WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> Hmm still the same old wah wah wah my acs aren't strong enough despite having tactics, auto upgrading and lots more supply available, shield gens nerfed, gliding into defensive objectives. We are so called PPTers and defenders and we want it all to be free and easy. The moment ACs can't be stacked like crazy we pretend they don't exist and defending is impossible... Even if there are still acs and defenders still have massive advantages over attackers.

>

> If you attack my stuff I should be able to hit you without you ever being able to hit me or get through the walls! Clearly the counter to ACs is never going in range of them! This results in very healthy gameplay and attack strategies like camping siege until your enemies log off. Whoever manages to shoot siege the longest deserves to win!

 

Oh you finally get the picture so happy to be of service.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> Hmm still the same old wah wah wah my acs aren't strong enough despite having tactics, auto upgrading and lots more supply available, shield gens nerfed, gliding into defensive objectives. We are so called PPTers and defenders and we want it all to be free and easy. The moment ACs can't be stacked like crazy we pretend they don't exist and defending is impossible... Even if there are still acs and defenders still have massive advantages over attackers.

>

> If you attack my stuff I should be able to hit you without you ever being able to hit me or get through the walls! Clearly the counter to ACs is never going in range of them! This results in very healthy gameplay and attack strategies like camping siege until your enemies log off. Whoever manages to shoot siege the longest deserves to win!

 

And by the other hand u have the players who go to WvW and QQ if their blob is being hitted by 2-3(easilly outsustanined with a large pugs group) ac's or if they find defenders....

 

 

Gw2 plebs, both at offense or defense they believe they shoud win w/o effort,

 

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > Hmm still the same old wah wah wah my acs aren't strong enough despite having tactics, auto upgrading and lots more supply available, shield gens nerfed, gliding into defensive objectives. We are so called PPTers and defenders and we want it all to be free and easy. The moment ACs can't be stacked like crazy we pretend they don't exist and defending is impossible... Even if there are still acs and defenders still have massive advantages over attackers.

> >

> > If you attack my stuff I should be able to hit you without you ever being able to hit me or get through the walls! Clearly the counter to ACs is never going in range of them! This results in very healthy gameplay and attack strategies like camping siege until your enemies log off. Whoever manages to shoot siege the longest deserves to win!

>

> And by the other hand u have the players who go to WvW and QQ if their blob is being hitted by 2-3 ac's or if they find defenders....

 

If a keep won't have any defenders; why would I attack it? The karma? xD The PPT? Oh wait. It's almost as if... I want defenders. Just not the kind that sits on the walls, sieges me for 30 minutes then ports as soon as I get in. I prefer the kind that, you know, communicates with their server and sends a group to defend. If you're a real PPT server that cares about your structures, surely you'll send more than 5 players to defend your stuff. If they don't then losing a keep every 30 minutes is ok; it doesnt' need to take 3 hours.

 

I don't need to build ACs to defend. When the blob enters the objective, they come through a choke. You can spread out, and just move off any place they push while everyone around you freecasts. You have tactics and EWP. You have a lord helping you. You can chill until they get on lord and bomb them on that, too. Often you can build ACs outside lordsroom hitting inside lordsroom after they've already come in. Any player that dies can't get back in unless you let them. Your respawn is far faster than theirs. If lord goes down you can stealth / invuln res and repeat. That's assuming they get in, you know.

 

Do you think defenders not have an advantage? :)

[Aeolus.3615]

@Etheri.5406 , sadly that's how most servers i fight, even the server/link where i am theres some doing it, , ive seen comanders tryign to take SMC while they are outmaned wich is a huge facepalm momment... ive seen even players QQ on team chat to comander cause he was swaping maps to find fights against more numbers, so theres the both side extremes, it is hard to find a midlle ground to how faulty game is designed.

 

Sometimes u need to build siege, the server where i am we spent quite some time outmaned while being ktrained(WvW design flaw), yet with not that much siege sometimes we can hold a t2-t3 inner hold for hours, most of time theres only 1 or 2 sup siege for the entire keep :\ we are awfull using siege, no refresh, lack of players even to refresh it lol...

