Siege Revisions

[aspirine.6852]

I still think it is strange that these changes seem to help attackers more than help defenders.

How about the useless canons, or the oil. Only ones that are slightly usefull are mortars but the are too easily destroyed and take forever to be rebuild.

[Chimppossible.1829]

Fantastic!!! Thats really good news! Now Arenanet Realize just this.....the only weak spot there is now with sieges, is the left over problem that cats can be thrown at one spot and stand in eachothers bubble! So..any fight fource can still open any wall if they have a bigger group pressense if they put many cats together. Cause those bubble still protect all the other cats and each cat can then in sequence put its bubble up for the rest. No defending treb or ballista can Handle that!!!

 

So please please please....take care of that to and sieges are finally in harmony!

[Etheri.5406]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> I still think it is strange that these changes seem to help attackers more than help defenders.

> How about the useless canons, or the oil. Only ones that are slightly usefull are mortars but the are too easily destroyed and take forever to be rebuild.

 

Oil was useless. There are several good cannons. The cannons on hills and bay are both incredibly strong at preventing attacks. The inner cannons in SM can be taken down from the outer, but killing them under pressure can also be difficult.

Keep in mind this siege is usually UP when the enemy group pushes through an outer. Tanking ACs, cannons and pushing through a breach - which is a choke by default - to get to the inner. If you can hold or survive against this group, the cannon is a significant advantage in holding the choke.

 

Cannons let you prevent golem rushes unless you have vets inside your golems, too.

 

I'm not even going to say anything about mortars. If you think they're "slightly useful" then I think you're not using them well. They're incredibly powerful. Mortars from EB keeps can be used to defend several towers and the keep itself against quite a lot of siege positions. Mortars from each tower and the keep itself can be used for the keep. Once through to the inner, most lordsrooms can be covered by mortars from the outer. It's anti-siege and anti-player siege with heavy cleave damage, from a huge range and many of them quite well positioned.

 

Also why do defenders need help, exactly? The addition of ... auto upgrades, no supply used for upgrades, significantly faster upgrading, tactics, gliding for defenders, guild upgrades and the buffs to choke-holding in PoF weren't enough? I'm sorry but defense has been buffed massively over the course of the game and it has made PPT irrelevant. It's a snoozefest to see who will stay awake longer, where you try to bore your enemy until he logs off so you can ktrain.

 

 

[aspirine.6852]

Mortars only slightly because they are usually down in seconds a zerg comes along.

The ones in inner keeps are good. But try using the ones in desert BL.

And I am thinking about defenders scouts more because that is what I like more than zerging.

And right now you cannot even do anything to defend so I am wondering why you seem to think it is easy to do?

[Player.9621]

Interesting.

I think its fine how it is.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> I'm waiting to see, but currently I'm not keen on the sounds of AC's being nerfed. Does it suck in t1-t2 to be stuck fighting people who constantly hide behind siege, sure. But at lower tiers, (especially with Mag sandbagging) the nerfs to AC's are awful. On top of that we now have really no good way to deal with point blank catas. Most good commanders take down defensive siege (cannons, oils) and that usually means the only defensive siege we have are AC's (you can counter cata I suppose if you have a good angle) but balli's are near useless in this situation. Unless we are playing against total squish characters I doubt we'll have a chance to kill a zerg with AC's (or at least reduced effectiveness), or be able to defend if we're on a low pop server or time zone.

>

> I get that folks should be able to pressure keeps and towers no matter what tier, but t3 defenses should be hard to break into, and take tactics beyond "Rush wall, build 7 catas and win", and now ac's potentially won't be able to stop that from happening. As for fights, I'm really sure that 50 man zerg really wants to "fight" those 7 defenders (only for loot, not because it'll be fun).

>

> I hope this doesn't cause the game in the lower tiers to be less fun than it currently is (someone convince Mag they want to go to t2/t1 again XD)

>

 

Mag had the outmanned buff most of the time I was on this week. While you might feel like "those 7 defenders" in the tower that just flipped should be able to hold, if half of you got off the siege in every structure on the map, you'd have a substantial offensive force.

[Etheri.5406]

 

> @"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.

 

> 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.

