Siege Disabler disproportionately effective

[ArchonWing.9480]

Oh no pressing 5 is hard. :/

 

Wall of Reflection is 30s cooldown and lastst for 10s with no trait. Even if you don't have perfect timing, there's a ton of leeway.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

>

> 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.

 

I'm one of the people that said siege needs to be nerfed and that people should come out to fight. I'm also saying disablers should not be nerfed. Don't confuse different groups of players please.

 

[Widmo.3186]

If the whole zerg/blob is stopped from P P Ting by 1 single person with Disabler, then its 100% fault of those zerg-brains on gate that cannot rotate even 2 reflects. You cannot fullcast disabling from stealth, just keep your finger on reflect or interrupt ability and dont mindlessly karma train.

 

Lol, really guys just start using your brain and skills instead of whining. What next, increase ram attack range because you too often randomly place them and they dont reach gate...?

[HazyDaisy.4107]

They don't land through gates anymore (at least not in my experience), try and throw from a wall and you're pulled, aoed or slapped back with a cata boulder, or if you do manage to throw it, viola cata bubble or player block 9xs out of 10.

 

I've had success with suprise port/stealth out, drop exit port, throw and leave, but not every time depending on the size of the mob and how many of them are actually paying attention instead of dancing or laughing...

 

This is not a defense advantage issue, the disable time you receive IF it lands, grants just enough time to prepare another disable only, and by that time your cover is blown.

[TheBravery.9615]

how about you stop putting your siege all within the aoe radius of one disable?

 

[juno.1840]

> @"TheBravery.9615" said:

> how about you stop putting your siege all within the aoe radius of one disable?

>

 

So you're saying never to use Rams again eh?

[juno.1840]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> Oh no pressing 5 is hard. :/

>

> Wall of Reflection is 30s cooldown and lastst for 10s with no trait. Even if you don't have perfect timing, there's a ton of leeway.

 

Actually there's no leeway there. I'm beginning to think everyone that says use reflects actually doesn't use reflects. You need 100% up time **and** hope the disabler doesn't have unblockable... you know, that attribute that allows the disabler to go through reflects...

 

Too easy to use, too effective in stopping a very large force using a very small force. It stops 100's of supply of siege for the low cost of 10 supply.

[Israel.7056]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > Oh no pressing 5 is hard. :/

> >

> > Wall of Reflection is 30s cooldown and lastst for 10s with no trait. Even if you don't have perfect timing, there's a ton of leeway.

>

> Actually there's no leeway there. I'm beginning to think everyone that says use reflects actually doesn't use reflects. You need 100% up time **and** hope the disabler doesn't have unblockable... you know, that attribute that allows the disabler to go through reflects...

>

> Too easy to use, too effective in stopping a very large force using a very small force. It stops 100's of supply of siege for the low cost of 10 supply.

 

Well let's say that you grant the claim that every piece of siege dropped just requires one guardian just to spam reflects on top of it to hopefully prevent disables. That doesn't refute your initial complaint in my view it bolsters it.

 

Theyre acknowledging that the threat of these things to an offensive attempt is so severe that they might actually require several people purely dedicated to protecting the siege as well as people dedicated to manning it. All of this for an item that costs 15 supply to use.

 

The cost/benefit of these things is clearly off.

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > Oh no pressing 5 is hard. :/

> >

> > Wall of Reflection is 30s cooldown and lastst for 10s with no trait. Even if you don't have perfect timing, there's a ton of leeway.

>

> Actually there's no leeway there. I'm beginning to think everyone that says use reflects actually doesn't use reflects. You need 100% up time **and** hope the disabler doesn't have unblockable... you know, that attribute that allows the disabler to go through reflects...

 

I actually do use reflects on classes that have them, and am nowhere near perfect with them. You see, I expect people to know how their skills work, so I try to do the same. The idea that you shouldn't be punished for not paying attention or not knowing how you skills work is quite silly from my point of view.

 

 

> Too easy to use, too effective in stopping a very large force using a very small force. It stops 100's of supply of siege for the low cost of 10 supply.

 

It doesn't stop them, it merely delays them. Siege disablers alone cannot stop any attack. If you reach a critical mass of catapults, there's nothing a disabler can be done, and draining a building's supply is much more valuable than draining the attacker's supply since going out to a camp to resupply and come back to repair walls or whatnot But this is PPT 101 and incredibly dull, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

And this is why Siege Disablers are strong for their investment. They're only meant to buy time. They can't do anything on their own vs other siege that can actually destroy things and help take structures.

 

Furthermore, Siege Disablers are *single use* If it fails, the supply is still spent but nothing has been done.

