Are people satisfied that WvW has devolved into zerg v zerg fest?

[CETheLucid.3964]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> Are people satisfied that WvW has devolved into zerg v zerg fest?

 

You're making the mistake of implying people can be satisfied with anything WvW related and the false dichotomy that zerg v zerg was anything less than the preeminent play of WvW for the vast majority of servers to the point of server stacking culture evolving based on who fights, who zergs, and who uses siege too much/too little.

[XenoSpyro.1780]

The blobfest gets old almost instantly. It's a shame really. Imagine seeing actual large-scale fights, where hundreds of people are actually dueling one another over a large mass of field, like in Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. You know... like a war.

 

Instead, we have "Agar.io the MMO"

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> Because you're not supposed to defend the castle from the walls or from inside. You're supposed to go outside, and.....fight. And if you don't understand the advantage you get from fighting the enemy while being covered/supported by siege from objective, then you need to play this game mode some more.

 

Yes, because every castle in history had open gates, cause you always broke the assault by running out and fighting the enemies. We have all these historical examples of how to use fortifications and siege...

 

...

 

Wait, no. Defenders could in fact fight from the walls with a sense of cover, and walls higher at all points then their shins.

 

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > @"subversiontwo.7501"

> > >

> > > Obviously, being alone isn't ideal, but that's clearly not what he was talking about. The problem was specifically the ease of attacking over the top of the wall compared to attacking people at the base of it. You can manage to do some things in the current system, but there's no argument that this basic inequality exists.

> > I beg to differ, I'd say that's exactly what's being talked about here. The argument was for immunity on walls. That would enable classes to stand and fire with impunity as opposed to having to be adaptive, smart and organised about it. The only inequality with regards to walls is that it is better to have them than not. What is being asked for is making that inequality more favourable to defenders to which my response was that it is already quite favourable and people in general are just not good at taking advantage of it anymore because dedicated defenders are as rare as most other dedicated subgroups of players these days. I'm not saying the mode is entirely made up of tag-followers and solo players these days but it has certainly gravitated alot in that direction. That is also why we see these kinds of suggestions.

> >

> > At the end of the day, a single Soulbeast on a wall should be far less successful than four Weavers and a spririt Druid (or a Scrapper, a Spellbreaker and three staff Daredevils) etc. That dedicated defenders are rare doesn't make it any less appealing, competetive or effective, rather the opposite. It isn't expected anymore and competition is low. The same goes for commanding or havocing around commanders. The available content is ripe for it if you do it right. Most of these issues have nothing to do with new, bad, casual or PvE, they have to do laziness and consumption - and the developer taking that direction over instigation and creativity when it comes to most things in the game (-mode).

> >

>

> He doesn't mention immunity at all. He just said that he hates that you can't defend from on top of a wall. He didn't ask for or make any suggestion. The whole bit about standing and firing with impunity is entirely your creation.

>

> But you surely can't be acting in good faith if you're saying that the only inequality with walls is that is better to have them than not. They are certainly useful in a certain sense, but that doesn't change the way AoE wraps in this game engine. Or how LoS works.

 

Bingo. Most times the walls hamper the defender attacks more than the attackers. Pulls are so deadly cause for some reason _even though real battlements were designed this way for a reason_ you can't fire at targets at the base over the shin high walls, so you have to stand on top of them. They either need to fix defender LOS, or grant CC immunity when on top of the walls.

[Nitrosiili.5628]

Yes lets build catapults/trebs (and dont forget the AC's) and shoot each other for 3 hours while bubbles are protecting both sides.

 

 

For me if I want the small scale fights, then I go to sPvP. If I want to have big open war with big fights I go WvW. On the days when I want to use mechanics on mindless mobs, I go play PvE.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Nitrosiili.5628" said:

> Yes lets build catapults/trebs (and dont forget the AC's) and shoot each other for 3 hours while bubbles are protecting both sides.

>

>

> For me if I want the small scale fights, then I go to sPvP. If I want to have big open war with big fights I go WvW. On the days when I want to use mechanics on mindless mobs, I go **hunt Zergs in WvW**

>

 

FTFY.

 

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

Small scale isn’t dead. There are several small groups out there of under 15.

 

Hit a camp or tower with 5-10. You’ll get wiped by Zergs at times, but more often, I am seeing other small groups engage.

