Siege Disabler disproportionately effective

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @"Glider.5792" said:

> Its reflectable, destroyable and blockable. It also has a very simple tell (a person holding a "ball" or something in his right hand). You can easily negate these by droping reflect/destroy projectile fields on top/around of siege, or just stand on top of it with Aegis (body block the siege dissabler, it will consume Aegis)

> The only problem is that it can be used in stealth, but even then, you can easily reflect/destroy/block it.

 

But also affected by unlockable effects. And they recently made shield generators unable to block unblockable attacks. A signet of Might, or a bit of Basilisk venom, and nothing can stop those disablers from hitting unless you manage to put blindness on the enemy at the right moment.

[sephiroth.4217]

My only issue with siege disablers is thieves...

 

They throw it from stealth and shadowmeld away before anyone can react properly

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"LaGranse.8652" said:

> > @"juno.1840" said:

> > > @"Glider.5792" said:

> > > Its reflectable, destroyable and blockable. It also has a very simple tell (a person holding a "ball" or something in his right hand). You can easily negate these by droping reflect/destroy projectile fields on top/around of siege, or just stand on top of it with Aegis (body block the siege dissabler, it will consume Aegis)

> > > The only problem is that it can be used in stealth, but even then, you can easily reflect/destroy/block it.

> >

> > > @"Awn.1327" said:

> > > There is more than enough counterplay against disablers. You "just" need people to get to use the tools already at their disposal instead of treating siege time as "fool around" time.

> > > Just one easy example: you need 2 revs who (temporarily if you don't like it) slot Ventari to have 100% uptime on protective solace, which can fit e.g. 2-3 catas under it.

> >

> > > @"Baldrick.8967" said:

> > > So many counters to these. It's a L2P issue - don't just stand around waiting for your multiple rams to PVD next time.

> > >

> > > As for requesting something to make your karma train go choo choo faster- no.

> >

> > > @"LaGranse.8652" said:

> > > They are fine as they are. People just need to be on the alert with their anti projectile skills and keep pressure on walls walls/portalc etc.

> >

> > If the counter play involves multiple players "on alert", then that is still disproportionately effective.

> >

> > Even if you do see the player coming, you need to lay the reflect in between the cast time and the landing of the disabler. Otherwise you can be baited to use your reflect cooldown while the siege disabler has no cooldown.

> >

> > You may not see the disabler coming, literally, because of stealth.

> >

> > Lastly, any character with invulnerability can simply walk inside your reflect and apply the disabler.

>

> If sieging a structure means you only need to toss some siege and press F something is wrong. It is a siege, the defenders are suposed to have an advantage thus it will be disproportionate by design.

>

Tell that to the inherent disadvantage of fighting from on top of walls that's been present since launch, and i doubt will ever be fixed. Most people that play this don't know what a siege is supposed to be like. (well none of us really do, because sieges aren't really a thing any more, but some have a better idea than most, i'd argue) A lot of people just want the ability to just go there and capture, the less defenses the better.

 

> Like all other "traps" in WvW the action of starting to cast it will remove any stealth you had.

>

> Pressure in form of necromarks and similar AoE's also give a clue if a stealthed player trigger them.

>

> There are stealth disruptor traps you can place to protect from stealthed players comming by ground.

>

> A siege dissabler tossed within a shield bubble (shield gen 3 or catapult 5) will stop projectiles even if tossed from inside. so those obvious invulnerable dissables can be stopped too.

Well, you have a point, i actually never really had much problems with siege disablers. But he's correct in saying that the cost/benefit is a bit higher, compared with actual siege weapons. And while i do agree that defenders should have an advantage, that's somewhat of an unfair one. I'd rather see the LoS issues with walls fixed, and better protection given by walls, so that players don't have to pretty much put their siege at the very innermost edge of walls to have a chance of using it while defending. Or have to rely on weird FoV tricks and sheer luck to do the same job attackers do easily.

 

[juno.1840]

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Glider.5792" said:

> > Its reflectable, destroyable and blockable. It also has a very simple tell (a person holding a "ball" or something in his right hand). You can easily negate these by droping reflect/destroy projectile fields on top/around of siege, or just stand on top of it with Aegis (body block the siege dissabler, it will consume Aegis)

> > The only problem is that it can be used in stealth, but even then, you can easily reflect/destroy/block it.

>

> But also affected by unlockable effects. And they recently made shield generators unable to block unblockable attacks. A signet of Might, or a bit of Basilisk venom, and nothing can stop those disablers from hitting unless you manage to put blindness on the enemy at the right moment.

 

This explains why reflects don't always work for me. I find it very frustrating to use guardian F3 tome - skill 3 (reflect bubble) on cooldown only to still have the siege disabled.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> My only issue with siege disablers is thieves...

