WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[TheGrimm.5624]

After running with it for a while, really think the AC changes should be rolled back personally. I feel the swing in AC damage favors the attackers too much.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> After running with it for a while, really think the AC changes should be rolled back personally. I feel the swing in AC damage favors the attackers too much.

 

Or you are just too accustomed to defenders having more of an advantage. The change so far IMHO has been great. Seems like there has been more activity. Objectives SHOULD be flipping in active matches. When objectives don't flip as much, that's a stagnant match.

[Sovereign.1093]

ac always favore the user. ac now is weaker but still is strong enough to defend or attack.

[Israel.7056]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> After running with it for a while, really think the AC changes should be rolled back personally. I feel the swing in AC damage favors the attackers too much.

 

Oh please they're still plenty strong.

[Israel.7056]

All this change has done is add some measure of diminishing returns to people who like to build multiple acs in one spot. So before you could build 8 acs and overlap fire and anything caught in it was immediately in trouble. Now it's maybe 4 max anything past that and there's some dr on overlapping fire. Personally I think they're still too strong but it's a move in the right direction.

[Magnuzone.8395]

> @"Ged Kealmen.7210" said:

> Nerfing arrow carts will only dissuade people even further from defending objectives.

>

> Already ACs weren't very effective against catapults taking down walls or against enemy players running around the base of walls taking down ballistae, now they will be even less so. Is Anet trying to promote objective flip training instead of more complex strategy play?

>

> Anyone have any ideas why they decided to further complicate proper tower/keep defense?

 

It sure helped the pvt servers.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> All this change has done is add some measure of diminishing returns to people who like to build multiple acs in one spot. So before you could build 8 acs and overlap fire and anything caught in it was immediately in trouble. Now it's maybe 4 max anything past that and there's some dr on overlapping fire. Personally I think they're still too strong but it's a move in the right direction.

 

4-5 u can easilly outsustain them, i play assassin marauder rev and with a decent group we were outsustaining alot of them, we actually capped smc under 100% fire of ac's we could ignore that ammount of ac if we wanted, we actually kept most time tellign jokes while static under the ac's, until more players arrived and detroyed a few(we were arround 7-10 with 4-6 random players that apeared later).

I think most of us health was always over 90%, some spikes towards 60% but asap covered with barrier and heal, we usually have arround 2-3 fb's and 2-3 scoruges.

 

 

Offense in similiar numbers is actually easy than defense, defenders cant shoot from above due pulls, aoe, spike from range, and they need to step over that ledge that does not allows them to gain FoV to plauyers, if they even peak they are dead.

On offense we can easilly get close with scourges to the wall and melt every one there in a 2-3 seconds bombs, pull back lure more and repeat.

Some players get so close to try to hit some one down that even jalis can pull tehm :scream: , no wonder most player will try to find or build siege nearby.

 

Most gw2 players will log off if they loose a fight, ence they dont fight or only fight when their server can ktrain, ANet imbued this mentality in players.

 

[Israel.7056]

Well that's good you shouldn't be able to kill players with siege alone. Should have to actually fight too.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"Threather.9354" said:

> Defending was too easy.

>

> I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

>

> Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

 

Are you high?

Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

 

Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

 

These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

[steki.1478]

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > Defending was too easy.

> >

> > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> >

> > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

>

> Are you high?

> Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

>

> Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

>

> These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

 

Then you need better defenders. Siege won't and shouldn't help you if you're incapable of (at least) holding enemy zerg with 20 people until someone comes. I bet half of those were social justice rangers (warriors would be useful in this situation at least) who need no meta and no man to tell them what to do, because if you had just a several warrs/eles/scourges/burn guards, that zerg would be melting.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > Defending was too easy.

> >

> > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> >

> > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

>

> Are you high?

> Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

>

> Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

>

> These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

 

You shouldn't be able to defend for long 20vzerg.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > Defending was too easy.

> >

> > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> >

> > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

>

> Are you high?

> Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

>

> Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

>

> These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

 

i feel ya. when we face a blob, we still try to fight but... meh, resigning to simply take it back.