 

And that is in T-1.

 

Part of what people are seeing for the past 10 days has been related to acquiring the mount. That’ll change.

 

Large numbers of new players run in the Zerg. As they leave, and it’s already started, you’ll see more small groups.

[schloumou.3982]

> @"Batdogi.7142" said:

> I recall people being concerned with it devolving into zerg vs zerg back in say 2015...but these days most folks just accept it as the way things are. no use being concerned over something that won't change.

 

That's what surprises me too honestly. For a long time there was that wide concent among the core community that there is an urgent need for incentives to split people up, give them different roles across the map and make as many playstyles viable as possible. Ultimately to give the game mode they love a meaningful strategic depth and make it a more complex long-lasting experience.

 

 

> @"StrawHat.2639" said:

> Am feeling more and more like you after 6yrs of changes...like to finish dark souls 3 and witcher 3 that I left uncompleted...

 

You absolutely should. Both fantasic games. Check out nexusmods for witcher.

[Nitrosiili.5628]

What I see is if you are 5-10 people hitting a tower. The defenders come with 10 people and build 5 arrow carts and then sit inside the tower shooting arrow carts, instead of killing the enemy with proper profession skills anet has created.

[StrawHat.2639]

> @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > @"StrawHat.2639" said:

> > Am feeling more and more like you after 6yrs of changes...like to finish dark souls 3 and witcher 3 that I left uncompleted...

>

> You absolutely should. Both fantasic games. Check out nexusmods for witcher.

 

Even for skyrim I never used much mods, for some reason the vanilla version seemed to be my love.

 

 

[Vancho.8750]

> @"Nitrosiili.5628" said:

> What I see is if you are 5-10 people hitting a tower. The defenders come with 10 people and build 5 arrow carts and then sit inside the tower shooting arrow carts, instead of killing the enemy with proper profession skills anet has created.

Keep telling yourself that till most people leave, because of meaninglessness and boredom and Arenanet decides that it is not worth the effort to keep the WvW servers going like The Foundry of Neverwinter . Professions should have less impact in large scale conflict it devolves to the pirate ship shit that is now and on top of that most skills get butchered like WoD cause its only use is WvW.

[subversiontwo.7501]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > @"subversiontwo.7501"

> > >

> > > Obviously, being alone isn't ideal, but that's clearly not what he was talking about. The problem was specifically the ease of attacking over the top of the wall compared to attacking people at the base of it. You can manage to do some things in the current system, but there's no argument that this basic inequality exists.

> > I beg to differ, I'd say that's exactly what's being talked about here. The argument was for immunity on walls. That would enable classes to stand and fire with impunity as opposed to having to be adaptive, smart and organised about it. The only inequality with regards to walls is that it is better to have them than not. What is being asked for is making that inequality more favourable to defenders to which my response was that it is already quite favourable and people in general are just not good at taking advantage of it anymore because dedicated defenders are as rare as most other dedicated subgroups of players these days. I'm not saying the mode is entirely made up of tag-followers and solo players these days but it has certainly gravitated alot in that direction. That is also why we see these kinds of suggestions.

> >

> > At the end of the day, a single Soulbeast on a wall should be far less successful than four Weavers and a spririt Druid (or a Scrapper, a Spellbreaker and three staff Daredevils) etc. That dedicated defenders are rare doesn't make it any less appealing, competetive or effective, rather the opposite. It isn't expected anymore and competition is low. The same goes for commanding or havocing around commanders. The available content is ripe for it if you do it right. Most of these issues have nothing to do with new, bad, casual or PvE, they have to do laziness and consumption - and the developer taking that direction over instigation and creativity when it comes to most things in the game (-mode).

> >

>

> He doesn't mention immunity at all. He just said that he hates that you can't defend from on top of a wall. He didn't ask for or make any suggestion. The whole bit about standing and firing with impunity is entirely your creation.

>

> But you surely can't be acting in good faith if you're saying that the only inequality with walls is that is better to have them than not. They are certainly useful in a certain sense, but that doesn't change the way AoE wraps in this game engine. Or how LoS works.

