Siege Revisions

[SkyShroud.2865]

I am not sure which is more casual. A full mag server sitting in T4 or community guilds fighting in T1/2.

[Ferelwing.8463]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > > @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> > > > > @"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?

> > >

> > > The wall is there to stop you from walking in. If the wall is a "disadvantage" why on earth don't you jump down and fight htem outside if it's more advantageous? If "attackers" have an advantage as you claim in previous posts, why are you sitting inside your towers complaining about disadvantages? You choose to defend while saying it's a disadvantage - it is not. Only expecting to be able to freecast from walls is, which you frankly CAN do with acs and smart movement in most cases.

> >

> > Because I'm not going to be a free bag. It's pretty simple, I usually end up at the objectives first. RIght when they're being hit by an enemy team. If the group is small enough I'll engage them but only if I have close to equal numbers or a few people I know that will help me burst squishies and drop disables. If I don't have enough people, I'll still use disables but I'm not going to run into the enemy like an idiot. If the group is large then I'm building siege and doing annoying things like disables/ and supply traps at the chokes of nearest camps if I can sneak in. I put up AC's because Bali's are mostly useless. (You can use them at ruins to take out a treb and you can sometimes use them in the DesertBBL). I also have trebs, catas etc put up but their placement isn't really as useful either. I put catas near gates to smack rams because you can live longer doing that then if you are standing anywhere near an oil. The walls are AOE zones of pain and most defenses on them are pretty worthless. (Outer) Inner is a different matter completely. If you'd read anything I'd written afterwards you'd note that I do delay tactics till reinforcements can make it. If reinforcements aren't coming, I'll fight rather than just let the Keep go down and I'll use whatever tactics I have there. I prefer to scout and skirmish, I hate blobs/zerging etc. I choose to defend because it's a freaking Keep and I probably spent most of my day guarding camps to get it to whatever tier it's currently at. I am on at the off-hours so sometimes I have to choose to retreat rather than to engage (usually back to inner). Not everyone gets to be on when their server has prime-time. Some of us are "extra coverage" and if there's a few of us I'll jump into the enemy to disable the siege or start trying to damage it. I'm not a passive user of an AC unless they've completely outnumbered me and then it's only to get them to back off the siege long enough for me to disable it. More often then not I just pull back to inner prep the tactics in case of emergency and call out on map/team periodically with the state of the outer wall/inner wall. Most commanders don't come till the outer is down (sometimes they'll come with it nearly down).

> > >

> > > You state "inner is easier than outer". That's only true if the defenders are, how to say this, really bad at the game. Inner and lordsroom are both harder than outer, by a long shot. However most defenders are, as stated, really really really super duper bad. Half the time they'll waste almost all supplies repairing outer and randomly sieging. I like how in another post you also state "sometimes players pull tactics early and you lose the objective". I'm sorry but that's massive learn to play issues which SHOULD be punishable.

> >

> > I'm pretty sure I said outer and meant outer is easier to take then inner. Outer is always easier to break through because the Aoe pain train that can get you at the walls. It's a bit more difficult at inner and it should be.

> > >

> > > You want players to "drain the supply". In the past, supply was used for upgrading AND sieging. You gathered it a lot slower (no auto upgrades, dollies, ...) and so forth. In the current state, when prime starts most servers in EU have 2-4k supply on their border. Draining supply literally takes longer than the entirity of EU prime time. It takes longer than a guild raid if defenders aren't fully wasting it repairing outers.

> > > So truthfully, a long siege the way you want is something which doesnt' happen because it's exceptionally boring and only promotes defenders. But hey, "attackers have the advantage". No they do not - defenders are just bad players expecting to be rewarded for it. If you dont have the coverage to stay in a tier you need to lose objectives, PPT and go down. Not be rewarded for shooting ACs with bags and PPT, only to further enable the population differences.

> >

> > So, you've never taken all of the camps then killed the yaks. Then killed the people running to the keep to with supply from other keeps/towers? You've never dropped supply traps along the way to the keep that the enemy is trying to protect? You know to drain their supply? Seriously? You just let them keep resupplying? No wonder you have this problem with Tier3 Keeps. You've never continually bombarded the walls on outer and inner forcing them to repair? Or are you talking EBG which would make that kind of play difficult since everything is closer together and it's a lot harder to kill the stragglers running to keeps/towers? If you're talking about EBG, then switch maps and get tier 3 keeps elsewhere.. It's not that hard.

> >

> > >

> > > Defenders who insist on defending structures while heavily outnumbered (and often outskilled too, to be frank) are the reason we have the population differences. The reason people do not bother with T3 keeps unless they have a massive blob or hte walls are already open is because against half decent defenders it is futile. It takes hours and there is absolutely no goal or reward. Defenders can play their PPT game while avoiding all combat, at all times. Lovely for carebears, but unfortunately most commanders and pugs won't bother.

> > > And when 3 defensive PPT servers match up? Half the borderlands T3, half EB T3 and during prime it's constant defensive siege fests where nobody can attack... anything, because they lack the skill, resulting in a 5 hour stalemate on primetime and PPT being won by the 20v5 off prime.

