WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Iris Ng.9845]

@"Aeolus.3615"

>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.

 

My point. But at the same time, 20 defenders vs. 60 can do enough to stop them from flipping a t3 keep in **flat 2 minutes**. Key being not relying only on AC and complain about it getting nerfed.

[Israel.7056]

I didn't say stop them just make it a slog. Can easily make it take an extra 20-30 minutes which can make all the difference if the defensive group is stalling for their own zerg. Moreover an equal sized force can make any attempt almost impossible if they use those same tactics on a larger scale. Supply draining is one of the more underused defensive tactics in my experience but 60 defense supply trapping 60 offense will shut down almost any sustained attempt. On offense there's no siege setup that cannot be countered in some fashion. This is why the big objectives tend to flip during coverage gaps. Gotta be fast and/or sneaky preferably both to take stuff especially from the higher tier servers.

[Sovereign.1093]

if 20 vs 60. those 20 must be quick on disables.

 

must be quick to kill blon stragglers.

 

drop suply drains. some hitting enemy keeps so they cant respawn fast.

 

outside that, sieges manned by pugs at right spots can make the hold longer.

 

but the group must fight. if siege only, unless attackers are paper, it will eventually fall.

 

but seriously an organized.map.blob is scary. split up hehe. give the fewer guys a chance. unless ur ppt is losing.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Iris Ng.9845" said:

> @"Aeolus.3615"

> >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.

>

> My point. But at the same time, 20 defenders vs. 60 can do enough to stop them from flipping a t3 keep in **flat 2 minutes**. Key being not relying only on AC and complain about it getting nerfed.

 

IDK, 2mins to 3mins seams actually a fast and fair time for **what is possible to do in game** against 20 defending, only delay possible is thiefs try to disable siege, but even that can be resolved with aoe on rams or catas.

Players can be easilly pulled from wall and siege destroyed from under even if its on the back of the wall of close to midle stairs,. theres ton of sustain against ac's.... as well.. 15players can easilly outsustain 5-6 superior ac's.... and pull players and destroy siege and the players on it, they can even pretend they pull back alowing defender to res downed on top of wall and bombard again killing everything, that's what people do...

 

Other situation, rahter than defend on walls...since i believe siege needs diferent rules and structures need to be fixed.... yes fixed.

Since game has no physics and LoS correction from down to above, in some places a group of aoe classes can avoid contact with the other zerg and bombard under the bridge(lets use bridges has exemples) since ground(underneeth top if u are under it) on bridges will validate due bad coding skills frorm ANet, every aoe casted under object will trigger on top, this how u face zergs on hills after a mass invisible and hide under the bridge bombing everything under hit killing the defenders pushing the bridge, IF they have siege on the bridge it wont hit your group but from underneath u can hit everything above.

 

It is not the ac's issues alone but that bad resolve on Anet side to make the game having decent rules ...

Anet is more than awfull at reworking this things, they enforce and encourage bad behavior and usage of gimmicks that result on awfull validations.

Players need to find lame ways or they wont be "good" in this game.

 

Mostly will actually cap nearby tower and build 5-7 trebs if having issues against those 20.... if ac's are a issue, trebs wars is even worse, same has play broken LoS places, since it what makes people avoid fights and want to be carried by siege.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> I didn't say stop them just make it a slog. Can easily make it take an extra 20-30 minutes which can make all the difference if the defensive group is stalling for their own zerg. Moreover an equal sized force can make any attempt almost impossible if they use those same tactics on a larger scale. Supply draining is one of the more underused defensive tactics in my experience but 60 defense supply trapping 60 offense will shut down almost any sustained attempt. On offense there's no siege setup that cannot be countered in some fashion. This is why the big objectives tend to flip during coverage gaps. Gotta be fast and/or sneaky preferably both to take stuff especially from the higher tier servers.

 

At least we aren't talking 5v50 anymore... :open_mouth:

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"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.

 

I am seeing less defense and more back to Ktrain days. K-Train means zerg win and we lose peeps to other games, that's a bad business investment as we see pop declining quickly already. We need to find a balance between how many defending should hold off how many attacking. Bali's have no angels and don't fit the same role.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"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.

 

Could already stand in AC fire before, maybe less glass cannon?

[Sovereign.1093]

ok since players cant survive ac just go minstrel and tank the ac while opening stuff.

 

be patient. it will open and then you can fight.

 

now if you cant tank in minstrel, its a l2play issue.

[Sovereign.1093]

ok since players cant survive ac just go minstrel and tank the ac while opening stuff.

 

be patient. it will open and then you can fight.

 

now if you cant tank in minstrel, its a l2play issue.

