Strider Pj.2193 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"babazhook.6805" said: > >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". Catas at range have the same damage per second as one against the wall. And less dangers to it. Agreed that people just don't want to change. But the AC change and the shield gen changes were both good and needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sviel.7493 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 On one hand, I wasn't expecting any substantial siege changes before the rapture, but on the other, I'm not sure I can be excited about this. Reducing AC damage to players is probably fine. Reducing the target cap is also probably fine. Their original stated goal (which has not been updated?) was to heavily punish a large mob. They can maybe still do that without being so obnoxious about it. I'm more worried that their damage versus siege is now effectively about 25% of what it once was. This is because Anet doubled the health of all siege without changing damage values (they later gave the first ballista skill double siege damage) and have now reduced the damage to siege by 50%. There have been other AC damage tweaks along the way that will change the final number somewhat. What this means is that the only serious siege defense against proxy catas and rams is now defunct. The siege won't die and the players won't either. Given how walls act as a force multiplier for the offense, this means you need _more_ people defending to stop a ram/proxyCata attack than the offense brings. It boggles the mind~ I have always advocated for the ability of a small team to break a large structure even while evenly manned provided they spend some time on it and execute well. I have always been against them being able to do this automatically. The Shield Generator change is good. I've suggested it numerous times since they were implemented and, obviously, am glad to see it become a thing. However, given that something so basic that caused such a complete inability to interact with enemy siege took this long to fix, it doesn't feel like a victory. Unless I'm mistaken, this means Anet saw it was a problem and changed it...but was just not looking or paying attention in the many months (has it been years?) that it was in place. Still...good job, Anet. This key bit of agency is almost enough to tempt me to log in. The Oil change is good, but I'm not sure it matters. I don't think it's fair to look at Oil vs. Blob to try and balance things--it's fine if wall siege is hard to man versus a blob. A better scenario is Oil vs. Havoc. The damage reduction will be useful, but with more pulls being added all the time, Oil just isn't going to do much. At the same time, it's fair to shift the Stability responsibility to other defenders with skills or Shield Gens. The chief gameplay against Oil should be killing it from out of range--not murdering the person operating it. The Ballista change is pretty useless because Ballistae are pretty useless. They can't hit rams or proxy catas and they lack the range to contest long-range catas or trebs. This is somewhat remedied on DBL because you can flash build Ballistae and use the terrain to prevent instant destruction (ie: firing across the chasm above firekeep to kill trebs near SWC), but it in no way brings Ballistae up to the level of 'a good and useful anti-siege tool.' --- Here's hoping that 'may do additional changes' results in additional changes. The net effect of this move is that siege offensive siege play didn't change much, but defensive siege play took a huge damage nerf. On the other hand, it is now potentially possible for the defense to hit offensive siege that has multiple shield generators defending it. On the metrics of havoc play, only the AC nerf is applicable. Offense wins out. On the metrics of blob play, the AC nerf is ambivalent and the Shield Gen nerf takes blobs from invincible to impregnable. No major shift here. On the metrics of outmanned defense, the AC nerf is devastating and the Ballista buff is barely noticeable. Offense wins out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"babazhook.6805" 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? > > > > 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. You didn't mention swt in your first post but so be it. It's faster to eliminate that treb from the arena with a ballista. > Why do you suggest otherwise if you have not tried it Did you think this was a new discovery? It's a 5 year old tactic. and what does this have to do with a Guardian? That was about you giving hairbrained build advice to new players about a class you hadn't even played. I don't forget, apparently you do. I also recall you advocating no endure pain on warrior.. A veritible wellspring of bad ideas and common knowledge. > 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 . An AC by the trebs counters your AC below in addition to player skills which can hit it, the ballista is successful more often. Also 5 year old knowledge. > 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. A VERITIBLE WELLSPRING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"babazhook.6805" 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? > > > > > > > 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. > > You didn't mention swt in your first post but so be it. > It's faster to eliminate that treb from the arena with a ballista. > > > > Why do you suggest otherwise if you have not tried it > > Did you think this was a new discovery? It's a 5 year old tactic. > > and what does this have to do with a Guardian? > > That was about you giving hairbrained build advice to new players about a class you hadn't even played. I don't forget, apparently you do. I also recall you advocating no endure pain on warrior.. A veritible wellspring of bad ideas and common knowledge. > > > 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 . > > An AC by the trebs counters your AC below in addition to player skills which can hit it, the ballista is successful more often. Also 5 