And when enemy have like more than us just in scourges XD... lucky sometimes they are awfull and bail out.

Defenders have decent advantage they actually do, but atackers have also gimmick ways to take strucutres easyer, issue nowadays is that most only use cata proxy like anything else doesnt exist, and cry about being hitted with 1 or 2 ac's.

 

Siege is only a problem when theres like 30-50 inside and +8-10 ac's , but that could be even countered, players just dont want to put effort cause most playe this game in hope get everything else handed almost freely.

Anet here is just being dumb, we have shield gens and catapult gens, best way to fix this would be having only one tool with shielfs, ravenant shield and engie can also absorv 100% the catapult shots for example.

 

And for those who call WvW sandboxing:

And WvW isnt a sandbox game, just because we can place siege where we want to, for those who call Wvw sandbox.....Players dont have much freedom nor mechanics beside conquer other structures besides siege placement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rysdude.3824]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> @"Israel.7056"

>

> I think no one addresses 50 defenders building seige to defend vs 50 attackers because they know there is no defense of that. Period. (Yes the game allows for it, but c'mon man...)

>

> My statement (and not speaking for anyone else) is if ACs are destroying Catas, the commander is doing it wrong.

>

> With all towers, catas can be built outside of ballista range and watchtower range. ACs SHOULD BE a non factor.

>

> I am glad they nerfed the damage to players. That will allow a push to be more about defenders casted skills and less about the kitten ACs.

>

> I only wish they had kept AC damage high vs catas and trebs, but nerfed it to the floor vs rams. Though I doubt the two could be separated.

 

Finally, something that makes sense.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Israel.7056"

> >

> > I think no one addresses 50 defenders building seige to defend vs 50 attackers because they know there is no defense of that. Period. (Yes the game allows for it, but c'mon man...)

> >

> > My statement (and not speaking for anyone else) is if ACs are destroying Catas, the commander is doing it wrong.

> >

> > With all towers, catas can be built outside of ballista range and watchtower range. ACs SHOULD BE a non factor.

> >

> > I am glad they nerfed the damage to players. That will allow a push to be more about defenders casted skills and less about the kitten ACs.

> >

> > I only wish they had kept AC damage high vs catas and trebs, but nerfed it to the floor vs rams. Though I doubt the two could be separated.

>

> Finally, something that makes sense.

 

I feel that ac's should be doing decent damage to players than actually to siege, some classes stacked can actually out sustain superiors ac's damage, siege can be destroyed with AOE easilly and players on siege caan also be pulled due some LoS of some pull skils is actually very broken, so it would be a bit of find a opening with the aoe classes to get them.

Maybe ac's could make other siege cast skills slower lol.

 

 

Like i said before, every one is usinf proxy catapuls and in situation that doesnt make any sense, most probably cause they are expecting easy/no effort reward, that's where most ac's QQ came from.

I think this situations, players should be more punished than the siege....

[Chaba.5410]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> the large servers are the biggest abusers of AC use.

 

It stands to reason that having more people means more of everything, including ACs.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> @Etheri.5406 , sadly that's how most servers i fight, even the server/link where i am theres some doing it, , ive seen comanders tryign to take SMC while they are outmaned wich is a huge facepalm momment... ive seen even players QQ on team chat to comander cause he was swaping maps to find fights against more numbers, so theres the both side extremes, it is hard to find a midlle ground to how faulty game is designed.

 

I don't struggle with finding 50+ defenders. Just go enemy garri and make orange swords. Magically a queue on the map appears and you get 50+ players. Sure they're sitting inside that keep building 10+ acs while never coming out, but if you want them that's how you get them. Flipping that isn't even possible unless you massively outskill them AND have 3 hours to spare; but who minds that.

 

> Defenders have decent advantage they actually do, but atackers have also gimmick ways to take strucutres easyer, issue nowadays is that most only use cata proxy like anything else doesnt exist, and cry about being hitted with 1 or 2 ac's.

