WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Usagi.4835]

> @"Evolute.6239" said:

> The whole point is that it took hundreds upon hundreds of supply to even crack an outer through ac and siege fire against vastly lower numbers. Heaven forbid they had a Zerg inside on said siege, but I can understand defending somewhat then. Most of the time it’s a vastly outnumbered force still defending though.

>

> Nerfed siege means a larger force will need to respond if a large group comes. Which is healthy and good. Nobody except the 3 people on ACs enjoy what was happening previously. Maybe not even them, as you have people like in this thread who feel it’s unfair they’re alone against 50 and need to rely on siege. (That’s a whole different discussion of matchmaking issues and PPT influence)

>

> Though they also broke shield gens last patch and they don’t do anything right now anyway ?

>

 

I thought they fixed shield gens in one of the recent builds but I haven't bothered to check because a shield gen is probably the most boring piece of siege to man. There're no clear-cut answers. I think they should've reduced the damage dealt to players only, not siege. For the record, it drives me nuts when there're people firing cannons, mortars and trebs into fights (BG was the most egregious example I think I've ever encountered, no joke).

 

That said, I can't get behind nerfing siege. Population will hopefully be addressed by the alliance system but as it is now, in many instances, there _is_ no larger force online. So okay, you paper the objective and kill a few people who can't defend and are hopefully not stupid enough to try and take on a zerg. Then what? Some fight. They'd also have to drain supplies to build siege and if you're proactive, you'd either send a few people or go yourself to flip camps which can lead to some decent small skirmishes. It tells you something about a larger group if they can't get organised enough, even with shield gens, to flip T3 stuff. As much as I like Cookie, you'll see a lot of what he does with his zerg is have mesmers spam pulls into AOEs on the walls which is a huge deterrent. You actually need people to use their brains and clear the third floor cannons as you enter SMC.

 

 

[shiri.4257]

Sieging a t3 objective requires more complex minds. Praise Lord Xushin, slayer of fight guilds from t8 to t1 2017. Never forget.

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > T3 stuff does pop out of thin air so to speak if the objectives are left alone long enough. Don't expect to be able to defend stuff if you don't know how to PvP this is supposed to be a PvP oriented game mode after all. If you're as tactically gifted as you think you are apply that to actual fighting instead of building siege and using it as a crutch.

>

> If you're as tactically gifted as you think you are then apply that to smart siege usage rather than using it as a crutch. See how that works?

 

Smart siege usage rather than using it as a crutch? What exactly is being used as a crutch in your statement?

[mulzi.8273]

Honestly, this nerf does not mean anything any more. Well, in T1 anyway. All you need in T1 is to transfer to a specific server and ride the wave of golem exploiting to take T3 structures without fear over ever getting hit. More than 50% of every structure they took this week was due to under-the-map golems opening gates, killing the lords, etc to which there is no defense as you cannot target the golems to kill them.

 

All siege is useless against golems under the map. That is the new wave of the future. It is effective though, as said server will win the week this week, so kudos to them for finding a strat that works for them.

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > T3 stuff does pop out of thin air so to speak if the objectives are left alone long enough. Don't expect to be able to defend stuff if you don't know how to PvP this is supposed to be a PvP oriented game mode after all. If you're as tactically gifted as you think you are apply that to actual fighting instead of building siege and using it as a crutch.

>

> If you're as tactically gifted as you think you are then apply that to smart siege usage rather than using it as a crutch. See how that works?

 

Using what as a crutch?

 

I don't build siege I fight people even if it means we lose every objective we own.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Like I said this always hinges around the 5v50 canard. If you're honestly that outnumbered you should lose all your stuff and drop tiers until the numbers are more even because you've clearly pptd your server into a tier it doesn't belong in. But in my experience most fights are not 5v50 and it's usually 40v40 with one side building 20 acs and turtling objectives for hours.

>

> I'm on TC and in tier 4, and yes, there are a ton of fights, even this week, that were 5 maybe even up to 10 vs 40-60. On that same token, watching the map at different hours, I know that we have fielded the 40+ vs JQ's towers where they basically were in the same situation with 5 defenders (or on DBBL where red doesn't go cause no one likes desert). DB can summon at least a full raid 24 hours a day to defend smc or flip our entire third, like they have done nearly every night all week. We don't have anywhere else to go from T4. We are nearly tied on score "because" of PPT, but personally despite us likely winning this week we should NOT be in T3, at all. Sure we have small guild groups trying superhard to get us the win, but the numbers and coverage are just not there. Skill is also an issue for a lot of the new folks, but skill is irrelevant when it's the time of day for the 50 to flip your third and you have 10 people active and 10 afk. Even if the afk pip farmers moved, were not beating the 50 with 20.