 

cant also ask the blob to split, that is against their interest and will favor my smaller team.

 

just let it go.

 

 

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > > Defending was too easy.

> > >

> > > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> > >

> > > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

> >

> > Are you high?

> > Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

> >

> > Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

> >

> > These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

>

> You shouldn't be able to defend for long 20vzerg.

 

I do not concur with that assumption ,it is a game mode where you make a commitment and just not quit, defend and fight to the last.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > Defending was too easy.

> >

> > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> >

> > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

>

> Are you high?

> Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

>

> Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

>

> These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

 

20 players...

Couldn't disable ?

Couldn't build a treb behind either of the gates? Sorry you're not getting through 2 T3 walls in 2 minutes.

Couldn't pull tactics literally delaying 1 minute or allowing your own zerg to port in and defend?

Couldn't use supply traps or prebuild-treb to prevent them from freely opening inner after apparently freely opening outer?

 

How do you actually break into a T3 in less than 2 minutes? Frankly that requires golems or 6-7 rams per gate. Catas are nowhere near that fast.

And with that many rams per gate AND having 20 players, how is there no invuln? Right - other tactic. Ok then how can you not get more players to come and defend? Because if no invuln, you still have EWP. How can none of them disable? How can you not build trebs on the inner to force them to build gens before building rams which you can still disable by using unblockables?

 

"oh but they had gens so treb didn't work" meanwhile complaining ACs aren't strong enough? :trollface:

 

Right... So 20 players were half-afk expecting their siege to stop 60+ players without even using it half decently. Because if you defended half-decently then they can NEVER get in in under 2 minutes. Honestly, letting people break into a T3 in under 2 minutes while you have 20 defenders isn't something you should be proud of and it has nothing to do with AC strength. It just tells me not one of those 20 players had a clue on how to stall / defend. And at that point? Losing your objective is 100% acceptable.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > > > Defending was too easy.

> > > >

> > > > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> > > >

> > > > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

> > >

> > > Are you high?

> > > Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

> > >

> > > Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

> > >

> > > These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

> >

> > You shouldn't be able to defend for long 20vzerg.

>

> I do not concur with that assumption ,it is a game mode where you make a commitment and just not quit, defend and fight to the last.

 

That has nothing to do with losing a few objectives. You can continue to play after you lose a T3 keep, especially bay... :)

[Israel.7056]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > > > Defending was too easy.

> > > >

> > > > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> > > >

> > > > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

> > >

> > > Are you high?

> > > Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

> > >

> > > Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

> > >

> > > These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

> >

> > You shouldn't be able to defend for long 20vzerg.

>

> I do not concur with that assumption ,it is a game mode where you make a commitment and just not quit, defend and fight to the last.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be attempted or that it's not conceivably possible. I'm saying that the odds should be heavily against the defenders at that point assuming the attacking zerg is competent, which is surely the case with a bg zerg.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > > > > Defending was too easy.

> > > > >

> > > > > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> > > > >

> > > > > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

> > > >

> > > > Are you high?

> > > > Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

> > > >

> > > > Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

> > > >

> > > > These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

> > >

> > > You shouldn't be able to defend for long 20vzerg.

> >

> > I do not concur with that assumption ,it is a game mode where you make a commitment and just not quit, defend and fight to the last.

>

> That has nothing to do with losing a few objectives. You can continue to play after you lose a T3 keep, especially bay... :)

 

Bay have quite some gimmicks to get easilly pressured and captured, lol, m8 be the least strucutre i woorry about when being blobbed.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

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

> > > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > > > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > > > > > Defending was too easy.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you high?

> > > > > Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

> > > > >

> > > > > Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

> > > > >

> > > > > These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

> > > >

> > > > You shouldn't be able to defend for long 20vzerg.

> > >

> > > I do not concur with that assumption ,it is a game mode where you make a commitment and just not quit, defend and fight to the last.

> >

> > That has nothing to do with losing a few objectives. You can continue to play after you lose a T3 keep, especially bay... :)

>

> Bay have quite some gimmicks to get easilly pressured and captured, lol, m8 be the least strucutre i woorry about when being blobbed.

