WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Ged Kealmen.7210" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > What was more basic and mindless then sitting on arrow carts? Now you have to actually fight instead of sit on siege, yea, that is so mindless and basic. "

>

> Having fewer effective options to defend is more basic. Any way you try to spin it, the point is the same: this simplifies and makes the game options more limited.

>

> Again, you are right in some regards though:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > servers that ktrain, will always ktrain, nothing will change that / none of these changes are gonna change the way certain people prefer to play this game mode.

>

> In the end it's all about player base preference and developer choice of game direction. But if towers and keeps are meant to be easily taken against one or two defenders with just a couple attackers more, then they are worthless as strategic positions. If they are so easily flippable then tiering up will remain a matter of which team has more people and has better coverage. This is making the game more basic and mindless, instead of strategic.

>

> But I can see how it would be hard for certain players to understand this, when all they want to do is fight. "Certain people" they are.

 

Sorry but if you are that outnumbered that you can't get enough people to fight another zerg, why should you be able to stop them from taking your objective? Clearly you have never seen servers like YB have the numbers to fight, and all they want to do is sit on all their siege, then proceed to "/laugh" because the 30 people inside the tower are too afraid to actually fight, so they sit on siege then call it a victory. That's not strategic, that is using siege to avoid fights. Keep QQ'ing because you can't hide on arrow carts anymore to avoid fight, those of us that actually like to fight will come for your bags.

[Ged Kealmen.7210]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> Keep QQ'ing because you can't hide on arrow carts anymore to avoid fight, those of us that actually like to fight will come for your bags.

 

Assuming that because I appreciate strategic over mindless play implies I can't fight is about as intelligent as most of your arguments. :)

 

 

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Ged Kealmen.7210" said:

> > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > Keep QQ'ing because you can't hide on arrow carts anymore to avoid fight, those of us that actually like to fight will come for your bags.

>

> Assuming that because I appreciate strategic over mindless play implies I can't fight is about as intelligent as most of your arguments. :)

>

>

 

There is nothing strategic about getting on ACs and having 5 people stop a group of 20+ from trying to take a tower. And could you answer my question about having to deal with a server like YB that has a large enough group to fight, but since ACs were so strong, they would just hide in the keep and avoid fighting.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"Ged Kealmen.7210" said:

> > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > Keep QQ'ing because you can't hide on arrow carts anymore to avoid fight, those of us that actually like to fight will come for your bags.

> >

> > Assuming that because I appreciate strategic over mindless play implies I can't fight is about as intelligent as most of your arguments. :)

> >

> >

>

> There is nothing strategic about getting on ACs and having 5 people stop a group of 20+ from trying to take a tower. And could you answer my question about having to deal with a server like YB that has a large enough group to fight, but since ACs were so strong, they would just hide in the keep and avoid fighting.

 

You are right about the lack of strategy.

 

How can 20+ build their seige on a *Tower* close enough for ACs to even *hit* it?

 

That is probably the least strategic thing angrouo could do. It makes no sense yet people continue to do it.

 

That being said, ACs needed toning down.

 

It's just funny the reasons people use.

 

[coro.3176]

If you build catapults out of AC range, they'll get deleted by a ballista (except on a few objectives with weird terrain). If you build them on the wall, they're generally safe from that, or any defensive ballista can be attacked from below.

 

Generally, the game should be encouraging fights over objectives rather than siege wars. This is a positive step toward that.

[Shadowcat.2680]

It's all a distraction from their lack of progress with Alliances.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Ged Kealmen.7210" said:

> > @"coro.3176" said:

> > Good.

> >

> > If you want to defend an objective, you should put yourself at risk - preferably in combat with the attackers. The walls should just be there for stalling attackers until a defending force can arrive.

>

> The WvW game includes many elements more than personal combat. These elements, such as siege equipment, are meant to enrich the mechanics and make the game more complex. Your argument is that it is better to dumb it down and limit it to one form of play. I have to disagree.

 

I fail to see how siege being so strong that people just sit on it, then if they still somehow fail then just waypoint out when the wall goes down, is enriching or complex.

Just yesterday I fought a huge group that sat on the walls with siege then waypointed out and gave up the tower. Siege should be a tool to delay and help smaller forces, not the I WIN button of defense.

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Garrus.7403" said:

> > @"LaGranse.8652" said:

> > > @"Garrus.7403" said:

> > > OMG I have to use my own skills nonononononononoono :(

> >

> > I will happily use my weapon skills against attackers if AoE's could not be placed on walls making standing on the lip of them to hit attackers a deathtrap.

