WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Chaba.5410]

> @"iKeostuKen.2738" said:

> The ones that dont rely on crutch dont run meta builds.

 

OK now you got me wondering if you are the alt account of another player I know...

 

Siege is a crutch.

 

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > i have not seen any group from eu to na not use ac. you must be the .00001 percent. and you calling all of this group taking, according to you, the cowards path.

> >

> > not smart.

>

> I am the .00001 percent then. What you're advocating isn't smart if the goal is to actually be good at the game.

 

Wich is a very good thing for you....

 

But people dont care how they will win, even if 30+(even 60) vs 10 its skilled for most of the gw2 players those 30+ win agaisnt the 10.

Israel we have been in several (actually alot if not the majorly of them) situations where those 30+ even pull siege against the 10'ish, so it is a matter of learn and adapt situation with a bit of starting payback with siege cause they also will, we just had to adapt and make it faster then enemy does.

 

It is like a bit of 1 vs 1 gameplay, powercreep targets before he powercreep you.

Gw2 isnt about balanced fights nor skilled gameplay, it rewards players by being lame.

 

[Rysdude.3824]

Lol why do you all insist on insulting players that play differently than you?

[Sovereign.1093]

on the issue of insulting those who play different than me. I don't. =) you do you, i do me.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > i have not seen any group from eu to na not use ac. you must be the .00001 percent. and you calling all of this group taking, according to you, the cowards path.

> > >

> > > not smart.

> >

> > I am the .00001 percent then. What you're advocating isn't smart if the goal is to actually be good at the game.

>

> Wich is a very good thing for you....

>

> But people dont care how they will win, even if 30+(even 60) vs 10 its skilled for most of the gw2 players those 30+ win agaisnt the 10.

> Israel we have been in several (actually alot if not the majorly of them) situations where those 30+ even pull siege against the 10'ish, so it is a matter of learn and adapt situation with a bit of starting payback with siege cause they also will, we just had to adapt and make it faster then enemy does.

>

> It is like a bit of 1 vs 1 gameplay, powercreep targets before he powercreep you.

> Gw2 isnt about balanced fights nor skilled gameplay, it rewards players by being lame.

>

 

The game has a fair bit of what some call "cheese" that doesn't excuse building siege to try to win fights and I think you know that.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> Lol why do you all insist on insulting players that play differently than you?

 

Because even though I subscribe to the subjective theory of value when it comes to economics I'm really some thing of an absolutist when it comes to ethics.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> Lol why do you all insist on insulting players that play differently than you?

 

I think that is a simpton of the awful balance and class design, builds tend to converge to optimal gimmicks to huge gap performances while less skills/effort is needed, if aint some gimmick people will bash the other players/group.

 

I think pvp has the same problem... but like i said its the classes design & balance fault, most of times it i hard to notice if luck, outplayed, or carryed, sometimes even forced counters to win happens, like classes that have long uptime of unblocks and high damage, beisdes blind and dodge expect to die if u cant powercreep and be carried with the class/build u play to counter the unblockables.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> > Lol why do you all insist on insulting players that play differently than you?

>

> I think that is a simpton of the awful balance and class design, builds tend to converge to optimal gimmicks to huge gap performances while less skills/effort is needed, if aint some gimmick people will bash the other players/group.

>

> I think pvp has the same problem... but like i said its the classes design & balance fault.

 

No, it's the fact that ACs were literally stronger than most players skillcap. Siege should never be a better solution than playing well; but it is.

 

This has NOTHING to do with ingame class balance / skill balance and everything to do with balance between PLAYERS and SIEGE. Which is adressed here a bit, and why we're happy. Except all the siegehuggers who are very dissapointed they can't blanket-defend against anything and everything as long as they build enough siege.

 

I get what you mean, playesr will use what they need to to "win". But the end result is that both sides don't interact, sit on their castles and spam siege until the numbers are so uneven one side can 50v5 despite the siege. That's the situation these siegehuggers are asking for, demanding and promoting. Then they also claim they need siege to ensure they can defend in these unfair, awful situations, while not aware they're literally creating and promoting this...