 

What exactly do you expect? Treb and countertreb wars that take a year and bore everyone to death?

Rams? If you build a SINGLE TREB behind the gate then the rams die. Literally useless if defenders know how to defend. Still, I see half the defenders build catas instead of trebs which do next to 0 damage to rams...

1 treb >>>>>>> rams. No counterplay. You can't kill the treb without countertrebbing it which is sometimes not even possible : see SM. Can't bubble. Your rams won't survive before the gate goes open.

 

So cata is the only option that doesn't get countered by 5 players with a brain and supply that doesn't take you 1 hour to trebwar against those same 5 players.

Nowadays I just build golems and bruteforce because players don't even know the basics of the game. You blame attackers for leaving against 2-3 acs, but unless they have aproper setup half their classes die to 2-3 acs. Meanwhile defenders can defend a LOT of things by using siege and skills smart; but most of those don't either. They build some acs, spam 1 then port out.

 

Actually countering what the enemy does? That'd be real gameplay, WvW isn't for that ! We're casual we press 11111 on the gate or 1111 on the ac and demand loot :D

 

 

> Siege is only a problem when theres like 30-50 inside and +8-10 ac's , but that could be even countered, players just dont want to put effort cause most playe this game in hope get everything else handed almost freely.

 

I can't think of any server that would have a ZONEBLOB inside a T3 keep with more than 10 acs refusing to come out.

Lets see. I've seen literally every T1 server do that as soon as they get attacked during EU prime and they don't have a commander / good group to carry them.

 

> And for those who call WvW sandboxing:

> And WvW isnt a sandbox game, just because we can place siege where we want to, for those who call Wvw sandbox.....Players dont have much freedom nor mechanics beside conquer other structures besides siege placement.

 

I agree. That said I do think there is a lot of freedom in "what you play for". or "how you play". There was a time where these playstyles complemented eachother to achieve a common goal, but that time is long gone.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> Like i said before, every one is usinf proxy catapuls and in situation that doesnt make any sense, most probably cause they are expecting easy/no effort reward, that's where most ac's QQ came from.

 

Nope. Let's go back to talking about how attacker and defender use of supply is what leads to siege strategy.

 

Proxy catas are popular because they are one of the more efficient uses of supply. Then at certain keeps you can reuse the catapults for the inner wall once you take out the outer wall. You don't need to spend supply building catapults for inner, effectively doubling your supply. Even better if you can spend your supply on another catapult than a shield gen or other piece of siege.

 

The siege meta used to be omega golems for the same supply reason, the mobile siege could be used on both outer and inner. The reason meta moved on from omegas was due to their nerf at HoT combined with how the gates on keeps and towers are constructed on desert bl. It was actually a good thing because being able to reuse the omegas on more than one structure made for a true ktrain. Zergs with omegas didn't need a lot of supply.

 

Additionally, walls are more favorable to attack than gates these days due to things like Hardened Gates and the 'deathbox' defensive design of desert bl gates. It makes walls take less supply to attack than gates. Don't forget that HoT also increased the supply cost of some siege engines, which nerfed the smaller havoc groups who can't carry as much supply as a zoneblob (meaning that it is now more favorable to have more people when you attack something).

 

 

 

[Aeolus.3615]

@Etheri.5406 i hate treb wars lol, it is one of the lame things i want out of this game.

 

But game is built for lamers 1st, siege himping in one side, blobs expecting to have no counter and want low effort fights in the other,while none of this should be possible nor wanted.

[Gorani.7205]

Although the attempt might be futile, I think we should try to find some sort of consensus between the "siege bunkers" and the "blobs". If we as the WvW community of players can't find some sort of common ground on topics, all of Anet's changes will appear to be random and misunderstood by many.

Here is an example of a "common ground agreement" we actually had here on the forum: "The 160% damage Meteor Shower was too high, but it showed that it suddenly was an alternative to the Scourge/Firebrand/Spellbreaker composition every large open battle squad is running as stale meta for a long time."

