WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

>

>

> > Yeah I get it everyone's a hypocrite except for the noble siege users who just want to have a chance against the big bad blobs.

>

> > No one's going to stop all you noble siege users from being super dignified and sitting on arrow carts all day so you can have a chance of winning a fight you just might have a smaller chance of being successful in your noble endeavor now. I gotta say acs still seem plenty strong to me I don't think this change goes far enough.

>

> You have this notion that people sit on siege all day. You are wrong. Many players do go out to fight, myself included. But when they are OUTNUMBERED and their structures are under attack, they should use siege to even the odds. That's what it was designed to do. It might not mesh with your play style and you might hate it, but that was what it was designed to do. If you want to blob fight, I'm not stopping you, that's your preferred play style. As is many players preferred play style, but you also expect people to just let themselves be run over and not use walls/siege to their advantage because it doesn't give you a "good fight".

>

> And a good fight is what exactly? One where you die immediately? Or I know, one where you crush your enemies and get tonnes of loot bags... because every zerg fight I've been in wasn't good per say, it was one zerg just demolishing another zerg. There isn't even real counter play there, it boils down to how many scourge/spellbreakers and revs you have vs your opponent.

 

Siege was not designed to even the odds, it was designed to delay the attackers. Now you have tactics that help to do that along with siege. The notion that siege is here to help win a fight when you are grossly outnumbered is just nonsense. Siege is here to destroy siege the attackers are using, and in that respect I can agree that the AC nerf to other siege was probably excessive, but the argument I think most are making is that ACs were used more as an "aim for players" piece of siege, rather than what it should be used for, and that is destroying catas and rams when ballistas can't accomplish that. I agree that this gives bigger blobs more of an advantage, but if your equalizer to fighting a bigger zerg was to build ACs, then that's just lazy tactics. There are plenty of other ways, one of the most used ones is to split up your group. If you constantly have a 80 man blob zerging you down, why not split into smaller groups of say 15-20, and each go hit something meaningful. And now since ACs don't do as much damage, your smaller group can now sustain 5 people on ACs trying to take out your catas or rams, and suddenly this nerf benefits you as well.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

There was already a wvw ability that decreased the damage players took from seige attacks, they could've umphed that up and left out players damage from acs out of the equation. The problem is not everyone has the ranks to max that category and even if they did, there are cooler things to spend those points on.

 

Personally, I see the player damage part of this nerf as a hit to everyone that's ever been hit and killed by an ac over the years in favor of evening things out for our lower ranked players so they don't have to suffer. So, it really doesn't matter if you're a defender, roamer or zergling, if you've played for years and maxed everything, you just got nerfed.

[steki.1478]

I'm just wondering how these 5v50 heroes manage to upgrade whole map (and additional objectives on other BLs) to t3 with those 5 people. Is it the skilled "map blob when enemy is asleep" or tactical "treb for 3 hours until enemy realizes that irl is more important" strategy?

[Karnasis.6892]

 

 

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

 

> Karnasis,

> What is to stop the 50 from also using the "even the odds" siege tool against the 5? Nothing. This is why siege isn't a population balancing mechanism.

 

It is if you do correctly (i.e. only in objectives you own). But yes they are being used incorrectly mostly in open field fighting, which then I can say yeah there might be an issue. But all of my thoughts are typically when I'm just waking up, and my t3 keeps are being attacked by a blob and my server doesn't have the coverage when I like to play the most often. To balance the encounter out I like using AC's to deter, or push that blob off, at least for a while. I want to make that group have to work for their keep capture. That's where I am coming from as far as AC's go.

 

But yeah those 50 man squads really shouldn't need to use AC's, even though the idea of it initially was pretty clever.