year old knowledge. > > > 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. > > A VERITIBLE WELLSPRING Added to this, if the ballista by the arena isn't an option because of a counter one in the tower, I've built a guild cata where the ballista can't hit because of line of sight and been able to hit both the ballista and the treb. Much simpler as the AC, Cata, and the ballista all need at least two people. And if you are running small groups without Guild catas, you're doing it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shagaliscious.6281 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"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. Get a firebrand to use shield 5 or courage tome 3 when he goes to throw the disable. There are a few classes that can invuln/stealth right next to siege, and go for the YOLO disable, I do it all the time on my Ele. Projectile denial is the only way to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubi.4136 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 I feel like these changes, plus the alliance changes (if they happen), is just going to turn wvw into even more of an eotm tower swap/ktrain. Sure, some people may defend, but they will eventually learn better, join the roaming, unstoppable blob on it's grand ktrain adventure. Alliances can just coordinate and take turns flipping borderlands and EB, so they don't see each other. All offense, very little to no chance at defense = fast ktrain flipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warlord.9074 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 when is these changes coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > @"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. How many is a "zerg" in this case? What offensive methods are the attackers using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Leaa.2943" said: > Were i like the changes overall and also on ac's for keeps and towers it is very one sided. Attackers can aoe walls and take out siege with meteorshowers and torch 5 on necro torch they can pull you 300 times even from the bottom up over the wall. With that in mind it is not uncomon that some defense are made with maybe 15 people defending against 70 and they become very much powerless with the changes since they still have to deal with aoe and constant pulls condi and what on top of walls. > > I understand that the changes are made for the stuff that do not need coding, but still it is very one sided and favors attackers. In the end there should be a scaling involved. If you defend with 15 people again 70 you should do a lot more damage with siege then if you defend with 70 verse 70. Agreed, this seems to be an even bigger advantage for large groups attacking vs the usually small groups of defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"babazhook.6805" said: > > @"Tammuz.7361" said: > > Great changes, especially to ACs. Will hopefully encourage more actual PvP combat instead of people relying too much on siege during peak hours. > > I do not think this will lead to more PvP. The reason many people fight "defensively" is because they are generally outnumbered on a battlefield. They might have 15 guys against a zerg of 40. They are not going to engage that group directly unless they just want to act as bags. When the ability to defend a structure removed that smaller group will jus move to another map where they can join a larger or backflip places they feel they can take before the blob arrives. > > Without changes to the population imbalance It my opinion the number of battles open field will in fact drop. I agree. I don't think this is going to increase any actual fighting, The biggest problem is population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"babazhook.6805" said: > > @"Pagan Highlander.5948" said: > > As for the cannons and Oil, I agree with GDchia Scrub, Cannons and oils are still pretty much useless unless you have good protection/stability. This need to be not only for them, but players on the walls. Why is it they can be insanely pulled off the wall, but we have to stand on the edge just to be able to fight back? Walls are supposed to be a major obstacle and DEFENSIVE advantage, yet everything is to the advantage of the attackers. at the very least, maybe make Window ports or shields that allow players to put up a defense. ANET seriously needs to get it Devs off their butts and come see how bad WvW really is. We need more defensive capabilities, not less. > > Agreed. One reason Castles were so hard to take historically is that the ranged fighter on a castle wall had a tremendous advantage over those below. They were much harder to hit and target with ranged attacks. In the game it in fact a liability. The enemy atacks can arc up over and out of the LOS of the player initiating the attack. They can pull you down off the way even without a LOS and the defender can only respond by jumping onto that lip to fire back. Agreed. One of the biggest problems I've run into when defending against a large group (holding till reinforcements can get there) is that you can get hit or pulled without even seeing who it is doing the pulling/hitting. Having the AC's at least gave a fighting chance against it and gave the ability to hold till reinforcements came. Putting down Catas and Bali's were kind of useless unless you could get the right angle. I'm not a fan of 7 catas take keep and with the current problem of tactics being pulled right before someone comes to a keep... It's just going to make matters worse (in my opinion). > > One reason AC's were so heavily relied on was that you could at least stage them back from the walls edges and did not need a direct LOS to hit an enemy. Without changes to Cannon/oil mortars the changes as proposed are too harsh on defenders. > Agreed again. I don't really see anyone bothering trying to be on a cannon/oil/mortars unless they're on EBG (and even then only at garri's) due to the problem with pulls from out of Line of Sight. > Cannons need a damage boost IMO. If someone is to suicide