> >

> > Please, I've defended and killed groups twice my groups size. Not from hanging out on AC's but from knowing how to split them and kill their squishies. I scout and skirmish, I'm not a fan of the "run at the blob with my blob" kinda fighting. I like doing annoying things like tapping the enemy keeps (all of them) and taking all their camps before I start attacking one of their keeps. I'll drop paper siege at enemy keeps to hold them tapped . Sometimes I'll drop paper siege down a line so that the guards have to come kill multiple pieces (that holds the keep tapped longer). I will even go onto other maps and drop siege to tap there as well. I'm often alone or with a small group of people when I do this... Geez, just sounds like you're not trying hard enough or trying something different. I've flipped tier 3's with less than 5 people before. While the enemy had us Outnumbered. If you don't back off the first time you attack something but keep going for it you will eventually drain the supply at the keep. Especially if you've got roamers killing yaks and keep the camps from being flipped for the Keep you want to take. If you keep the enemy keeps tapped then they're going to have to run to where you are vs easily getting there. That's where you station people to kill the reinforcements straggling in since they can be carrying things like "supply". If you keep pounding on those walls they will eventually not have enough supply to stop you. If you tap keeps all day and people get used to the idea that it's just "tapped" you can take a keep because no one is bothering to look anymore.

> >

> > >

> > > The idea of draining a keep isn't a thing anymore. You can run sups from EOTM and a million maps. The amount of supply generated has massively increased; and if defenders aren't insanely bad at the game they can use supply considerably more sparingly than attackers; often in 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. Expecting "supply to be drained" just to OPEN a keep with defenders who cannot (or will not) contest you any way outside of siege is absolutely absurd and the reason so many players would rather log off.

> > > I'm sure you enjoy shooting your ACs and getting occasional bags for the entiretly of primetime, but most of us do not.

> >

> > Lol, and now you're making assumptions. I don't spend all day on AC's. I only head over to a keep to check it if it's crossed. Otherwise I'm flipping camps, walking yaks, finding skirmishes. Taking enemy camps/towers/tapping enemy keeps etc... During prime time I'm causing havoc not hanging out on an AC.

> >

> > I also have been known to run to other maps that commanders aren't on to tap all of the keeps on those maps forcing someone to have to check them and checking response times. All I keep reading is "I want to blob, fight, and blob some more. I want an easy ktrain not have someone who doesn't want to engage with my blob." Yeah, I won't engage with a blob if I'm solo (that's suicide) but I might kill the stragglers and I will always kill their yaks and try to hold their camps and sentry's. It's called strategy and causing trouble.

> >

> >

> > > Keep in mind in that "4-5 hour prime time" is the most active WvW on both EU and NA. And no, not a single sane person will go drain a keep unless you're making a statement to the PPT pleb servers that frankly, even with 5k supply, their T3 garri and a queue'd map on prime they still lose at their own game. And it takes what... 1 hour to upgrade garri back to T3 ? It's literally faster to upgrade it than it is to flip it.

> >

> >

> > 1 hour? Really? You've obviously never done this before.. If you own ALL of the camps and have double yaks running plus escorts the fastest is 3 hours. You have to have 20 yaks till tier 1, 40 yaks till tier 2, 80 yaks till tier 3. If you double stack yaks you can do it in 3 otherwise it's a lot longer. If the enemy team kills yaks or flips camps during that time frame it takes even longer. Towers are shorter periods sure but a full keep? That's a LONG TIME commitment for the people who are trying to get it up there.

> >

> > >

> > > Sorry but the 4-5 hours primetime on EU have more kills and action than the 24/7 coverage wars of NA simply because you bother playing slow siege PPT wars which are exceptionally boring. It has lead to major population balance issues in EU; where pure "defense" servers can NEVER fight open field against stronger servers, but consistently win PPT by nightcap and pure avoiding / defense (despite also having numbers because prime) around prime time. It has also made it that there is no link between player skill and PPT; only a link between how badly you wanna PPT like a monkey. A person manning acs 5 hours a day is just too "useful" for their skill.

> >

> > I don't play on an EU server, though I do live in the EU. It still just sounds like no one is bothering with the tactics of how you take something. I don't like blob fights/ktrains or other pointless running at the enemy for hours on end. I do however enjoy scouting, skirmishing and coming up with strategic ways to take something that I shouldn't be able to.

> >

> > >

> > > You say population balance is the issue; yet you again demand / expect to defend keeps 10 v 50 for several hours. THIS IS WHY THE POPULATION INBALANCE EXISTS. Because the PPT / scoring system does not work, because defense is heavily overpowered. Yet you have the audacity of saying defenders have the advantage, rather than realising there's just nobody in the game that wants to bother with tanking your acs to fight your walls and gates for several hours while being shot by ACs for 1 champion bag, knowing you'll flee as soon as your wall is breached.

> >

> > I said population is part of the problem.... But apparently no one bothering to keep fighting over a keep because it wasn't an easy cap seems to be your biggest problem... I've prepped taking a keep for 4 hours then took it with 5. It's not hard, you just have to be prepared to actually keep doing something till you succeed. If you back off after your first failure and you don't keep going then that's a matter of not bothering to hold to a strategy and it sounds like you want a free ktrain vs an actual battle.

> >

>

> Let's start by plain falsehoods and lies.

> It does NOT take 3 hours minimum to upgrade a keep. Most keeps upgrade FASTER than towers, because they have MULTIPLE camps that feed them dollies. Garries have 3 camps with dollies from both sides on NC. If you hold these 3 camps with packed dollies it's vastly under 3 hours on all maps. On desert BL you can upgrade garri from flipping to T3 in under 1 hour if you hold all three relevant camps. The idea that it's possible for towers but NOT keeps shows a major lack of knowledge for skirmish / roaming.

