Siege Revisions

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

 

>

> How that would be aplied here?

 

 

Like mortar 2

As opposed to mortar 5, which is like an ac

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

>

> >

> > How that would be aplied here?

> >

> > 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.

>

> Like mortar 2

> As opposed to mortar 5, which is like an ac

 

So basicly reverting what Anet wanted to do to by simplifying trebs to work like ac's, anet would make everything work with range trough "power throttle".

 

I wactually like :)

[Nimrod.9240]

> @"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).

>

 

A question Ben, are these changes going to be permanent, or are you going to reevaluate in couple of weeks and alter and/or remove some changes?

[aspirine.6852]

> @"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.

 

You mean like basic zerg play. 1. 1. 1. 1

So hard.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @"Nimrod.9240" said:

> > @"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).

> >

>

> A question Ben, are these changes going to be permanent, or are you going to reevaluate in couple of weeks and alter and/or remove some changes?

 

They aren't intended to be temporary. But if something turns out to be a bad change, we're always willing to reevaluate.

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"hunkamania.7561" said:

 

> 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.

 

Except your server has been doing this for the last 6 months, tanking to t4. And historically the last week before new linking is when MAG hibernates in an effort to gain a link server. >

 

@"LetoII.3782" said:

 

> 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?

 

Yes, Mag being outnumbered is because of hibernation before re links. I keep having to spell it out for people. Seige is there to be used to DEFEND and ATTACK structures. Why should I come out and fight a 50 man blob if I'm alone or with a small group. I shouldn't, so I use tools to leverage the opposition. But from the sounds of it, if you aren't fighting in wvw apparently your doing it wrong. Sorry I am not going to 50 v 1.

[babazhook.6805]

>?? 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.

 

The reason you do not see those T3 Keeps flipped is NOT because defending "so easy" . When a group wants to they can take these keeps. The reason they do not flip is the Blobs roaming the maps have adopted the EOTM philosophy and that is flip as many objectives as possible in the shortest period of time and then move to another map. If a keep that is T3 slows them they move on.

 

I see this all the time on my own server. a much larger blob can easily flip the t3 we might be defending if they just took the time to do so. Once they realize there defenders and it will take a little longer then ususal they move on. At the same time with the same number of defenders and the same amount of defenses in a t3 , a second group that is more dedicated to taking out that structure WILL take it.

 

If defense too strong as you suggest there would not be the ability for one group to take it and another not. Being on a smaller server wih poor off hours coverage we often see one of our own Keeps taken to t3 by an enemy. Yes it hard to take when there equal numbers , but when we do focus and garner a number advantage we will generally get the structure back even if it is defended.

 

Take Bay as an example. It easy to put up Trebs on the one Cliff overlooking bay , or set trebs up in SWT to take out the walls or gates all out of range of Arrow carts yet those T3 keeps not taken. Why is that the case? It because it takes TIME and not because it difficult.

 

I am not fundamentally opposed to the changes. I just feel the more important issue to address is population imbalance and feel that if these changes made BEFORE population imblance addressed , they will do more harm then good.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @"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).

>

 

While I don't disagree with these changes, when was this feedback requested? I never remember it, and I'm an avid forum watcher. Was it in the forums? Reddit, cause, I never read that and it's not the official GW2 forums? Was it just in game? What? Again, good changes, just the feedback thing I have an issue with.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"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.

>

> Yeah, this is something i pointed at as well... But they refuse to give players on walls some sort of hope to be able to fight.

> At the very least they should give arrow carts a "zoom out" effect so you can aim them over walls, especially with the current nerfs. This will probably make it very difficult to defend walls against even or higher numbers.

 

ACs used to work that way for the first... 2 years (or so?) of the game. It was removed as it was completely abused. You were able to place ACs inside structures that could never be countered. This is why they made it so you had to have line of sight. If you played back then, you'd know how much of a nightmare it was and why it was changed.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Spurnshadow.3678" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> > Yeah, this is something i pointed at as well... But they refuse to give players on walls some sort of hope to be able to fight.

> > At the very least they should give arrow carts a "zoom out" effect so you can aim them over walls, especially with the current nerfs. This will probably make it very difficult to defend walls against even or higher numbers.

>

> ACs used to work that way for the first... 2 years (or so?) of the game. It was removed as it was completely abused. You were able to place ACs inside structures that could never be countered. This is why they made it so you had to have line of sight. If you played back then, you'd know how much of a nightmare it was and why it was changed.

 

I played back then, and no it didn't zoom out, not in any way that would denigrate the game... What happened was that people abused tools that would change your FOV and the FOV settings when it was changed.

 

The thing is, since launch there has been a disadvantage to LOS in walls. Players on walls are always at a disadvantage which gives a massive advantage to attackers. This has been my largest peeve with WvW since 2012, they've had a geometry bug persisting since launch, and never cared to fix it.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

 

Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

[XenesisII.1540]

It was a combination of both LOS and FOV that came some people a huge advantage in hiding arrow carts in places they couldn't be hit or countered. Eventually LOS was changed, do you not even remember that? and FOV was when they added camera options.

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

>

> Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

 

Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective. It also reinforces zerk stat play because ac's really only hurt zerk stat players.