themself by manning one , they should be rewarded. Alternatively another mastery can be added that provides stability for XXX seconds when used. Yeah! It would be nice to get stability or at the very least make them hit harder since you're going to get pulled into the zerg below and cc'd to death. > > Burning oil needs quicker refresh times on the skills. It rare to get more then a handful of usages off before all the AOE saturating the area kills you. Again agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Jski.6180" said: > I like to see these in action before saying if they are good or not. I just hope the Ballistas can hit siege a lot better then what it dose now LoS destroys this siege so badly. This is why i was looking forward to a placsable mortar being part of the siege kit sadly this never happen. > > When are these going live? Having a placeable mortar would be nice. It would also be nice if cannons, mortars and oil granted stability or something to prevent the cc, aoe pain train that comes manning them. It's pretty much suicide to man them during a siege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Kitta.3657" said: > I like the outlook of these changes and I am looking forward to see their effect ingame. > > To those who still complain to this day about attackers trying to counter them sitting on arrow carts: use stability and learn how to properly place siege, this is entirely a player issue and not a game issue. I NEVER get pulled on walls or die to a wall bomb because I keep my awareness up. Besides as was previously mentioned you aren't meant to hold against enemies that triple or even quadruple your numbers!! You should be delaying to get reinforcements. Structures should not be impenetrable because 15 players just want to sit on siege inside of it and I find your viewpoint to be what causes a lot of boredom in this game mode. It's harder when there's no LoS, map awareness is fine (I rarely get pulled on an ac) I get pulled if I'm stupid enough to man a cannon, oil or mortar kit but when I see crossed swords on a keep and I find no one bothered to refresh the siege? Sometimes using what I have as a delay tactic is faster than trying to run sup to build new siege (though sometimes I'll just fall back and siege up the inner rather than bothering). I like to roam but also keep an eye on keeps (wait for reinforcements etc). I don't however enjoy endless zerging or ktraining. That to me is boring. And yes, it would be nice if there were some rewards for "winning" (I'd personally like cool skins but that's me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"X T D.6458" said: > Changes look good but I am cautious about a few things. The nerf to damage against siege from arrow carts will really hurt outnumbered defenders. Does the ICD on ac damage mean the same arrow cannot hit you during that time, or does it apply to attacks from all arrow carts. The change to shield gen domes not blocking treb/cata shots anymore (at least thats how I read it) will encourage groups to use proxy catas which will be easier to do now since arrow carts will do a lot less damage to them. The reduction to damage against siege by arrow carts is probably the most problematic part for me, especially when combined with shield gens and you make it impossible to defend or stall. > > Anyways, very happy to see a focus on changing siege mechanics. I am so fed up with seeing towers and keeps littered with arrow carts and other siege all over the place, and watching entire map blobs sitting on siege rather than fighting. I kinda wish there was a buff to ac's or other siege during outnumbered period. It's a such a pain when you're outnumbered to try to hold till reinforcements get there and it's so frustrating trying to hit certain cata spots with bali's. Ac's just were more useful. I dislike the constant ktraining and zerging personally. I like the fights that involve strategy, my personal favorite was choking off supplies for keeps while hammering on their walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > I have the feeling that arrow carts will become actually worthless. We'll see how it turns out > > Hopefully this turns out to be the case. I dislike that period. I hate being outnumbered and trying to hold a structure as it is, with the nerf holding the structure till reinforcements gets there is just pointlessly harder. I am personally sick of the ktrain mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Kovu.7560" said: > > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > Sure, if you decide to stand right above the zerg..... > > Or you could pre target the shield gen, jump down the wall to the side, off load your damage, run away. > > You have unblockable 1500-1800 range afterall with tools to escape easier than most classes. > > When you put yourself in combat and there's a group of 20+ likely containing at least some of thieves, mesmers, warriors and other rangers you had better hope there's a gate/portal nearby or a safe ledge to glide off of. Moreover, one burst won't destroy a shield gen and they'll be expecting you the second time. > > I'll stick with unblockable disablers. > > ~ Kovu Same. You can't burst a shield gen in one go, you have to go at it a few times. It's much better to just disable it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"somewhatobsessed.6309" said: > Nice, this will make defending objectives even more difficult and pointless, once again giving attackers the upper hand. It would be far more expedient at this point to simply remove all structures to facilitate the open-field blob fights everyone is so keen on. Maybe they should create a whole new map just for that kind of combat *sigh* then those of us who like to defend things or level up keeps/towers etc can have our stuff and the people who just want to bunch up and run at each other all day can do that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Clownmug.8357" said: > Go ahead and weaken arrow carts, don't want to make commanders think too hard about siege placement. Just let