[TheGrimm.5624]

This is also a difference in group size issue. How many with defensive siege should be able to hold how many? How many with siege on both sides? Where is the value in starving a keep and value in controlling the camps while besieging? That and we need to figure out the paper rock scissors balance. What should hurt what. If the AC is anti-personal weapon then it should do more damage to the player and less to siege. And then go up each piece from there. What's its target and what its counter. Walls already have little value so how do they add more? Should they buff the defenders to encourage them to push out more. But just nerfing siege only adds the K-Train.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> This is also a difference in group size issue. How many with defensive siege should be able to hold how many? How many with siege on both sides? Where is the value in starving a keep and value in controlling the camps while besieging? That and we need to figure out the paper rock scissors balance. What should hurt what. If the AC is anti-personal weapon then it should do more damage to the player and less to siege. And then go up each piece from there. What's its target and what its counter. Walls already have little value so how do they add more? Should they buff the defenders to encourage them to push out more. But just nerfing siege only adds the K-Train.

 

mmm my group of 5 to 7 can tank 6 to 7 superior ac.

 

if we can get 10 to 15, the same or more.

 

but aftet that.kinda hard to reign in players.

 

i believe in quality over blob (well dont really got a choice since we are a small guild)

 

i think 10 acs is the limit. to hot to hard and if players come and fight our bluff is gg.

 

we puffer fishes.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > This is also a difference in group size issue. How many with defensive siege should be able to hold how many? How many with siege on both sides? Where is the value in starving a keep and value in controlling the camps while besieging? That and we need to figure out the paper rock scissors balance. What should hurt what. If the AC is anti-personal weapon then it should do more damage to the player and less to siege. And then go up each piece from there. What's its target and what its counter. Walls already have little value so how do they add more? Should they buff the defenders to encourage them to push out more. But just nerfing siege only adds the K-Train.

>

> mmm my group of 5 to 7 can tank 6 to 7 superior ac.

>

> if we can get 10 to 15, the same or more.

>

> but aftet that.kinda hard to reign in players.

>

> i believe in quality over blob (well dont really got a choice since we are a small guild)

 

See that's where I am going. Ac should drop players even if it doesn't drop siege. You want to keep swinging that ram, fine, it will cost you bodies.

 

I agree run in havoc strength more than warband or zerg, if there was AC fire, fine we move to where they don't have defense and make them spend more supply or we stand in it a bit to keep them focused while another force hits else where. While defending do same thing, try and force them off with lowest amount of supply. Now its, forget it they are too close to wall and bali will never hit. This is lost.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > > This is also a difference in group size issue. How many with defensive siege should be able to hold how many? How many with siege on both sides? Where is the value in starving a keep and value in controlling the camps while besieging? That and we need to figure out the paper rock scissors balance. What should hurt what. If the AC is anti-personal weapon then it should do more damage to the player and less to siege. And then go up each piece from there. What's its target and what its counter. Walls already have little value so how do they add more? Should they buff the defenders to encourage them to push out more. But just nerfing siege only adds the K-Train.

> >

> > mmm my group of 5 to 7 can tank 6 to 7 superior ac.

> >

> > if we can get 10 to 15, the same or more.

> >

> > but aftet that.kinda hard to reign in players.

> >

> > i believe in quality over blob (well dont really got a choice since we are a small guild)

>

> See that's where I am going. Ac should drop players even if it doesn't drop siege. You want to keep swinging that ram, fine, it will cost you bodies.

>

> I agree run in havoc strength more than warband or zerg, if there was AC fire, fine we move to where they don't have defense and make them spend more supply or we stand in it a bit to keep them focused while another force hits else where. While defending do same thing, try and force them off with lowest amount of supply. Now its, forget it they are too close to wall and bali will never hit. This is lost.

 

=)

 

ac is still strong though. will post vids of our dancing in the rain. but u will also see, pugs dying a lot.

[Israel.7056]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> Could already stand in AC fire before, maybe less glass cannon?

 

Incorrect.

[Israel.7056]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> I am seeing less defense and more back to Ktrain days. K-Train means zerg win and we lose peeps to other games, that's a bad business investment as we see pop declining quickly already. We need to find a balance between how many defending should hold off how many attacking. Bali's have no angels and don't fit the same role.

 

Well as I said too many bad players were too used to the ac crutch. Not surprising that they might leave if they actually have to learn to fight people instead of just turtle objectives with siege. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

[Clownmug.8357]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"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.

> >

> > I am seeing less defense and more back to Ktrain days. K-Train means zerg win and we lose peeps to other games, that's a bad business investment as we see pop declining quickly already. We need to find a balance between how many defending should hold off how many attacking. Bali's have no angels and don't fit the same role.

>

> Well as I said too many bad players were too used to the ac crutch. Not surprising that they might leave if they actually have to learn to fight people instead of just turtle objectives with siege. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

 

Bad players are better than no players. I hope you enjoy your new PvE game mode.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Clownmug.8357" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > >

> > > I am seeing less defense and more back to Ktrain days. K-Train means zerg win and we lose peeps to other games, that's a bad business investment as we see pop declining quickly already. We need to find a balance between how many defending should hold off how many attacking. Bali's have no angels and don't fit the same role.

> >

> > Well as I said too many bad players were too used to the ac crutch. Not surprising that they might leave if they actually have to learn to fight people instead of just turtle objectives with siege. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

>

> Bad players are better than no players. I hope you enjoy your new PvE game mode.

