Siege Revisions

[anonymous.7812]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> Will have to play it out. But a bit concerned since you can place ACs to reach most catapults, but that's not true about ballista. But if it is an issue maybe we can get a new ballista or AC ability that has a different cooldown that is anti-siege. We don't want to get back to a "there is no point to defending" state.

 

Hell ya brother, ballista shot that you shoot up in the air and it falls down on wall catas. Seems good.

[viquing.8254]

>Causing more structures to open up and open up faster. More potential for fights.

Maybe one day, fighter's pleb will see that the faster a structure open, the less fight potential it has.

I totally agree with that :

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> 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.

When I compare the current situation with before dezoom patch,

I just saw that WvW with easy structure cap =

* more blob and less fight because WvW can never have fight of the same number.

 

Whereas WvW with hard to cap structure =

* More strategy.

* Way more fights link to supply to cap structures than with 3 seconds blob cap.

* More player investment and motivation to defend and more reward to cap a structure (because you know it's hard).

 

Please anet keep in mind that in your feedback post, 75% of feedbacks came from casuals spam 1 blobs player who have no idea about the long-term consequences of what they want. (And when the game will be dying because of that, they will have no scruple to move out.)

Analyze requests with hindsight and 5 years of experience. Do not do "they ask it we do it" and if it's bad then we can say it's player fault. It's your job to sort out bad queries and game improvments.

 

[X T D.6458]

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.

[Euphorio.7293]

i applaud these changes. thank u anet!

[katniss.6735]

Yay, an improvement to WvW! Siege nerfs were very much needed. And the gravel shot buff is a good one, because it mostly did nothing unless someone didn't move. Thanks, Devs, for listening to seasoned players.

[TheGrimm.5624]

Agree right now we really do have reasons to go and defend the camps since its valid tactic to starve a structure where as in the world of flip them (towers/keeps) faster there is no reason to try and hold the camps. I think a good metric here will be the number of way-pointed keeps and how long they are way-pointed.

[Basharic.1654]

> @"Pagan Highlander.5948" said:

> I will try the new changes, however, I will say that I am against them. Those are fine for the Top tier where they are siege heavy andmapped queued most of the time. However at the lower tiers, these are huge detriments where you are usually outnumbered, outgunned, and easily outfought by Mag's blobs (A Tier 1-2 Serverhiding in T4 for kills. Just look at their insane KDR). In almost all cases, it is extremely difficult to get at and hit catapults up against your walls other then with Arrow Carts (With all the scourge bombs, its suicide to be on the wall). Thus you have mostly removed the only defense for a tower, especially if outnumbered.

> This will be even more pronounced and detrimental with servers without late night coverage. Crystal Desert can barely pull one map Queue during NA. This will just make them a total punching bag for all the other servers. Same thing will happen for the poor T3 server moving up into T2. This almost all favors the servers with the numbers of players. Unfortunately another case of ANET not looking at all sides of the issue.

 

 

Siege changes, especially to ACs, are sorely needed, we'll see if these help. As for your whining about Mag, get a clue. CD feels outnumbered in the big fights because even when Mag and CD both have a que blob half CD's group goes down in the first contact. There is a _**tangible**_ difference in fighting TC vs fighting CD. TC open field will still lose most of the time, but can at least make a fight of it. Most commanders on seeing a CD blob just push right into you without a second thought. Not trying to turn this into a matchup thread, but CD really needs to train its players to be better fighters.

 

FYI we were doing some heavy fighting on Mag BL vs TC last night and had no ques on any map. After that long, and fun, brawl over WK, when the EBG pin went back to EBG we didn't have a que. In NA prime. Many mag players are not going to be logging back in until something interesting happens in WvW again. All you are facing right now are the Mag die hards.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> 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.

 

But where they ever meant to even fill that particular role? Arrows? *Against wood*?

 

Fact is arrowcarts make it incredibly easy to sit in objectives and defend against smaller forces (ie a couple of catas or similar) because normal siege *melt* to acs and superiors doesnt fare much better without a 50 man saturating the area.

 

Hopefully this change means a little more dynamic anti-siege play than just doubling down on acs.

[Jerry CCH.9816]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> Hey folks!

>

> A few weeks ago we gathered some feedback on the current state of siege weapons. We've gone through the feedback and have come up with a list of changes. The changes below are the first group of them. We may do additional changes down the line, but these were some of the quickest we could do (didn't require new code/UI). Feedback is welcome!

>

> * You can no longer be hit more than once every .5 seconds by arrow cart attacks.

