you do it well you can stall the assault several times in a row.

> >

> > If its T0 then frankly, yes they should be able to ktrain it in a matter of 5 minutes if you cannot fight them. Why do you expect to defend outer non upgraded towers? Why do you expect to upgrade outer towers while you're outnumbered on the maps?

> >

> > And after qL, next is what... Langor? If you can't defend langor you're monkaS.

> >

> > If it's a zoneblob and T3 ql, between cow'ing when they get on gate (don't blame me if your primary scouts are too dumb to use treb or for expecting to def qL against a zerg without treb in it - its T3) - tadah half their sups gone. If it's more than 50 you can just build catas / trebs / balista's on the hill behind and spam those; as well as ACs inside. Past 50 players you can hit gens through bubbles as the bubbles only hit 50 players; same for rams. Despite gens you'll still kill the rams and the gens that are inside them...

> > If you disable ONE gen, you have window to kill them all without much difficulties. If you get freecasters on the ledge behind you can kill them with regular damage easily enough too. You can hit certain edges of the structure and hit players with splash damage avoiding the gens to knock them out of the bubbles; which is fairly easy to do from top / behind them.

> >

> > If they get catas then you have invuln, defensive bubbles and you can easily stall several minutes through this. Then once they get in, you still get to close wall if wanted and shoot siege inside for extended periods of time + having zerg localised easy to kill with damage.

> >

> > ITT : rangers expecting to kill zergs on their zerk longbow ranger. Just L2P.

>

> Ok and now someone perhaps that knows what he is talking about. ?

> Btw if you have 2 on siege and one on shield there are 2 left to go out and fight 17. Nice odds. You just killed 2 players so that is just 3 on siege and shield now. Nice going General suicide. Any more tips from someone that clearly has not defended a single moment in the game? ?

 

Wait, you have gens to defend against 3 players cata'ing? Ok surely you're stalling long enough. 3 catas + gens preventing catas from hitting against T3 wall is going to take a while. A while where the rest of them appearantly gets to tank more siege, trying to kill the catas? Nice, easy defense without even fighting.

 

Oh wait; the going out and fighting is incase you can't actually hit your counter siege, at which point you can just LEAVE THE SIEGE INSIDE and go 5v17. And if people die they can respawn and come back several times before 3 catas open a T3 wall. General suicide of 5 players on a few catas, where if the catas die you've succesfully defended in the worst case? Yeah I've seen plenty of servers do it. In fact i've seen 50+ players just jump to suicide on siege knowing they can't fight but they can die and clear siege.

 

But hey, what do I know. I mean only a few thousand hours in WvW; nearly 400k kills, every offense and defense achievement in the game. Barely played WvW.

I'm sorry but being exceptionally bad shouldn't be rewarded. If you're manning counter siege it either helps you stall, defend or kill them. Their catas shooting your walls don't do that. If your counter siege cannot hit, you can leave it and engage in the fight. You'll grasp how it works one day.

 

Being exceptionally bad at the game should not be rewarded. I've probably defended more objectives than you. Truthfully in general a 20 man PPT groups die suprisingly easily.

[Meetshield.1756]

One thing I noticed yesterday, a guardian was able to invuln / block / shield all the way through my 18 man group to our shield gen's and disable them. It happened 3 times I was telling all my guys to put him in combat, but somehow he was able to do it... So I don't think that should be a thing.

[aspirine.6852]

Well I am not sieging when it is not effective so of course I go out, but that was not the point of the situation. As you have read it was about the AC nerf that seems very unwarrented. Because in that scenario AC's were enterily useless. Even your condescending answer displayed that other siege is in fact stronger right?

 

[babazhook.6805]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

>

> > Going to an enemy tower and taking out a treb is offense. It faster using an AC then a balli.

>

> Completely false

> Just like the hammer weilding burn guardians. Why do you keep making these rediculous claims?

>

 

What are you on about? Taking out a treb at swt takes all of one AC and two people to build. It next to impossible for the enemy player to take it out from that tower. when you get one down below unless he comes down to get you. Why do you suggest otherwise if you have not tried it and what does this have to do with a Guardian?

You can build a balli in those ruins but if the enemy is throwing one up as well he can get it up faster while staying IN The tower and take your balli out. A Balli is harder to place so as to be able to hit an AC below .

 

Another tip, some people put up Trebs in SWC etc to hit bay. If there no countertreb able to reach you can take it out , very often with a Mortar while using the incendiary component while the Damage component does not work because the damage bit has to be dead on and the treb can be just out of range. This works remarkabley well when the enemy using Shield gens as well. I have seen people pull off a mortar using the blast version because "they can not hit the target" and swapped to incendiary and taken the target down. This also helps to flush the enemy out of the area of their trebs/gens allowing others to get in closer and wreck them.

 

This also works with Cows. A slow process to be sure but if you do have a counter treb up on the wall in Bay you very often can not reach the Treb in SWT. Switch to cow and the AOE can catch it.

[Strider Pj.2193]

This

> @"Meetshield.1756" said:

> Removing Arrow Carts from the game would improve the average pug's skills. They would learn that they can't just sit on the cart and wait for someone else to kill the Siege. However, Removing them is an unfair advantage to the attacker, so reducing effectiveness is actually the right move. Maybe this is enough of a nerf.

>

> I play on GOM we are always outnumbered, and I'm always frustrated by the 20 dudes I have dieing on the walls running arrow carts, when I need them to just jump off bomb and get back inside. If we did that instead of arrow carts we could kill the siege and save the keep. I end up having to switch to ele and do it myself over and over...