 

And gameplay where the map helps to balance fights? Gone. The players that enjoy it? Also in large part gone. Not something you can just "repair" in a pinch either.

 

Balance in GW2 is a funny thing. We have the calculations / math behind virtually everthing. We know exactly how things work, which is a luxury which most mmorpg's don't have. Frankly enough data to rigorously balance a LOT of things through iteration. Yet it's impossible to discuss, as most players are genuinely illiterate when it comes to grasping numbers and basic concepts behind balance. Which obviously doesn't make balancing any better.

 

Siege needs to COMPLEMENT gameplay and not EVER be a replacement for good gameplay.

[Israel.7056]

Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

 

Siege is used to defend?

Oh. I thought we were building it everywhere.

Inside structures.

Outside structures.

In front of the enemy spawn.

In front of the enemy keep to shoot down their ACs :trollface:

Next to two servers fighting eachother because you can't fight on your own. Better shoot them with siege for tags and rebuild as soon as they leave. High end gameplay boys.

 

Let's remove PPK from any kills made while "siege assisted" and double PPK from kills without siege. Also, siege-assisted should probably be server based. Before players tell me that'd lead to toxicity towards siegebuilding players... Are you playing the game? Most fight servers will happily flame anyone who builds siege when they shouldn't. I know I do.

 

I like the idea; but the amount of supply in the game at this point is absurd. It used to balance between sieging, upgrading and attacking. Now it generates WAY more quickly while also having lost half its uses; and you can get it from EOTM. Supply balance is pretty bonkers overall and fixing it would take a lot more than ACs requiring supply to shoot.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Etheri.5406 , offcourse it does, it is a behavioral effect look @sourge+fb stacking mass aoe when players dont even know whom to hit/heal just spam it... due how classes and how mechanicless WvW is, everything contributes to the current state of the game, even the keeps and map layout influencies these.

TDLR, siege needs to work like this due how class stacking work wich is realated to the pve aoe spam gameplay that gw2 so loves and embraces, if not siege becomes useles, since skill with melt any siege in 2-3 seconds, everything is related to each other, it is some cause and effect issue.

 

If u want to isolate siege alone, game lacks mechanic, for siege to work like a complement for the gameplay, so it ended working this badly cause is is there to fill what game is lacking, it is like a placebo, where it can also be abused and Anet is ok with that, since WvW is 24/7 and strucutures are designed to be lost withing time, reason wvw is build for big server vs medium vs small server, well game is designed to abuse gimmick's, that where decent and "skill" means in this game.

 

 

 

 

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> @Etheri.5406 , offcourse it does, it is a behavioral effect look @sourge+fb stacking mass aoe when players dont even know whom to hit/heal just spam it... due how classes and how mechanicless WvW is, everything contributes to the current state of the game.

> TDLR, siege needs to work like this due how class work, if not siege becomes useles, since skill with melt any siege in 2-3 seconds, everything is related to each other, it is some cause and effect issue.

>

> If u want to isolate siege alone, game lacks mechanic, for siege to work like a complement for the gameplay, so it ended working this badly cause is is there to fill what game is lacking, it is like a placebo, where it can also be abused and Anet is ok with that, since WvW is 24/7 and strucutures are designed to be lost withing time, reason wvw is build for big server vs medium vs small server, well game is designed to abuse gimmick's, that where decent and "skill" means in this game.

 

Siege was in this state pre-PoF during HoT days. Were guardian and reaper also as obnoxious? What was the defense for having siege in this way then?

 

You can cry about FB and scourge being overpowered; and for groups they are both very strong, but both still are far more skill-based than manning ACs.

 

I'm getting pretty tired of players pretending FB is mechanicless. FB is a pretty complex class and I can count the "good" firebrands on one hand. But hey, usually those players also say it's just 1111 while no good FB even uses the 111 skills on their weapons, ever.