Ans: GOOD

 

> * Arrow Cart damage against siege has been reduced by 50%.

Ans: GOOD

 

> * The number of targets that can be hit by one arrow cart attack has been reduced from 50 to 25.

Ans: GOOD

 

> * Shield generators can no longer put domes on other shield generators.

*****Ans: Very Bad Change.** Shield generators NEED can put domes on other shield generators.

 

 

> * Shield generator domes no longer destroy unblockable projectiles.

*** __Ans: Very Bad Change__

 

> * Burning Oil Mastery 3 now also reduces condition damage. Damage reduction for both direct damage and conditions has been increased from 33% to 66%.

Ans: GOOD

 

> * Catapult Gravel shot now shoots projectiles in a fan shape.

Ans: GOOD

 

> * Updated Ballistas to make them more reliable.

Ans: GOOD

 

> * Slowed the velocity of Ballista's Greater Reinforced shot to give it an arc. This should make it easier to hit stationary targets (siege).

Ans: GOOD

 

 

[HazyDaisy.4107]

It's nice to know that now when 25+ people attack south Bay with 5 catapults and 2 generators, that I don't even have to worry about wasting supply building an ac, thanks I guess.

[anonymous.7812]

> @"HazyDaisy.4107" said:

> It's nice to know that now when 25+ people attack south Bay with 5 catapults and 2 generators, that I don't even have to worry about wasting supply building an ac, thanks I guess.

 

Kill the generators then kill the catas?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"anonymous.7812" said:

> > @"HazyDaisy.4107" said:

> > It's nice to know that now when 25+ people attack south Bay with 5 catapults and 2 generators, that I don't even have to worry about wasting supply building an ac, thanks I guess.

>

> Kill the generators then kill the catas?

 

Basilisk venom for unblockable siege disable. Hope you're good at stealth-ing on thief!

 

D:

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> Hey folks!

>

> A few weeks ago we gathered some feedback on the current state of siege weapons. We've gone through the feedback and have come up with a list of changes. The changes below are the first group of them. We may do additional changes down the line, but these were some of the quickest we could do (didn't require new code/UI). Feedback is welcome!

>

> * You can no longer be hit more than once every .5 seconds by arrow cart attacks.

> * Arrow Cart damage against siege has been reduced by 50%.

> * The number of targets that can be hit by one arrow cart attack has been reduced from 50 to 25.

> * Shield generators can no longer put domes on other shield generators.

> * Shield generator domes no longer destroy unblockable projectiles.

> * Burning Oil Mastery 3 now also reduces condition damage. Damage reduction for both direct damage and conditions has been increased from 33% to 66%.

> * Catapult Gravel shot now shoots projectiles in a fan shape.

> * Updated Ballistas to make them more reliable.

> * Slowed the velocity of Ballista's Greater Reinforced shot to give it an arc. This should make it easier to hit stationary targets (siege).

>

 

The problem with AC's wasn't their efficacy at handling large groups; it was that they were too effective against small groups.

 

Damage needs to have a much lower base value but also scale increasingly with number of players hit. Most zergs can literally out-sustain full AC fire from multiple AC's, while a few roamers stand absolutely no chance to survive. The change that's happening will basically remove the purpose of AC's or defense of anything for that matter.

 

The rest of the changes look good. Could be more for defense on burning oil, but they're a good start.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Pagan Highlander.5948" said:

> I will try the new changes, however, I will say that I am against them. Those are fine for the Top tier where they are siege heavy andmapped queued most of the time. However at the lower tiers, these are huge detriments where you are usually outnumbered, outgunned, and easily outfought by Mag's blobs (A Tier 1-2 Serverhiding in T4 for kills. Just look at their insane KDR). In almost all cases, it is extremely difficult to get at and hit catapults up against your walls other then with Arrow Carts (With all the scourge bombs, its suicide to be on the wall). Thus you have mostly removed the only defense for a tower, especially if outnumbered.

> This will be even more pronounced and detrimental with servers without late night coverage. Crystal Desert can barely pull one map Queue during NA. This will just make them a total punching bag for all the other servers. Same thing will happen for the poor T3 server moving up into T2. This almost all favors the servers with the numbers of players. Unfortunately another case of ANET not looking at all sides of the issue.

 

Here's two pieces of good news for you.

1. Mag isn't a tier one sized server. Over population doesn't mean high kdr.

2. Mag doesn't hardcore ppt like every other server, they even let you take their stuff. They're currently 21 points behind you.