> >

> > As for engaging in open combat that is not an option if you are 5-10 people and the enemy is 50.

>

> You should be able to delay ppl if you are outnumbered not to hold them off. If you can not get reinforcements you should loose the objective.

 

Agreed

If your server is indeed 5v50 it should lose the week, drop tier and fight the other 5 person servers. There's far too much turtling until nightcap time going on.

[Evolute.6239]

You might have a point if the keeps and towers were manually upgraded instead of T3 over night and during EU hours.

 

As it is, defenders had way too much advantage. Two hours is an eternity. You can’t expect people to cut off yaks for two hours, reclear siege and walls, sneak a million mesmers in, and burn 1000 supply. All within a raid.

 

For no reward.

 

You say it’s a simple mind but siege defending was mindlessly simple. If a Zerg didn’t have 700 supply it wasn’t getting in. And even with that supply, it could be drained or defend against.. for two hours of time essentially player vs dooring under arrow carts and mortars and treb shots.

 

The answer to this WAS to map hop and ktrain

[MilkChocolate.3201]

good change, maybe these T1 servers finally think twice before building multiple ac's in open field fight...

[Fat Disgrace.4275]

what will the german servers do now?

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > @"Ged Kealmen.7210" said:

> > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said:

> > > I have single-handedly built a sup AC AFTER a superior cata was built on a wall for a paper tower. " ...

> >

> > Against one cata with untrained bubble-less operator... sure. But try to take down 3 or more catas with bubbles with a a few arrow carts. Even with full AC mastery and Siege Might mastery it cannot be done in time.

> >

> >

>

> What does untrained bubble have anything to do with it? Cata bubbles do not negate AC fire, only shield gen bubbles do. Surely you know this.

 

must be shield gen.

[cobbah.3102]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> Good.

>

> If you want to defend an objective, you should put yourself at risk - preferably in combat with the attackers. The walls should just be there for stalling attackers until a defending force can arrive.

 

Hahahaha yes fight an omniblob you are rather funny what with everything that covers walls, pulls through walls ,pets through walls so generally 3 people maybe at objective and you want them to jump into a mob to delay them what realm of reality are you in?? As soon as you try to peep over wall you already at risk time to be real

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> If you build catapults out of AC range, they'll get deleted by a ballista (except on a few objectives with weird terrain). If you build them on the wall, they're generally safe from that, or any defensive ballista can be attacked from below.

>

> Generally, the game should be encouraging fights over objectives rather than siege wars. This is a positive step toward that.

 

Then you are still building them too close. The only things that should take out a Cata is another cata, a treb, or a mortar. All of which have counterable options with catas.

 

Oh, and players too but that means they have to... oh yeah... come out and fight.

 

If a ballista or AC takes out your cata, then you are doing it wrong.

[Hackuuna.4085]

> @"Ged Kealmen.7210" said:

> This also explains the smallmindedness of argument 2. ACs don't provide strategic value because they're complicated to use. They provide strategic value by making it difficult for attackers to place siege at extreme short range and bring down walls in less than a minute. They are meant to force attackers to place siege properly and also to defend the base of walls against players taking down ballistae. They provide a valuable short-mid range element to defense and attempting to reduce their value to "spamming 1" denotes a limited understanding.

 

There's almost no depth to the decisions required to place siege. It's neither engaging nor difficult and it's why a lot of folks don't enjoy spending hours of their time to crack something that required so little effort on the part of the defenders. If it was more engaging people might actually enjoy it but as it stands it's not.

 

Meteor shower just went through two weeks of "strategic value" but it doesn't mean it's healthy nor fun for the long term health of the game.

[cobbah.3102]

Just another nerf to help the omniblob who may be late for dinner if they have to spend time actually thinking about taking a structure ,you want defenders to come out place siege in a position to draw them out ,but no the hive mind says drop them under ac fire and whine like babies because you die , you have toxic rings of death on walls which kill anything within 3 secs and still you complain , ridiculous pulls and pets , omg you kids make me laugh and Anet has the temerity to listen to you to make things easier for you. Even they have forgotten what their game is about .

[kash.9213]

Stupid change. If I can get hit by circles standing on inside wall stairs then let people have to watch for AC fire that does more than tickle on the outside. Good change on the oil though.

[Celsith.2753]

I have 14,130 keep defenses and a similar amount of towers. I'm not a ktrainer wanting easy champ bags. I've been that 5-10 people trying to hold off a blob more times than I like to remember.

Even before the buffs to siege way back when, I used to spend hours desperately defending against a queued map. We'd make it take 3-4 hours to finally get in. That was when matches were really stale and you faced the same servers every week. My goal was to make taking our stuff such a long and miserable experience that they'd eventually learn to go bug the other server instead.