>

> What wins at EVERY tier is numbers and coverage. And, with all the years of bandwagoning, some servers have better of both. Every "fight" server runs full comp'd squads, yet because of all the stacking, never has an equal force to face for most of their play time. So, you end up with wvw the way it is now. Large, ktraining blobs claiming they want fights, yet only "fight" when they can win 100% of the fights, and it's always vs smaller numbers. If one loses an equal fight, they get more or log. It's the reality of every tier in NA right now.

 

I believe you and I completely agree with you about numbers and coverage. I'm sympathetic to your situation honestly. The problem is that we can't have arrow cart rules that only apply to TC. If we could I'd be all for it but we all have to play by the same rules. You may legitimately be terribly outnumbered a great deal of the time in t4 and perhaps it does justify the use of copious amounts of ACs in your situation. The problem is that there are servers with plenty of people who will use them excessively despite having no real need for them they just use them because they can. You see what I'm saying?

[Ubi.4136]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Ubi.4136" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > Like I said this always hinges around the 5v50 canard. If you're honestly that outnumbered you should lose all your stuff and drop tiers until the numbers are more even because you've clearly pptd your server into a tier it doesn't belong in. But in my experience most fights are not 5v50 and it's usually 40v40 with one side building 20 acs and turtling objectives for hours.

> >

> > I'm on TC and in tier 4, and yes, there are a ton of fights, even this week, that were 5 maybe even up to 10 vs 40-60. On that same token, watching the map at different hours, I know that we have fielded the 40+ vs JQ's towers where they basically were in the same situation with 5 defenders (or on DBBL where red doesn't go cause no one likes desert). DB can summon at least a full raid 24 hours a day to defend smc or flip our entire third, like they have done nearly every night all week. We don't have anywhere else to go from T4. We are nearly tied on score "because" of PPT, but personally despite us likely winning this week we should NOT be in T3, at all. Sure we have small guild groups trying superhard to get us the win, but the numbers and coverage are just not there. Skill is also an issue for a lot of the new folks, but skill is irrelevant when it's the time of day for the 50 to flip your third and you have 10 people active and 10 afk. Even if the afk pip farmers moved, were not beating the 50 with 20.

> >

> > What wins at EVERY tier is numbers and coverage. And, with all the years of bandwagoning, some servers have better of both. Every "fight" server runs full comp'd squads, yet because of all the stacking, never has an equal force to face for most of their play time. So, you end up with wvw the way it is now. Large, ktraining blobs claiming they want fights, yet only "fight" when they can win 100% of the fights, and it's always vs smaller numbers. If one loses an equal fight, they get more or log. It's the reality of every tier in NA right now.

>

> I believe you and I completely agree with you about numbers and coverage. I'm sympathetic to your situation honestly. The problem is that we can't have arrow cart rules that only apply to TC. If we could I'd be all for it but we all have to play by the same rules. You may legitimately be terribly outnumbered a great deal of the time in t4 and perhaps it does justify the use of copious amounts of ACs in your situation. The problem is that there are servers with plenty of people who will use them excessively despite having no real need for them they just use them because they can. You see what I'm saying?

 

That would be the blob DB in smc every day. They have at least 10 arrow carts that cover each inner gate. Not that they need them since when you push inner with your own blob of 30, 50+ jump off the gate to blob you down. The problem is that the reverse of that is the AC's we are using to defend a tower with 10 from that blob, are almost completely useless.

 

I really think they should just do away with all siege except oil and rams, limit rams on the door to 3, and make it so only siege does damage to gates and the gate is the only way in. Bigger force will always win anyway, but at least they will have to walk to tower or keep to get in.