>

> They throw it from stealth and shadowmeld away before anyone can react properly

 

But a thief using shadowmeld doesn't have access to unblockable. Comes back to learn to play again... dont stack your siege on one spot, rotate cata bubbles, etc.

I'd rather see people actively trying to defend in this manner, than simply humping 10 ac's tbh.

 

Ultimately, disabling siege does exactly what it's supposed to do - slow down an attack. Unless you are completely incompetent they can't disable forever and you will eventually get in. Of all the tools available to defense I feel that traps are probably the most balanced.

[Optimator.3589]

PvD harder. It's honestly easier to man-mode paper and T1 structures than it is to deal with disabler spam sometimes. And if you're sieging a T3 objective with all your equipment in one spot, you maybe need to rethink your strategy.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > My only issue with siege disablers is thieves...

> >

> > They throw it from stealth and shadowmeld away before anyone can react properly

>

> But a thief using shadowmeld doesn't have access to unblockable. Comes back to learn to play again... dont stack your siege on one spot, rotate cata bubbles, etc.

> I'd rather see people actively trying to defend in this manner, than simply humping 10 ac's tbh.

>

> Ultimately, disabling siege does exactly what it's supposed to do - slow down an attack. Unless you are completely incompetent they can't disable forever and you will eventually get in. Of all the tools available to defense I feel that traps are probably the most balanced.

 

Thieves im referencing dont need bas venom or a safe distance to throw from... they rely on timing and positioning like any other half decent player.

 

I play with 300+ ping and even I dont need bas venom or an unblockable to successfully throw a siege disabler 10 range.... I just get in ontop of the cats, throw disabler and get out before entering stealth again, go inside tower grab more supply, stack stealth and repeat the process... its actually kind of fun.

 

Edit: What makes me laugh is when people think they were smart by not groupin siege up, as someone who carries 25 supply its not hard to throw a siege disabler on one site and throw another down 600 range away... takes all of like, 3 seconds. Then it takes 15s to be ready to do it all over again.

 

 

[Dediggefedde.4961]

Our guild also often fails to properly defend against disablers, but it's our own fault, not a design flaw.

Using 3 catapults or any other siege with 2 shield generators can in principle constantly block against disablers. guardian's reflect wall, shield-5, firebrands F3-3, Engi's defense field, necromancer's poison fields, druids staff-5... there typically is plenty of reflection/blocking source that is used frequently against blockers. Also ranged CC against the blockers usually work, if necro-marks are used against stealth.

The only problem I see is mages getting free tries for disabling. In addition to being able to blink/invuln/jump directly to and back from the siege, they can still travel a large distance in mist form. So, even with full attention and well-timed bombs, mages can try multiple times and have enough time to time the breaker against the reflects...

But that's also not a problem of the siege breaker.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

Due to them being blockable/reflectable/negated, and having an icd thats longer than the disable itself, its becomes a situational awareness issue, thus l2p.

 

Of course this is just my opinion.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > My only issue with siege disablers is thieves...

> > >

> > > They throw it from stealth and shadowmeld away before anyone can react properly

> >

> > But a thief using shadowmeld doesn't have access to unblockable. Comes back to learn to play again... dont stack your siege on one spot, rotate cata bubbles, etc.

> > I'd rather see people actively trying to defend in this manner, than simply humping 10 ac's tbh.

> >

> > Ultimately, disabling siege does exactly what it's supposed to do - slow down an attack. Unless you are completely incompetent they can't disable forever and you will eventually get in. Of all the tools available to defense I feel that traps are probably the most balanced.

>

>

>

> Edit: What makes me laugh is when people think they were smart by not groupin siege up, as someone who carries 25 supply its not hard to throw a siege disabler on one site and throw another down 600 range away... takes all of like, 3 seconds. Then it takes 15s to be ready to do it all over again.

>

>

 

I... think the actual ICD on the disabled use prevents what you are describing. I need to test it tonight but IIRC the ICD is as long or longer than the disabled time.

 

I can't say for sure, but i believe I have also attempted what you describe, and was unable to do so.

 

Will check tonight.

 

If it IS that easy, then an increase in the ICD for use needs to go in/up.

 

Otherwise, the Disabler is fine.

 

I actually think rams need some love. It would make them more usable. But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

Catas? Well... if they are close enough to the wall for an ele to get back in, then that's a ltp issue. Also, if they are stacked together and can be disabled with one disabled, that's poor planning on the commander, not the disabler being broken.

[shortcake.8659]

The only problem is that skills that make your attacks unblockable work on siege disablers.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"shortcake.8659" said:

> The only problem is that skills that make your attacks unblockable work on siege disablers.