them hug walls with catapults and a massive blob. They won't even need shield generators anymore because there's no better protection than up against a wall where cannons can't hit and defenders get melted by AoEs. That burning oil mastery would probably be nice though if more commanders wanted to take unnecessary risks and actually attack gates. Lol, exactly they'll just stick to hugging the walls and since Bali's can't really hit them from there (Line of sight being what it is) defending outers just got unnecessarily harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > Are some of you really expecting to be untouchable on walls? Nah, I'd just like to be able to fight back on equal footing... In real life the defenders on top of a wall have an advantage (that's why the wall is there), in this game it's kind of a problem. No line of sight makes it hard to target so if the enemy is bunched targeting becomes a pain. Bali's can't really hit cata's if the cata is hugging the wall. Giving bonuses to the oils won't matter since few commanders actually go anywhere near them and those dumb enough to stand on them get pulled immediately into the enemy zerg. If there are 15 of us holding something waiting on reinforcements the last thing I intend to do is stupidly jump into a group of 40+ that's just handing out free bags. If I can be targeted without line of sight then I should have the same option back. So why is it fine for no line of sight from AOE abilities but AC"s (which don't require line of sight either) are now nerfed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Kovu.7560" said: > If people are seriously concerned about karma training, introduce some sort of diminishing returns for capturing the same types of structures in quick succession, reduce the rewards for flipping paper walled objectives, reward more to both attackers **and** defenders for _longer_ sieges/defenses and have objectives that don't take any damage during a skirmish tick for fewer points. > > As cheesy as shield gens have been for attackers, 15 arrow carts in difficult to reach positions behind a wall is pretty cheesy on the defending side of things, too. I'm glad they both got the nerf hammer. > > ~ Kovu Honestly, I liked AC's against things that I couldn't target (line of sight) . I hate it when attackers bunch up on a wall and then I can't hit them with a bali or cata, the only thing that worked at that point was an AC. Defending outer walls just got a bit more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Tammuz.7361" said: > > @"babazhook.6805" said: > > > @"Tammuz.7361" said: > > > Great changes, especially to ACs. Will hopefully encourage more actual PvP combat instead of people relying too much on siege during peak hours. > > > > I do not think this will lead to more PvP. The reason many people fight "defensively" is because they are generally outnumbered on a battlefield. They might have 15 guys against a zerg of 40. They are not going to engage that group directly unless they just want to act as bags. When the ability to defend a structure removed that smaller group will jus move to another map where they can join a larger or backflip places they feel they can take before the blob arrives. > > > > Without changes to the population imbalance It my opinion the number of battles open field will in fact drop. > > Dissagree, vs a fight server like vabbi its ridiculous the lengths servers will go to in order to dodge a fight even when they have numbers... often times we know this because we see that they have a queue on multiple maps and still avoid fighting us without at least a 5 arrow cart advantage. > > WvW should be about large scale pvp, not avoiding fights and ninja capping on borderlands where your enemy isnt. Or maybe they could just add a map specifically for that kind of fighting? I dunno... I like holding things but I also like roaming. I hate blobbing and ktraining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 That was a double post sorry./ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Etheri.5406" said: > > > @"aspirine.6852" said: > > Mortars only slightly because they are usually down in seconds a zerg comes along. > > You mean before a zerg can even touch a tower near a keep, you need to go clear several of the mortars and cannons while being shot with siege; giving defenders time to group and start defending. Depends on the server. Some servers will only defend 1 map (or will just ktrain over and over again). Others will never leave their keeps. Still others will try to move out take structure and then defend. I agree that it can be frustrating but clearing mortars and cannons doesn't take that long and with the recent bout of people pulling tactics right before a zerg arrives it's generally not always going to be possible for reinforcements to make it. Once a Keep is paper it's even harder to keep it. Add in that during off-hours defenders are often split between multiple locations and generally lose them all. > > > The ones in inner keeps are good. But try using the ones in desert BL. > > Each keep in desert bl has several spots where you can place unhittable ACs on the inner... I wonder howmany times I've been on desert bl to see a zoneblob hide inside T3 keeps shooting ACs and still refusing to come out. This kind of gameplay should not be rewarded. There is nothing that stops bad zergs from shooting ACs, and 15 players defending against 70 should be an outplay; not simply manning siege which literally cannot be hit. Yet that is what desert bl is. Not to mention, desert bl upgrades insanely quickly and an the lordsrooms themselves are a huge advantage for the defender. Desert BBL also has lots of locations that are super hard to see where the attack is coming from. Several times I've been at fire trying to figure out where we're being cata'd from only to run into the enemy who has already breached the wall. Reinforcements get annoyed when you can't shout out how many are at the Keep and what the state of the wall is. > > > And I am thinking about defenders scouts more