 

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

 

> Siege was not designed to even the odds, it was designed to delay the attackers. Now you have tactics that help to do that along with siege. The notion that siege is here to help win a fight when you are grossly outnumbered is just nonsense. Siege is here to destroy siege the attackers are using, and in that respect I can agree that the AC nerf to other siege was probably excessive, but the argument I think most are making is that ACs were used more as an "aim for players" piece of siege, rather than what it should be used for, and that is destroying catas and rams when ballistas can't accomplish that. I agree that this gives bigger blobs more of an advantage, but if your equalizer to fighting a bigger zerg was to build ACs, then that's just lazy tactics. There are plenty of other ways, one of the most used ones is to split up your group. If you constantly have a 80 man blob zerging you down, why not split into smaller groups of say 15-20, and each go hit something meaningful. And now since ACs don't do as much damage, your smaller group can now sustain 5 people on ACs trying to take out your catas or rams, and suddenly this nerf benefits you as well.

 

The argument "well you have tactics so..." doesn't gel with me. Yes there are SOME tactics that help with defense (Invuln fort, ewp, watch tower) but many of them are pretty meh and provide slight bonuses that really only slow down the enemy ever so much. Yes initially siege may have been designed with delaying tactics in mind.... but at that point why bother? Why would anyone care at that point that an AC is hitting them if the damage is basically non existent. Especially since we have much more damage mitigation in GW2 now if your playing the right specs/builds. I mean yes you'd have to give up some damage but we have actual heal specs and classes that give tonnes of barrier (not to forget invulns, blocks, movement skills, reflects,)

 

Lazy tactics are also the people that build catas two feet from the wall and expecting to get in by sheer numbers, so I guess we're both guilty (and you know, build your catas out of ac range and you'd be fine).

 

> @"steki.1478" said:

> I'm just wondering how these 5v50 heroes manage to upgrade whole map (and additional objectives on other BLs) to t3 with those 5 people. Is it the skilled "map blob when enemy is asleep" or tactical "treb for 3 hours until enemy realizes that irl is more important" strategy?

 

We didn't upgrade the map, it was upgraded from a different timezone and the 5 are who logged in or are still awake when the other server has different coverage times. I HAVE upgraded keeps during a an enemy blob around, but it's not easy and takes WAY longer to do (since they are hitting what your upgrading and taking the camps around the objective.... and sometimes taking the objective as well).

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> But yeah those 50 man squads really shouldn't need to use AC's, even though the idea of it initially was pretty clever.

 

But there is nothing stopping them from using it even if they shouldn't need it, which is why siege is not a numbers balancer. It only appears that way because most zergs also feel they shouldn't need it. I'm guessing you've never encountered an attacking zerg that didn't let "shouldn't need ACs" stand in their way to win though.

 

Often we write our opinions on a buff or nerf without considering a wider perspective outside of our immediate personal experiences.

 

I really liked the point Shagalicious made about how nerfing defense will again allow smaller groups to have better chances of taking defended objectives.

 

 

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

>

>

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

>

> > Karnasis,

> > What is to stop the 50 from also using the "even the odds" siege tool against the 5? Nothing. This is why siege isn't a population balancing mechanism.

>

> It is if you do correctly (i.e. only in objectives you own). But yes they are being used incorrectly mostly in open field fighting, which then I can say yeah there might be an issue. But all of my thoughts are typically when I'm just waking up, and my t3 keeps are being attacked by a blob and my server doesn't have the coverage when I like to play the most often. To balance the encounter out I like using AC's to deter, or push that blob off, at least for a while. I want to make that group have to work for their keep capture. That's where I am coming from as far as AC's go.

>

> But yeah those 50 man squads really shouldn't need to use AC's, even though the idea of it initially was pretty clever.

