Siege Revisions

[babazhook.6805]

The claim made that due to Arrow Carts and people camping siege, structures in WvW can not be flipped.

 

Let us look at the tier I am in across all four borderlands. First and foremost note that it a fact EBG always has the highest population from all servers and will often have Queues where other Borderlands do not. In other words EBG is the BL that is the closest to parity in population. Obviously this not always the case when w look at off hours but even in off hours in those lower tiers it tends to draw more.

 

Across all borderlands outside EBG there 8 Structures on each Border. Of these there of 6 of 24 that have reached T3. Of these 6 3 have been T3 since the start of the new week meaning 21 were flipped at some point. Of the ones remaining not yet T3 >3 reached that level before they were taken. The server that has held the most structures to t3 on thse there BLs is HOD which is generally considered to have the largest population of the three in this tier specifically with stronger after hours groups. While HOD was able to keep its their Northern sturctures T3 , both Hills and Bay were at t3 and fell at some point. The same advantages exist defending Garri or the North towers when it comes to siege , numbers and siege defense so I do not see how one can conclude the defense due to Arrow carts or siege. I am going to suggest it purely NUMBERS wherein the other servers are able to muster forces closer to spawn . flip the objective and move on in spite of Arrow carts and defenders.

 

The server with the least structures at t3 is in fact Desert BL. While it claimed by some Desert has defensive advantages over other BLs this is not reflected in the current map status . Desert BL has zero structures at t3 and in fact is painted all blue. I can not believe this because the Desert BL defenders do not know how to use Arrow Carts. It purely an outnumbered situation which will be compounded when those smaller populations see it as pointless to defend once the advantages of ACS taken away. They can stand on the wall and die to AOE and that about it.

 

To EBG. There are 15 structures total and at this point 8 are full T3. In other 53 percent on one BL as compared to 25 percent across three. Of these 8 at t3 , 3 have been at that level since shortly after launch. That more are taken to level 3 is IMHO a direc result of EBG generally drawing larger populations rather than the people being better at defense. That structures might flip more often off hours reinforces that meme , that being that the Flips are occurring as a function of population rather then of how sieged up a given structure is.

 

I am seeing plenty of open field fights this go round and more then I was seeing when we were up a tier and fighting Blackgate and Yaks. The reason for has little to do with siege and a sudden inability to defend and everything to do with population imbalance. People just stop fighting when there such an imbalance and this change to siege will not address that in the least.

 

As it stands now at that lowst tier the map situation is not static. It quite fluid with structures flipping outside a small handful in spite of Siege defense.

 

Now I am not going to look across the board at all other servers with current status but the outcomes might well vary as we go up the tiers to those with the highest overall populations and best off hours coverage. If in fact those see more structures getting to T3 and staying there then at the lower tiers then this can be very much a "both sides are right" scenario. It could very much be when populations equalized across all of those timeslots and those borders then defensive siege gains a greater advantage and I suspect this very much the case. In other words I still think that if these changes made without some means of addressing population imbalances you end up with a situation where in order to fix issues at one end of the spectrum (Higher tiers) you break what happens at the lower end of the spectrum (lower tiers).

 

 

[morrolan.9608]

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> 20 VS 30 is not the problem. That would make an ok fight. But what you are saying is that ac is useless against the zerg right now. But people still like the nerf? Should they not get an upgrade to make them better instead of worse. .

 

When AC damage was increased years ago the response from guilds was to zerg more to counteract that increased power so increasing power is not the answer.

 

[neven.3785]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"neven.3785" said:

> > Snip

>

> 40 people in queue to ebg, but blames the people already in ebg for not showing up on another borderland. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

>

 

You missed the point that regardless of the situation, siege should not be balanced to make up for a lack of coverage or your zerg being slow/too busy/morons. And fyi I would blame all the people who didn't show up, which includes the folks in ebg. Mag is just a broken shell of what it once was.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"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. 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.

 

My reading of the change sis that it will encourage more thoughtful defence especially in relation to shield generators. Currently defence is way to easy.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"aspirine.5839" said:

 

> Of course it will be lost, there is noway 5 can win against even 20. But I should get at least a chance to do something against a larger force. Or else defending and scouting is for nothing. :/

 

You can stall until reinforcements arrive. If your objective has been held for some length of time it should have an emergency waypoint so it doesn't take that long to get reinforcements.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Certainly you haven't faced Kodash yet then?