 

.... 3 hours is the fastest I have ever managed to get a keep to tier 3 period., That was with 5 of us holding all of the camps and running double yaks. I don't know what the hell your talking about. Do you EVER actually do "Keep upgrading"??? Seriously? Add in that most of the time you CAN'T hold that camp long enough. The majority of the time there are maybe 10-15 players MAX on a Borderland vs EBG with nearly at max population. Unless the enemy is just lazy or there are no Roamers anywhere on the map then you will lose camps and have to come back and back-cap them. I spend quite a lot of my day taking back camps that the enemy took as soon as it came off of RI. It's a constant thing not a "sometimes" thing. I also run into enemy roamers constantly as well (which is fun)... It's a weird day (usually when a LW drops) that I don't have to constantly take back camps or try to stop enemy roamers from taking camps/yaks/sentry's.

>

> The idea that you are "fighting" by continuously ppt'ing. I'm sorry but if these were "fights" that we enjoyed, we'd go for htem for hours. But it's not a fight; it's a drawn out siege war and at the end i still do not get a fight. I get some karma with no reward, and whatever I flip will be upgraded AGAIN by the next day without fail. You think desieging a keep is a fight, I do not. You think hitting a door is a fight, I do not. Karma trains are also not fights.

>

If you want to fight, hang out near camps... Just sayin' that's where the fights are. But you're talking large scale fights and not skirmishes.. That only happens when two teams battle it out for a keep. Usually after one team breaches outer. You COULD fight over camps but most won't bother even though it doesn't have ANY walls. I think EBG might have a few more fights at camps vs Borderlands but that's a comment for another day.

 

> A fight requires other players to use SKILLS in an attempt to KILL me. Not stop me from sieging their stuff. Not dissuade me from attacking their gate. Not hit a gate while getting hit by acs. Not pressing 1 on rams or golems or catas. We love the COMBAT of the game. And by all means I'm all for strategic gameplay, if there is a point to it. If draining a keep will get me fights. If opening the inner garri will get me a fight. If getting into T3 sm lordsroom gives me a fight.

> But the reality is it does not. Most defenders give up when you get into inner, rather than lords. The moment you CAN come near and kill them, they port to spawn because they'd rather not give you bags. So what do I get for sticking with it for hours, which i've done countless times? Some karma? Another keep flip ? Sorry I have the WvW achievements, all of them, and more than 10 million karma. So unless my server is aiming to hard PPT to get to a certain matchup, there is no point to doing it. It's just done to show defenders we can, if we want to, and that we're better than them. And then we let them flip it back and log off, because they LIKE this boring gameplay and we do not. And it's so heavily favored towards running away and defending, over attacking, that frankly population and skill are mostly irrelevant. That's why you see "fight servers" unable to go up, and heavy PPT / siege / defense servers in T1 despite having negative KDA even in T2 and T3.

 

 

Oh so what you really want is to see who has the best armor and most players spamming AOE and not who can out-think and out-play the other team. Got it... Nevermind. What I want is someone who can out-think me and out-play me not someone who has the bigger group full of AOE spam.

>

> All I'm reading is "I run away when I can't win, gank and roam abit and a zerg shouldn't be able to touch me". I like to fight - not just blob, but fight. And it's not possible in WvW to force fights anymore. It's the same as you describe when you attack. "I flip a T3 with 5 players on outnumbered map" Great job, but if those players cared at all about fighting you you'd not have flipped it. I'm not INTERESTED IN FLIPPING OR DEFENDING STUFF BY ITSELF. I'm interested in OBJECTIVES for their role towards BALANCING FIGHTS. So if you backcap stuff without players bothering to even defend... Yay but this doesn't sound fun to me; just more fighting doors and siege and avoiding players. I mean "fighting tactically" ;). I get you feel like you PPT well, I'm sure you do. I fight well, but that means you just "won't feed me bags" and run away, then try again later. Forever. And you will win in PPT as I'll log off after you run away the 5th time, go up against stronger servers and complain about their numbers. I would be able to fight the stronger servers even outnumbered, but I can't PPT up there because full siege players playing their way.

 

I never said a Zerg shouldn't be able to touch me but if I play it right it should make them have to be better at it than I am, not just run me over because they have more cc/numbers. My job is to keep things, your job is obviously to take things. If neither of us are happy I suppose Anet is doing their job. Right now though it seems to be that you think that anti-personnel weapons shouldn't exist and you shouldn't have to think of ways to get around them or ever have to face them. While I say, I should be able to protect a keep that I spent most of my day upgrading etc long enough for reinforcements to come wipe out whomever wants to come for it. I didn't say it needed to be forever but I should at least have some tactics that work as intended. AC's should work on People. Bali's should work on siege. Bali's don't work on siege because LoS. Ac's did... Now they don't, but they didn't fix Bali's. So for all the whining about capping, do you get pissed at your own team for spending the time to protect your keeps and locations? Or just the enemy?

>

> I've killed groups 2 or 3 times our size too. Not by picking off their squishies. Simply by coordinating gameplay. You know what happens when you 15v40 karmatrain zerg twice? Oh right, they also go hide inside their objectives and shoot you with siege :) And pre HoT, we'd be able to open towers and force some fights in our disadvantage (outnumbered and their tower) but they'd fight. Nowadays they'll genuinely, genuinely, just spam ACs and make sure to avoid combat until you're bored, you leave and then they'll karma train.