 

But back to the Arrow Cart issues we are talking about

Here are the changes to ACs from the past patches

* Players can no longer be hit more than once every 0.5 seconds by arrow cart attacks.

* Arrow cart damage against siege equipment 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.

 

Nr. 1 and 3 are clearly in favour of the faction that thinks that ACs have been too strong vs players

Nr. 2 is a strong nerf for defenders who shoot at proxy catapults (most of the time)

 

Questions we should ask ourselves after we have played with the changes for a few weeks now:

1. Is the change from 50 to 25 actually a cosmetic change, because 25+ people balling up in one area are very rare occasions?

2. Does the 0,5 sec internal cool down on the "to hit players" make shooting with more than two ACs really more dangerous, as you can't get hit from so many attacks any more? (Question for the "bunker")

3. Isn't an array of multiple ACs realistically a psychological weapon against your army, because you can't get hit more than twice a second by any AC that is shooting at you? (Question for the "blobs)

4. With nerfs 1-3 in place, isn't a normal, standard AC completely underpowered as a choice of "suppression fire" compared to auto attacking from the wall?

5. Have Keep/Tower defenders started to change their counter vs. attackers due to the AC changes, because of the nerfs via the use of different tactics/options or just by building more ACs?

6. Have the other changes (Oil, Ballista, Catapult) influenced Arrow Carts in any way?

[iKeostuKen.2738]

Nerfing arrow cart to be weaker against blobs was a huge mistake.

[Subversion.2580]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

 

> And for those who call WvW sandboxing:

> And WvW isnt a sandbox game, just because we can place siege where we want to, for those who call Wvw sandbox.....Players dont have much freedom nor mechanics beside conquer other structures besides siege placement.

>

Sandbox is originally a term coined to describe how you approach design of your content. I'm sure there have been many examples since that have developed into their own canon but originally that was simply it. In a sandbox you put game design effort into the (confines of-) rules and physics rather than the content itself. By that notion most PvP games have some ties to sandbox design, you just don't call eg., FPS games sandboxes because their goals are too set and their content is so divided into smaller bits. In terms of design approach though, they have more in common than not. Simply take an FPS game, scale it up over a more open map and it quickly gets termed a sandbox (even if it is divided into matches or whatever).

 

How it pertains to AC's I have no clue about - The only issue I could ever think of with AC's is that their application is kinda skewered over classes, builds and roles. Other than that I have never really cared about them or their balance.

 

 

[Israel.7056]

Arrow carts don't seem much weaker to me. Seems like the crying over the nerf was an enormous overreaction.

[Israel.7056]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > Hmm still the same old thing wah wah wah kill acs nerf all siege we are bored and want to take everything easily ,we are so called fight guilds and want it all our own way ,but funnily enough the large servers are the biggest abusers of AC use. and misplacement of siege engines that have range go figure. Die slowly and beat on the wall.

> >

> > Same old thing we want a tool so strong we never have to fight people.

>

> I use all facets of the game to play, bit of this a bit of that but never lay down and roll over just because of complaints about siege it is what it is , and really you dont get a headache just from using the grey matter between the ears . There is always other games to play if it gets to hard to handle.

 

You can use your brain to learn your class and work with other players so you don't have to sit on siege to defend stuff. You can always go back to auric basin if that gets too hard to handle.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > Like i said before, every one is usinf proxy catapuls and in situation that doesnt make any sense, most probably cause they are expecting easy/no effort reward, that's where most ac's QQ came from.

>

> Nope. Let's go back to talking about how attacker and defender use of supply is what leads to siege strategy.

>

> Proxy catas are popular because they are one of the more efficient uses of supply. Then at certain keeps you can reuse the catapults for the inner wall once you take out the outer wall. You don't need to spend supply building catapults for inner, effectively doubling your supply. Even better if you can spend your supply on another catapult than a shield gen or other piece of siege.