 

0 replies as to how you open T3 bay against 20 players in 2 minutes. You mention gimmicks yet you don't tell me which. I can cap garri in 5 minutes too, doesn't mean AC's are or aren't OP or UP. Just means players are bad, then cry to anet to get their L2P issues fixed. Now when will you tell me how to get into a T3 bay in sub 2 minutes when its properly defended by 20 players? ;)

[Israel.7056]

8 rams and shield gens i'd imagine

[Gorani.7205]

My subjective observations from playing WvW after the AC nerf (and the other siege changes) over the past few weeks (EU/Aurora Glade - so currently in the T1 match up):

- Base fortresses on EB are still full of siege, even in off-hours, because they get refreshed. Whoever has a chance to treb an enemy structure does it (not the siege's fault, but the design of the map that puts everything so close together on the map).

- Despite the nerfs to the Shield bubbles from Generators, I see more of them built now, usually in pairs.

- I see a slight increase in Ballistae being built for defence and offence, but but only with havoc groups or limited defenders who know where exactly to place them. The more players, the bigger the chance the wall just gets flooded with AoE fields to clear defenders and siege.

- In the current match up, I see a lot of sneaky catapults being built that shoot at far range, which lead to some nice counter siege action and attacking the cata with small force (e.g. around Briar, with catas at locations in the ruins).

- The normal AC is not being built any more, the superior AC does hardly have any use. I see people just enduring the fire of a superior AC and just out-healing it. Two ACs post a little threat, if you have to fight against another player at the same time. The only use I see in them as a anti person tool is the skill 2 to cripple (if you have allies in melee with them and the skill 4 to reveal the plethora of Mirages and Deadeyes.

- As an anti siege tool fighting proxi catapults at walls, both ACs are useless and auto attacks on most classes with a range 1200+ weapon will out damage the AC.

- Cata's Gravel Shot is still not used by anyone, the survivability boost for using Burning Oil is still not enough.

 

Current verdict:

The AC vs. people nerf was OK, but could be slightly adjusted in favour of the AC (e.g. by reducing the CD of skill 2 & 3 to 8 seconds and skill 4 from 60 to 40 seconds). The problem is the obsolete normal AC. The AC vs siege nerf is too much, perhaps the damage reduction should be tested with a 33% reduction and not the 50% we have now (compared to pre July).

[Artaz.3819]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > > Defending was too easy.

> > >

> > > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> > >

> > > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

> >

> > Are you high?

> > Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

> >

> > Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

> >

> > These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

>

> 20 players...

> Couldn't disable ?

> Couldn't build a treb behind either of the gates? Sorry you're not getting through 2 T3 walls in 2 minutes.

> Couldn't pull tactics literally delaying 1 minute or allowing your own zerg to port in and defend?

> Couldn't use supply traps or prebuild-treb to prevent them from freely opening inner after apparently freely opening outer?

>

> How do you actually break into a T3 in less than 2 minutes? Frankly that requires golems or 6-7 rams per gate. Catas are nowhere near that fast.

> And with that many rams per gate AND having 20 players, how is there no invuln? Right - other tactic. Ok then how can you not get more players to come and defend? Because if no invuln, you still have EWP. How can none of them disable? How can you not build trebs on the inner to force them to build gens before building rams which you can still disable by using unblockables?

>

> "oh but they had gens so treb didn't work" meanwhile complaining ACs aren't strong enough? :trollface:

>

> Right... So 20 players were half-afk expecting their siege to stop 60+ players without even using it half decently. Because if you defended half-decently then they can NEVER get in in under 2 minutes. Honestly, letting people break into a T3 in under 2 minutes while you have 20 defenders isn't something you should be proud of and it has nothing to do with AC strength. It just tells me not one of those 20 players had a clue on how to stall / defend. And at that point? Losing your objective is 100% acceptable.

 

Since I was there...