 

Absurd hyperbole. There are still plenty of people to fight turns out not everyone is a terrible siege turtle after all. Hope all the raging siege turtles have fun farming istan it's where they belong.

[Sovereign.1093]

i have come to accept siegers. mag has probably one of the best. as long as they allert we could not open sm wall.

 

so fighting to open is really grade a. and they fight 2.

 

respect

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> i have come to accept siegers. mag has probably one of the best. as long as they allert we could not open sm wall.

>

> so fighting to open is really grade a. and they fight 2.

>

> respect

>

 

I will never accept them. Unfortunately you are right though current Mag has WAY too many people who use siege WAY too often but I cannot control that. All I can do is make fun of them when I see it and hope they change. Spoilers: they never change.

[Clownmug.8357]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Clownmug.8357" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > > > I am seeing less defense and more back to Ktrain days. K-Train means zerg win and we lose peeps to other games, that's a bad business investment as we see pop declining quickly already. We need to find a balance between how many defending should hold off how many attacking. Bali's have no angels and don't fit the same role.

> > >

> > > Well as I said too many bad players were too used to the ac crutch. Not surprising that they might leave if they actually have to learn to fight people instead of just turtle objectives with siege. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

> >

> > Bad players are better than no players. I hope you enjoy your new PvE game mode.

>

> Absurd hyperbole. There are still plenty of people to fight turns out not everyone is a terrible siege turtle after all. Hope all the raging siege turtles have fun farming istan it's where they belong.

 

In my experience the people remaining are just attacking empty buildings and map hopping when they face equal or greater opposition.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Clownmug.8357" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Clownmug.8357" said:

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

> > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am seeing less defense and more back to Ktrain days. K-Train means zerg win and we lose peeps to other games, that's a bad business investment as we see pop declining quickly already. We need to find a balance between how many defending should hold off how many attacking. Bali's have no angels and don't fit the same role.

> > > >

> > > > Well as I said too many bad players were too used to the ac crutch. Not surprising that they might leave if they actually have to learn to fight people instead of just turtle objectives with siege. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.

> > >

> > > Bad players are better than no players. I hope you enjoy your new PvE game mode.

> >

> > Absurd hyperbole. There are still plenty of people to fight turns out not everyone is a terrible siege turtle after all. Hope all the raging siege turtles have fun farming istan it's where they belong.

>

> In my experience the people remaining are just attacking empty buildings and map hopping when they face equal or greater opposition.

 

Indeed but this has always been a problem regardless of the strength of arrow carts. Those sorts of groups map hop around and try to take undefended or lightly defended objectives and then siege turtle whenever someone attacks their stuff. But things have supposedly changed. Attack their t3s, bring them to you. If they can't siege turtle as effectively they will have to actually fight to defend things now and you will either get a fight or they will lose everything. Either way you win.

[Aeolus.3615]

That's why ac's should hurt "alot", (5k-8k)reduced by toughness ofc, on a salvo with larger CD rather than the instant spam... i have been sugested 8sec CD for auto AC fire with decent damage and probably cripple, this gives plenty of time for players prepare for ac salvos.. and their spike if sync with other ac's... and wont make players want to leech ac's due spam and their siege overstacking.

The other skills from AC could be preparations like we had on ranger rather than a skill itself???

Preparation to add poison + slow (Miasma arrows ^_^), damage reducing 15%.

Preparation to add fire + vulnerability, damage reducing 20%.

Preparation to fire faster 50%, but damage gets reduced 75%.

Add a better sound and arrow(1.5 to 2sec) fly time to hit the targeted zone, would be always about time and "cover".

 

 

THis could make possibe to hurt large blobs and small groups could come to fight on open and try to kill those who actually werent prepared for the salvo evede/dodge/block/sustain/heal etc...

For example, large servers that avoid ground combat and stack on siege only, wont be that strong since smaller groups could counter with team work mostly the spikes from the ac's due their interval and fore the larger server to go on ground.

 

This also could motivate much smaller groups to go open fight with counter ground militia hit and run, would be better than w8 mass stack on siege like some servers do...

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> That's why ac's should hurt "alot", (5k-8k)reduced by toughness ofc, on a salvo with larger CD rather than the instant spam.

 

Nah, my larger group will just build ACs to kill the smaller defenders then, really make the tops of walls hot with never-ending fire! Then imagine a line of superior or guild ACs at strategic locations outside the lord's room killing the lord and anyone who tries to hold the ring.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > That's why ac's should hurt "alot", (5k-8k)reduced by toughness ofc, on a salvo with larger CD rather than the instant spam.

>

> Nah, my larger group will just build ACs to kill the smaller defenders then, really make the tops of walls hot with never-ending fire! Then imagine a line of superior or guild ACs at strategic locations outside the lord's room killing the lord and anyone who tries to hold the ring.

 

Good point :}

[Israel.7056]

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. Any tool that's available in the game can be used by any sized group in the game.