>

> The siege meta used to be omega golems for the same supply reason, the mobile siege could be used on both outer and inner. The reason meta moved on from omegas was due to their nerf at HoT combined with how the gates on keeps and towers are constructed on desert bl. It was actually a good thing because being able to reuse the omegas on more than one structure made for a true ktrain. Zergs with omegas didn't need a lot of supply.

>

> Additionally, walls are more favorable to attack than gates these days due to things like Hardened Gates and the 'deathbox' defensive design of desert bl gates. It makes walls take less supply to attack than gates. Don't forget that HoT also increased the supply cost of some siege engines, which nerfed the smaller havoc groups who can't carry as much supply as a zoneblob (meaning that it is now more favorable to have more people when you attack something).

>

>

>

 

 

I think what leads to siege is because the lack of mechanics game offers(that m8 be another story lol), but that's also right, it is the most efficient way to use supply but jsut in some places while they can be wrecked easilly, like hills cata spot, ectremelly easy to get them facing a blob with just10 players dont even need to go to hills, bay proxy catas in the most obvious places, im still wondering how guilds continue to keep doing the most expecting thing, only after they fail like 10+ times they will bring a mass blob and do the same.

So IMO proxy catas only work against very small or empty servers, if theres population to defend, its probably gona get countered.

 

Golems are still great, i tend to use jalis on them wich will make 50% condi and normal damage being cutted, sometimes i ask to put golems on my party inside the squad.

I think siege overall needs some tweaking rather than numbers and quoficient changes only....but it would be better done after alliance thingy.

 

Havock were hurt due lack of mechanics game could offer to those groups(again) since game is all about know how to powercreep your target faster than he ca.n do it do you and nothing else, probaby if theres less havock roamers, less complains about easy and very reward gimmicks could be less noteceable :P

 

> @"iKeostuKen.2738" said:

> Nerfing arrow cart to be weaker against blobs was a huge mistake.

 

Catapults need their dome removed, if players want protection there should be a siege only for that... aka shield gens.

[babazhook.6805]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> Arrow carts don't seem much weaker to me. Seems like the crying over the nerf was an enormous overreaction.

 

No that is not what it tells me. It tells me that the group that felt this would lead to more open field fights were exactly wrong. Arrow Carts ARE weaker when they manned by small groups against larger but there no real difference when there a much larger defending force that can use multiples of them. This pretty well exactly what the group opposed to the nerfs were stating.

[Garrus.7403]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Arrow carts don't seem much weaker to me. Seems like the crying over the nerf was an enormous overreaction.

>

> No that is not what it tells me. It tells me that the group that felt this would lead to more open field fights were exactly wrong. Arrow Carts ARE weaker when they manned by small groups against larger but there no real difference when there a much larger defending force that can use multiples of them. This pretty well exactly what the group opposed to the nerfs were stating.

 

Wtf you hit only 25 targets and less often how are acs not weaker? If you had 7 acs before patch on you and you have 7 acs on you now after the patch the pressure you get now is much weaker.

[Israel.7056]

> @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Arrow carts don't seem much weaker to me. Seems like the crying over the nerf was an enormous overreaction.

>

> No that is not what it tells me. It tells me that the group that felt this would lead to more open field fights were exactly wrong. Arrow Carts ARE weaker when they manned by small groups against larger but there no real difference when there a much larger defending force that can use multiples of them. This pretty well exactly what the group opposed to the nerfs were stating.

 

They seem to be about the same to me. We need more severe nerfs I think.

[Israel.7056]

Reduce their damage by like 50 percent across the board. Force these siege turtles to make some friends and learn to fight or lose everything as it should be anet.

[Israel.7056]

Or add an ammo system to rapidly drain supply from anyone who uses them. Make them pay a severe penalty for siege turtling.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> Or add an ammo system to rapidly drain supply from anyone who uses them. Make them pay a severe penalty for siege turtling.

 

Goood point there, people spam and stack cause its infinite... and players usign siege arent punished for keep spamming non stop, players at least should know or have the need to manage it.