 

Oh I never said I didn't join in with a commander I trusted. I just said that most of the time I'm not on during a prime hour so there's not that many people to coordinate with. I have to "out-think" my opponent more often than I would if I were on during a peak-hour. Honestly, I find peak hours rather boring because it's blob on blob attacking. Sometimes when there's a commander that uses strategy I'm right there but most of the time it seems to be endlessly running at an objective and pulling off if the initial attack didn't work, then running to the next one. Which is completely pointless and lazy. Especially when if they didn't give up so easily they could prevent supply from getting in and force things. My favorite fights are the ones where multiple angles are being attacked and I have to figure out the best way to use my resources and calculate how long I have to hold before a Commander/group can get here to help or whether or not I'm going to fighting at Lord and probably losing the Keep.

>

> Supply traps... Holy. Sorry but the map starts with 2-4k supply, of which 1-2k is pre built siege. Have fun! After that you need to... deal with T3 structures, 70 players on the map, kill them all, use your own supply for supply traps to prevent players from running supply from other maps, kill all dollies while contesting their stuff. For hours, with a lot of players and organised all because... You ran dollies for 3 hours?

> Or everyone logs out and says "screw this". Guess what happens? Right, the second. Your expectations aren't in proportion. It takes ONE OR TWO players to upgrade a keep, or even general mappressure being enough. You expect 50 players to take the same time to take the keep from you, despite you never engaging them in combat. SIEGE WARS ARE NOT COMBAT. And truthfully, most keeps upgrade OFF eu prime when it's exceptionally easy... Frankly half the time you can afk in a golem in a camp and kill one guy every 15 minutes; particularly at night depending who you're up against.

 

All I keep hearing is "It's not easy so therefore I'm not going to bother"... It's called a siege for a reason... And only having Lazy (really lazy or really bad) roamers will allow for AFK golems. It's not supposed to be easy. It sounds more like giving up without putting any effort into it. If it takes me 4 hours to take a keep, it takes me 4 hours. If I want that keep I will get it, I'll just keep going after it till I do and I will use every single strategy I can think of to manage it. If it happens sooner than that "yay" or I might feel bad because they might not have the players to respond. Either way, if you're not willing to put in the time and effort it takes then it's more a sign of "Wanting it fast and easy" vs wanting to actually out-think/out-match the opponent. That's not about "fights" that's about "easy". I've been in fights that lasted 2 hours over a keep, with two sides constantly coming in (we lost the keep obviously but we managed to push them off a few times, ok push them back towards outer walls but not fully out of the keep.. They won because they didn't give up and we couldn't keep supplying it without risking other keeps in other maps it was epic and I would do it again and again because it was fun). I've also been part of the group who was doing the same thing. 3 zergs in one keep all fighting each other to take it and the zerg that had the best strategy won.

>

> So the effort of 90% of the players is irrelevant, because you find your effort is more important. That's how it is right now - defending being exceptionally broken and very unhealthy, because defenders that like to PPT cause population inbalances by PPT'ing their server to places they cannot compete offensively, ever. It is the idea that you should be able to defend despite population inbalances just because you put some effort in that leads to these inbalances; after all you're "fighting" them 50v5 in PPT succesfully stalling for quite long (and often indefinitely) meaning the matchmaking system CANNOT TELL the difference. You're asking for more population inbalance, while blaming population inbalance, while playing a style that leads to more population inbalance.... It's cute.

>

 

Ok let me flip this around: The players who spend the HOURS it takes to build up keeps (you know the work that happens after the caps) and do all of the sieging and all of the scouting are EXACTLY the reason players like "you" know exactly where the enemy blob is at any given time. It's what alerts people like "you" to who is at the keep and where the fights are. It enables people like "you" to wp to other keeps so that you can respond to enemy blobs or go attack their objectives and makes sure that people like "you" have the supplies you need for your attacks on those objectives.. It is what enables commanders to know response times for enemies and how many are in various blobs/maps at any given time. However somehow because the enemy can do the exact same thing that members of your own team offer for yours... Those players are "the problem" and shouldn't exist. It's almost as if you resent the people who are willing to put in HOURS to do something that you find "tedious". That's all well and good but if they didn't put in all that work, you'd have some really long runs. Or maybe you just don't care about those members of the team and think they shouldn't exist either? If that's the case... I wouldn't want to be on your team.

 

 

> "Just sounds like nobody is bothering" FINALLY you're grasping it. No, we do not bother to sit playing siege wars for 3-5 hours of free time only to be invalidated by the actions of 3 players during off-prime. Because 50v50 fighting over objectives is impossible at this point - you people want to defend 50v5, not 50v50. Yet it doesn't stop whatever side loses from hiding inside their structures permanently. And smaller groups can't flip them, so they usually get upgraded and stay upgraded easily enough off-prime so most sides have some T3 stuff during prime. The result? Barely any fights and action.

> The funniest part? Still more action, by a huge margin, than NA. PPT / Siege heavy gameplay isn't enjoyable for most of the population, is currently vastly overpowered and is unhealthy for both the balance of the game and population balance itself.

 

So you're bored, find something else to do.. I dunno take over a camp and play "King of the Hill". Or maybe try something that works on other servers rather than insisting that everything needs a nerf because you've yet to figure out a way around it. Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done or that it's overpowered. Or I dunno maybe try defending a keep through multiple siege encounters with different strategies used and see what works against you or figure out what could be done to stop you from doing said method. Sometimes the act of doing something teaches you how to counter it.