 

As long as siege is WAY stronger against groups than the average GW2 player, siege remains useful for all intents and purposes. And yes, an ac hitting 25 players is WAY better than any of those core rangers, thieves or straight-out-of-pve players you have around.

 

Obviously skills have to be balanced as well, I fully agree. That said right now, balance isn't even that bad compared to WvW usual standards. We're moving away from pirateship, all range DPS has been toned down as well as FB sustain and necro damage has been almost fully removed AND is back to power. Engi is now part of the meta, ranger is strong in heavy pirateship fights and everything that isn't meta in large groups is dumbly OP in small groups. Sure; not every elite spec is good but that's true for each aspect of the game.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

>

> Siege is used to defend?

> Oh. I thought we were building it everywhere.

> Inside structures.

> Outside structures.

> In front of the enemy spawn.

> In front of the enemy keep to shoot down their ACs :trollface:

> Next to two servers fighting eachother because you can't fight on your own. Better shoot them with siege for tags and rebuild as soon as they leave. High end gameplay boys.

>

> Let's remove PPK from any kills made while "siege assisted" and double PPK from kills without siege. Also, siege-assisted should probably be server based. Before players tell me that'd lead to toxicity towards siegebuilding players... Are you playing the game? Most fight servers will happily flame anyone who builds siege when they shouldn't. I know I do.

>

> I like the idea; but the amount of supply in the game at this point is absurd. It used to balance between sieging, upgrading and attacking. Now it generates WAY more quickly while also having lost half its uses; and you can get it from EOTM. Supply balance is pretty bonkers overall and fixing it would take a lot more than ACs requiring supply to shoot.

 

Would depend on the cost and how many rounds one refill gave. So like if one refill cost 25 supply and gave 1 round of each type of ammunition for each cart it would be pretty tough for even a large force to make use of them for long particularly if they're building them away from a supply hut. If someone built 6 acs thats 150 supply just to fire them all each reload. Same thing for trebs ballis and catas. Cannons could require cannonballs that sort of thing. Even an 1800 supply keep would run out pretty fast. That would satisfy the people who enjoy realism and "tactical" Siege play because they would have to actually think about when and where to use the siege and it would be nice for those of us who hate siege because it would be used far more sparingly.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

> >

> > Siege is used to defend?

> > Oh. I thought we were building it everywhere.

> > Inside structures.

> > Outside structures.

> > In front of the enemy spawn.

> > In front of the enemy keep to shoot down their ACs :trollface:

> > Next to two servers fighting eachother because you can't fight on your own. Better shoot them with siege for tags and rebuild as soon as they leave. High end gameplay boys.

> >

> > Let's remove PPK from any kills made while "siege assisted" and double PPK from kills without siege. Also, siege-assisted should probably be server based. Before players tell me that'd lead to toxicity towards siegebuilding players... Are you playing the game? Most fight servers will happily flame anyone who builds siege when they shouldn't. I know I do.

> >

> > I like the idea; but the amount of supply in the game at this point is absurd. It used to balance between sieging, upgrading and attacking. Now it generates WAY more quickly while also having lost half its uses; and you can get it from EOTM. Supply balance is pretty bonkers overall and fixing it would take a lot more than ACs requiring supply to shoot.

>

> Would depend on the cost and how many rounds one refill gave. So like if one refill cost 25 supply and gave 1 round of each type of ammunition for each cart it would be pretty tough for even a large force to make use of them for long particularly if they're building them away from a supply hut. If someone built 6 acs thats 150 supply just to fire them all each reload. Same thing for trebs ballis and catas. Cannons could require cannonballs that sort of thing. Even an 1800 supply keep would run out pretty fast. That would satisfy the people who enjoy realism and "tactical" Siege play because they would have to actually think about when and where to use the siege and it would be nice for those of us who hate siege because it would be used far more sparingly.