 

Not really a problem. With the exception of a gate, that ***should*** only disable one piece of siege.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > > My only issue with siege disablers is thieves...

> > > >

> > > > They throw it from stealth and shadowmeld away before anyone can react properly

> > >

> > > But a thief using shadowmeld doesn't have access to unblockable. Comes back to learn to play again... dont stack your siege on one spot, rotate cata bubbles, etc.

> > > I'd rather see people actively trying to defend in this manner, than simply humping 10 ac's tbh.

> > >

> > > Ultimately, disabling siege does exactly what it's supposed to do - slow down an attack. Unless you are completely incompetent they can't disable forever and you will eventually get in. Of all the tools available to defense I feel that traps are probably the most balanced.

> >

> >

> >

> > Edit: What makes me laugh is when people think they were smart by not groupin siege up, as someone who carries 25 supply its not hard to throw a siege disabler on one site and throw another down 600 range away... takes all of like, 3 seconds. Then it takes 15s to be ready to do it all over again.

> >

> >

>

> I... think the actual ICD on the disabled use prevents what you are describing. I need to test it tonight but IIRC the ICD is as long or longer than the disabled time.

>

> I can't say for sure, but i believe I have also attempted what you describe, and was unable to do so.

>

> Will check tonight.

>

> If it IS that easy, then an increase in the ICD for use needs to go in/up.

>

> Otherwise, the Disabler is fine.

>

> I actually think rams need some love. It would make them more usable. But that is a discussion for another thread.

>

> Catas? Well... if they are close enough to the wall for an ele to get back in, then that's a ltp issue. Also, if they are stacked together and can be disabled with one disabled, that's poor planning on the commander, not the disabler being broken.

 

Its been a bit since ive done it exactly as described but I dont remember ICD on it

[Celsith.2753]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> I play with 300+ ping and even I dont need bas venom or an unblockable to successfully throw a siege disabler 10 range.... I just get in ontop of the cats, throw disabler and get out before entering stealth again, go inside tower grab more supply, stack stealth and repeat the process... its actually kind of fun.

>

> Edit: What makes me laugh is when people think they were smart by not groupin siege up, as someone who carries 25 supply its not hard to throw a siege disabler on one site and throw another down 600 range away... takes all of like, 3 seconds. Then it takes 15s to be ready to do it all over again.

>

>

You will need unblockable if you find a zerg being smart and actually rotating bubbles. If there were many of them tho, this thread wouldnt exist in the first place.

Throwing a siege disabler has a 45s cooldown. So no, it doesn't take 'all of like, 3 seconds'. And it's not ready to do all over again in 15s.....

[Celsith.2753]

> @"shortcake.8659" said:

> The only problem is that skills that make your attacks unblockable work on siege disablers.

 

One caveat, cata bubbles still block some unblockables. I think unblockable should work personally.

[Timelord.8190]

This is a100% learn to play issue. Firebrands can chain reflect for days with F3 and 3.

[Israel.7056]

Maybe just increase the supply cost to 25 and put a limit on how often one piece of siege can be disabled.

[Rampage.7145]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> The benefit compared to supply and body cost is too high.

>

> A single person with 10 supply can disable all (target limit?) siege in a 300 radius circle at 1200 range for 35 seconds. It can be repeated as long as there's supply. The skill required to use is low with the large number of invulnerability/stealth/blink skills available.

>

> Supposedly these can be reflected, but I have yet to see that work. Even if reflect was possible, it requires multiple players to achieve 100% reflect up time.

>

> This type of play has no counter and diminishes the value of using defensive siege (why spend 100s of supply on defensive siege that must be refreshed every 60 minutes when you just need one or two players to use siege disablers).

>

> The net result is one player with 10s of supply can counter a much larger team using 100s of supply. The cost of use is too low for the result obtained.

 

Just get a firebrand to spam f3 reflecting dome on top of the siege and disablers cannot hit them, i mean there is a very effective counterplay to disablers, since they are a projectile, i dont see the problem with them

 

[juno.1840]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"shortcake.8659" said:

> > The only problem is that skills that make your attacks unblockable work on siege disablers.

>

> Not really a problem. With the exception of a gate, that ***should*** only disable one piece of siege.

 

So you're telling the community to place their siege 600 range apart? That's what a 300 radius circle would entail. That sounds strategically poor since you cannot adequately defend your siege from player threats. Also ask yourself if siege disablers are OP if everyone needs to play this way.

 

> @"Timelord.8190" said:

> This is a100% learn to play issue. Firebrands can chain reflect for days with F3 and 3.

 

Except the siege still gets disabled. If you don't believe me, go try it. I guarantee your siege will still get disabled.