3. Bonus point, relinks this week, maybe you'll get a bigger server linking.

 

 

> @"Kovu.7560" said:

> Rangers will still get murdered if they stand on the edge of a wall to shoot a shield gen. The _real_ benefit is if unblockable effects will work in tandem with siege disablers. If that's the case the in-a-small-area setup of x/x/x/shield-gen/shield-gen will get shaken up. (Though it already will if shield gens can no longer overlap each other with their bubbles.)

>

> ~ Kovu

 

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.

[Basharic.1654]

> @"viquing.8254" said:

> >Causing more structures to open up and open up faster. More potential for fights.

> Maybe one day, fighter's pleb will see that the faster a structure open, the less fight potential it has.

> I totally agree with that :

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > 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.

> When I compare the current situation with before dezoom patch,

> I just saw that WvW with easy structure cap =

> * more blob and less fight because WvW can never have fight of the same number.

>

> Whereas WvW with hard to cap structure =

> * More strategy.

> * Way more fights link to supply to cap structures than with 3 seconds blob cap.

> * More player investment and motivation to defend and more reward to cap a structure (because you know it's hard).

>

> Please anet keep in mind that in your feedback post, 75% of feedbacks came from casuals spam 1 blobs player who have no idea about the long-term consequences of what they want. (And when the game will be dying because of that, they will have no scruple to move out.)

> Analyze requests with hindsight and 5 years of experience. Do not do "they ask it we do it" and if it's bad then we can say it's player fault. It's your job to sort out bad queries and game improvments.

>

 

T3 structures + heavy siege are fight killers. You are simply lying if you say otherwise. Servers like TC and YB who will siege cap a structure, are specifically doing it to avoid fights because they know most players do not have the patience for the siege creep tactics required to counter the iron-walled cancer ball. So that means either Anet can nerf defensive siege or they can nerf T3 buildings. They went the easy and obvious route and nerfed defensive siege.

 

I suggest you pay attention to which maps have the most action, I guarantee you its not the map full of iron walls. Servers who like fights know a paper structure, with significant damage is one of the best ways to bait a fight.

 

Consider how much more poppin' EBG is when SMC is paper vs when it's iron. Paper means lots of lord's room/inner fights. T3 and sieged means two boring idiot balls between SM and the opposing keeps.

 

It's perfectly fine to have a few hard points on a map, but a significant portion of the NA player base has become obsessed with turtling, because it's easier to do than learning how to fight.

[Timelord.8190]

Nice. Now ppl can learn how to fight instead of just pressing 1-4 while hiding in towers.

[Optimator.3589]

Seems like a good start on the surface of it. Have to play with it for a while to really assess, but I'm just glad you guys are doing something about the situation. TY!

[aspirine.5839]

So instead of making them better you made them worse? Where is the logic there.

[Ceistebi.4023]

> @"Timelord.8190" said:

> Nice. Now ppl can learn how to fight instead of just pressing 1-4 while hiding in towers.

 

People will learn to fight when hiding behind 40+ person squads is no longer a thing. Defenders hiding behind an AC is a response to the absurd amount of blobs that run around these days. A group of 15ish players who are well versed in their class and a smart commander can take out a t3 objective with some patience. It's pathetic that defenders get blamed for simply trying to do all they can in order to save against blobs of way too many people.

[aspirine.6852]

> @"Ceistebi.4023" said:

> > @"Timelord.8190" said:

> > Nice. Now ppl can learn how to fight instead of just pressing 1-4 while hiding in towers.

>

> People will learn to fight when hiding behind 40+ person squads is no longer a thing. Defenders hiding behind an AC is a response to the absurd amount of blobs that run around these days. A group of 15ish players who are well versed in their class and a smart commander can take out a t3 objective with some patience. It's pathetic that defenders get blamed for simply trying to do all they can in order to save against blobs of way too many people.

 

And that is the reason I thought they would make siege a little better. But seems I was wrong. That burning oil change alone makes me think that they have no idea. That defense is not used at all unless you want to walk back from the nearest waypoint.

[viquing.8254]

@Basharic.1654 :

>T3 structures + heavy siege are fight killers.

This is not what I saw during these 5 years. There were way more strategy and open field fight before the dezoom patch.

 

>Consider how much more poppin' EBG is when SMC is paper vs when it's iron. Paper means lots of lord's room/inner fights. T3 and sieged means two boring idiot balls between SM and the opposing keeps.

Iron mean more supply drain in BP's server tier. And EBG has particularity because of how structures can hit another.