 

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"juno.1840" said:

> > > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > > Oh no pressing 5 is hard. :/

> > >

> > > Wall of Reflection is 30s cooldown and lastst for 10s with no trait. Even if you don't have perfect timing, there's a ton of leeway.

> >

> > Actually there's no leeway there. I'm beginning to think everyone that says use reflects actually doesn't use reflects. You need 100% up time **and** hope the disabler doesn't have unblockable... you know, that attribute that allows the disabler to go through reflects...

> >

> > Too easy to use, too effective in stopping a very large force using a very small force. It stops 100's of supply of siege for the low cost of 10 supply.

>

> Well let's say that you grant the claim that every piece of siege dropped just requires one guardian just to spam reflects on top of it to hopefully prevent disables. That doesn't refute your initial complaint in my view it bolsters it.

>

> Theyre acknowledging that the threat of these things to an offensive attempt is so severe that they might actually require several people purely dedicated to protecting the siege as well as people dedicated to manning it. All of this for an item that costs 15 supply to use.

>

> The cost/benefit of these things is clearly off.

 

Something explicitly labeled as a "siege disabler", which name implies it is a counter is a siege makes it a surprise that it is cost effective against it?

 

Hmm...

[Israel.7056]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> Something explicitly labeled as a "siege disabler", which name implies it is a counter is a siege makes it a surprise that it is cost effective against it?

>

> Hmm...

 

Hmm a smugly worded strawman that attempts to shift the goal post hmmmm

[juno.1840]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> It doesn't stop them, it merely delays them. Siege disablers alone cannot stop any attack. If you reach a critical mass of catapults, there's nothing a disabler can be done, and draining a building's supply is much more valuable than draining the attacker's supply since going out to a camp to resupply and come back to repair walls or whatnot But this is PPT 101 and incredibly dull, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

>

> And this is why Siege Disablers are strong for their investment. They're only meant to buy time. They can't do anything on their own vs other siege that can actually destroy things and help take structures.

>

> Furthermore, Siege Disablers are *single use* If it fails, the supply is still spent but nothing has been done.

 

I understand that, but these are not used exclusively as some small-force strategy to hold off a big force. They are used all the time, by all types of defenders. I've seen large zergs sit in Tier 3 keeps in defensive siege and still use the disablers. They are so easy and effective that large forces will use them.

 

The cost of 10 siege is very small so if a player misses, it can be attempted again and again. Even if the player does land the disabler, they'll be back again right after cooldown to reapply a new disabler.

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > Something explicitly labeled as a "siege disabler", which name implies it is a counter is a siege makes it a surprise that it is cost effective against it?

> >

> > Hmm...

>

> Hmm a smugly worded strawman that attempts to shift the goal post hmmmm

 

The "strawman" would be in your previous post about mine.

 

You claim that the cost/benefit ratio is clearly off, but I'm arguing that that's not inherently an issue because by design the siege disabler is supposed to be very cost efficient against siege, otherwise nobody will use it.

 

Thing is nobody has any reason to take your statement or even mine's at face value. Maybe if you could prove it, say, a simple thing, such as keeping siege disabled for a few minutes and more importantly how that really fits in the grand scheme of WvW itself.

 

There are certainly reasons why it shouldn't cost 1 supply and last for 3 hours for example, but to say the least, I don't see anything that compelling that suggests that it is making objectives that much harder to take.

 

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > It doesn't stop them, it merely delays them. Siege disablers alone cannot stop any attack. If you reach a critical mass of catapults, there's nothing a disabler can be done, and draining a building's supply is much more valuable than draining the attacker's supply since going out to a camp to resupply and come back to repair walls or whatnot But this is PPT 101 and incredibly dull, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

> >

> > And this is why Siege Disablers are strong for their investment. They're only meant to buy time. They can't do anything on their own vs other siege that can actually destroy things and help take structures.

> >

> > Furthermore, Siege Disablers are *single use* If it fails, the supply is still spent but nothing has been done.

>

> I understand that, but these are not used exclusively as some small-force strategy to hold off a big force. They are used all the time, by all types of defenders. I've seen large zergs sit in Tier 3 keeps in defensive siege and still use the disablers. They are so easy and effective that large forces will use them.

 

I certainly don't buy into the "small force must hold off 1 million people" kind of thing; don't worry about that. In fact, I was fully behind nerfing arrow carts-- truth is if there's a "siege", I actually log off. So I understand that it must be balanced for all numbers.

 

>The cost of 10 siege is very small so if a player misses, it can be attempted again and again. Even if the player does land the disabler, they'll be back again right after cooldown to reapply a new disabler.