[Karnasis.6892]

As far as I am concerned, AC's are just as valid a defense strategy as jumping out onto a zerg. Yes a smaller group should be able to hold off a zerg with AC's. If a 50 person zerg can't split up and use tactics instead of always using the same place over and over then they deserve to be stopped every time. You CAN split up and hit multiple walls... or build further back (using non broken shield gens at some point). WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

 

Am I against fighting or fights in general, no. Am I going to try to bum rush a zerg when my opponents outnumber me by a large percentage because my opponents are looking for fights... no again, that's ridiculous and not at all strategy. Yes sitting on AC's are a strategy(however most people aren't JUST sitting on ACs/Siege, they are typically doing more than that if they are scouting). However just like a zerg being countered by ac's, ac's can also be countered (aoe spam, ballis). Just look at a situation and say "How do I deal with or avoid those AC's?" before attacking a T3 structure.

 

And saying a server should go down a tiers is stupid. Every server uses siege (and to think otherwise is asinine). Different servers use different levels of siege and as much as folks "hate siege" I find it interesting to see how to counter play each servers uses of it (and learn from it as well)

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> As far as I am concerned, AC's are just as valid a defense strategy as jumping out onto a zerg. Yes a smaller group should be able to hold off a zerg with AC's. If a 50 person zerg can't split up and use tactics instead of always using the same place over and over then they deserve to be stopped every time. You CAN split up and hit multiple walls... or build further back (using non broken shield gens at some point). WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

>

> Am I against fighting or fights in general, no. Am I going to try to bum rush a zerg when my opponents outnumber me by a large percentage because my opponents are looking for fights... no again, that's ridiculous and not at all strategy. Yes sitting on AC's are a strategy(however most people aren't JUST sitting on ACs/Siege, they are typically doing more than that if they are scouting). However just like a zerg being countered by ac's, ac's can also be countered (aoe spam, ballis). Just look at a situation and say "How do I deal with or avoid those AC's?" before attacking a T3 structure.

>

> And saying a server should go down a tiers is stupid. Every server uses siege (and to think otherwise is asinine). Different servers use different levels of siege and as much as folks "hate siege" I find it interesting to see how to counter play each servers uses of it (and learn from it as well)

 

A reasonable persons response kudos to you.

[Chaba.5410]

People have become too accustomed to the buff to defense that HoT introduced while forgetting how it stagnated game play, especially in T1 NA where week after week posted activity levels were below those of the tiers under it.

 

P.S. For those looking for strategic defense, a supply trap is one of the most efficient uses of supply against a zerg that outnumbers you.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> As far as I am concerned, AC's are just as valid a defense strategy as jumping out onto a zerg. Yes a smaller group should be able to hold off a zerg with AC's. If a 50 person zerg can't split up and use tactics instead of always using the same place over and over then they deserve to be stopped every time. You CAN split up and hit multiple walls... or build further back (using non broken shield gens at some point). WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

>

> Am I against fighting or fights in general, no. Am I going to try to bum rush a zerg when my opponents outnumber me by a large percentage because my opponents are looking for fights... no again, that's ridiculous and not at all strategy. Yes sitting on AC's are a strategy(however most people aren't JUST sitting on ACs/Siege, they are typically doing more than that if they are scouting). However just like a zerg being countered by ac's, ac's can also be countered (aoe spam, ballis). Just look at a situation and say "How do I deal with or avoid those AC's?" before attacking a T3 structure.

>

> And saying a server should go down a tiers is stupid. Every server uses siege (and to think otherwise is asinine). Different servers use different levels of siege and as much as folks "hate siege" I find it interesting to see how to counter play each servers uses of it (and learn from it as well)

 

Fighting outnumbered is a strategy losing everything if you can't win a fight is a valid strategy stop making excuses. Building siege to avoid a fight you don't think you can win through skill and organization is cowardice plain and simple. Stop trying to act like being cowards in a video game is the right way to play. I spent the entire week against kaineng pinned up during sea and we lost everything every single day and lost most of the fights too but we fought with honor. This weak willed mentality is disgusting frankly man up take the beating that's coming to you.