Paper lord's room fight are only on prime time (2 hours per days.) but that probably the differences between NA and EU WvW.

 

>Servers like TC and YB who will siege cap a structure, are specifically doing it to avoid fights because they know most players do not have the patience for the siege creep tactics required to counter the iron-walled cancer ball. So that means either Anet can nerf defensive siege or they can nerf T3 buildings. They went the easy and obvious route and nerfed defensive siege.

The question is : Is it better to have fights in structure or fights in camps (aka open field) ?

In the first case, that implies defense nerf with easy victory for bigger blob, less investment in structure.

In the second case, that implies better defense when out-numbrered, the result will be less blobby fights, supply revaluation, more psychologic reward when you cap a structure because it was a long strategy, more investment from defenders and so on.

 

 

 

>It's perfectly fine to have a few hard points on a map, but a significant portion of the NA player base has become obsessed with turtling, because it's easier to do than learning how to fight.

Actually no structure can resist if out-numbered.

 

BTW there are probably more differences between NA and EU than I first thought.

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

Lower the AC damage on players, instead of siege, or lower both around 20% each, aswell as lowering the cap on players. Unless getting hit once every 0.5s is a significant enough change to make arrow carts strong against players, defenders shouldn't be penalised, especially when it comes to defending a heavy siege on a keep or tower while outnumbered.

[Adamarc.7463]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

>

> * Shield generators can no longer put domes on other shield generators.

> * Shield generator domes no longer destroy unblockable projectiles.

 

 

Will the shield generator still be able to put a dome on itself? That's one of the things that makes them really overpowered right now.

[Kitanin.8394]

> @"Kitta.3657" said:

> It's called awareness, if you think you can fire away and not be touched and not have to react to an attack, that's your fault. I see a zerg moving close to the wall? I get off the AC pop stab get back on.

 

And then six seconds later, your stability has run out, you can't gain more stability because you're on siege so your utility skills don't work, and the zerg still has ten people firing cc at you.

 

Wow, it's an idea so obvious it was suggested years ago, and the problem with it was apparent to a lone skritt (years - 6 seconds) ago!

 

> If I didn't see it? I have a stun break which you should have in WvW (and a lot of them come WITH stability) and I can use it so I don't fall off the wall.

 

Yes, and now I've broken stun, but I'm not on the siege anymore, and even if my build does have long-range attacks the damage is meaningless compared to the horde shooting at me! And I'm standing in fire! And chilled! And poisoned! And tormented! And now I'm feared, because six fresh fear wells beat five stacks of stability! Stun break again! Still burning and chilled and poisoned and tormented and now the people who cced me the first time have hit me again! Repeat until I run out of stun breaks/stability.

 

Again, congratulations on your remarkable insight that is truly innovative and not at all copied directly from the cardboard pages of a slightly-chewed copy of "A Progeny's First Mist War".

 

> There are easy and obvious ways to deal with your issue and you are being stubborn in not learning how to handle it better or pretending that these solutions aren't at your disposal.

 

Or, you know, we've been doing them since 2013 and outside of whichever magical kittening server you're on where there are 15 defenders per keep instead of the two defenders per map that we've got, they provide at best six seconds on the siege, and ten seconds total.

 

And now the only piece of siege that might, on occasion, do enough damage in those six seconds to make it through the enemy zerg's near-infinite pile of barrier and inflict an irrelevant amount of damage that will heal once they've downed you and go out of combat... is getting nerfed.

 

Yay.

 

> Put your AC at the top of stairs where meteor shower cannot hit you... Hello, safe spots.

 

Leaving aside the _directly observable in game_ fact that meteor showers cover the entire width of a wall with attached staircase (I know they don't flash like a discotheque, but meteor shower still leaves a red ring), so the only "top of stairs where meteor shower cannot hit you" I can think of offhand is at the NW gate of Bay where the zergs use catapult fire from the hill so defensive ACs are useless anyways, sometimes somebody else threw the siege hours ago, and I don't have the time or supplies to throw and build new siege during an attack.

 

> I am not dismissive of people who enjoy defensive play (I would absolutely love if it was meaningful & if winning mattered), I am dismissive of the ones who can't understand how the game works and would rather hide than fight in a PvP gamemode while claiming stuff that is simply fixed with learning to play better.

 

Ah, you're not dismissive of people who _enjoy_ defensive play, just the ones who _actually engage in_ defensive play. Got it.

[XenesisII.1540]

Are some of you really expecting to be untouchable on walls?