Sitting on ac's and trebs was not the best way to stop them. We got out there and stealth built behind them to take out trebs or catas. Sure we died sometimes, so what? It was possible.

It's not possible now. Balistas damage versus other siege desperately needed a buff and has been lacking since siege gained more hp to compensate for taking condition damage. Defenders now just build ridiculous amounts of siege, shield gen it, and port out when the wall does down.

That's not strategy. That's not knowing what to do, the importance of traps and stopping them dropping siege in the first place, or denying camps. It's lazy and thoughtless play and to defend it as strategic is laughable.

Ac's and other siege needed a nerf to player damage. A smaller group SHOULD be able to destroy siege or prevent it in the first place. Proactive play should be rewarded.

[Ubi.4136]

They need to remove ALL siege except rams and oil, and limit the number of rams that can be placed to 3. Only gates take damage, and they only take damage from rams. No PvDoor, it takes just as long to get in a tower with 50 people that way as it does 5 people. If you want to take a tower, walk your ass from smc and get on a ram.

No more of this trebbing from smc (cause arrow carts were soooo OP), run up with your 60 man blob to get your "fights" (you know, vs the 5-20 people trying to defend).

 

Problem solved. Only way to contest a structure, hit it with rams.

Only way to take stuff, hit it with rams.

Worried about defending siege, than use your fucking brain and destroy the oil. It's not rocket science.

 

Too many people claiming that it is too hard to take things, well let's just "fix" all that you see with wvw.

Rams and oil (nothing else). Long live the blobbing, bandwagoning, ktraining whiners.

[steki.1478]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> They need to remove ALL siege except rams and oil, and limit the number of rams that can be placed to 3. Only gates take damage, and they only take damage from rams. No PvDoor, it takes just as long to get in a tower with 50 people that way as it does 5 people. If you want to take a tower, walk your kitten from smc and get on a ram.

> No more of this trebbing from smc (cause arrow carts were soooo OP), run up with your 60 man blob to get your "fights" (you know, vs the 5-20 people trying to defend).

>

> Problem solved. Only way to contest a structure, hit it with rams.

> Only way to take stuff, hit it with rams.

> Worried about defending siege, than use your kitten brain and destroy the oil. It's not rocket science.

>

> Too many people claiming that it is too hard to take things, well let's just "fix" all that you see with wvw.

> Rams and oil (nothing else). Long live the blobbing, bandwagoning, ktraining whiners.

 

But then people won't be able to build siege in open field. It's a very strategic tactic. /s

 

Probably one of the best ideas for siege rework. Might be a bit too boring though. If they put a minimum range for placing catas then some cata vs ballista actions can be interesting.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

I heard that something like this will come but its add only to the class nerfs so chances for me to come to the wvw again in a short time is relative low.

Its true when you are winning a zerg you got loot , wxp and honor medals but from a pvp standpoint it sucks because of this people are very fast away when they are losing.

 

On the other side you may lose your building and your shorter way to the enemy but on the long run it don't hurt you and in the short run you don't get much reward for defending it . In fact there are server who lose on purpose to farm easier enemies. This is in my opinion the reason why

 

Siege gear/weapons/engines is what this game mode makes unique

 

- I would add mobile transporter to bring golems faster to the enemies lines or building arrow cart on it (it should have some HP points but not too much)

- I would increase the reward for defending 2.5- 3x more wxp then now and extra 5 bags for a camp 10 for a tower and a grandmaster shard for a fest(or a 1/5 of it) and mystery box for stonemist castle

- A extra point system were get points depending how well your server performed and your participation which you can use in the next round to built things faster or maybe call on some champion guards which helps you to defend in the first day after server reset or unique stuff like building waypoints on building which normally don't have one. (for balancing reason properly only in 'your' part of the map )

- maybe a server internal ranking of the players.

[Gwaihir.1745]

"bruh we here for d fights" -> proceeds to blob everything in their way. Welcome to every large scale guild.

[Optimator.3589]

This is a step in the right direction. It probably won't end the proclivity some servers have for building ACs all over and turtling in every damn tower they cap instead of fighting, even when they have comparable numbers. But, it'll make said turtling somewhat less effective, and that's a good thing. Now we need to convince Anet to reduce the amount of extra health structures gain from being T2 and T3.

[Tammuz.7361]

A long overdue change to encourage more pvp and less hiding in towers.

 

Had some of the best fights weve had in a long time today.

[hunkamania.7561]

Good change. Game should be more about the combat and less about standing on the wall and pressing one with an AC.