[cobbah.3102]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > As far as I am concerned, AC's are just as valid a defense strategy as jumping out onto a zerg. Yes a smaller group should be able to hold off a zerg with AC's. If a 50 person zerg can't split up and use tactics instead of always using the same place over and over then they deserve to be stopped every time. You CAN split up and hit multiple walls... or build further back (using non broken shield gens at some point). WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

> >

> > Am I against fighting or fights in general, no. Am I going to try to bum rush a zerg when my opponents outnumber me by a large percentage because my opponents are looking for fights... no again, that's ridiculous and not at all strategy. Yes sitting on AC's are a strategy(however most people aren't JUST sitting on ACs/Siege, they are typically doing more than that if they are scouting). However just like a zerg being countered by ac's, ac's can also be countered (aoe spam, ballis). Just look at a situation and say "How do I deal with or avoid those AC's?" before attacking a T3 structure.

> >

> > And saying a server should go down a tiers is stupid. Every server uses siege (and to think otherwise is asinine). Different servers use different levels of siege and as much as folks "hate siege" I find it interesting to see how to counter play each servers uses of it (and learn from it as well)

>

> Fighting outnumbered is a strategy losing everything if you can't win a fight is a valid strategy stop making excuses. Building siege to avoid a fight you don't think you can win through skill and organization is cowardice plain and simple. Stop trying to act like being cowards in a video game is the right way to play. I spent the entire week against kaineng pinned up during sea and we lost everything every single day and lost most of the fights too but we fought with honor. This weak willed mentality is disgusting frankly man up take the beating that's coming to you.

 

And so the wheel turns pity ,but I actually did see some siege around then so stop crying maybe its because of Comms attitude, running isnt actually a form of fighting hmm lets call it tactically withdrawing, as you say get organised and recuit. But you will be in the right tier next week so all sorted problem solved and you can fight till your hearts content remember to mention to the server no ppt and you will be where you belong. stick to the fights and you wont be elevated above your station. Karma can be a tough pill to swallow.

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> A hypothetical to hopefully illustrate the problem: Imagine there were a class (Class iWin) with a kit so powerful that it could, with some regularity, win or at least tie in a 10v1 against even similarly skilled players on any other class in the game. In 5v50s this class would be called "the great equalizer" **at first** and it would sound like a good thing because it would give outnumbered people a better chance of winning **at first**. But then what would happen? After a few days of this every guild in the game would simply start running 50 of class iWin because it would be the obviously superior strategy. There would no reason to use anything else. We already see this sort of behavior in the game with things like firebrands and scourges and with weavers when meteors were bugged. Humans don't take long to recognize a superior tool when it presents itself.

>

> In these discussions we inevitably see it descend into madness with rationalizations like "well I'm fighting 5v50 surely I must be given some tool that can even those odds out." No you should not. Because if 5 can even have a chance of defending against 50 with arrow carts then there's no reason for any other sized group to use anything other than arrow carts in any scenario where it's possible to deploy arrow carts. Fighting would be the inferior strategy every single time unless it were impossible to deploy arrow carts. This is textbook terrible game design unless the goal is to make the game mode one big never ending siege war where players only fight each other when they absolutely have no other alternative which it presumably isn't. I hope.

>

> The only equalizers that should exist in any competitive game are similar numbers and/or superior organization. If you cannot manage either or both of those you should always always always always lose and allow matchmaking to do its job. If it turns out that the server you're currently on is in fact the least populated and/or least organized server in the entire game then you should have to transfer to make new friends so you don't have to fight 5v50 anymore. This is, after all, a social game. If you cannot be bothered to transfer to a more populated server and make new friends and work together with those new people to try to win WvW matches then you shouldn't ever win. Period.

>

>

 

This. Basically Arrow Carts break things when things are equal, while unequal situations like 1:10 are broken anyways. For the sake of balance, we need to balance things over the situations we can control. If a system fails under ideal circumstances (everything is even) then it is inherently broken and will fail everywhere one way or another.

[Rampage.7145]

Only way to beat bigger numbers should be skill PERIOD. If you outskill or outsmart a 50 man map blob with 20 kudos to you, but the game should not be balanced around this scenario the game needs to be balanced around the even numbered fight siege should work both ways offensive and defensive equally because yeah you can say 5 man can't do anything vs 50 , give me a tool to beat them boom arrow carts were born, now what happens when the 50 man map blob use 6 Arrow carts vs 10 or 20 guys trying to break in an objective, i would be down for some system when siege is completely disabled for defense purposes unless outnumbered buff is present on the map, now we are talking, if you claim siege is only used when u are outnumbered then siege should be completely disabled otherwise right?