>

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

>

> > Siege was not designed to even the odds, it was designed to delay the attackers. Now you have tactics that help to do that along with siege. The notion that siege is here to help win a fight when you are grossly outnumbered is just nonsense. Siege is here to destroy siege the attackers are using, and in that respect I can agree that the AC nerf to other siege was probably excessive, but the argument I think most are making is that ACs were used more as an "aim for players" piece of siege, rather than what it should be used for, and that is destroying catas and rams when ballistas can't accomplish that. I agree that this gives bigger blobs more of an advantage, but if your equalizer to fighting a bigger zerg was to build ACs, then that's just lazy tactics. There are plenty of other ways, one of the most used ones is to split up your group. If you constantly have a 80 man blob zerging you down, why not split into smaller groups of say 15-20, and each go hit something meaningful. And now since ACs don't do as much damage, your smaller group can now sustain 5 people on ACs trying to take out your catas or rams, and suddenly this nerf benefits you as well.

>

> The argument "well you have tactics so..." doesn't gel with me. Yes there are SOME tactics that help with defense (Invuln fort, ewp, watch tower) but many of them are pretty meh and provide slight bonuses that really only slow down the enemy ever so much. Yes initially siege may have been designed with delaying tactics in mind.... but at that point why bother? Why would anyone care at that point that an AC is hitting them if the damage is basically non existent. Especially since we have much more damage mitigation in GW2 now if your playing the right specs/builds. I mean yes you'd have to give up some damage but we have actual heal specs and classes that give tonnes of barrier (not to forget invulns, blocks, movement skills, reflects,)

>

> Lazy tactics are also the people that build catas two feet from the wall and expecting to get in by sheer numbers, so I guess we're both guilty (and you know, build your catas out of ac range and you'd be fine).

>

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > I'm just wondering how these 5v50 heroes manage to upgrade whole map (and additional objectives on other BLs) to t3 with those 5 people. Is it the skilled "map blob when enemy is asleep" or tactical "treb for 3 hours until enemy realizes that irl is more important" strategy?

>

> We didn't upgrade the map, it was upgraded from a different timezone and the 5 are who logged in or are still awake when the other server has different coverage times. I HAVE upgraded keeps during a an enemy blob around, but it's not easy and takes WAY longer to do (since they are hitting what your upgrading and taking the camps around the objective.... and sometimes taking the objective as well).

 

So, how about my point of splitting your smaller group up to hit multiple structures? Now that ACs do less dmg to players and siege, a group of like 10-15 would easily be able to break into a T3 structure if 5 are defending. People are completely ignoring the fact that this is really good for havok groups. Let's be honest though, you are not going to change your opinion, and no matter how sound other peoples arguments are, you can always go back to, "but what if we're outnumbered, how do we defend". Clear answer, you don't. I witness my server losing lots of T3 structures, sometimes to groups of like 15 because of poor scouting + not enough help. Shit happens, get over it, stop wanting siege to be the equalizing factor when it was never supposed to be.

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

 

> So, how about my point of splitting your smaller group up to hit multiple structures? Now that ACs do less dmg to players and siege, a group of like 10-15 would easily be able to break into a T3 structure if 5 are defending. People are completely ignoring the fact that this is really good for havok groups. Let's be honest though, you are not going to change your opinion, and no matter how sound other peoples arguments are, you can always go back to, "but what if we're outnumbered, how do we defend". Clear answer, you don't. I witness my server losing lots of T3 structures, sometimes to groups of like 15 because of poor scouting + not enough help. kitten happens, get over it, stop wanting siege to be the equalizing factor when it was never supposed to be.

 

If AC's weren't the 1 of 2 only good siege defense in the game then sure, but as it stands Mortars are only good at distance and cannons on certain objectives are next to useless, oils are awful because your a sitting deck on them (and only useful for rams). AC's should be the equalizer because we don't have any other good options otherwise. And yes splitting up is a valid offensive strategy, and I endorse it. Defensively I should have tools to help me defend (if it's like 5 people hitting and I have like 2 of us then I might jump out, but 5 vs 20 is stupid and I should have ac's to equalize the number disparity).