 

But then you'll still get that core ranger shooting mortars as soon as ANYTHING is in range of a keep until it's supply drained. You'll still have that AFK pipfarmer shooting his treb at SM for 6 hours straight, even when sm is yours :trollface:

 

I think it's a better suggestion than most, but truthfully anyone who talks about realism in GW2 I ignore completely cause I care for healthy game design, not roleplay aspects. I see the value of giving a downside to the use of siege; but giving downsides to using something also directly leads to griefing and more infighting in servers. Only for casual carebears to tell us we're "toxic" while they're griefing and trolling their own server without realising it. It's not good design; imo.

 

Same for people saying damage should go up against bigger blobs. It's absurd, it only motivates us to further flame any pug that isn't contributing; making them die then jumping and sieging their corpses. It's not good game design. The game should promote players with different objectives to play together with a common goal; not the opposite.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @Etheri.5406 , offcourse it does, it is a behavioral effect look @sourge+fb stacking mass aoe when players dont even know whom to hit/heal just spam it... due how classes and how mechanicless WvW is, everything contributes to the current state of the game.

> > TDLR, siege needs to work like this due how class work, if not siege becomes useles, since skill with melt any siege in 2-3 seconds, everything is related to each other, it is some cause and effect issue.

> >

> > If u want to isolate siege alone, game lacks mechanic, for siege to work like a complement for the gameplay, so it ended working this badly cause is is there to fill what game is lacking, it is like a placebo, where it can also be abused and Anet is ok with that, since WvW is 24/7 and strucutures are designed to be lost withing time, reason wvw is build for big server vs medium vs small server, well game is designed to abuse gimmick's, that where decent and "skill" means in this game.

>

> Siege was in this state pre-PoF during HoT days. Were guardian and reaper also as obnoxious? What was the defense for having siege in this way then?

>

> You can cry about FB and scourge being overpowered; and for groups they are both very strong, but both still are far more skill-based than manning ACs.

>

> I'm getting pretty tired of players pretending FB is mechanicless. FB is a pretty complex class and I can count the "good" firebrands on one hand. But hey, usually those players also say it's just 1111 while no good FB even uses the 111 skills on their weapons, ever.

>

> As long as siege is WAY stronger against groups than the average GW2 player, siege remains useful for all intents and purposes. And yes, an ac hitting 25 players is WAY better than any of those core rangers, thieves or straight-out-of-pve players you have around.

 

Players on AC are easy to kill pull.....period, unless when theres like 10-15+ ac's wich i sugested Anet a fix for this and they said that would not give freedom to players, playes should build where they want and not punished for stacking siege, this was Anet awnswer on the old forum, when i suggested 2 things to avoid siege humping, one would be make specific spots for players build siege, other was increase radios on siege area when it would deny anything built close by if i recall i sugested 320-450units deppending the siege, as also proxy catas damage own catas when they built to close to the wall, this would solve several siege humping issue, Anet didnt liked.

Maybe a ammo supply variable on structures would make players care more for the spam, but that would be completelly trolled with players with 2nd accounts...

If can be trolled /griefed easilly, doesnt make sense to add it :\

 

Also game cant handle large fights ahahahha, the less skills are being spammed means less lag.

 

 

 

Sadly siege needs to be strong gameplay and not complementary, wich FB+scourge and a few other classes it is easy to outsustain serveral superiors ac's, the squishies and players not receiving the FB aoe spam heals and barrier will be the ones dying.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @Etheri.5406 , offcourse it does, it is a behavioral effect look @sourge+fb stacking mass aoe when players dont even know whom to hit/heal just spam it... due how classes and how mechanicless WvW is, everything contributes to the current state of the game.

> > > TDLR, siege needs to work like this due how class work, if not siege becomes useles, since skill with melt any siege in 2-3 seconds, everything is related to each other, it is some cause and effect issue.