[Chaba.5410]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > A hypothetical to hopefully illustrate the problem: Imagine there were a class (Class iWin) with a kit so powerful that it could, with some regularity, win or at least tie in a 10v1 against even similarly skilled players on any other class in the game. In 5v50s this class would be called "the great equalizer" **at first** and it would sound like a good thing because it would give outnumbered people a better chance of winning **at first**. But then what would happen? After a few days of this every guild in the game would simply start running 50 of class iWin because it would be the obviously superior strategy. There would no reason to use anything else.

 

> > The only equalizers that should exist in any competitive game are similar numbers and/or superior organization. If you cannot manage either or both of those you should always always always always lose and allow matchmaking to do its job.

>

> This. Basically Arrow Carts break things when things are equal, while unequal situations like 1:10 are broken anyways. For the sake of balance, we need to balance things over the situations we can control. If a system fails under ideal circumstances (everything is even) then it is inherently broken and will fail everywhere one way or another.

 

Just to add to this, people don't seem to remember when ACs originally had their damage buffed. The response was to bring larger zergs with Omega golem rushes to take things. We started using the term blob in place of zerg about then. Then everyone cried that defense needed buffing so HoT came out with the tactivators, shield gens, and other things that nerfed the omega golems. Basically this chased a large amount of players away from the game. Counterintuitively, you have to nerf defense if you want smaller numbers of attackers to defend against and give a greater chance to small havoc groups to be able to play again (that variety to WvW that all but disappeared.)

 

TLDR: Buffing defense means offense has to be bigger as a counter.

 

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

 

> Fighting outnumbered is a strategy losing everything if you can't win a fight is a valid strategy stop making excuses. Building siege to avoid a fight you don't think you can win through skill and organization is cowardice plain and simple. Stop trying to act like being cowards in a video game is the right way to play. I spent the entire week against kaineng pinned up during sea and we lost everything every single day and lost most of the fights too but we fought with honor. This weak willed mentality is disgusting frankly man up take the beating that's coming to you.

 

And what strategy is "losing everything"? That's not strategy, that's rolling over for the enemy. Let's not use our siege to our advantage and just watch the enemy build siege, break in, kill us, and take our structures. If that's how you want to play, go for it. But I'm telling you that siege is a key part of defense, whether you like it or not.

 

But we're not being "cowards" for hiding in a keep heavily outnumbered using siege to kill you. We're thinking tactically, and if AC's bother you so much then when you want to break into structures don't build in AC range. Build away from the walls, and when the walls go down run past the ac fire.

 

And again, I'm not opposed to fighting, fight away, run me over if you want to (provided you are against me) but I'm going to use ALL of the tools available to me to defeat my enemies. If that means I'm using a "crutch" like AC's then so be it, but my way of playing is not wrong, just like your way isn't either, but you just have to think outside the box sometimes to get what you want, because I'm sure hell not going to "let you" do anything.

 

But I feel you are one of those players that would rather have none of the parts of WvW that make it interesting and would much rather have an empty field with a few outcroppings, no walls, no siege, no objectives and constant fights. Sadly WvW is PvPvE whether you like it or not.

 

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> A reasonable persons response kudos to you.

 

Thanks :)

 

 

 

[Israel.7056]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

 

> And what strategy is "losing everything"? That's not strategy, that's rolling over for the enemy. Let's not use our siege to our advantage and just watch the enemy build siege, break in, kill us, and take our structures. If that's how you want to play, go for it. But I'm telling you that siege is a key part of defense, whether you like it or not.

 

You have to think long term. You go out and get rolled for a week or a month or a year and maybe you lose all your stuff or whatever but in time you improve as a player and as a server community because you're actually practicing skillful coordinated play and eventually you won't need siege anymore. Whereas your approach leaves you terrible at the game forever because you never try to improve as a player.

 

> But we're not being "cowards" for hiding in a keep heavily outnumbered using siege to kill you. We're thinking tactically, and if AC's bother you so much then when you want to break into structures don't build in AC range. Build away from the walls, and when the walls go down run past the ac fire.

 

You're thinking short term and worrying about the score when what you should be worried about are the long term effects of letting yourself off the hook and choosing not to fight over time. Over time your "tactics" make you a worse player because every chance you get where you could be trying to figure out how to beat people with your skills you're building siege instead. It's an easy out but the long term opportunity cost of excessive siege use is devastating. I see this all the time people who sit on siege all day are just miserably bad at the game and it's because they haven't practiced because they've been sitting on siege too much. We could all just use siege and never fight and everyone could just sit in towers and keeps and hug the siege all day but no one would ever get better at the game that way. You have to go out and fight and risk losing to ever get better as a player.