 

> 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.

 

> 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.

 

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.

[Timelord.8190]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> I still think it is strange that these changes seem to help attackers more than help defenders.

> How about the useless canons, or the oil. Only ones that are slightly usefull are mortars but the are too easily destroyed and take forever to be rebuild.

 

As it should be. Defenders advantage is already way to powerfull after the HoT addons.

[TheBandit.7031]

The 50% damage reduction should have been for players, not siege. The .5 second per hit is not enough. Arrow carts were already not very strong against siege their problem has always been too much damage to players.

[Aiga.3075]

Should also fix pulls going through walls. I have been pulled off siege so many times even though there is no line of sight.

[aspirine.6852]

> @"Timelord.8190" said:

> > @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > I still think it is strange that these changes seem to help attackers more than help defenders.

> > How about the useless canons, or the oil. Only ones that are slightly usefull are mortars but the are too easily destroyed and take forever to be rebuild.

>

> As it should be. Defenders advantage is already way to powerfull after the HoT addons.

 

I keep hearing that but I was not around much then. What was the major changes?

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

 

> Mag had the outmanned buff most of the time I was on this week. While you might feel like "those 7 defenders" in the tower that just flipped should be able to hold, if half of you got off the siege in every structure on the map, you'd have a substantial offensive force.

 

Except Mag is intentionally tanking. 2 weeks ago they were in first and when they came back to t4 they are deliberately not winning. Also, look at Mag's KDR, it's all they care about so they want "easy wins".

 

Siege is necessary and should be powerful, however it should also encourage strategy. For example, if an AC is causing you problems, build out of it's range. If Balli's are a problem, shield gen or counter-balli. If having more problems, build a treb way out of range and force people to come to you. I don't see issues with siege. I see it as strategy, something many of the t1 servers don't have since they just blob, and they are the ones upset by "OP siege"

 

Also, most of the time I see defense happening in times that aren't NA Primetime. 7 people defending that tower is all that's on the map. How can we mount a good fighting force exactly when there are bigger groups on our maps? There are times my server doesn't have a tag at all (which recently has been a lot more of the time).

[Rampage.7145]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

>

> > Mag had the outmanned buff most of the time I was on this week. While you might feel like "those 7 defenders" in the tower that just flipped should be able to hold, if half of you got off the siege in every structure on the map, you'd have a substantial offensive force.

>

> Except Mag is intentionally tanking. 2 weeks ago they were in first and when they came back to t4 they are deliberately not winning. Also, look at Mag's KDR, it's all they care about so they want "easy wins".

>

> Siege is necessary and should be powerful, however it should also encourage strategy. For example, if an AC is causing you problems, build out of it's range. If Balli's are a problem, shield gen or counter-balli. If having more problems, build a treb way out of range and force people to come to you. I don't see issues with siege. I see it as strategy, something many of the t1 servers don't have since they just blob, and they are the ones upset by "OP siege"

>

> Also, most of the time I see defense happening in times that aren't NA Primetime. 7 people defending that tower is all that's on the map. How can we mount a good fighting force exactly when there are bigger groups on our maps? There are times my server doesn't have a tag at all (which recently has been a lot more of the time).

 

Your server is just dead 7 people shouldn't be able to defend anything to start with, u should just be a linked server, part of a bigger server so u actually had people on your side aswell, and u would need no siege just PvP zerg vs zerg like a normal person. So the problem is not that u need siege the problem is you need a capable server to play with, it is just Arenanet's busted matchmaking system that is hurting your game experience nothing to do with siege.

[Mew.7386]

Do catapult/trebuchet/mortar has unblockable projectiles?

If yes, it's great! I'm happy and support for the nerf to shield generators and arrow cart!!!

 

Catapult/trebuchet behind gate is back! It is a strong defense to ram spamming, good old times <3

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

 

> Your server is just dead 7 people shouldn't be able to defend anything to start with, u should just be a linked server, part of a bigger server so u actually had people on your side aswell, and u would need no siege just PvP zerg vs zerg like a normal person.