 

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> I am not sure which is more casual. A full mag server sitting in T4 or community guilds fighting in T1/2.

 

I am not sure which is more hardcore. ~~Writing~~ Typing pages of off topic stuff or complaining about people being off topic that ~~write~~ type pages.

 

D:

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > I am not sure which is more casual. A full mag server sitting in T4 or community guilds fighting in T1/2.

>

> I am not sure which is more hardcore. ~~Writing~~ Typing pages of off topic stuff or complaining about people being off topic that ~~write~~ type pages.

>

> D:

 

I am off topic but I am not off conversation which means another person is off topic so....maybe you tell that person not to go off topic in the first place?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > I am not sure which is more casual. A full mag server sitting in T4 or community guilds fighting in T1/2.

> >

> > I am not sure which is more hardcore. ~~Writing~~ Typing pages of off topic stuff or complaining about people being off topic that ~~write~~ type pages.

> >

> > D:

>

> I am off topic but I am not off conversation which means another person is off topic so....maybe you tell that person not to go off topic in the first place?

 

I did once, and they seemed to have recognized it. Sadly I am not hardcore enough to try the others nor was I really referring to you. Just using your comment for a reminder at best all while self deprecating me.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> I am not sure which is more casual. A full mag server sitting in T4 or community guilds fighting in T1/2.

 

The community guilds in t1/t2 surely. No doubt some of them are very nice people but all the ones I've ever had the displeasure of playing with have been absolutely atrocious at the game. The problem with any guild that practices open recruitment whether they call themselves a "community guild" or not is that they inevitably get all the people who can't hack it anywhere else and so they're always filled with the worst of the worst of the worst.

[Ferelwing.8463]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> > And I fight 1v1 or 1v2-3 a LOT during that time because Roamers are always taking camps /yaks and sentry's. It's not a "walk in the park" and it's not a boring Ktrain where I pointlessly rush into an enemy blob and hope my blob doesn't just evaporate etc.

> >

> > I'll scout, I'll check things and I spend a LOT of my time with upkeep. It's not glamorous but it's fun. While YOU might like the ktrain/blobtrain mindlessness, I don't. I DO however enjoy out-thinking the enemy at an objective and I do love taking a tier 3 solo or with a small group after spending HOURS of prep time on it (tapping it over and over again till the enemy is numb to it). I spend TIME doing things, I don't just join a large group and expect to "insta-cap". I want that long battle if there's a blob. If they win I want it to be because they had superior tactics not just more people than me. My favorite moments have been when it's 2v1 group at a Keep. The group with the best tactics wins usually. It's kind of fun, sometimes I can repel both, sometimes I can't but the fights are epic. What I don't enjoy though is ktrain nonsense and blobbing nonsense. If there's not strategy it's boring.

> >

> > But then again I've shown I'm not in it for the quick battle, I'm in it for the long term portion. You know, what happens AFTER that "cap" and then I like to make sure it won't be back-capped. It's people like "me" that make it possible for people like "you" to actually wp around the home bbl or to other maps Keeps. It's people like "me" who alert people like "you" about an oncoming battle or pass along the information about response times to a Commander. It's people like "me" who tell people like "you" where the enemy blob is that you wanted to fight.

> >

> > While that might not be fun for "you" it is fun for people like "me".

>

> You don't think there's any strategy involved in fighting other players without siege?

 

Yes, it's called stack up, use AOE's and be in the right position... Rinse, repeat, do it again.

 

There can be some strategy, swing around smack the tail and kill the squishies as fast as possible. Or Split the group in half with a wedge if you have enough tanky members and supportive members. But with all the AOE cancer it's less about tactics and more about who has the most AOE spam to kill the other. Sure there are sometimes when the tactics are awesome but more often then not it seems to involve "run at the enemy, turn, run at the enemy." over and over again till one side has no one left. I don't find that particularly fun nor interesting. I'm not judging just saying that it's not my idea of "battle" nor is it my idea of "fun". For me a battle involves using the terrain (Desert BBL is awesome for this but it's rare ANYONE ever tries it) for or against someone. Using choke-points, supply removals etc to whittle down or hamper the enemy. Or taking away their supplies and forcing them to have to come out and get some. Either with use of trebs on keeps or catas on walls etc... Hold the camps make them eventually have to come out. Can't turtle forever if you have no supply and if you can make them waste supply on all maps, even better. Get another group to go to those maps and force further supply waste so that the enemy has to make a decision about which keep they're going to save.

 

Running at the enemy over and over again, isn't really all that interesting to me which is why I don't play that way.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > I am not sure which is more casual. A full mag server sitting in T4 or community guilds fighting in T1/2.

>

> The community guilds in t1/t2 surely. No doubt some of them are very nice people but all the ones I've ever had the displeasure of playing with have been absolutely atrocious at the game. The problem with any guild that practices open recruitment whether they call themselves a "community guild" or not is that they inevitably get all the people who can't hack it anywhere else and so they're always filled with the worst of the worst of the worst.

 

So, a full server sitting in T4 is not casual, amusing. Also, a lot of guilds exercise open recruitment, not only guilds that claim themselves as community guild. You really like a walking cassette of fuds.

[Israel.7056]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> So, a full server sitting in T4 is not casual, amusing.

 

They're not that's why the server stays on full even with zero coverage outside of NA and why your server probably stays at medium despite having pretty solid coverage it seems. I'm sure the double link doesn't hurt either though.

 

>Also, a lot of guilds exercise open recruitment, not only guilds that claim themselves as community guild.