 

The cooldown is really not that short, and the wall could have easily fallen by then.

 

I mean, perhaps you're dealing with expert tower humpers I guess, but in my experience, nobody ever has100% reflect uptime for some reason and thanks to links we've been all over the tiers. Despite this lack of perfect play, I probably see a disabler probably slow us down maybe once every few runs. 2 in a row is usually very rare.

 

There have however been cases, where people have built so many shield gens and whatnot that it is literally impossible to get a disable off, even assuming sides are fairly even. I'd actually claim that it just gets worse as numbers increase as it is more likely to hit a stray block. Now, I admit, I am not the best player around, but I find PoF and beyond, it's been very hard to get near because of all the aoe pulls that are lying around. I find it very hard to even chain2 of them together and that requires distraction. So I have to meet all of this with some skepticism. Like with the aforementioned Arrow Carts or even mortars, I can clearly see their effects.

 

Oh, and don't forget you can use it to disable defensive siege when you break in too.

[Israel.7056]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> The "strawman" would be in your previous post about mine.

 

In that post I steel manned the argument about reflects countering siege disablers by completely granting it I never said anything about being "surprised" about how efficient siege disablers are nor did I respond to any argument about what is implied by their name.

 

> You claim that the cost/benefit ratio is clearly off, but I'm arguing that that's not inherently an issue because by design the siege disabler is supposed to be very cost efficient against siege, otherwise nobody will use it.

 

Ok but the initial proposition of this thread was that they're too efficient for the effect that they have and the work required to counter them. It seems to me that if you have to have people dedicated to countering them that that should be factored into their 'benefit value' not just the value that they have from disabling siege. This is why I said that if the OP grants the argument about reflects it actually bolsters his initial proposition rather than weakening it.

 

> Maybe if you could prove it, say, a simple thing, such as keeping siege disabled for a few minutes and more importantly how that really fits in the grand scheme of WvW itself.

 

Not exactly sure what you're saying here it's a bit of a word salad imo.

 

> I don't see anything that compelling that suggests that it is making objectives that much harder to take.

 

I do but that's a somewhat different discussion in my view.

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > The "strawman" would be in your previous post about mine.

>

> In that post I steel manned the argument about reflects countering siege disablers by completely granting it

 

Hardly or at least impossible to make that conclusion of it.

 

>Theyre acknowledging that the threat of these things to an offensive attempt is so severe that they might actually require several people purely dedicated to protecting the siege as well as people dedicated to manning it.

 

Unless of course, you were referring to the thread as a whole and not just due to the quote chain; I guess the forum's notification system is pretty crap in that regards.

 

But I was kinda arguing the opposite that siege disablers have not been successful despite the lack of any dedicated person, or at least not that severe of a threat.

 

> I never said anything about being "surprised" about how efficient siege disablers are nor did I respond to any argument about what is implied by their name.

 

I dunno where this even came from.

 

>

> > You claim that the cost/benefit ratio is clearly off, but I'm arguing that that's not inherently an issue because by design the siege disabler is supposed to be very cost efficient against siege, otherwise nobody will use it.

>

> Ok but the initial proposition of this thread was that they're too efficient for the effect that they have and the work required to counter them. It seems to me that if you have to have people dedicated to countering them that that should be factored into their 'benefit value' not just the value that they have from disabling siege. This is why I said that if the OP grants the argument about reflects it actually bolsters his initial proposition rather than weakening it.

>

 

I think dedicated countering is sort of a hyperbole. It's not like say, stealth, where you can legitimately argue that very few anti-stealth abilities exist, and those that exist are on long cooldowns, used on uncommon classes, or are just plain impossible to land. Combine with alleged counters also being counterable themselves and having almost no risk involved (the worst is usually just a stalemate) in it is a pretty easy argument to show it is degenerate gameplay. (Of course, Anet doesn't care, so think about how strong your point has to be.... ) In fact, I think it's closer to the opposite.

 

Instead, reflects are on firebrands, the most commonly seen class in the game. Mesmers and Revs are also common, though I have to admit I am not sure if that hammer 4 really stops it. Also possible on eles and engineers. Projectile hate is just simply a useful to have in any fight and is not just dedicated to stopping shield generators. And that's not even counting blocks.

 

It's just very hard for me to assume that something that is literally crapped out is an unfair burden at all. I guess you could argue that Wall of Reflection is sort of going out of your way. But, I could even argue that less classes have access to true invuls/stealth to actually toss the disabler.

 

 

> > Maybe if you could prove it, say, a simple thing, such as keeping siege disabled for a few minutes and more importantly how that really fits in the grand scheme of WvW itself.