 

Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege? Because you don't like it? That's what I've been getting from this entire thread is "wah I can't get into objectives, it's TOO hard because people use tools effectively and that means we have to think about how to break in but I don't want to think"

 

Defensive siege has to be placed properly to avoid zergs spamming aoe's, and even then we still can't perfectly avoid Ele's and Necros to hit offensive siege. And the siege built into keeps/towers aren't exactly useful, especially on the Desert BL. Fire keeps built in siege might as well be ignored for how useless it is with pillars and walls in the way. They are also aimed the wrong way to be useful for the most part. It takes thought to place siege is my point and if you don't know how, you get countered pretty easily. The same could be said about zerging with 50 people groups. If you get countered by AC's, then think of another strategy. Surely there are other ways to knock down walls to a keep or tower besides building right next to it. Or gates.

 

But then again, that requires thinking from people that basically want an open, featureless void to fight in.

 

[Marcel.1857]

Well all you mentioned about the changes seems pretty good except for the part of:

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

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

>

I mean if you ever tried to defend something against an enemy raid,

you know well that the door would be open before you killed the siege with an ac alone.

(T1 an T2). So i don´t get that part. All the complain about the ac dmg was due to player dmg so there was no need to make it uselesser to defend stuff (kill siege).

 

If the ballista would have the same possibility to hit siege like with the ac now there wont be a problem. But no person would build a balissta that need such a strickt line of sign to kill a siege because the enemy raid rips you apart before a balista would be build.

 

[GrahamW.5397]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

>

> > Mag had the outmanned buff most of the time I was on this week. While you might feel like "those 7 defenders" in the tower that just flipped should be able to hold, if half of you got off the siege in every structure on the map, you'd have a substantial offensive force.

>

> Except Mag is intentionally tanking. 2 weeks ago they were in first and when they came back to t4 they are deliberately not winning. Also, look at Mag's KDR, it's all they care about so they want "easy wins".

>

> Siege is necessary and should be powerful, however it should also encourage strategy. For example, if an AC is causing you problems, build out of it's range. If Balli's are a problem, shield gen or counter-balli. If having more problems, build a treb way out of range and force people to come to you. I don't see issues with siege. I see it as strategy, something many of the t1 servers don't have since they just blob, and they are the ones upset by "OP siege"

>

> Also, most of the time I see defense happening in times that aren't NA Primetime. 7 people defending that tower is all that's on the map. How can we mount a good fighting force exactly when there are bigger groups on our maps? There are times my server doesn't have a tag at all (which recently has been a lot more of the time).

 

If by "mag is intentionally tanking" you mean we have almost no coverage outside of NA and the majority of people we do have just sit in ebg so everything on the bl's gets t3'd by other servers overnight then yes. We intentionally closed and got unlinked and intentionally don't have any coverage so we can intentionally sit at the bottom of t4 and w key whatever unfortunate server gets thrown down to us that week. Intentionally.

[hunkamania.7561]

Senior Citizens the skill click 1 on their AC's are not gonna like these changes :(

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"GrahamW.5397" said:

 

> If by "mag is intentionally tanking" you mean we have almost no coverage outside of NA and the majority of people we do have just sit in ebg so everything on the bl's gets t3'd by other servers overnight then yes. We intentionally closed and got unlinked and intentionally don't have any coverage so we can intentionally sit at the bottom of t4 and w key whatever unfortunate server gets thrown down to us that week. Intentionally.

 

Right, because you went from winning two weeks ago (when your server intentionally tanking to stay in t3-t4 to avoid BG), to "losing". It's a bit too convenient and coincidental that your server isn't tanking to try and get a link server lol. And you do it every time when re links are happening. Your closed intentionally because people flocked to your server and your population was capped. That's how that works.

 

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

>

> > Mag had the outmanned buff most of the time I was on this week. While you might feel like "those 7 defenders" in the tower that just flipped should be able to hold, if half of you got off the siege in every structure on the map, you'd have a substantial offensive force.

>

> Except Mag is intentionally tanking. 2 weeks ago they were in first and when they came back to t4 they are deliberately not winning. Also, look at Mag's KDR, it's all they care about so they want "easy wins".