> > >

> > > If u want to isolate siege alone, game lacks mechanic, for siege to work like a complement for the gameplay, so it ended working this badly cause is is there to fill what game is lacking, it is like a placebo, where it can also be abused and Anet is ok with that, since WvW is 24/7 and strucutures are designed to be lost withing time, reason wvw is build for big server vs medium vs small server, well game is designed to abuse gimmick's, that where decent and "skill" means in this game.

> >

> > Siege was in this state pre-PoF during HoT days. Were guardian and reaper also as obnoxious? What was the defense for having siege in this way then?

> >

> > You can cry about FB and scourge being overpowered; and for groups they are both very strong, but both still are far more skill-based than manning ACs.

> >

> > I'm getting pretty tired of players pretending FB is mechanicless. FB is a pretty complex class and I can count the "good" firebrands on one hand. But hey, usually those players also say it's just 1111 while no good FB even uses the 111 skills on their weapons, ever.

> >

> > As long as siege is WAY stronger against groups than the average GW2 player, siege remains useful for all intents and purposes. And yes, an ac hitting 25 players is WAY better than any of those core rangers, thieves or straight-out-of-pve players you have around.

>

> Players on AC are easy to kill pull.....period, unless when theres like 10-15+ ac's wich i sugested Anet a fix for this and they said that would not give freedom to players, playes should build where they want and not punished for stacking siege, this was Anet awnswer on the old forum, when i suggested 2 things to avoid siege humping, one would be make specific spots for players build siege, other was increase radios on siege area when it would deny anything built close by if i recall i sugested 320-450units deppending the siege, as also proxy catas damage own catas when they built to close to the wall, this would solve several siege humping issue, Anet didnt liked.

 

You can build ACs out of pull range on every single keep in the game.

You can build ACs out of pull range on almost all towers in the game.

 

How do you pull players off the ACs on ANY keep on desert bl? Please explain.

How do you pull players off ACs on SM upper floor or various other spots (some of which you can balista, but not pull).

 

I remember defenders talking about bad siege placement. I'm pretty sure EVERY keep in the game has unhittable spots to place acs, which can still be stacked.

 

> Also game cant handle large fights ahahahha, the less skills are being spammed means less lag.

 

Two-ways are fine. Lag has gotten worse again recently. I agree it gets more problematic the more players actually use their skills ;)

 

> Sadly siege needs to be strong gameplay and not complementary, wich FB+scourge and a few other classes it is easy to outsustain serveral superiors ac's, the squishies and players not receiving the FB aoe spam heals and barrier will be the ones dying.

 

It's not hard to counter even FB + scourge setups inside an enemy keep as they move slowly, obviously and have their DPS limited to 1.2k range. Every time they're on lord you can freely pressure and bomb. There's plenty of counterplay against pure FB + scourge setups which can outheal siege; but still requires cooldowns making it easier to kill them. Complementary siege.

 

Players will ALWAYS run comps that can outsustain siege. That's why I kick every thief ranger and other off-meta snowflake. If you want to be able to actually attack defended structures, your players MUST be able to outsustain several ACs. If not the first 5 defenders that show up kill them becaue the first thing they'll do is man siege. So you make your players go on classes that can survive this while fighting inside a keep. If I couldn't outsustain the siege, I'd still not go walk into the siege and die. I'd just see if there was something else I could do that might give me a fight. If the answer is no; I log off.

 

Siege MUST be outsustained by definition. Otherwise the moment you enter a structure you lose half your players to siege and it's literally impossible to ever cap something. But if i'm taking 5k AC damage per second; then most of my healing is already used to heal off the ACs. Any actual PLAYER DAMAGE on top of that starts to hurt, making it easy to kill a blob which normally ignores all your damage.

 

Again, siege complementary and not "raw" defense.

[misterman.1530]

> @"Botinhas.2018" said:

> > @"Ubi.4136" said:

>

> > I wish this was an exaggeration, but the ktrain "only wanting fights (LOL)" super-blob got their wish granted. Ktrain away oh great warriors, ktrain away.