because that is what I like more than zerging. > > That's fair; but defending is still a thing and is still very strong. Upgraded structures tick more and give several advantages, like waypoints and tactics helping your team. You'll just actually have a balance between defense and offense that's not as heavily favoring defense. Either way, the defenders have significant advantages over attackers. Even after these nerfs to ACs. I also like scouting, roaming and defending. I tend to be the person who first checks crossed swords areas and the person who constantly taps siege or places it. I would argue that it depends on the server and it depends entirely on population whether there is an inherent advantage to a defender (which by the way, there really should be considering that's sort of the whole reason keeps etc exist irl). Currently, attackers have the advantage till they get towards inner then the defenders have the advantage. You just have to hold long enough for reinforcements to get there and prevent inner walls from going down. > > > And right now you cannot even do anything to defend so I am wondering why you seem to think it is easy to do? > > ??? Right now defending is so easy it's a joke. The majority of T3 objectives are either flipped without defense at all, or people don't even bother. Looking at the alpine BL's for T1 eu, there's 4 out of 6 keeps that haven't been flipped in the last 2-3 days. These objectives aren't contested or leading to fights. People plain log off before bothering. Sounds to me like that's more to do with server population then it is to do with defensive abilities. Perhaps that's a difference, there are multiple tactics to taking a keep.. The biggest and best one being starve the people at the keep of supplies while constantly hitting their walls. If they can't repair, then you can use pulls and AOE to end defenders at the outers. Inner is always much more difficult (and it should be) but generally speaking if it's not a garri then it's far easier to take if you use the right tactics. Keep taking down supply chains and you take the Keeps. > > Defending gives you a huge bonus, especially for upgraded objectives. If you're truly more skilled but just outnumbered, you don't have issues defending your objectives. > And the average PPT blob isn't exactly well organised, focused and strong. But most defenders aren't either. Good gameplay should be rewarded; on both sides of the wall. Siege gives you an advantage, it's not a primary means of defense. Except you're forgetting that lately there's always someone who "helpfully" pulls all of the tactics making it difficult to defend said keeps. Maybe that's not a thing where you are but it's becoming increasingly annoying for some of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Ferelwing.8463" said: > Nah, I'd just like to be able to fight back on equal footing... Then get reinforcements, that's the point a lot of us are trying to make, siege is one of many other things to help delay an attack, but you still need people to counter an attack, and if you cannot muster enough people off of 4 maps then you lose whatever it is you're holding. Once the walls or gates eventually go down, your "5" isn't going to hold back that zerg anyways, your own zerg should be waiting by the time that happens or if not already pushed them out before the last thing opens. You guys just want to safely fire your acs on the walls to hold off entire zergs so you can hold your ppt. The 5 people that hold back small groups with siege is the reason why it escalates to zergs or blobs trying to take t3 keeps, and yet you still want to be able to out right hold off those zergs and blobs, let's not even mention how much worse it gets with an actual zerg defending and kittening out siege everywhere. Don't have the coverage? it's the way it is until alliances come in and help balance out time zones. If you cannot field enough players to fight your enemy then eventually you lose your stuff until you are able to, simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferelwing.8463 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said: > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? > > > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly. > > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things. Well Bali's are useless and so are catas most of the time. Sure you could try to treb but those feel like "luck" if they're not placed in a good spot. As for actual fighting? I doubt it, as it is most commanders won't come to a structure unless the outer is already down. If the defenders are at a severe disadvantage they're not going to wait around to become bags for the enemy. With the uptick in people pulling tactics before a zerg shows up... It's already a pain, I don't mind fighting but I'm not jumping in 1v 15+. Usually I'm the first at a Keep when the swords are crossed (sometimes there are two or three of us) at the point it's a judgement call as to how long we have to build siege (because people rarely refresh it) or whether we just pull back to inner, siege up and hope that the reinforcements make it in time. The only time you can be sure that someone is going to get there fast is if it's Garri otherwise the other keeps require you to find ways around the enemy zerg if they catch you, you're going to get cc'd and dead before you make it into the keep (ok not always, it depends on how many are in the zerg and how much they want a bag). Sure it's fine if the reinforcements are running but if the only people on the map are roamers it's a lot harder to defend. > > >It also reinforces zerk stat play because ac's really only hurt zerk stat players. > > Um no but also what's wrong with zerk stats? Because not all of us like zergs or ktrains. > > > If I see AC's and can't counter them I just build my catas further back > > Well maybe you won't have to bother with that anymore. > > Which is stupid, since AOE's can hit you even without line of sight. At least AC's leveled the playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now