 

Umm don't think so.

 

> And I'm surprised you started addressing the 5v30 scenarios again. Hehe. I feel like the other thread explains everything pretty well.

 

Yeah I agree. I doubt many people can be bothered to look through it though as it was pretty long.

 

 

[HazyDaisy.4107]

We should table this issue for a month or two when T1/T2 servers start plummeting to T3/T4 because there aren't any "fights" in T1/T2 anymore. Then we can ask the actual T3/T4 servers how they like those ac changes.

[neven.3785]

With only 4 tiers you are lucky to drop one tier by trying to tank, you eventually hit that wall where your pugs just by logging in will bring in enough points to push you back up to where you belong. Good luck trying to drop beyond one tier. Most servers aren't organized for that

[Basharic.1654]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

 

> **_Where do you get that WvW should be about large scale PvP? That an opinion and one not supported by the fact that there arekeeps towers and castles in the first place. _**Added to that if you play on a server that always has the numbers your experience different then those that do not. Again there persons that drop down tiers just because they do not like the large Scale WvW fights and prefer fights where smaller numbers involved.

 

 

And there it is folks . . . apparently the only game mode designed for large scale PvP isn't about large scale PvP.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Basharic.1654" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

>

> > **_Where do you get that WvW should be about large scale PvP? That an opinion and one not supported by the fact that there arekeeps towers and castles in the first place. _**Added to that if you play on a server that always has the numbers your experience different then those that do not. Again there persons that drop down tiers just because they do not like the large Scale WvW fights and prefer fights where smaller numbers involved.

>

>

> And there it is folks . . . apparently the only game mode designed for large scale PvP isn't about large scale PvP.

 

You knew it was there, just below what was actually being typed.

[babazhook.6805]

> @"Basharic.1654" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

>

> > **_Where do you get that WvW should be about large scale PvP? That an opinion and one not supported by the fact that there arekeeps towers and castles in the first place. _**Added to that if you play on a server that always has the numbers your experience different then those that do not. Again there persons that drop down tiers just because they do not like the large Scale WvW fights and prefer fights where smaller numbers involved.

>

>

> And there it is folks . . . apparently the only game mode designed for large scale PvP isn't about large scale PvP.

 

There you have it folks, a person who can not understand that this NOT a map of open fields where people can fight toe to toe but one where there STRUCTURES to defend. Apparently the fact that mutliples of these exist on every border, each of which can be tiered up if defended long enough are something SOME people are not aware of as they speak to their imagined world where two armies just face one another on a landscape devoid of structure.

 

Ah the Glories of Blob versus blob , so condusive to gameplay that those that created the mess at the higher tiers deliberately tank just so they can get the fights they claim to want. Again no one defends structures on EOTM so why are those not interested in taking towers and keeps not playing over there?

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"LetoII.3782" said:

> We're unlinked, massive hole in conspiracy

Yes, you are unlinked. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying MAG IS TANKING TO GET A LINK

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> We're unlinked, massive hole in conspiracy

Right, and again MAG IS UNLINKED, AND THEY ARE TRYING TO GET A LINK (this is something they have been trying to do for MONTHS). That is why they tank harder on the week of relinking. It's happened every time my server has faced off against Mag on the weeks of re linking since they tanked to t4-t3.

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

Or you just can't read as I explained it very clearly.

 

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> WvW is literally PvP lol, if you do not think WvW is PvP u should stick to silverwastes, u can use your arrowcarts there!!!!! exciting combat!!!!! i am sure disabled and 60 year old people enjoy arrow carts a lot in silverwastes u should try too

> P.S I do not hide behind walls not even outnumbered that is for poosies, i play on the field, i fight if i die i die, no worries it is not real life death, i can run back and try again, rinse and repeat.

 

Lol, I never said WvW isn't pvp, but again thinking is hard. I said that WvW is much more than just PvP. It has siege for a reason (to help defend or attack structures/players). Sitting on siege might not be fun to you, but is integral to the game mode. Nerfing AC's MAY and negatively impact WvW, or it could be less effective but still effective. My concerns have always been with nerfing AC's is that there won't be counterplay to 50 man blobs.