>

> You seem to know a lot about k-train... What about those 20-30 groups trying to get fights or opening a keep, when tehre's 50+ inside manning 6 ac's refusing to come out, cause AC = avoid to fight a player. At least with this nerf the smaller attacking group actually can get a fights. Kitten forbid this WvW/PvP mode to enforce players to fight aggainst eachother, much more fun to keep promoting siege warfare.

 

Er...if you want to fight other players directly, there's this thing called PvP. Look into that.

 

[Aeolus.3615]

@Etheri.5406, u can hit siege on the 2nd floor of SMC that is covering the gates that is not hard, even a treb there, ive folowed a commander that knew a place where to hit that trebs that were hitting WC from inner top floor of smc.

 

Siege can be easilly outsustained nowadays, still rewarding everything with it just by default when not on sturdy builds and teamplay, would be stupid, people need to know if they can dive or not, or if it is better to counter with siege.

 

Damage is needed in siege in this game cause it is what the game is mainly about so, making siege useless like normal siege already is, it is a bad thing to do that will also reward mostly the bad players and ktrains who dont want effort to play want when on offensive.

Also if offense group keeps insisting on capping structure ill be a matter of time, since strucures are not ment to hold indefenitly, some even have easy gimmick ways to get hitted.

 

 

 

So damage is important, issue is how Anet dont care of adding decent ruleset due how gimmickly dumbs game needs to be for their population target,still this is my sugestions of trying to balance and give meaning to siege alone:

 

Siege needs to hit hard on slowflakes or players that dont have team work sustain, AC's should counter players while make less damage to siege by alot, Anet need to make them shoot slower or increase the delay of arrow fly time with better sound warning, maybe make arrows more noticeable as well, this could make siege work w/o loosing its importance and would also make players stop spamming like they are shooting something infinite & continually...wich is the real problem with AC mechanics... ill say, 10sec for each skill, do good damage o players, even if 10 salvos(coordenated 10'ac), the delay and sound from arrows also need to provide a possible counter of the group block/dodge/ step back, this is how balance is simulated, aka mechanics and play-counterplay.

Add radios, 350-400 the more siege is humped in close to each other theres a add plus delay on using it, sometimes when i reach towaers theres like 3-5 Ac0s build on same spot all inside each other, same happens with other siege like catapults, this needs to be fixed.

Trebs need bonus aginst reinforced walls distance arc should increase damage a bit, add shot with fire rocks as well to aply vulnerability to a wall like rams do, this would improve to those who QQ(some with reason) about t3 being to strong...

Balistas should be the counter to siege, and damage need to be done in line, last time i checked felt like a aoe damage rather than in straigh line.

Catapults need their shield removed, that will fix shield redudancy, if deffenders or offeenders want shield they need to build shield gens...

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

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

> > > > Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

> > >

> > > Siege is used to defend?

> > > Oh. I thought we were building it everywhere.

> > > Inside structures.

> > > Outside structures.

> > > In front of the enemy spawn.

> > > In front of the enemy keep to shoot down their ACs :trollface:

> > > Next to two servers fighting eachother because you can't fight on your own. Better shoot them with siege for tags and rebuild as soon as they leave. High end gameplay boys.

> > >

> > > Let's remove PPK from any kills made while "siege assisted" and double PPK from kills without siege. Also, siege-assisted should probably be server based. Before players tell me that'd lead to toxicity towards siegebuilding players... Are you playing the game? Most fight servers will happily flame anyone who builds siege when they shouldn't. I know I do.

> > >

> > > I like the idea; but the amount of supply in the game at this point is absurd. It used to balance between sieging, upgrading and attacking. Now it generates WAY more quickly while also having lost half its uses; and you can get it from EOTM. Supply balance is pretty bonkers overall and fixing it would take a lot more than ACs requiring supply to shoot.