 

If I see AC's and can't counter them I just build my catas further back, but everyone goes for the path of least resistance, so I expect to see a bigger increase of brain dead wall hugging tactics.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

> >

> > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

>

> Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective.

 

Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things.

 

>It also reinforces zerk stat play because ac's really only hurt zerk stat players.

 

Um no but also what's wrong with zerk stats?

 

> If I see AC's and can't counter them I just build my catas further back

 

Well maybe you won't have to bother with that anymore.

 

 

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"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.

 

I swear to god I feel like I'm a treb magnet, I'll just be running along somewhere minding my own business around a tower to avoid the guards and then BAM treb shot to the head. Some of those guys put in some serious time to get the experience to get shots off quickly and on target.

 

On a side note, the first people I like to hunt down when a structure opens are those treb and ac operators.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"hunkamania.7561" said:

>

> > 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.

>

> Except your server has been doing this for the last 6 months, tanking to t4. And historically the last week before new linking is when MAG hibernates in an effort to gain a link server.

 

We're unlinked, massive hole in conspiracy

 

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

>

> > 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?

>

> Yes, Mag being outnumbered is because of hibernation before re links.

We're unlinked, massive hole in conspiracy

 

> I keep having to spell it out for people.

 

I don't think you're spelling what you think you're spelling

 

 

 

 

[aspirine.5839]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

> > >

> > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

> >

> > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective.

>

> Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things.

 

AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight.

 

[Swagger.1459]

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

> > > >

> > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

> > >

> > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective.

> >

> > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things.

>

> AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight.

>

 

Correct, but some players don’t know how to handle fighting against a defended structure... The siege dynamic perplexes them and they can’t handle counter play very well. Some just want easy wins over players and structures, and encounters that require little to no resistance or mental energy.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @"Spurnshadow.3678" said:

> > @"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).

> >

>

> While I don't disagree with these changes, when was this feedback requested? I never remember it, and I'm an avid forum watcher. Was it in the forums? Reddit, cause, I never read that and it's not the official GW2 forums? Was it just in game? What? Again, good changes, just the feedback thing I have an issue with.

 

It was this thread from a few weeks ago. Not sure how you missed it!

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/40496/siege-revisions/p1

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

> > > >

> > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

> > >

> > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective.

> >

> > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things.

>

> AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight.

>

 

Are we really going to go through the 5v30 scenario again?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @"Spurnshadow.3678" said:

> > > @"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).

> > >

> >

> > While I don't disagree with these changes, when was this feedback requested? I never remember it, and I'm an avid forum watcher. Was it in the forums? Reddit, cause, I never read that and it's not the official GW2 forums? Was it just in game? What? Again, good changes, just the feedback thing I have an issue with.

>

> It was this thread from a few weeks ago. Not sure how you missed it!

>

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/40496/siege-revisions/p1

>

 

In all fairness Ben, it was only 14 pages long... :grimace:

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

> > > >

> > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

> > >

> > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective.

> >

> > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things.

>

> AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight.

>

 

So, how long should 5 be able to delay 30? What is too little time, and what is too long?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > @"Spurnshadow.3678" said:

> > > > @"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).

> > > >

> > >

> > > While I don't disagree with these changes, when was this feedback requested? I never remember it, and I'm an avid forum watcher. Was it in the forums? Reddit, cause, I never read that and it's not the official GW2 forums? Was it just in game? What? Again, good changes, just the feedback thing I have an issue with.

> >

> > It was this thread from a few weeks ago. Not sure how you missed it!

> >

> > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/40496/siege-revisions/p1

> >

>

> In all fairness Ben, it was only 14 pages long... :grimace:

 

And it was closed. :3

[Israel.7056]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"aspirine.5839" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > > > Why shouldn't 7 people be able to defend objectives with siege?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sounds like you'll still be able to honestly.

> > > >

> > > > Maybe, but what I'm worried about is that instead of ac's encouraging thoughtful plays (i.e. not just building against the side of a keep wall or tower wall), we're just going to have more zergs building against the walls of objectives because ac's are less effective.

> > >

> > > Perhaps. But maybe we'll also see more actual fighting as a result if defenders can't rely as heavily on ACs to defend things.

> >

> > AC is used, well atleast by me when outnumbered. When help arrives you fight. But taking away siege effectiveness will not make my go outside and die a useless death. It's still 20 or 30 against 5, so you can say things like go out and fight. But we all know that this will not be much of a fight.

> >

>

> So, how long should 5 be able to delay 30? What is too little time, and what is too long?

 

And why ever fight to defend except as an absolute last resort when you're out of supply everywhere and all the siege is dead?

 

So for example let's say I am defending a keep and I've got about 40 people and the attackers have about 40 people with rams or proxy catas shouldn't I just build ACs to counter that? And if they build further back shouldn't i just build ballis to counter that? And if they build shield gens for their further away catas shouldn't I just try to disable the shield gens and hit the catas with trebs or ballis to counter that? And if they build trebs shouldn't I just build shield gens to block the walls and then try to hit their trebs with mortars or counter trebs? Is there ever a point where the safer bet to defend an objective is to actually try to fight instead of just build more siege?

[XenesisII.1540]

The suggestion thread was open for like 2 weeks, a forum watcher would have had to be on vacation to miss it.