 

 

Everyone in this forum understands how siege disablers work (for the most part) -- although many of the supporting points are not practical (stealth traps, placing siege far apart, using 24/7 uptime reflects, DPSing the disabler players down, etc.).

 

**I'll reiterate my point that they are too effective for the effort+cost involved. More effective than any other siege in the game.**

[Reh.5986]

Use a couple shields, spread siege, mark/aoe walls, cata bubble, reflects etc etc. Plenty of counter play.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"shortcake.8659" said:

> > > The only problem is that skills that make your attacks unblockable work on siege disablers.

> >

> > Not really a problem. With the exception of a gate, that ***should*** only disable one piece of siege.

>

> So you're telling the community to place their siege 600 range apart? That's what a 300 radius circle would entail. That sounds strategically poor since you cannot adequately defend your siege from player threats. Also ask yourself if siege disablers are OP if everyone needs to play this way.

>

> > @"Timelord.8190" said:

> > This is a100% learn to play issue. Firebrands can chain reflect for days with F3 and 3.

>

> Except the siege still gets disabled. If you don't believe me, go try it. I guarantee your siege will still get disabled.

>

>

> Everyone in this forum understands how siege disablers work (for the most part) -- although many of the supporting points are not practical (stealth traps, placing siege far apart, using 24/7 uptime reflects, DPSing the disabler players down, etc.).

>

> **I'll reiterate my point that they are too effective for the effort+cost involved. More effective than any other siege in the game.**

 

So..... spreading them apart actually makes them safer. Especially from small groups and counter seige. Unless you are only rotating bubbles.

 

They are fine.

 

Spreading them 600 units apart... yes. Especially staggered.

 

***If*** you have them placed strategically, their proximity to each other does not matter. If they are on top of a wall? Then you aren't playing strategically sound.

[Strider Pj.2193]

And anything can be OP when someone doesn't know how to defend against it.

[Iozeph.5617]

> @"juno.1840" said:

 

> If the counter play involves multiple players "on alert", then that is still disproportionately effective.

>

> Even if you do see the player coming, you need to lay the reflect in between the cast time and the landing of the disabler. Otherwise you can be baited to use your reflect cooldown while the siege disabler has no cooldown.

>

> You may not see the disabler coming, literally, because of stealth.

>

> Lastly, any character with invulnerability can simply walk inside your reflect and apply the disabler.

 

Sorry, disables need to stay in the game. As long as population balance is a problem- the old and new systems won;t solve it. As long as one realm having more or less to defend based on who has the bigger off hours population. As long as the geometry of keep and tower walls is more of a hindrance to defenders than it is to attackers- especially those using ground target AOE abilities to either use damage to drive defenders back or levitate and pull to yank defenders off the walls. As long as line of sight is more adversely affected when using siege on a wall than it is below it. No, they have to stay.

 

It's annoying enough trying to get an objective to tier three only to have a blob show up, dump several -six plus sometimes as was mentioned- catapults near a wall and then take it before a defence is even able to be mounted. Now people are actually arguing to take away one of the few methods of defending against that sort of idiocy?

 

No. Just no.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

This is just a case of, "I WANT TO FACEROLL OBJECTIVES AND YOU SHOULD STOP STOPPING ME!!!". I don't see siege disablers used so frequently as to warrant this kind of a reaction. Most of the time I see them being used is as a way to stall out the taking of an objective to try to see if they can get more people to defend. After enough people show up it then becomes an all out war with the players instead. Which is funny because I thought that that was what more people wanted anyways. You always see people complaining when it comes to defending a tower they want the players to come out and fight instead.

 

So now we are starting to see the real crux of the problem. It's not that people want more people to come out from a tower and fight, but that they want to take that tower before anybody can do anything to try to defend it by stalling so that more people CAN go out and fight. Change my mind.

[Israel.7056]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> This is just a case of, "I WANT TO FACEROLL OBJECTIVES AND YOU SHOULD STOP STOPPING ME!!!". I don't see siege disablers used so frequently as to warrant this kind of a reaction. Most of the time I see them being used is as a way to stall out the taking of an objective to try to see if they can get more people to defend. After enough people show up it then becomes an all out war with the players instead. Which is funny because I thought that that was what more people wanted anyways. You always see people complaining when it comes to defending a tower they want the players to come out and fight instead.

>

> So now we are starting to see the real crux of the problem. It's not that people want more people to come out from a tower and fight, but that they want to take that tower before anybody can do anything to try to defend it by stalling so that more people CAN go out and fight. Change my mind.

 

What are you on about? He just said the cost to use them is too low not that they should be removed from the game.

 

Btw there are offensive ppt players too not everyone who ppts gets to have the luxury of sitting inside upgraded structures all day. There's no reason why ppt should favor defensive play over offensive play.