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

>

> > So, how about my point of splitting your smaller group up to hit multiple structures? Now that ACs do less dmg to players and siege, a group of like 10-15 would easily be able to break into a T3 structure if 5 are defending. People are completely ignoring the fact that this is really good for havok groups. Let's be honest though, you are not going to change your opinion, and no matter how sound other peoples arguments are, you can always go back to, "but what if we're outnumbered, how do we defend". Clear answer, you don't. I witness my server losing lots of T3 structures, sometimes to groups of like 15 because of poor scouting + not enough help. kitten happens, get over it, stop wanting siege to be the equalizing factor when it was never supposed to be.

>

> If AC's weren't the 1 of 2 only good siege defense in the game then sure, but as it stands Mortars are only good at distance and cannons on certain objectives are next to useless, oils are awful because your a sitting deck on them (and only useful for rams). AC's should be the equalizer because we don't have any other good options otherwise. And yes splitting up is a valid offensive strategy, and I endorse it. Defensively I should have tools to help me defend (if it's like 5 people hitting and I have like 2 of us then I might jump out, but 5 vs 20 is stupid and I should have ac's to equalize the number disparity).

 

Sorry but I am of the opinion that 5v20, unless the 20 are just really bad, you should lose the structure. No way should you be able to defend against 4x your numbers. You should be able to delay long enough to get more ppl to help, and if you can't, well then you lose it. Maybe then your roamers will learn that you can't defend with ACs anymore. I've lost plenty of structures when I knew we had more than the couple ppl defending on map, only thing you can do is try and hope the others learn that they need to help defend if they want to win.

 

Oh, and don't poo poo burning oil anymore. Earlier today I was able to drop some serious burns on rams (on a staff weaver mind you), deplete a lot of supply and destroy a ram. The change to oil really helped out.

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Stormscar.5489" said:

> >What's your expertise, a masters in AC camping? Don't let the door hit you on the way out, hope your ecto farm goes well ;).

>

> Roasted.

 

Who me no I just get the fake tan ,im the nightmare amongst your blob throwing my retal everywhere :pensive:

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

 

> Sorry but I am of the opinion that 5v20, unless the 20 are just really bad, you should lose the structure. No way should you be able to defend against 4x your numbers. You should be able to delay long enough to get more ppl to help, and if you can't, well then you lose it. Maybe then your roamers will learn that you can't defend with ACs anymore. I've lost plenty of structures when I knew we had more than the couple ppl defending on map, only thing you can do is try and hope the others learn that they need to help defend if they want to win.

>

> Oh, and don't poo poo burning oil anymore. Earlier today I was able to drop some serious burns on rams (on a staff weaver mind you), deplete a lot of supply and destroy a ram. The change to oil really helped out.

 

That's ridiculous because what's the point of even trying at that point. No I would much rather have 5 ac's wreck a zerg then lose my t3 keeps because one server is so stacked at multiple time zones. Keeps take 3-4 hours uninterrupted to t3, just to have a zerg come along and take it because I have no deterrence means that even at tier 4 I might as well not try (which you know, causes less people to play because what's the point). At least AC's encourage defending (especially if they can kill parts of a zerg).

[shaggy.2768]

I must say the nerf in seige also shows the imbalance on player skills not being able to use skills when standing ontop of walls looking down yet the attackers can use theres freely.

 

there should be More types of seige so that defense can some what be a thing, the main thing that hurts about AC's been pretty much being deleted is it was really the only target able close range seige besides cannons and oil which you wont be able to get since you cant defend.

 

Also there was a pretty solid counter to AC's all ready being burn guards

 

really need to go back to the drawing board on this one

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

>

> > Sorry but I am of the opinion that 5v20, unless the 20 are just really bad, you should lose the structure. No way should you be able to defend against 4x your numbers. You should be able to delay long enough to get more ppl to help, and if you can't, well then you lose it. Maybe then your roamers will learn that you can't defend with ACs anymore. I've lost plenty of structures when I knew we had more than the couple ppl defending on map, only thing you can do is try and hope the others learn that they need to help defend if they want to win.