>

> Not exactly sure what you're saying here it's a bit of a word salad imo.

 

I mean just simply proving it with an actual game experience. Like the last time you couldn't take an objective because of it. Just something as simple as that.

 

 

 

>

> > I don't see anything that compelling that suggests that it is making objectives that much harder to take.

>

> I do but that's a somewhat different discussion in my view.

 

Maybe, but I think these things don't take place in isolation.

[Shadowcat.2680]

If anything, disablers are less cost effective than any built siege as the disable effect will be temporary at best if the supply isn't outright wasted by the disabler not landing.

[Israel.7056]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> Unless of course, you were referring to the thread as a whole and not just due to the quote chain; I guess the forum's notification system is pretty kitten in that regards.

>But I was kinda arguing the opposite that siege disablers have not been successful despite the lack of any dedicated person, or at least not that severe of a threat.

 

I was referring generally to the argument that they're countered by reflects, blocks etc. The first person to present this argument was the second respondent in the thread and the response got 10 upvotes. It has been echoed by several other posters in the thread. I said granting these sorts of arguments actually bolsters the argument against siege disablers being "disproportionately effective."

 

> I dunno where this even came from.

 

It was a direct response to your smugly worded strawman. I didn't say anything about being "surprised" that they were efficient. I said I agree with the OP that they're "disproportionately effective" at their current supply cost.

 

> You claim that the cost/benefit ratio is clearly off, but I'm arguing that that's not inherently an issue because by design the siege disabler is supposed to be very cost efficient against siege, otherwise nobody will use it.

 

Presumably there is some price point where they would cease to be worth using but I doubt it's 20 supply or even 25 supply and since individuals cannot hold any more supply than 25 we are never going to find that price point. They are clearly worth using repeatedly at 15, people spam them at almost every single offensive attempt I'm ever a part of I don't think increasing their cost will cause that to stop it will just eat up the supply of the objective they are camping a bit faster, which seems only fair to me.

 

> I think dedicated countering is sort of a hyperbole. It's not like say, stealth, where you can legitimately argue that very few anti-stealth abilities exist, and those that exist are on long cooldowns, used on uncommon classes, or are just plain impossible to land. Combine with alleged counters also being counterable themselves and having almost no risk involved (the worst is usually just a stalemate) in it is a pretty easy argument to show it is degenerate gameplay. (Of course, Anet doesn't care, so think about how strong your point has to be.... ) In fact, I think it's closer to the opposite.

> Instead, reflects are on firebrands, the most commonly seen class in the game. Mesmers and Revs are also common, though I have to admit I am not sure if that hammer 4 really stops it. Also possible on eles and engineers. Projectile hate is just simply a useful to have in any fight and is not just dedicated to stopping shield generators. And that's not even counting blocks.

> It's just very hard for me to assume that something that is literally crapped out is an unfair burden at all. I guess you could argue that Wall of Reflection is sort of going out of your way. But, I could even argue that less classes have access to true invuls/stealth to actually toss the disabler.

 

The idea of "dedicated" to me simply means that someone is having to spend cds purely to prevent this one item from being used successfully. There is tremendous value in that. For instance let's say I build 4 rams and each ram needs an operator and if they're spaced out properly it might take 4 firebrands to spam reflects on them to prevent them from getting disabled. That's 8 people who have to stand by the gate just to make sure the rams don't get disabled, 8 people who are going to be in terrible position if the enemy pushes out. Little things like that can make a big difference when the fight actually happens.

 

I also don't know if you play on EU but on NA firebrands are not the most common class, revs and scourges are. Pretty much every group I know of on NA runs one fb per group so a 30 man guild group is going to have 6 fbs. So in other words it can take more than half of a group's fbs just to protect a few pieces of siege. That's huge, tremendous value.

 

> I mean just simply proving it with an actual game experience. Like the last time you couldn't take an objective because of it. Just something as simple as that.

 

I don't record my gameplay so anything I tell you here will be purely anecdotal but I can think of literally hundreds perhaps thousands of attempts at this point that have been stalled out by disablers long enough to make the attempt pointless.

 

I can also tell you that from an offensive perspective speed and surprise are everything during occupied timezones (timezones where the enemy has enough people to defend things) because defense in this game has literally every other conceivable advantage in the game. They have defensive siege, buffs, tactivators and tons of supply in upgraded structures. Most of the stuff that gets taken during occupied timezones gets taken in under 3 minutes or it doesn't get taken at all. 1 minute can easily mean the difference between a successful attempt and a fail.