 

BG had 60+ players running mega blob. A treb was hitting non-stop (interior to exterior) + mortars attempting to hit but there were synchronized bubbles protecting the catas. But yes, it was 2 T3 walls in 2 minutes. EWP was pulled to get more players there too than the 20 but then too late. Supply traps were ineffective, way too much supply to drain. I don't think more than 1-2 traps were used though...not enough time to set up with how quickly things happened.

 

Honestly, there was 4-6 more defending superior arrow carts pelting non-stop (and more were built on the interior bridge once the BG entered lord area) from what I saw. It didn't matter, Arrow Cart defense is dead now against the the omni Zerg with Firebrand healers/support Mesmers.

 

You shouldn't be expected to win a 3 BG v 1 KG fight long term but it should last more than 3 minutes for some objective that takes hours to get to T3 status. Sad state right now to defend anything... comparison, pre-Arrow Cart nerf, 10 defenders would have easily stopped/slowed down to a 10-15 minute slower siege fight against the 60+ player force defending a T3 keep that was already set up.

 

WvW is a KTrain now until this is balanced again. To be fair, Kaineng did the same to BG's EBG keep just prior. So it is going both ways right now depending on numbers.

 

Back to roaming for me :bleep_bloop:

[Artaz.3819]

> @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"Etheri.5406" said:

> > > > @"cobbah.3102" said:

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

> > > > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > > > > > > @"Threather.9354" said:

> > > > > > > Defending was too easy.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I dont think acs were the main problem, rather tactics, t3 gates/walls and claim buff, but at least it is at the right direction.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Like literally best plan with good group vs good group was never going near upgraded enemy objectives. As long as they nerf claim buff, it will be pretty balanced.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Are you high?

> > > > > > Just today a BG zerg busted into a T3 Kaineng Hills in less than 2 mins even though we had some 20 defenders.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Numbers beats everything in this mode. If anything, defending is too hard.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > These k-train folks will not be happy until WvW is a white square box with nothing but 24/7 deathmatch. The deathmatch mode of PvP failed because that was boring.

> > > > >

> > > > > You shouldn't be able to defend for long 20vzerg.

> > > >

> > > > I do not concur with that assumption ,it is a game mode where you make a commitment and just not quit, defend and fight to the last.

> > >

> > > That has nothing to do with losing a few objectives. You can continue to play after you lose a T3 keep, especially bay... :)

> >

> > Bay have quite some gimmicks to get easilly pressured and captured, lol, m8 be the least strucutre i woorry about when being blobbed.

>

> 0 replies as to how you open T3 bay against 20 players in 2 minutes. You mention gimmicks yet you don't tell me which. I can cap garri in 5 minutes too, doesn't mean AC's are or aren't OP or UP. Just means players are bad, then cry to anet to get their L2P issues fixed. Now when will you tell me how to get into a T3 bay in sub 2 minutes when its properly defended by 20 players? ;)

 

It was 1 v 3 and the enemy zerg runs 40%+ Minstrel Firebrands (meta). That's it. You basically ignore the defenders on siege unless pulled from support Mesmers off walls, build stuff that bubbles and plow right through/blocks siege disables. It takes 2-3 minutes on T3s. Supply traps properly placed can slow you down but not really as you have more than enough supply.

 

As long as people don't chase and run away from the main group (coordinated pulls still happen), but really no one dies since everyone rezzes with traits and scourges can pull to centralized area with no damage (Spellbreaker bubble)/healing zone anyways.

 

You need voice comm for coordination but that's really simple if people want to PPT.

[Iris Ng.9845]

I'm from BG and _lmao_, we never run 40% FB in any blobs ever. Any commanders in BG knows they need to B E G people to swap to support FB because how little rewarding it is. Besides, BG pugmanders don't generally pitch pugs (the main component of the aforementioned 60-man omni blob) to a well-sieged, well-defended T3 keep unless it's SMC or either factor lacking (poorly sieged, poorly defended).

 

We lack coverage, so we have a fair share of times our T3 keeps get flipped by the enemy zerg during off-peaks after we did our utmost to stall the zerg, counter-siege, repair/invuln wall, and whittle their numbers. And if we lost it then we lost, it means we couldn't outplay the bigger number, ****not because AC vs siege damage was nerfed, boohooo****.