> >

> > Oh, and don't poo poo burning oil anymore. Earlier today I was able to drop some serious burns on rams (on a staff weaver mind you), deplete a lot of supply and destroy a ram. The change to oil really helped out.

>

> That's ridiculous because what's the point of even trying at that point.

 

You can buy time so that your server holds it for additional ticks.

 

That's was the point of the original design, and also the core of the mechanics for point holding found in PvP and WvW. People are supposed to be able to disperse and PPT. That's why 2 camps =1 tower and 2 towers +1 camp was a keep (now 2 towers = keep) You can take our keep, but we just send a few people to flip all your BL camps in retaliation. The score would be pretty close still. But....

 

The shift to tiered structures being worth more points actually is very unhealthy and everything since HoT has encouraged blobs. Camps become devalued because even at t3 they fall easily so the value of small groups is also devalued. Random havoc squads can't t3 camps against blobs. Not to mention such mechanics inevitably favor the stronger server. That is why once weekends end, the server with the most coverage will inevitably snowball and make mostly everything not being able to be taken because they will t3 their structures and siege it to the brim, the 3rd place server will always lose things and be kept paper while 2nd place just avoids no.1 and just backcaps no.3. These issues are caused by population imbalance, and no in-game mechanic will fix that without fixing the population issue itself.

 

But you know what's even more discouraging than losing a keep? Waking up to finding everything you have is lost and is now fortified and sieged. Why even bother wasting 10 minutes banging your head against a wall just so that randoms hit some tactivators and the whole thing automatically fails?

[Trajan.4953]

I truly love that we have reached a point in the game where Siege monkeys not only have a voice but a loud one on a PVP forum. Given the chance i would roll this game back to pre-HOT so that all these new faces would go away.

 

Infraction incoming.

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> I truly love that we have reached a point in the game where Siege monkeys not only have a voice but a loud one on a PVP forum. Given the chance i would roll this game back to pre-HOT so that all these new faces would go away.

>

> Infraction incoming.

 

As I've stated, WvW is PvPvE so.........

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> If AC's weren't the 1 of 2 only good siege defense in the game then sure, but as it stands Mortars are only good at distance and cannons on certain objectives are next to useless, oils are awful because your a sitting deck on them (and only useful for rams). AC's should be the equalizer because we don't have any other good options otherwise. And yes splitting up is a valid offensive strategy, and I endorse it. Defensively I should have tools to help me defend (if it's like 5 people hitting and I have like 2 of us then I might jump out, but 5 vs 20 is stupid and I should have ac's to equalize the number disparity).

 

People have mentioned strategy in defending their AC usage but I don't really see that. Hopping on an AC is actually late in the defense game. Here you talk about other siege options and again that's late for some strategy discussion. All siege warfare (both attack and defense) requires supply. Good strategy is dealing with siege warfare on the supply level. This is why you wouldn't risk draining your keep supply repairing a wall that is being actively trebbed. The best siege defense in the game is to be proactive at cutting off an attacking zerg from their supply early in the game, before they even attack a structure.

[Rysdude.3824]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> I truly love that we have reached a point in the game where Siege monkeys not only have a voice but a loud one on a PVP forum. Given the chance i would roll this game back to pre-HOT so that all these new faces would go away.

>

> Infraction incoming.

 

This is a game. Not a civil rights movement in the 60s. Get over yourself

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> I truly love that we have reached a point in the game where Siege monkeys not only have a voice but a loud one on a PVP forum. Given the chance i would roll this game back to pre-HOT so that all these new faces would go away.

>

> Infraction incoming.