 

> And again, I'm not opposed to fighting, fight away, run me over if you want to (provided you are against me) but I'm going to use ALL of the tools available to me to defeat my enemies. If that means I'm using a "crutch" like AC's then so be it, but my way of playing is not wrong, just like your way isn't either, but you just have to think outside the box sometimes to get what you want, because I'm sure hell not going to "let you" do anything.

 

It's only wrong if your goal is to improve as a player. If you don't care about that then yeah you're right it's a perfectly valid way to play.

 

> But I feel you are one of those players that would rather have none of the parts of WvW that make it interesting and would much rather have an empty field with a few outcroppings, no walls, no siege, no objectives and constant fights. Sadly WvW is PvPvE whether you like it or not.

 

I'd be happy to just get rid of all the siege except for rams catas and trebs.

 

 

 

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

 

> You have to think long term. You go out and get rolled for a week or a month or a year and maybe you lose all your stuff or whatever but in time you improve as a player and as a server community because you're actually practicing skillful coordinated play and eventually you won't need siege anymore. Whereas your approach leaves you terrible at the game forever because you never try to improve as a player.

 

Except that's not true at all, all servers use siege. Yes there are people that are focused on improving their fight skills. I don't particularly enjoy zerging but understand it's a key part of the mode. But as it stands it isn't so much a fight of who's better, it's who has the most Scourges, Firebrand's, and Spellbreakers with a smattering of a few different classes (unless your running a comp and closed squad). I roam, I take camps, fight in small scale skirmishes, solo hit (and take) towers and have been in small havoc squads taking towers/keeps. But in spite of all that I still need siege to fight battles I can't do as a solo player (or a havoc squad player). Zergs hate people like me because I don't roll over for them and blame the siege and call me a bad player because I know how to use the tools available to me. I'm also confident enough to say that I am not the "best" player in the world, but I at least have no issues with people using the tools that all players have access to. To deny some of those tools from the players toolkit, I feel like that makes worse players "in the long term"

 

 

> You're thinking short term and worrying about the score when what you should be worried about are the long term effects of letting yourself off the hook and choosing not to fight over time. Over time your "tactics" make you a worse player because every chance you get where you could be trying to figure out how to beat people with your skills you're building siege instead. It's an easy out but the long term opportunity cost of excessive siege use is devastating. I see this all the time people who sit on siege all day are just miserably bad at the game and it's because they haven't practiced because they've been sitting on siege too much. We could all just use siege and never fight and everyone could just sit in towers and keeps and hug the siege all day but no one would ever get better at the game that way. You have to go out and fight and risk losing to ever get better as a player.

 

Well until I get a "kill all enemies in one shot" skill as a small scale roamer I will sit on siege when I'm actively defending an objective. It does more damage and allows me to be a little more safe (and useful) then if I was dead outside my objectives. But at least from my experience, there really aren't that many players that sit on siege all the time (many scouts will run yaks, engage in small fights and take back camps along with refreshing siege). And I have fought with some of those defenders and on top of doing all that they also CAN and DO fight pretty well. I don't call that shortsighted gameplay nor do I say that that kind of gameplay is bad and makes players worse. Just because it isn;t a zerg fight doesn't make players bad (and imo players ONLY fighting in zergs makes players worse)

 

> It's only wrong if your goal is to improve as a player. If you don't care about that then yeah you're right it's a perfectly valid way to play.

 

There are other ways to improve as a player beyond "zerg fights"

 

> I'd be happy to just get rid of all the siege except for rams catas and trebs.

 

That's shortsighted, as there would mean there is almost no counter play for that siege, except jumping out and fighting.

 

 

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

 

There is nothing to forget about, there is no PvE, there are objectives and a few mobs, something that is part of every nearly every PvP mode in nearly every game with PvP for the purposes of forcing fights, spreading players, adding strategy, etc.

 

 

[Karnasis.6892]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

>

> There is nothing to forget about, there is no PvE, there are objectives and a few mobs, something that is part of every nearly every PvP mode in nearly every game with PvP for the purposes of forcing fights, spreading players, adding strategy, etc.