 

Also, if you are "defending" a integral structure like Hill/Air or Bay/Fire or Garri and you jump out to fight a zerg alone, you are in no way helping your server. Again, if you want to pvp that badly, go to sPvP.

 

Yes, I feel defenders should have an advantage vs blobs, especially if they have AC's or any defensive seiges. The reason is simply that you shouldn't be able to break into a keep at anytime just because you have numbers. It should require tactical thinking. Having trouble taking air, hit it again right away from a different angle. Even if you don't actually get in you will force them to waste supply on repairs. If that doesn't work, hit it from multiple angles (or find a location that will hit two walls at once), like air for example, you could hit from south and from bull/eel wall at the same time. Yes you may not get in again but you are forcing the defenders to waste more supply. This is just all about strategy but most of the players I've been talking to or quoting want easy caps, and more fights, and I don't fully understand why, but then again I'm not fond of big 50 v 50 fights.

 

I've seen many servers hit a target, get pushed off, and then ignore that target while the defenders resupply and repair the target. If you just keep hitting it eventually the enemy will run out of supply, and yes I realize that hitting targets also takes supply so maybe in some scenarios you can't hit it again right away.> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

 

> OP starts topic about siege changes (admittedly leaving out that _goal_ again or thought process behind the changes), but then players somehow manage to involve servers as they continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios. Never seen that happen before...

>

> Anyway to resolve this issue?

Sorry about that, I was just using my server as more of an example of why I think AC's shouldn't be nerfed (and maybe I'm blowing it out of proportion, and it might be fine). But my main point is this game shouldn't be reduced to Blob v Blob fights because people don't like they can't get towers/keeps in one shot becuase a small group are stopping them (you know, except those pesky walls and siege in the way )

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Basharic.1654" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

>

> > **_Where do you get that WvW should be about large scale PvP? That an opinion and one not supported by the fact that there arekeeps towers and castles in the first place. _**Added to that if you play on a server that always has the numbers your experience different then those that do not. Again there persons that drop down tiers just because they do not like the large Scale WvW fights and prefer fights where smaller numbers involved.

>

>

> And there it is folks . . . apparently the only game mode designed for large scale PvP isn't about large scale PvP.

 

Yea true, I'm pretty sure it is right there in the description of WvW on the website.

 

"Join World vs. World (WvW) for an *epic PvP experience* full of cunning strategy, earthshaking sieges, and pitched battles between hundreds of players. In this *massive war, three huge armies*—each representing their world—battle for control of the castles and keeps, raid enemy supply caravans, and clash in open-field battles on five massive maps in week-long matches and seasonal tournaments."

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > OP starts topic about siege changes (admittedly leaving out that _goal_ again or thought process behind the changes), but then players somehow manage to involve servers as they continue to come up with hypothetical scenarios. Never seen that happen before...

> >

> > Anyway to resolve this issue?

> Sorry about that, I was just using my server as more of an example of why I think AC's shouldn't be nerfed (and maybe I'm blowing it out of proportion, and it might be fine). But my main point is this game shouldn't be reduced to Blob v Blob fights because people don't like they can't get towers/keeps in one shot becuase a small group are stopping them (you know, except those pesky walls and siege in the way )

>

 

Mmm. I don't put full blame on any players. Half blame at best. _Once again we have a siege revision thread where it lacked direction/goals/thought process on ANET's part_. The I reason gripe about this is because it could have provided more focus to the thread. A goal is great, but motivation behind that goal will give greater consistency.

 

Examples:

 

The OP: If ANET's motive with siege revision was to make siege game play faster.

 

Then players would tend to contest that view or suggest things that increase the pace.

 

The OP: If ANET's motive with siege revision was to make siege game play slower.

 

Then players would tend to contest that view or suggest things that decrease the pace.

 

The OP: If ANET's motive with siege revision was to make siege game play more interactive.

 

Then players would tend to contest that view or suggest things that increase variety in siege abilities themselves.

 

I am hoping this helps with establishing a pattern? I'm not attempting to be condescending. More focus could have weeded out people's desire to bring up less useful points (server drama), and hypotheticals. Will such replies still occur? Of course. So, for the OP, **listing only the changes is just theory crafting: not a goal nor motivation** (e.g. the thought process). We literally won't know until such additions hit unless they're obscenely obvious in theory (like oil will still be unusable). So there isn't actually much to discuss, because we have no premise (goal) to keep us relatively consistent when it comes to this thread.