 

From my scout's perspective, 20 people should not win against a determined blob of 60 by turning into the siege monkeys. The best achievements they can do is to delay the invasion, deal enough damages (to players or supply) to make them give up, or buying time for reinforcement to arrive or deter them with another big objective: "They go for our T3 keep, they'll lose their T3 garrie" - and get the bags.

 

Also, 20 players with 20 well-placed supply traps can drain a zerg __dry__ (remove 2k sup in total) and force them to leave to re-supply before inner. Ideally, you want to call out for incoming to your objectives before the blob reaches outer, that would greatly give you defender's advantage: hop on mortar/cannon/sAC to harass, cow the zerg to remove their supply, force them to build shield gen, disable the shield gen and wring them dry, etc (don't want to let out too much trade secrets, man).

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Iris Ng.9845" said:

> Also, 20 players with 20 well-placed supply traps can drain a zerg __dry__ (remove 2k sup in total) and force them to leave to re-supply before inner. Ideally, you want to call out for incoming to your objectives before the blob reaches outer, that would greatly give you defender's advantage: hop on mortar/cannon/sAC to harass, cow the zerg to remove their supply, force them to build shield gen, disable the shield gen and wring them dry, etc (don't want to let out too much trade secrets, man).

 

Yeah this is an important point. Defenders still have the overwhelming advantage if they actually understand just how many tools they still have at their disposal compared to offense. ACs are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. No one should really be able to take anything from anyone even if its 20v60 without it being a total slog. The fact that people are complaining about a slight AC nerf shows how little they actually understand about defending and how reliant they are on just that one tool in their arsenal.

 

 

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Iris Ng.9845" said:

> > Also, 20 players with 20 well-placed supply traps can drain a zerg __dry__ (remove 2k sup in total) and force them to leave to re-supply before inner. Ideally, you want to call out for incoming to your objectives before the blob reaches outer, that would greatly give you defender's advantage: hop on mortar/cannon/sAC to harass, cow the zerg to remove their supply, force them to build shield gen, disable the shield gen and wring them dry, etc (don't want to let out too much trade secrets, man).

>

> Yeah this is an important point. Defenders still have the overwhelming advantage if they actually understand just how many tools they still have at their disposal compared to offense. ACs are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. No one should really be able to take anything from anyone even if its 20v60 without it being a total slog. The fact that people are complaining about a slight AC nerf shows how little they actually understand about defending and how reliant they are on just that one tool in their arsenal.

>

>

 

Only if structures its t3 and those 60 are "special" kind of player, i never manage to not capture a structure when my server is outmaning that hard 60 vs 20... besides the commander would be laughed really hard.

 

60 vs 20 at defense those at defense wont actually be any kind of challange lol... msot siege places are counterable, players pulled from walls easilly due some skills LoS, even ac's can be used on offense to wipe siege and put pressure on walls.

If in those 60 the tag and its group of 10 in tknows what to do , it is not 20 players that will stop them.... unless there only pve "special quality" players on those 60..

What is most obvious is the 20 will loosing the structures and will bail out of the game or gona cap something where they wont expect a fight...

 

If u have seen 60 players failing to capture a structure from 20 that's really a serious QQ cause theres a fight rather than actually know how to deal and conter with siege placement.

Still ive seen zergs bailling out due 1 sup ac that they could not hit... and they didnt want anything else than proxy cata, when theres lots of better ways to get the tower in question.

 

As i player that spends most time in offense than actually defending, i must say theres alot of players that QQ when their only way to defend or atack fails, most use proxy catas has if if anythign else wont work... i dont mind those players to be easilly killed from Ac's showers even if they are on my side... lol

 

 

 

TDLR: No a group of 60 should never loose to a group of 20 on defense and that only happens to very bad zergs(really really bad ones), with the current very very friendly gimmick metas the 60 should not even loose a player.... and if they know minimal their classes its not 6+ sup ac's not fire mortars that will stop them... :|