 

 

That is PvE... anything that IS NOT me interacting directly with another servers player is therefore PvE. If I'm fighting an aggressive npc, that is me fighting in PvE. And add in another player and what I am doing is PvPvE, unless I move away from said npc and am only fighting with the other player. Shocker, I know. So taking camps, towers and keeps unimpeded (rarely happens but has happened) is technically PvE.

 

LoL

 

Also, I've played lots of different games with PvP modes, and many don't have direct npc enemies along with other players, so no it isn't the same thing.

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

> >

> > There is nothing to forget about, there is no PvE, there are objectives and a few mobs, something that is part of every nearly every PvP mode in nearly every game with PvP for the purposes of forcing fights, spreading players, adding strategy, etc.

>

>

> That is PvE... anything that IS NOT me interacting directly with another servers player is therefore PvE. If I'm fighting an aggressive npc, that is me fighting in PvE. And add in another player and what I am doing is PvPvE, unless I move away from said npc and am only fighting with the other player. Shocker, I know. So taking camps, towers and keeps unimpeded (rarely happens but has happened) is technically PvE.

>

> LoL

>

> Also, I've played lots of different games with PvP modes, and many don't have direct npc enemies along with other players, so no it isn't the same thing.

 

You don' t seem to understand what PvP is, the 'v' stands for versus, which means competing against, when you go kill the guild lord in Foefire in sPvP you aren't competing against the guild lord, it isn't PvE, you aren't competing against the environment like in a PvE raid, you are still competing against the opposing team, the guild lord is merely an objective designed to draw fights, add strategy, provide a comeback mechanism, and provide a way for you to win the match and beat the opposing team.

 

That is exactly the same when for example you are trying to kill a keep lord in WvW, it is there to delay your team from taking the objective of the keep, to give the opposing team time to get there and force fights, you aren't competing against the environment, you aren't there to "beat the guild lord", you are there to take the opposing team's keep, increase your score/decrease theirs and have a fight (unless you are French/Spanish/Piken/PvE roleplayer in the wrong game mode), all of which is about competing versus the other team, otherwise known as PvP.

 

Which is precisely why as "PvE" the guild lord in Foefire and the keep lords in WvW are so trivial, they aren't there as meaningful PvE to challenge your PvE skills, they are mere PvP objectives / mechanisms.

 

But anyway back to the actual topic, it is pretty simple, they buffed defense / added auto upgrades and that is one of the things that killed WvW, earlier in the game you would have endless amount of fights in garri/bay/hills, they then buffed defense and that dropped off drastically, because most people don't play WvW to sit on siege.

 

If a server is outnumbered 10 vs 50 at a keep, then the only result should be some level of delay, which gives enough time for the defending team to call players from elsewhere to defend, now if they don't have players elsewhere to defend then the problem is not how effective siege is, it is population imbalance.

 

And you can't fix that situation through siege / buffing defense, because if you make it so 10 can defend vs 50, then when it is 50 vs 50 it becomes completely imbalanced in favour of defense and obnoxiously dull to play, which is what happened and was one of the nails in WvW's coffin.

[DeWolfe.2174]

AC damage should be more than healing output. A Zerg should not be able to out heal siege fire. A couple of days ago I was using an AC on a Lords room with a single Revenant targeted. The Arrow cart was completely ineffective as the Rev's health would only dip off of full for a second. The nerf is too much.

[cobbah.3102]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

> > >

> > > There is nothing to forget about, there is no PvE, there are objectives and a few mobs, something that is part of every nearly every PvP mode in nearly every game with PvP for the purposes of forcing fights, spreading players, adding strategy, etc.

> >

> >

> > That is PvE... anything that IS NOT me interacting directly with another servers player is therefore PvE. If I'm fighting an aggressive npc, that is me fighting in PvE. And add in another player and what I am doing is PvPvE, unless I move away from said npc and am only fighting with the other player. Shocker, I know. So taking camps, towers and keeps unimpeded (rarely happens but has happened) is technically PvE.

> >

> > LoL

> >

> > Also, I've played lots of different games with PvP modes, and many don't have direct npc enemies along with other players, so no it isn't the same thing.