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

 

> Mmm. I don't put full blame on any players. Half blame at best. _Once again we have a siege revision thread where it lacked direction/goals/thought process on ANET's part_. The I reason gripe about this is because it could have provided more focus to the thread. A goal is great, but motivation behind that goal will give greater consistency.

>

> Examples:

>

> The OP: If ANET's motive with siege revision was to make siege game play faster.

>

> Then players would tend to contest that view or suggest things that increase the pace.

>

> The OP: If ANET's motive with siege revision was to make siege game play slower.

>

> Then players would tend to contest that view or suggest things that decrease the pace.

>

> The OP: If ANET's motive with siege revision was to make siege game play more interactive.

>

> Then players would tend to contest that view or suggest things that increase variety in siege abilities themselves.

>

> I am hoping this helps with establishing a pattern? I'm not attempting to be condescending. More focus could have weeded out people's desire to bring up less useful points (server drama), and hypotheticals. Will such replies still occur? Of course. So, for the OP, **listing only the changes is just theory crafting: not a goal nor motivation** (e.g. the thought process). We literally won't know until such additions hit unless they're obscenely obvious in theory (like oil will still be unusable). So there isn't actually much to discuss, because we have no premise (goal) to keep us relatively consistent when it comes to this thread.

 

Cool, I get it. Reasoning for these changes would help alleviate some of the opposing viewpoints (my own included).

[Rezzet.3614]

> @"goldengut.9134" said:

> yeah the arrow cart changes are bad, if anything I felt even the superior arrow carts we too weak as far as damage, and if your gonna nerf them againist siege then increase their effectiveness againist players themselves. or nerf pulls and damage on top of wall because let be honest no player is really tall enough to see up there anyway or better yet might as well remove all structures if your gonna make them that easy to flip

 

this is the core issue with siege right now, its impossible to defend because of players exploiting or using snap cast or something and dumping aoe ontop of walls

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"neven.3785" said:

> > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > @"neven.3785" said:

> > > Snip

> >

> > 40 people in queue to ebg, but blames the people already in ebg for not showing up on another borderland. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

> >

>

> You missed the point that regardless of the situation, siege should not be balanced to make up for a lack of coverage or your zerg being slow/too busy/morons. And fyi I would blame all the people who didn't show up, which includes the folks in ebg. Mag is just a broken shell of what it once was.

 

I understand the point you are making and I agree with it.

But you know full well why people won't leave ebg, it's been stated in the mag thread again.

[Vegeta.2563]

Here's an interesting idea. Make rams mobile. They could be used to bust down 1 door, and then you can get in it and drive it at a slow pace to another spot (maybe at the pace of RP walk). Saves on supply.

[XenesisII.1540]

Couldn't you just use golems like that?

 

[Rezzet.3614]

> @"Vegeta.2563" said:

> Here's an interesting idea. Make rams mobile. They could be used to bust down 1 door, and then you can get in it and drive it at a slow pace to another spot (maybe at the pace of RP walk). Saves on supply.

 

thats the whole purpose of golems though

if anything golem needs a buff at least make its final mastery give Iron will to the bubble shield for 2-3s

or have golems take reduced damage from players not as much as regular siege though other wise golem rushes would be unstoppable

[babazhook.6805]

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> > @"goldengut.9134" said:

> > yeah the arrow cart changes are bad, if anything I felt even the superior arrow carts we too weak as far as damage, and if your gonna nerf them againist siege then increase their effectiveness againist players themselves. or nerf pulls and damage on top of wall because let be honest no player is really tall enough to see up there anyway or better yet might as well remove all structures if your gonna make them that easy to flip

>

> this is the core issue with siege right now, its impossible to defend because of players exploiting or using snap cast or something and dumping aoe ontop of walls

 

Precisely. People resort to ACS because the Mortars and Cannons and Ballistas are all exposed to massive AOE drops on walls and the only siege a person can use is that AC set back as far from the walls edge as is possible. Even then most can be reached and eliminated in short order. All this really about is people wanting to flip an objective and move to the next , the same mentality that allowed only certain builds in dungeoun runs because the groups wanted it finished as quickly as possible , and people bing kicked from Raid groups because they can not churn out DPS fast enough. It really NOT a desire to see open field fights.