 

Hmm last time I looked it didnt say PvP forum , positive it said WvW you took a wrong turn , maybe all that AC fire addled you zergling no doubt.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

I love this entitled, bully mentality of, "If you aren't big enough to defend it, you shouldn't have it!". Just like the school bully that walks down the hallway picking on whomever they feel like. "Hey kid, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't give me that jacket. You don't deserve it because you can't defend yourself against me.". Ever hear about the story of David vs. Goliath? Ever root for an underdog in a sports game? You are the problem if all you say is, "If you can't have enough people to play then you don't deserve to be where you are and maybe you should drop down to where you belong.". I'm sorry, but people worked hard to get where they are and to tell them they don't deserve it is belittling and demeaning. Get over yourself. There is more than one way to play this game, not just your way.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> I love this entitled, bully mentality of, "If you aren't big enough to defend it, you shouldn't have it!". Just like the school bully that walks down the hallway picking on whomever they feel like. "Hey kid, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't give me that jacket. You don't deserve it because you can't defend yourself against me.". Ever hear about the story of David vs. Goliath? Ever root for an underdog in a sports game? You are the problem if all you say is, "If you can't have enough people to play then you don't deserve to be where you are and maybe you should drop down to where you belong.". I'm sorry, but people worked hard to get where they are and to tell them they don't deserve it is belittling and demeaning. Get over yourself. There is more than one way to play this game, not just your way.

 

David went out and faced Goliath.

 

Just sayin.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > I love this entitled, bully mentality of, "If you aren't big enough to defend it, you shouldn't have it!". Just like the school bully that walks down the hallway picking on whomever they feel like. "Hey kid, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't give me that jacket. You don't deserve it because you can't defend yourself against me.". Ever hear about the story of David vs. Goliath? Ever root for an underdog in a sports game? You are the problem if all you say is, "If you can't have enough people to play then you don't deserve to be where you are and maybe you should drop down to where you belong.". I'm sorry, but people worked hard to get where they are and to tell them they don't deserve it is belittling and demeaning. Get over yourself. There is more than one way to play this game, not just your way.

>

> David went out and faced Goliath.

>

> Just sayin.

 

With a sling. A weapon that propels a rock from a distance.

 

Just sayin.

[Rysdude.3824]

> @"cyberzombie.7348" said:

> > @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

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

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

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

> > > > >

> > > > > > You can still sit on your siege all day no one's going to stop you from doing that.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your right, we could, if that was what was actually happening (it's not, but you stick to your blobs so you wouldn't know). Instead what he's bringing up is the fact that blobs run from fights they can't win and then those same blob minded people are complaining that people hide from them when they outnumber other smaller blobs 2-1, or 3-1, like it's their right to kill you for bags/war score. Siege gives a player a chance when they are outnumbered, but that's just it. A Chance.

> > > >

> > > > Yeah I get it everyone's a hypocrite except for the noble siege users who just want to have a chance against the big bad blobs.

> > > >

> > > > No one's going to stop all you noble siege users from being super dignified and sitting on arrow carts all day so you can have a chance of winning a fight you just might have a smaller chance of being successful in your noble endeavor now. I gotta say acs still seem plenty strong to me I don't think this change goes far enough.

> > >

> > > Change your build if your dumb enough to stand under ac fire duhh I mean who does that?? oh wait zerglings thats who

> >

> > Agreed. If fight commanders and 111111 zerg roaches are dumb enough, still after all this time, to build siege where red circles can reach them then they deserve to die.

> >

> Mostly being in zergs and I agree with you. One trend I barely understand the logic of is placing sieges like catapults point-blank at walls knowing well being within range of ac fire and at risk of instant bombardment from both siege and reinforcements.

 

I'm with you. When I see this I think the com is either new, or overly confident. Unfortunately when that doesn't work they come to the forums and complain siege is too tough.

[Israel.7056]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> I love this entitled, bully mentality of, "If you aren't big enough to defend it, you shouldn't have it!". Just like the school bully that walks down the hallway picking on whomever they feel like. "Hey kid, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't give me that jacket. You don't deserve it because you can't defend yourself against me.". Ever hear about the story of David vs. Goliath? Ever root for an underdog in a sports game? You are the problem if all you say is, "If you can't have enough people to play then you don't deserve to be where you are and maybe you should drop down to where you belong.". I'm sorry, but people worked hard to get where they are and to tell them they don't deserve it is belittling and demeaning. Get over yourself. There is more than one way to play this game, not just your way.