 

Yes that's what I just said.

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> Condescending much? Apparently you didn't read the rest of my paragraph only the first part. You know the part where I described SOME tactics that can be used but aren't super viable in the Scourge spam pain train.

 

Yeah I read it but it just reads to me as a very low resolution take on GW2 combat. Like you've watched some fights, maybe done some fights but your take on it is pretty shallow imo.

 

>I also think people who wear squishy builds probably shouldn't be surprised if AC's kill them fast *shrug*. You chose to be squishy, you die. It's not that hard to understand. It's not PVE where you're supposed to burn through things and never have to worry about defensive stats. If you want to build squishy then if you die that's on you.

 

With enough ACs firing into the same area one can kill anyone regardless of gear. But the reason people play what the play is because it's effective against other players. Zerk isn't the meta because it's just as easy for many classes to kill people in full mara or even better full trailblazer and way safer too. Arrow carts aren't crowding out zerk gear, trailblazer and minstrel are.

 

> You forgot fighting other people whose play styles happen to be like mine and you forgot that irritating thing called scouting and telling irritating whiners like you where the fights are when they complain that they have zero idea where the enemy blob happens to be because they're so busy running in a giant blob themselves that they have no idea where the enemy goes if they wp to a different map. Or warning your blob that the enemy blob is about to flank you. Or you know doing other things like tapping the enemy keep so that you can keep taking things and they have to run from spawn to get to where your blob is.

 

That's great stuff but you could do all that without any siege whatsoever. You don't need siege to scout or tap a keep.

 

> Oh, and how our "useless skills" make it so that there is a Garri for your "super special" group to wp to when you need supply or to come kill the enemy blob that wp'd to that map in the first place. After you lost them on whatever map they were on last time. You know, so you don't have to run the whole way from spawn to catch all those "amazing" fights. But hey, way to act like you're "super special" playstyle should be the only type supported or respected.

 

I'm sure you'll still be able to do all that. You might not be able to stall people as long with acs so you might have to get your hands dirty and fight someone. Don't worry they probably won't be running zerk gear.

 

> Pardon me for not wanting to join a blob and be part of a group of lemmings. (Not all groups are like this but having been linked to several servers now the lemming mentality happens quite a lot). Perhaps you're lucky and have groups that actually bother with tactics rather than trying to blob everything down with sheer numbers vs tactics but from the way you're complaining it sounds like your part of the blobbers-r-us group who don't want to have to actually WORK to take something but want it to just roll over and give you whatever. I mean heaven forbid that our team be allowed the chance to respond to an enemy team when we took the time to level up the Keep that we probably papered from their team previously and if they couldn't be bothered to keep trying for it when it was still paper then that's their fault. Not mine.

 

Yeah that's smart, try to move the goalposts, make it about me, super tactical and strategic. Unfortunately for you your whole litany of posts in this thread reads to me like someone who knows they've been getting hard carried by acs for years and is now trying to find any rationale possible to justify the tools they've become so reliant on. They read like someone who is extremely worried that they might not be able to super strategically sit on acs to protect to keep the t3 keeps that they spend so much time and effort super strategically running yaks into.

 

Personally I don't think these changes go far enough and I think people like you will find the effectiveness of ACs mostly unchanged. But I'm glad to see that you're worried, that means we're on the right track.

 

[aspirine.6852]

The whole zerg vs scout/defend part is a bit weird. As a scout or defender I need them more than they need me. It's just that very good scouting will allow them to be on time for the big fight, and not scouting will for sure mean no fight at all since many servers port to waypoint after the cap. So while I dont like it as much zerging for now is still needed.

And no I still do not agree with the AC nerf to siege, I am fine with the nerf to players.

[Hackuuna.4085]

Is 0.5s per arrowcart hit significant of a change? It's not often that I'm being hit by more than 2 ACs per second other than if I'm on a ram.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Hackuuna.4085" said:

> Is 0.5s per arrowcart hit significant of a change?

 

I dunno for sure yet but I dont think so.

[DaVid Darksoul.4985]

LOL, arrowcarts have become the necros of siege. No sir, do not like thesechanges at all. Hell, I think maybe buffing siege by letting it damage scale off operators power/condi levels was in order for siege. Also how about considering a flamethrower cart that has same range and number of targets as an arrowcart, weakens and damages gates and siege, removes condis from allies.

[DemonSeed.3528]

> @"DaVid Darksoul.4985" said:

> LOL, arrowcarts have become the necros of siege. No sir, do not like thesechanges at all. Hell, I think maybe buffing siege by letting it damage scale off operators power/condi levels was in order for siege. Also how about considering a flamethrower cart that has same range and number of targets as an arrowcart, weakens and damages gates and siege, removes condis from allies.

 

I remember actually at one point siege was scaling with condi dmg and not power and it was changed. I think that may have been sometime in 2k16. I could be Wong though.

[X T D.6458]

> @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> > @"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.

 

The problem is that it would give an advantage to one side, the Outnumbered "effect" should not be used for that. It is of course frustrating to try to defend something when outnumbered. This change will make it a lot more difficult for sure, especially since siege has more hp, and good luck with golems lol. I would prefer they decrease the damage against players and increase the damage against siege. My problem with arrow carts has always been that players just sit on them instead of fighting, they should be more of a defensive tool rather than an offensive crutch.

[Aeolus.3615]

Players need to learn how to avoid siege, issue is players dont want to and want to proxy everything and out sustain every thing.