 

IF people really wanted to see open field fights when they were facing a server with 20 max on a BL they would not haul in the entire zerg of 60 to fight them. The smaller group will generally try and avoid combat when against that many and will even abandon a BL when facing such numbers. If people wanted open field fights they are not going to park outside a spawn point and use 6 or 10 to kill the one or two that might trickle out of it at a time.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> or have golems take reduced damage from players not as much as regular siege though other wise golem rushes would be unstoppable

 

What are you talking about, they already are lol. Last time I saw a serious golem rush on T3, they got outer down by the time they where spotted (ie in the seconds people reacted to the waypoint being contest and people inside ran to check gates) and when we started EWP to when EWP was done inner lost 50%. There is absolutely no way to "stop" that (hell the map was outnumbered before the ewp). We won the fight (and had the keep littered with broken golems), but you cant stop it. They are already unstoppable. and unlike with the cost of before where such a rush would have cost like 100g+, that was maybe a couple of golds investment.

 

That they arent used more is mostly a behaviour issue... people are too used to rams and catas.

[XenesisII.1540]

Some of you realize this is a first round 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)

 

We may even see some changes to structure siege down the line.

 

Let's see what this round of changes does to gameplay, all they did was made ac's do less damage to siege which it didn't do much in the first place, and less hits per second, but nothing to the amount you can build in an area or it's range. The shield changes will be interesting to see.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

 

> Lol, I never said WvW isn't pvp, but again thinking is hard. I said that WvW is much more than just PvP. It has siege for a reason (to help defend or attack structures/players). Sitting on siege might not be fun to you, but is integral to the game mode. Nerfing AC's MAY and negatively impact WvW, or it could be less effective but still effective. My concerns have always been with nerfing AC's is that there won't be counterplay to 50 man blobs.

>

> Yes, I feel defenders should have an advantage vs blobs, especially if they have AC's or any defensive seiges. The reason is simply that you shouldn't be able to break into a keep at anytime just because you have numbers. It should require tactical thinking. Having trouble taking air, hit it again right away from a different angle. Even if you don't actually get in you will force them to waste supply on repairs. If that doesn't work, hit it from multiple angles (or find a location that will hit two walls at once), like air for example, you could hit from south and from bull/eel wall at the same time. Yes you may not get in again but you are forcing the defenders to waste more supply. This is just all about strategy but most of the players I've been talking to or quoting want easy caps, and more fights, and I don't fully understand why, but then again I'm not fond of big 50 v 50 fights.

 

I'm sorry you bring up air keep as an example... Air keep lordsroom is literally one of THE worst fight spots in the game. It's AoE catches people frequently and instantly strips stab. Every time it performs this attack it only requires range damage and you WILL kill players, who cannot run back. Defending air keep by FIGHTING is insanely easy, even without ANY siege once they're already inside. How on earth can you state you need ACs to defend air keep? The lord literally tells you exactly when and where to bomb, and against blobs it catches several players every single time. It's not a 50v50 or a karma train; it's an exceptionally easy defense and if you fail at defending by killing the enemies then you deserve, very very very very much to lose air keep.

 

So how about you don't whine about how it's no issue that it takes 2-3 hours to get inside a keep through supply draining, where if they get in you're still able to win 2:1 outnumbered or worse due to positional advantage and the lord without any siege or tactics taken into account, and realise that the defenders advantage is massive. If despite these advantages you lose, in all honesty usually due to a lack of coordination and skill more than anything else, then yes you deserve to lose said objectives.

 

You expect attackers to carefully drain supply from half the map while you demand to be able to defend heavily outnumbered without any organisation or skill; and when people say the balance is off you go on about how this isn't a 50v50 blob PvP mode. I'm sorry but we're not talking about removing structures or siege. We're talking about defense and siege giving you SO MASSIVE ADVANTAGES you can avoid fights completely; rather than defense and siege helping the losing side to win fights. Why? So you can maintain your position on the ladder and continuously kill matchups by being "too small"?

 

ITT : people blaming mag for tanking down yet... they're constantly and heavily defending their structures from mag. You're literally outppt'ing mag, telling them you outppt them and you must be able to defend while going on about how they "tank" to kill you...