> >

> > Would depend on the cost and how many rounds one refill gave. So like if one refill cost 25 supply and gave 1 round of each type of ammunition for each cart it would be pretty tough for even a large force to make use of them for long particularly if they're building them away from a supply hut. If someone built 6 acs thats 150 supply just to fire them all each reload. Same thing for trebs ballis and catas. Cannons could require cannonballs that sort of thing. Even an 1800 supply keep would run out pretty fast. That would satisfy the people who enjoy realism and "tactical" Siege play because they would have to actually think about when and where to use the siege and it would be nice for those of us who hate siege because it would be used far more sparingly.

>

> But then you'll still get that core ranger shooting mortars as soon as ANYTHING is in range of a keep until it's supply drained. You'll still have that AFK pipfarmer shooting his treb at SM for 6 hours straight, even when sm is yours :trollface:

>

> I think it's a better suggestion than most, but truthfully anyone who talks about realism in GW2 I ignore completely cause I care for healthy game design, not roleplay aspects. I see the value of giving a downside to the use of siege; but giving downsides to using something also directly leads to griefing and more infighting in servers. Only for casual carebears to tell us we're "toxic" while they're griefing and trolling their own server without realising it. It's not good design; imo.

>

> Same for people saying damage should go up against bigger blobs. It's absurd, it only motivates us to further flame any pug that isn't contributing; making them die then jumping and sieging their corpses. It's not good game design. The game should promote players with different objectives to play together with a common goal; not the opposite.

 

I think it's a fair price to pay to punish siege users.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

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

> > > > > Siege should be extremely expensive to use as well so there's some sort of trade off for using siege rather than fighting. As I said before an ammo system that runs on supply would be a good way to penalize players who rely on siege for defense by quickly draining the supply of the objective they're trying to defend.

> > > >

> > > > Siege is used to defend?

> > > > Oh. I thought we were building it everywhere.

> > > > Inside structures.

> > > > Outside structures.

> > > > In front of the enemy spawn.

> > > > In front of the enemy keep to shoot down their ACs :trollface:

> > > > Next to two servers fighting eachother because you can't fight on your own. Better shoot them with siege for tags and rebuild as soon as they leave. High end gameplay boys.

> > > >

> > > > Let's remove PPK from any kills made while "siege assisted" and double PPK from kills without siege. Also, siege-assisted should probably be server based. Before players tell me that'd lead to toxicity towards siegebuilding players... Are you playing the game? Most fight servers will happily flame anyone who builds siege when they shouldn't. I know I do.

> > > >

> > > > I like the idea; but the amount of supply in the game at this point is absurd. It used to balance between sieging, upgrading and attacking. Now it generates WAY more quickly while also having lost half its uses; and you can get it from EOTM. Supply balance is pretty bonkers overall and fixing it would take a lot more than ACs requiring supply to shoot.

> > >

> > > Would depend on the cost and how many rounds one refill gave. So like if one refill cost 25 supply and gave 1 round of each type of ammunition for each cart it would be pretty tough for even a large force to make use of them for long particularly if they're building them away from a supply hut. If someone built 6 acs thats 150 supply just to fire them all each reload. Same thing for trebs ballis and catas. Cannons could require cannonballs that sort of thing. Even an 1800 supply keep would run out pretty fast. That would satisfy the people who enjoy realism and "tactical" Siege play because they would have to actually think about when and where to use the siege and it would be nice for those of us who hate siege because it would be used far more sparingly.

> >

> > But then you'll still get that core ranger shooting mortars as soon as ANYTHING is in range of a keep until it's supply drained. You'll still have that AFK pipfarmer shooting his treb at SM for 6 hours straight, even when sm is yours :trollface:

> >

> > I think it's a better suggestion than most, but truthfully anyone who talks about realism in GW2 I ignore completely cause I care for healthy game design, not roleplay aspects. I see the value of giving a downside to the use of siege; but giving downsides to using something also directly leads to griefing and more infighting in servers. Only for casual carebears to tell us we're "toxic" while they're griefing and trolling their own server without realising it. It's not good design; imo.