[hunkamania.7561]

When is this happening? What was the point of this post if you're not gonna do anything anytime soon? AC's are still OP. 11111111111111111111111 for the win

[aspirine.5839]

> @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> When is this happening? What was the point of this post if you're not gonna do anything anytime soon? AC's are still OP. 11111111111111111111111 for the win

 

One tip, easy enough. Do not stand in the red circle..

[joneirikb.7506]

> I agree. I don't think this is going to increase any actual fighting, The biggest problem is population.

 

The biggest problem is actually people/humans/players. If they don't want to, no matter what changes you make, they won't. And as long as so many are afraid to die in the game (For some reason, hurt pixelz!) it's not going to happen.

 

Add +100% participation and WXP on physical combat in the game, it might help a little bit.

 

---

 

Regarding the AC, can only mirror an earlier comment that the AC should have very low base damage, but come with a damage multiplier per target it hits. That way it would actually be a weapon that does next to nothing against low numbers, and hurt like a truck against large numbers. An actual weapon that would work against outnumbering enemies, and actually HELP smaller numbers, without letting the zerg use it better back.

 

(Ironically it would make it a better tactic to attack a tower/keep with small numbers to open up, then send for the blob)

 

---

 

I think WALLS in this game does need a re-design. Make them a bit wider, so players have a safer zone at the rear where they can fall back from the pressure in front.

 

Also, change the walls so they're slated like a step cliffside on the outside, instead of the straight drop they are now. This would create some distance between the players on top and bottom, and help angling weapons from the top. This would make it so players can't stack up into the wall where they can't be seen or hit by players on top of the wall.

 

(Also with these changes, make a own mini platform for the pre-built siege, and place them further back, so people doesn't stand in the cc/pull/aoe spam when using cannon/mortar/oil etc. With the gradual walls it should still let them target stuff outside.)

 

Unfortunately this would require changes to the map/art and stuff, which is something ANet generally don't like. It might also cause problems with a few towers/keeps that have awkward positions already, near cliffs etc. Air Keep might end up extending so far out, there wouldn't be space to walk along the cliffside outside its walls a few places.

 

[DaVid Darksoul.4985]

Not bad ideas joneirikb. Unfortunately anything that would make defending better is off the table with Anet. When players in zergs can't steamroll everything they get upset with the Commander, can't have people work too hard in this age of free stuff and instant gratification. WvW guild members are 80 percent zerglings with the rest being serious players that roam and defend as well as conquer. Anet needs to listen to the majority, be bad business not to. Also although its a practical idea, building walls to protect anything is deemed evil now a days, lol.

 

[babazhook.6805]

> @"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

 

This is just too easy.

 

First setting op an AC at the bottom of SWT is quicker then running to the top of the ruins to set up a balli but then you knew that for 4 years. In fact we recently flipped SWC when bay out of supplies and gettings its walls bombed by group in SWT. One part of out group went to throw up a balli in those ruins. I dropped an ac under the tower. We had the TREB down before the balli even built. We even got a fight out of it as the people manning the tower jumped out to fight us. There are other areas where taking out defending siege can be down easier and quicker with an AC. For example there a place on Garri where you can hit inner siege with an AC and ake it out wherein the only way to touch it with a balli is when the walls down.

 

Next up your "You must take Defy Pain " as a warrior. So this has been eating your craw for the past 6 months and you STILL have not figured out how to work a warrior without using Defy Pain? Just out of curiousity I checked the Metabattle site for the first time in 6 months and wouldn't you know it. A pile of builds with no Defy Pain in the warrior builds. This includes one in WvW where "defy pain" listed as optional, this build rated at 100 by that community. It looks like others have figured it out where you have not as yet. I will continue NOT using it on my own warrior. It works fine.

 

Next up you claim that I suggested people play a Burn Guardian using Hammer. Here is your chance at redemption given you have struck out twice. Present the link to the post where I made such a suggestion.

 

 

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

A lot of stuff

>

 

I'll repeat this again. It does not take near 3 hours to upgrade every keep, most take significantly less time. It's not my fault it takes YOU three + hours because you continuously lose camps. Obviously losing your camps will add a lot of time to it; nothing that prevents you from sieging those too. It's not like players don't already do that.

 

Then you go "you'll get fights in camps!!". Do you think we're going to a T3 objective if we'd get a fight for the CAMP? I know this sounds crazy to someone who enjoys walking dollies, but if you kill players once or twice they won't come back and run to fight you again. You gottago attack their stuff so they come fight you again.

 

"Persons with best armor win" What on earth are you on about? It's GW2 and the impact of armor in groups is always going to be lower than during low-man roaming and havoc. "I don't like spamming AoE's without outthinking" he said, as he demanded to 5v50 defend by his superior AC strats. By the way, the only defense thing that is nerfed is ACs which are LITERALLY huge AoE spam from safety, and they are getting nerfed against ... mass spam by adding an ICD.

 

So... You don't like AoE zerg spam yet you're unhappy about your AoE spam siege getting nerfed. Please get a coherent argument and not "mum my acs".

 

I'm not upset about attackers or defenders. I'm upset about exceptionally bad players trying to replace combat with siege to make up for their lack of skill. I don't mind bad players, that's ok. And I don't think they should just get farmed 24/7 either, that's also OK.

But going "I realise I'm really bad at fighting so I will play a style that avoids fighting completley and still expect to win" is a terrible attitude. Spamming ACs to make up for a lack of skill should not be promoted.