 

 

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > Unless of course, you were referring to the thread as a whole and not just due to the quote chain; I guess the forum's notification system is pretty kitten in that regards.

> >But I was kinda arguing the opposite that siege disablers have not been successful despite the lack of any dedicated person, or at least not that severe of a threat.

>

> I was referring generally to the argument that they're countered by reflects, blocks etc. The first person to present this argument was the second respondent in the thread and the response got 10 upvotes. It has been echoed by several other posters in the thread. I said granting these sorts of arguments actually bolsters the argument against siege disablers being "disproportionately effective."

 

But I mean, is there any way to really prove this statement false? No matter what counters are listed, it's possible to fall back on the same argument

 

 

 

 

>

> > I dunno where this even came from.

>

> It was a direct response to your smugly worded strawman. I didn't say anything about being "surprised" that they were efficient. I said I agree with the OP that they're "disproportionately effective" at their current supply cost.

 

Well, that's sorta because it's a statement of my own, that a siege disabler should be obviously cost effective against siege, thus them being disproportionately effective vs siege is not a problem and thus it is no surprise that it would be. Whether or not you are individually surprised or not really has nothing to do with anything, but I could have just said it was obvious instead of using the word surprise.

 

 

 

> > I think dedicated countering is sort of a hyperbole. It's not like say, stealth, where you can legitimately argue that very few anti-stealth abilities exist, and those that exist are on long cooldowns, used on uncommon classes, or are just plain impossible to land. Combine with alleged counters also being counterable themselves and having almost no risk involved (the worst is usually just a stalemate) in it is a pretty easy argument to show it is degenerate gameplay. (Of course, Anet doesn't care, so think about how strong your point has to be.... ) In fact, I think it's closer to the opposite.

> > Instead, reflects are on firebrands, the most commonly seen class in the game. Mesmers and Revs are also common, though I have to admit I am not sure if that hammer 4 really stops it. Also possible on eles and engineers. Projectile hate is just simply a useful to have in any fight and is not just dedicated to stopping shield generators. And that's not even counting blocks.

> > It's just very hard for me to assume that something that is literally crapped out is an unfair burden at all. I guess you could argue that Wall of Reflection is sort of going out of your way. But, I could even argue that less classes have access to true invuls/stealth to actually toss the disabler.

>

> The idea of "dedicated" to me simply means that someone is having to spend cds purely to prevent this one item from being used successfully. There is tremendous value in that. For instance let's say I build 4 rams and each ram needs an operator and if they're spaced out properly it might take 4 firebrands to spam reflects on them to prevent them from getting disabled. That's 8 people who have to stand by the gate just to make sure the rams don't get disabled, 8 people who are going to be in terrible position if the enemy pushes out. Little things like that can make a big difference when the fight actually happens.

>

> I also don't know if you play on EU but on NA firebrands are not the most common class, revs and scourges are. Pretty much every group I know of on NA runs one fb per group so a 30 man guild group is going to have 6 fbs. So in other words it can take more than half of a group's fbs just to protect a few pieces of siege. That's huge, tremendous value.

 

That is actually a typo, probably would have been better off just saying it is a fairly common class, as opposed to say, them being exclusively on ranger. Though if you're properly reflecting things, wouldn't spreading things out make it worse?

 

Also it is slightly unfair to count the people on the rams, since that happens regardless of reflects or not.

 

 

 

 

>

> > I mean just simply proving it with an actual game experience. Like the last time you couldn't take an objective because of it. Just something as simple as that.

>

> I don't record my gameplay so anything I tell you here will be purely anecdotal but I can think of literally hundreds perhaps thousands of attempts at this point that have been stalled out by disablers long enough to make the attempt pointless.

 

 

 

 

>

> I can also tell you that from an offensive perspective speed and surprise are everything during occupied timezones (timezones where the enemy has enough people to defend things) because defense in this game has literally every other conceivable advantage in the game. They have defensive siege, buffs, tactivators and tons of supply in upgraded structures. Most of the stuff that gets taken during occupied timezones gets taken in under 3 minutes or it doesn't get taken at all. 1 minute can easily mean the difference between a successful attempt and a fail.

>

>

 

But actually, that's fair.

 

The game's in a bad state and I'm sure a lot of these problems are the result in the rather excessive creep for defensive structures.

 

[TheBravery.9615]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"TheBravery.9615" said:

> > how about you stop putting your siege all within the aoe radius of one disable?

> >

>

> So you're saying never to use Rams again eh?

 

unless I'm trying to take SMC, kinda correct. I don't keep rams in my inventory and only pull the from the provisioner when I need one.