> >

> > Same for people saying damage should go up against bigger blobs. It's absurd, it only motivates us to further flame any pug that isn't contributing; making them die then jumping and sieging their corpses. It's not good game design. The game should promote players with different objectives to play together with a common goal; not the opposite.

>

> I think it's a fair price to pay to punish siege users.

 

Yeah, I totally agree.

 

But my goal isn't to punish siege users through design that only increases the disagreement between both groups. My goal is to reach a gamedesign where I'm not feeling like I should flame them for playing godawful and doing things badly 24/7. Perhaps what you suggested with a small addition of "no loot when manning siege".

 

Then suddenly I'm sure half the problems will be a whole lot less. Cause lets not forget siege = ranger tagging tool.

[Rezzet.3614]

why do anti keep/tower/siege defender people simply not go play PvP since that is what they clearly want

 

nerfing siege shouldnt even be considered until player aoe is toned down, it is already near impossible to defend against 300-600 radius aoe pulls and ele+necro aoe spam alone to begin with

[Israel.7056]

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> why do anti keep/tower/siege defender people simply not go play PvP since that is what they clearly want

>

> nerfing siege shouldnt even be considered until player aoe is toned down, it is already near impossible to defend against 300-600 radius aoe pulls and ele+necro aoe spam alone to begin with

 

PvP is only ever 5v5 I like the dynamic scaling of fights in WvW.

 

The second part of your post is a l2p issue imo.

[iKeostuKen.2738]

> @"Rezzet.3614" said:

> why do anti keep/tower/siege defender people simply not go play PvP since that is what they clearly want

>

> nerfing siege shouldnt even be considered until player aoe is toned down, it is already near impossible to defend against 300-600 radius aoe pulls and ele+necro aoe spam alone to begin with

 

Pretty much this. Sucks to constantly see A-Net constantly pander to the blob mentality for balance choices and not those who actually want to enjoy the mode for what it is.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> But the end result is that both sides don't interact, sit on their castles and spam siege until the numbers are so uneven one side can 50v5 despite the siege. That's the situation these siegehuggers are asking for, demanding and promoting. Then they also claim they need siege to ensure they can defend in these unfair, awful situations, while not aware they're literally creating and promoting this...

 

I'm so glad someone else gets it. It is a counter-intuitive idea, which is probably why most people don't get it.

 

The term "blob" came to replace "zerg" because attackers started to bring more numbers after AC damage was buffed in 2013.

[Sovereign.1093]

only thing to get from this is you cannot force another player to play your game. you have to set the situation in where they will fight you.

 

if they siege and you dont want to get thru it, they dont have to go down and fight you. they will choose to use what is there.

 

got to break thru and get the bags. else, if no one fights, players can whine etc. oh hes a ppt siege user, or meh, thats a blob, aint gonna touch that.

 

got to work it. and work it. and work it.

 

to many entitled players wanting only x game mode but not willing to do y. thats not how it works.

 

acs are op, like i mentioned earlier. it will always be an advantage to who ever decides to use it. in small groups and especially in big groups.

 

the one thing wow got right if in relation to this is their epic battleground fights you cap a place which provides only certain type of siege and you bring those to open a keep. and then the canons balistas acs are staticly located as per structure. so players cant cheese place it. and so end up wiping a group who is not calm and does not think.

 

a smart com will think of ways to use the battlefield, the stuff in the battlefield, and based on experience, he will apply when the enemy is at their weakest.

 

this is wvw, not a server vs server organized battle (eotm is out now though, excited to use it) or gvg.

 

you can always ask the other com to fight, nicely ask, in openfield. learning how to talk to the other team will probably get you rivals. and set up big scaled fights.

 

TLDR - do your research, use your own strategy, dont be distracted by what other players say you ought to do when in wvw.

 

and make contacts, you want good regular fights, better make rivals.

 

and of course ac will always be op to whoever has it.