 

They're not underdogs they're bad players abusing a broken tool to win fights they would otherwise lose. They don't deserve their stuff if they can't defend it legit and we will see who these people are more clearly if anet continues to tone down siege because they will not be able to abuse arrow carts to win fights anymore.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > I love this entitled, bully mentality of, "If you aren't big enough to defend it, you shouldn't have it!". Just like the school bully that walks down the hallway picking on whomever they feel like. "Hey kid, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't give me that jacket. You don't deserve it because you can't defend yourself against me.". Ever hear about the story of David vs. Goliath? Ever root for an underdog in a sports game? You are the problem if all you say is, "If you can't have enough people to play then you don't deserve to be where you are and maybe you should drop down to where you belong.". I'm sorry, but people worked hard to get where they are and to tell them they don't deserve it is belittling and demeaning. Get over yourself. There is more than one way to play this game, not just your way.

> >

> > David went out and faced Goliath.

> >

> > Just sayin.

>

> With a sling. A weapon that propels a rock from a distance.

>

> Just sayin.

 

Like a bow or staff?

 

From outside the walls?

 

Just sayin...

 

 

 

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > I love this entitled, bully mentality of, "If you aren't big enough to defend it, you shouldn't have it!". Just like the school bully that walks down the hallway picking on whomever they feel like. "Hey kid, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't give me that jacket. You don't deserve it because you can't defend yourself against me.". Ever hear about the story of David vs. Goliath? Ever root for an underdog in a sports game? You are the problem if all you say is, "If you can't have enough people to play then you don't deserve to be where you are and maybe you should drop down to where you belong.". I'm sorry, but people worked hard to get where they are and to tell them they don't deserve it is belittling and demeaning. Get over yourself. There is more than one way to play this game, not just your way.

>

> They're not underdogs they're bad players abusing a broken tool to win fights they would otherwise lose. They don't deserve their stuff if they can't defend it legit and we will see who these people are more clearly if anet continues to tone down siege because they will not be able to abuse arrow carts to win fights anymore.

 

I can fully agree with you on this. Especially as it relates to SMC gates.

 

Here is my biggest issue with nerfing AC damage vs seige (which is my ONLY issue with it)

 

I have yet been able to find a tower that I can't hit with a cata that I can't hit it from out of range of both ballistas and ACs.

 

And the wall will drop just as fast.

 

With the exception of Counter trebs or catas and/or mortars, the opposing team has to come out to either disable or fight on My catas.

 

I wish they had made iron hide more effective vs ACs rather than hit the ACs this hard.

 

Placing catas against the wall is NOW good strategy, but was, prior to the change, a dumb masses idea...

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > I love this entitled, bully mentality of, "If you aren't big enough to defend it, you shouldn't have it!". Just like the school bully that walks down the hallway picking on whomever they feel like. "Hey kid, I'm gonna beat you up if you don't give me that jacket. You don't deserve it because you can't defend yourself against me.". Ever hear about the story of David vs. Goliath? Ever root for an underdog in a sports game? You are the problem if all you say is, "If you can't have enough people to play then you don't deserve to be where you are and maybe you should drop down to where you belong.". I'm sorry, but people worked hard to get where they are and to tell them they don't deserve it is belittling and demeaning. Get over yourself. There is more than one way to play this game, not just your way.

> > >

> > > David went out and faced Goliath.

> > >

> > > Just sayin.

> >

> > With a sling. A weapon that propels a rock from a distance.

> >

> > Just sayin.

>

> Like a bow or staff?

>

> From outside the walls?

>

> Just sayin...

>

>

>

>

 

Since when have Eles and Rangers been included in Zergs? And 5 Rangers against a blob of 20 or 30? Yeah, good luck with that.

 

Just sayin...