 

I'm not saying remove acs or objectives or camps. I'm not saying ban scouts. I'm not saying get rid of dollies, etc. I'm just saying ACs and defense in general needs nerfs compared to attackers because they can stall too long, too easily without any skill whatsoever. "You don't know where the blob moves with me !!!!" lul.

 

I play on a server where I expect roamers and zergs to have a rough idea of how the game works. Where you need BOTH, to do THEIR JOBS in order to reach your common goal (which is NOT necessarily winning because you need to avoid PPT matchups at all cost to be able to play.) And it's not the job of 5 roamers to "defend" against 50 players. Their job is to scout it proper and stall so players can arrive to defend.

But the moment I see our PPT roamers build 123123 acs on SM just to gank players from around the structure and fend off any half organised 30 man group with ACs + 50 clowns from inside sm? Then expect me to tag, get half the map on me and ... accidently lose SM by being on the wrong side of the maps - WHOOPS.

 

I'm sure that'd make you exceptionally angry, but I can't promote players sitting on ACs to make up for their complete lack of skill.

 

I see not a single argument in all that stuff you wrote why ACs shouldn't be nerfed. Not one. A lot of arguments about how you think you're better than players that zerg, about how defense takes a lot of strategi and effort and you're really good at it. Nice. It won't go away with acs being nerfed, all that stuff will still be there and the strategy aspect ever so slightly MORE important.

 

So what exactly is the issue with nerfing siege?

[Etheri.5406]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > I agree. I don't think this is going to increase any actual fighting, The biggest problem is population.

>

> The biggest problem is actually people/humans/players. If they don't want to, no matter what changes you make, they won't. And as long as so many are afraid to die in the game (For some reason, hurt pixelz!) it's not going to happen.

>

> Add +100% participation and WXP on physical combat in the game, it might help a little bit.

>

> ---

>

> Regarding the AC, can only mirror an earlier comment that the AC should have very low base damage, but come with a damage multiplier per target it hits. That way it would actually be a weapon that does next to nothing against low numbers, and hurt like a truck against large numbers. An actual weapon that would work against outnumbering enemies, and actually HELP smaller numbers, without letting the zerg use it better back.

>

> (Ironically it would make it a better tactic to attack a tower/keep with small numbers to open up, then send for the blob)

>

> ---

>

> I think WALLS in this game does need a re-design. Make them a bit wider, so players have a safer zone at the rear where they can fall back from the pressure in front.

>

> Also, change the walls so they're slated like a step cliffside on the outside, instead of the straight drop they are now. This would create some distance between the players on top and bottom, and help angling weapons from the top. This would make it so players can't stack up into the wall where they can't be seen or hit by players on top of the wall.

>

> (Also with these changes, make a own mini platform for the pre-built siege, and place them further back, so people doesn't stand in the cc/pull/aoe spam when using cannon/mortar/oil etc. With the gradual walls it should still let them target stuff outside.)

>

> Unfortunately this would require changes to the map/art and stuff, which is something ANet generally don't like. It might also cause problems with a few towers/keeps that have awkward positions already, near cliffs etc. Air Keep might end up extending so far out, there wouldn't be space to walk along the cliffside outside its walls a few places.

>

 

That AC change will have undesired side effects.

 

It's not unheard of to not res the players who die to ACs early on, just so they can't rally the players during first engage once you break in. So if AC damage goes up with the amount of players getting hit, why would I even bother ressing at all? Just let 30 pugs die and the decent players you have remaining will be perfectly fine. We already have this "natural selection" type; but at the moment we want to RES our allies most of the time. If your proposed change works as you suggest, then frankly I will intentionally kill the 20 weakest players when attacking upgraded objectives by going into damage and telling my guys not to res. I don't think this is healthy for the gamemode.

 

Current changes propose nerfing the target cap to 25. Perhaps it'd be better to reduce the damage and leave the target cap. That makes it less effective against smaller groups and more effective against big blobs. In general, increased damage on siege has always lead to bigger blobs. This is because it's REQUIRED to have bigger blobs to just deal with the siege in the first place. So buffing siege as anti-blob weapon rarely worked out mostly because it was done badly.

 

The last change also doesn't work. You can make walls broader, but this will just make EVERY wall safespace for ACs and other siege which is incredibly unhealthy. After all, you can place unkillable gens on top of the walls which counters trebs and catas; and acs on any and every wall which counters any close-to-wall attack. Tadah, towers permanently safe because defensive siege is impossible to deal with.

The other change doesn't even work. If you change the slope so players can attack down, then attackers will be able to LoS UP. This could improve things marginally; as defenders get the full width of the wall to kite over (rather than just the edge, limiting their space and thus the places the attackers need to cover); but also makes it easier to hit siege. It's LINE of sight. If defenders can hit down, then attackers can hit up. Obviously you can hit places where you dont' have line of sight through overlapping it with AoE; but that's quite limited.

 

Players need to realise the ADVANTAGE in these fights comes from SPACE. When standing on top of a wall, there is very limited amounts of space you can hit the enemies from. As a result, it's easy to cover that space and puts defenders at a disadvantage when just standing on top of walls refusing to engage. The moment the wall or gate goes down, this changes completely and defenders get a massive space advantage. They're just usually too disorganised to abuse this space advantage.

[pete.4835]

i feel like you should leave AC alone. ive never thought of them as OP. they are most times the only way to defend and usually if players are good they are just a sway to delay the inevitable unless help arrives. the rest are good changes