 

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> > or have golems take reduced damage from players not as much as regular siege though other wise golem rushes would be unstoppable

>

> What are you talking about, they already are lol. Last time I saw a serious golem rush on T3, they got outer down by the time they where spotted (ie in the seconds people reacted to the waypoint being contest and people inside ran to check gates) and when we started EWP to when EWP was done inner lost 50%. There is absolutely no way to "stop" that (hell the map was outnumbered before the ewp). We won the fight (and had the keep littered with broken golems), but you cant stop it. They are already unstoppable. and unlike with the cost of before where such a rush would have cost like 100g+, that was maybe a couple of golds investment.

>

> That they arent used more is mostly a behaviour issue... people are too used to rams and catas.

 

Rezzet you're so uninformed I can't take anything you say seriously. I'm sorry but you genuinely, genuinely have no idea how the game or siege in this game works.

Dawdler you're partly right. Golems are ONLY good to take T3 keeps. It's also the only method to attempt to take a T3 keep without spending at least 3-5 hours on siege wars. In order to burn through a T3 keep you need 10+ golems and rams, requiring you to use guild siege. You need a zoneblob with full supply, burn 5-10g on golems per attempt and you need organisation to keep them alive and buffed. It still takes a few minutes to get through, especially with hardened gates. After it still takes several minutes to clear the siege and kill the lord. Even with these golemrushes, unless you can hit the garri without scouts for ~3 minutes and get inside clean, you're at a disadvantage over the defenders considering how OP garri lordsroom is for the defenders.

 

That said golems are NOT op. They're only usable in certain situations, and certain golems (being mostly guild ones or prebuilt alphas with portals.) Omega golems are heavily underpowered. They're ranged and can be reflected, even from the other side of the gate if you angle / drop your skills right. This allows a single defender to stop omegas and often have half of them kill themselves. A few cannon shots while golems move to inner will also kill most of them without issues.

 

 

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> > @"goldengut.9134" said:

> > yeah the arrow cart changes are bad, if anything I felt even the superior arrow carts we too weak as far as damage, and if your gonna nerf them againist siege then increase their effectiveness againist players themselves. or nerf pulls and damage on top of wall because let be honest no player is really tall enough to see up there anyway or better yet might as well remove all structures if your gonna make them that easy to flip

>

> this is the core issue with siege right now, its impossible to defend because of players exploiting or using snap cast or something and dumping aoe ontop of walls

 

No the issue with that is terrible defenders who have no idea how to play the game expecting to kill bigger and better forces. I'm hearing a lot of "you can just deal with siege" yet there are plenty of unhittable AC spots on virtually every keep and almost every tower. If you say it's "impossible to defend because of the walls" then you are in fact the problem. One side sitting on a wall and the other sitting outside without interacting with eachother isn't fun gameplay. It's delayment tactics so you can gather a group and organise a defense, and if / when they get in you have major situational advantage which should make you win. Not you afk'ing on walls raining damage down on them until you get bags. Frankly expecting this makes you a walking lootbag. And no; bombing a group while they're on the lord or pushing through several chokes into a tower which is near impossible to "clear out" isn't "impossible to defend". It's a massive advantage and in my experience allows you to win 2:1 outnumbered with some coordination, especially against pug blobs.

 

Defenders are generally the worst players in the game. They sit in their structures and expect free bags which they do not deserve. If you want to defend, that is fine. It's strong, powerful and a valid way to play the game. But just like roamers, attackers and blobbers to be succesful you need to do it well; and not expect free bags because you're inside your own structure. If you cannot due to coverage, you need to go down and stop killing the game by PPT'ing yourself into lopsided matchups.

 

There's a LOT of "defenders always outnumbered". The truth is I see a LOT of queue'd EBG's hide inside their towers, keeps and SMC fully sieged even against smaller groups. Even on EU. From virtually every server. Not saying this is the default for every fight for every server; more like the default once they lose once or twice. Lose once? Half the pugs play scared shitless and defensive expecting the enemy to be as bad as them and feed them bags, and if they don't they afk wait until they do. Sorry; but that's not how things work. If you want rewards you need to earn them; not press 1 on an unhittable AC. If you have issues with being able to be hit on the walls; sorry but you have not earned ANY rewards whatsoever.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> You shouldn't have to rely on siege to do most of the work for you, to defend something with a large amount of attackers

 

Thats the reason defense siege exists.