 

The more Ac's u have in a zone the faster the ammo supply for that siege would drop :\ in that area, i really do like it like a supply system, im imaginng already simple mechanics to improve combat and even create supply lines with beacons to make airships drop supply from some tower guild tag owns to where they are, since siege would receive their own supply, even tags on the field could request a drop from a ship in their marked zone, that could link to the closes sieges.

 

 

 

[Victory.2879]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> Reduce their damage by like 50 percent across the board. Force these siege turtles to make some friends and learn to fight or lose everything as it should be anet.

 

It's almost like you have zero tactics, and can't deal with people who want to defend their objectives against your zone blob, and feel that there should be nothing stopping you planting rams/catapults and wiping out walls quickly, and anything that does so should be removed from the game.

 

If the 50 man blob is really turtling in ONE objective and you are all standing there then you are failing badly in your tactics. A couple of split teams can wonder off and attack other objectives, reduce walls or supplies within other objectives, and force your enemy to have to defend more than one place.

 

Most AC can be wiped from well placed trebs (which also drain supply) except some in lords room in the garrison - which should be very hard to take.

 

Next you'll complain about having to build a treb as a counter...

 

You don't seem to understand that the 'siege turtles' are the ones who have learnt to fight within the design of the game, and you just want more numbers= auto win with lots of wexp as you k train around swapping objectives.

 

 

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Victory.2879" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Reduce their damage by like 50 percent across the board. Force these siege turtles to make some friends and learn to fight or lose everything as it should be anet.

>

> It's almost like you have zero tactics, and can't deal with people who want to defend their objectives against your zone blob, and feel that there should be nothing stopping you planting rams/catapults and wiping out walls quickly, and anything that does so should be removed from the game.

>

> If the 50 man blob is really turtling in ONE objective and you are all standing there then you are failing badly in your tactics. A couple of split teams can wonder off and attack other objectives, reduce walls or supplies within other objectives, and force your enemy to have to defend more than one place.

>

> Most AC can be wiped from well placed trebs (which also drain supply) except some in lords room in the garrison - which should be very hard to take.

>

> Next you'll complain about having to build a treb as a counter...

>

> You don't seem to understand that the 'siege turtles' are the ones who have learnt to fight within the design of the game, and you just want more numbers= auto win with lots of wexp as you k train around swapping objectives.

>

>

 

Jalis does that already, 50% damage reducer reason i like golems in my party so i can reduce their damage even further :)

[Israel.7056]

> @"Victory.2879" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Reduce their damage by like 50 percent across the board. Force these siege turtles to make some friends and learn to fight or lose everything as it should be anet.

>

> It's almost like you have zero tactics, and can't deal with people who want to defend their objectives against your zone blob, and feel that there should be nothing stopping you planting rams/catapults and wiping out walls quickly, and anything that does so should be removed from the game.

>

> If the 50 man blob is really turtling in ONE objective and you are all standing there then you are failing badly in your tactics. A couple of split teams can wonder off and attack other objectives, reduce walls or supplies within other objectives, and force your enemy to have to defend more than one place.

>

> Most AC can be wiped from well placed trebs (which also drain supply) except some in lords room in the garrison - which should be very hard to take.

>

> Next you'll complain about having to build a treb as a counter...

>

> You don't seem to understand that the 'siege turtles' are the ones who have learnt to fight within the design of the game, and you just want more numbers= auto win with lots of wexp as you k train around swapping objectives.

>

>

 

And what's to prevent the 50 man blob from also splitting up and building more acs in two objectives rather than one?

 

Most acs in most objectives cannot easily be taken down with trebs but again anything offense can do defense can do as well with an advantage. Counter trebs, ballis, cannons, mortars or just people suiciding on the trebs. Ez.

 

Your "tactics" are rudimentary and easy to counter and nothing others haven't thought of before. Anything offense can do defense can do as well and with the added advantage of t3 walls, guild buffs, tactivators etc.

 

The siege turtles exploit a set of overpowered tools to keep things they have no business keeping. It is time for that to end. You can fight against this all you want but I think in the end Anet will come to their senses and nerf siege and then maybe you will have to learn how to fight people.