>

> You don' t seem to understand what PvP is, the 'v' stands for versus, which means competing against, when you go kill the guild lord in Foefire in sPvP you aren't competing against the guild lord, it isn't PvE, you aren't competing against the environment like in a PvE raid, you are still competing against the opposing team, the guild lord is merely an objective designed to draw fights, add strategy, provide a comeback mechanism, and provide a way for you to win the match and beat the opposing team.

>

> That is exactly the same when for example you are trying to kill a keep lord in WvW, it is there to delay your team from taking the objective of the keep, to give the opposing team time to get there and force fights, you aren't competing against the environment, you aren't there to "beat the guild lord", you are there to take the opposing team's keep, increase your score/decrease theirs and have a fight (unless you are French/Spanish/Piken/PvE roleplayer in the wrong game mode), all of which is about competing versus the other team, otherwise known as PvP.

 

Hmm I think you are in the wrong game mode move along to the PVP arena theres a good chap, its not PVP it is WvW taking structures ,defending yada yada yada there is no strategy in what is called WvW its moaners complaining about the game mode as it was designed for . You like bridges?? then build one and get over it.

[zinkz.7045]

> @"cobbah.3102" said:

> > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > > > @"Karnasis.6892" said:

> > > > > WvW isn't ONLY a pvp mode mind you, there is pve involved too. But the "fighters" in this thread would much rather you forget about that.

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing to forget about, there is no PvE, there are objectives and a few mobs, something that is part of every nearly every PvP mode in nearly every game with PvP for the purposes of forcing fights, spreading players, adding strategy, etc.

> > >

> > >

> > > That is PvE... anything that IS NOT me interacting directly with another servers player is therefore PvE. If I'm fighting an aggressive npc, that is me fighting in PvE. And add in another player and what I am doing is PvPvE, unless I move away from said npc and am only fighting with the other player. Shocker, I know. So taking camps, towers and keeps unimpeded (rarely happens but has happened) is technically PvE.

> > >

> > > LoL

> > >

> > > Also, I've played lots of different games with PvP modes, and many don't have direct npc enemies along with other players, so no it isn't the same thing.

> >

> > You don' t seem to understand what PvP is, the 'v' stands for versus, which means competing against, when you go kill the guild lord in Foefire in sPvP you aren't competing against the guild lord, it isn't PvE, you aren't competing against the environment like in a PvE raid, you are still competing against the opposing team, the guild lord is merely an objective designed to draw fights, add strategy, provide a comeback mechanism, and provide a way for you to win the match and beat the opposing team.

> >

> > That is exactly the same when for example you are trying to kill a keep lord in WvW, it is there to delay your team from taking the objective of the keep, to give the opposing team time to get there and force fights, you aren't competing against the environment, you aren't there to "beat the guild lord", you are there to take the opposing team's keep, increase your score/decrease theirs and have a fight (unless you are French/Spanish/Piken/PvE roleplayer in the wrong game mode), all of which is about competing versus the other team, otherwise known as PvP.

>

> Hmm I think you are in the wrong game mode move along to the PVP arena theres a good chap, its not PVP it is WvW taking structures ,defending yada yada yada there is no strategy in what is called WvW its moaners complaining about the game mode as it was designed for . You like bridges?? then build one and get over it.

 

So, you got nothing, speaks volumes.

[Stormscar.5489]

Finally they took a step in the right direction with this nerf. This gamemode should be about fighting. What do you tell people when you even try to convince people out of GW2 to try it out? Do you talk about a gamemode that has massive fights between tens of players, or do you talk about a siege simulator? The only people whining are the rallybots who never learnt how to fight and get good.

 

The people whining that they spent hours on upgrading a structure and running dollys. Well, maybe now you'll dedicate time to the actual interesting part of wvw, instead of playing a running or Bob the builder simulator. Structures are just an excuse to create fights and to provide more interesting terrain to fight on, they are not the centre piece of wvw.

 

Also, as some players have mentioned, if you don't have enough players (or quality) to hold an attacking blob, you deserve to drop to the tier you deserve. Not hold a place in a higher, more active tier, and bore the other servers to death because they have no groups to fight from your server almost the whole time, but just clouds of pugs hiding inside structures. The problem is the lower population that is too thinly spread (atleast on EU) through 5 tiers, which imo should be compressed to 4. But this problem by no means should get a bandaid fix with overpowered siege.