 

And this

 

> @"Meetshield.1756" said:

> One thing I noticed yesterday, a guardian was able to invuln / block / shield all the way through my 18 man group to our shield gen's and disable them. It happened 3 times I was telling all my guys to put him in combat, but somehow he was able to do it... So I don't think that should be a thing.

 

Seem to be in opposition to each other.

 

The guard jumps out, uses his invulns which have been around mostly since before xpacs, to hit disable seige.

 

That's what we want. Player engagement instead of sitting on seige.

 

Now, if the catas were built further away, you would have had time to hit him enough as you would have seen him coming long enough to prevent the disable.

 

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> This

> > @"Meetshield.1756" said:

> > Removing Arrow Carts from the game would improve the average pug's skills. They would learn that they can't just sit on the cart and wait for someone else to kill the Siege. However, Removing them is an unfair advantage to the attacker, so reducing effectiveness is actually the right move. Maybe this is enough of a nerf.

> >

> > I play on GOM we are always outnumbered, and I'm always frustrated by the 20 dudes I have dieing on the walls running arrow carts, when I need them to just jump off bomb and get back inside. If we did that instead of arrow carts we could kill the siege and save the keep. I end up having to switch to ele and do it myself over and over...

>

> And this

>

> > @"Meetshield.1756" said:

> > One thing I noticed yesterday, a guardian was able to invuln / block / shield all the way through my 18 man group to our shield gen's and disable them. It happened 3 times I was telling all my guys to put him in combat, but somehow he was able to do it... So I don't think that should be a thing.

>

> Seem to be in opposition to each other.

>

> The guard jumps out, uses his invulns which have been around mostly since before xpacs, to hit disable seige.

>

> That's what we want. Player engagement instead of sitting on seige.

>

> Now, if the catas were built further away, you would have had time to hit him enough as you would have seen him coming long enough to prevent the disable.

>

 

It's not difficult to stack stealth and disable regardless of range. Most players are too bad to disable and just man acs instead because they're generally effective enough. These changes are a buff to disablers -interactive stalling gameplay- and a nerf to acs which are mostly non interactive gameplay.

 

The counterplay is not "get a firebrand in combat" - what does that even do? And firebrands generally don't run invulns, and the main invulns they have don't allow them to throw disable. So you could've just used unblockable marks or anything else to prevent it ... or a single reflect. The real counter to disables.

Even if you sit straight on the wall, getting disabled by a guy that you see is a L2P issue. Not because he didn't die; but because he succesfully disabled despite you seeing him. 1 scourge oncorruptive poison cloud and tadah.

[babazhook.6805]

>Now, if the catas were built further away, you would have had time to hit him enough as you would have seen him coming long enough to prevent the disable.

 

There are a whole lot of players that just do not want bother with "setting up Catas at range" because it deemed "not fast enough". Starve a Keep of supplies , place trebs and Catas AT range and you can force a whole lot of people to leave that objective to come out and fight. I have seen many dozens of fights triggered on the Hill outside North Bay, in NEC etc because the enemy defending their keep with ACS has to come out to take that siege down. Once you bleed the keeps supplies down they have to "come out to fight" to open up a supply camp.

 

Catas at range also do more damage when the range greater. Even when stacked tight to an enemy wall people still use the shortest windup on the Cata that they can when you can in fact take it down faster by powering up the Cat longer before release.

 

I am firmly in the " a T3 structure SHOULD be hard to take camp" meaning an investment of time and resources. For every whine about ACS being OP because they allow such structures to be held too long by a smaller group fact that the larger group thinks "It takes too long" shows exactly where the real issues are , and it we the "we wanna flip this and move on" mentality. It the EOTM karmatrain mentality and has little to to with "wanting more fights".

[babazhook.6805]

>Here's the problem. PLAYERS ARE TRASH. If half your zerg is random meme roam builds who decide to add to a zerg, then they instantly get rolled... Yeah that's your own fault. You're playing a build that doesn't work at zerging in a style that's bad. Roamers should be able to stall a zerg and they very much are - and good roamers CAN fight plenty of zergs especially when defending by picking off tons of players without much difficulty too. But if you're deciding to "blob up" as roamers to defend; or if you think you should easily be able to fend off zergs just because you hate them; that's on you.

 

No HERE is the problem. Players are lazy and not interested in open field fights as much as they are interested in bags and instant gratification. They Zerg up because it the easiest and quickest way to flip a keep or tower or to defeat an enemy. It not about wanting fights.

 

Case in point . A single person being chased down by 10 or more from a zerg. Of COURSE that single person is going to RUN when facing such odds. That person will also very often turn to fight when the numbers chasing suddenly drop to 3 or less. Now if the larger group truly "wanted to fight" and not just a bag, why the chase with all those numbers?

 

Case in point , there equal numbers of players on a given BL with constant fights which one side loses at. They immediately call in for help and now have a 60 v 20 situation. That smaller group now avoids the fights.

 

As to your "players are trash" that fits both sides and not just those defending on siege. A GOOD group will take a t3 objectiv if they are well lead and know what they are doing. There are just as many TRASH players in those Zergs that can not be bothered trying to take out a T3 because a few people man ACs on the inside as there are TRASH players manning siege. When defending a structure against superior numbers I can tell in short order which groups trying to take that objective are comprosed of what you refer to as the "braindead" and which groups know what they are doing on intent on taking that keep. So if you can not take a structure with Superior numbers and the advantages of controlling the map, sources of supply and where wou will attack next then it ON YOU. You can just as easily flip the rest of the map as that smaller group tries to defend that structure simply by splitting up your zerg.