>

> Siege is necessary and should be powerful, however it should also encourage strategy. For example, if an AC is causing you problems, build out of it's range. If Balli's are a problem, shield gen or counter-balli. If having more problems, build a treb way out of range and force people to come to you. I don't see issues with siege. I see it as strategy, something many of the t1 servers don't have since they just blob, and they are the ones upset by "OP siege"

>

> Also, most of the time I see defense happening in times that aren't NA Primetime. 7 people defending that tower is all that's on the map. How can we mount a good fighting force exactly when there are bigger groups on our maps? There are times my server doesn't have a tag at all (which recently has been a lot more of the time).

 

You were literally triggering the outmanned buff... Yet still entirely convinced of being put upon.

The embodiment of what's wrong with siege ATM, why fight when there's unmanned mortars and AC's to build?

[hunkamania.7561]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"GrahamW.5397" said:

>

> > If by "mag is intentionally tanking" you mean we have almost no coverage outside of NA and the majority of people we do have just sit in ebg so everything on the bl's gets t3'd by other servers overnight then yes. We intentionally closed and got unlinked and intentionally don't have any coverage so we can intentionally sit at the bottom of t4 and w key whatever unfortunate server gets thrown down to us that week. Intentionally.

>

> Right, because you went from winning two weeks ago (when your server intentionally tanking to stay in t3-t4 to avoid BG), to "losing". It's a bit too convenient and coincidental that your server isn't tanking to try and get a link server lol. And you do it every time when re links are happening. Your closed intentionally because people flocked to your server and your population was capped. That's how that works.

>

>

 

Only reason we won any matches was because Xushin went HAM and k trained everyday for 7-8 hours. No one can keep that pace up and even when he did that we went to T3 tops lol. Maguuma has no PPTers is all.

[hunkamania.7561]

AC's would be cool if there was some actual skill. I mean, those guys that hit you with a treb shop from a long distance have some sort of skill but when you just slam 1 over and over again it becomes mindless. if they changed how AC's were used to promote more skillful play i would be down with them being OP.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> AC's would be cool if there was some actual skill. I mean, those guys that hit you with a treb shop from a long distance have some sort of skill but when you just slam 1 over and over again it becomes mindless. if they changed how AC's were used to promote more skillful play i would be down with them being OP.

 

Agreed, everything should be manual aim

Ballistae in particular are less for using tab lock.

Personally I'd also like to see friendly fire.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> AC's would be cool if there was some actual skill. I mean, those guys that hit you with a treb shop from a long distance have some sort of skill but when you just slam 1 over and over again it becomes mindless. if they changed how AC's were used to promote more skillful play i would be down with them being OP.

 

How that would be aplied here, ammo system, add new resource, square instead of circle on the aoe???

 

Dont forget that Anet wanted to remove all the good mechanics that trebs have, to make them just click 1 then select the auto process where u want AOE to be dropped, sadly this is one of the aspects that Anet disagree with the players wanting effort, while they dont seem to make players put effort in most of their game.

[GrahamW.5397]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"GrahamW.5397" said:

>

> > If by "mag is intentionally tanking" you mean we have almost no coverage outside of NA and the majority of people we do have just sit in ebg so everything on the bl's gets t3'd by other servers overnight then yes. We intentionally closed and got unlinked and intentionally don't have any coverage so we can intentionally sit at the bottom of t4 and w key whatever unfortunate server gets thrown down to us that week. Intentionally.

>

> Right, because you went from winning two weeks ago (when your server intentionally tanking to stay in t3-t4 to avoid BG), to "losing". It's a bit too convenient and coincidental that your server isn't tanking to try and get a link server lol. And you do it every time when re links are happening. Your closed intentionally because people flocked to your server and your population was capped. That's how that works.

>

>

 

we literally tried ppting in t3 to get to t2 and we couldn't keep up with tc and whoever else we had that week (nsp or yb idr which) and fell back to t4. We simply don't have the coverage to get out of t4/t3 rn. There is no tanking, there is no grand plan to bottom out in t4 so we get a link, we just don't have enough population willing to ppt things outside of ebg to get us out of this hole and we don't have the off hours to compete with other servers, this has been happening for a while now it hasn't been a thing for only a few weeks, we've been slowly losing people and dropping through the tiers since the last relink and now we've finally bottomed out.