 

It was suggested by Kylden after s/he quoted Static, if that came across as misrepresenting Static (who had more sweeping arguements) that was my mistake, however, I find it to be relevant to the thread. The argument was made. What I said was that it was being talked about here and clearly it was. There is nothing dishonest about it. Static said that you can't stand on walls to defend, but clearly, you can do that too.

 

That goes for you too, Sviel, as you made the argument that there is an inequality between being on a wall and the base of it. I highly doubt that you implied that it was favourable to be on the wall as opposed to the base. However, that is exactly what is true. The only inequality that actually exists is that opposite, that it is more favourable to be inside an objective than at the base of it.

 

The only arguments I see from you people in this thread is that it isn't good enough and that there should be even more advantages to it, beyond the advantages that already exists. My argument is simply that it is useful enough if you know how to make it count, without needing equal numbers because the advantage is a force multiplier. I make that argument because I know the ways AoE wraps and LoS works, for a multitude of classes, and that is why I can't identify with what is being said here. I also make that argument because I have experience with fighting undermanned or busting zergs (and specifically trolling zergs with parties around forward objectives, even being in guilds formed for that purpose). Players who complain about dying on walls "all the time" clearly do not know how those things work or they wouldn't making such arguments.

 

So on one hand we ask that people do not just throw an L2P statement in our face, but when someone comes along to honestly discuss the topic he is just being called dishonest and there seems to be little interest in discussing the topic openmindedly. Given the mindset a crude L2P would have been in order.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > > @"subversiontwo.7501"

> > > >

> > > > Obviously, being alone isn't ideal, but that's clearly not what he was talking about. The problem was specifically the ease of attacking over the top of the wall compared to attacking people at the base of it. You can manage to do some things in the current system, but there's no argument that this basic inequality exists.

> > > I beg to differ, I'd say that's exactly what's being talked about here. The argument was for immunity on walls. That would enable classes to stand and fire with impunity as opposed to having to be adaptive, smart and organised about it. The only inequality with regards to walls is that it is better to have them than not. What is being asked for is making that inequality more favourable to defenders to which my response was that it is already quite favourable and people in general are just not good at taking advantage of it anymore because dedicated defenders are as rare as most other dedicated subgroups of players these days. I'm not saying the mode is entirely made up of tag-followers and solo players these days but it has certainly gravitated alot in that direction. That is also why we see these kinds of suggestions.

> > >

> > > At the end of the day, a single Soulbeast on a wall should be far less successful than four Weavers and a spririt Druid (or a Scrapper, a Spellbreaker and three staff Daredevils) etc. That dedicated defenders are rare doesn't make it any less appealing, competetive or effective, rather the opposite. It isn't expected anymore and competition is low. The same goes for commanding or havocing around commanders. The available content is ripe for it if you do it right. Most of these issues have nothing to do with new, bad, casual or PvE, they have to do laziness and consumption - and the developer taking that direction over instigation and creativity when it comes to most things in the game (-mode).

> > >

> >

> > He doesn't mention immunity at all. He just said that he hates that you can't defend from on top of a wall. He didn't ask for or make any suggestion. The whole bit about standing and firing with impunity is entirely your creation.

> >

> > But you surely can't be acting in good faith if you're saying that the only inequality with walls is that is better to have them than not. They are certainly useful in a certain sense, but that doesn't change the way AoE wraps in this game engine. Or how LoS works.

>

> It was suggested by Kylden after s/he quoted Static, if that came across as misrepresenting Static (who had more sweeping arguements) that was my mistake, however, I find it to be relevant to the thread. The argument was made. What I said was that it was being talked about here and clearly it was. There is nothing dishonest about it. Static said that you can't stand on walls to defend, but clearly, you can do that too.

>

> That goes for you too, Sviel, as you made the argument that there is an inequality between being on a wall and the base of it. I highly doubt that you implied that it was favourable to be on the wall as opposed to the base. However, that is exactly what is true. The only inequality that actually exists is that opposite, that it is more favourable to be inside an objective than at the base of it.

>

> The only arguments I see from you people in this thread is that it isn't good enough and that there should be even more advantages to it, beyond the advantages that already exists. My argument is simply that it is useful enough if you know how to make it count, without needing equal numbers because the advantage is a force multiplier. I make that argument because I know the ways AoE wraps and LoS works, for a multitude of classes, and that is why I can't identify with what is being said here. I also make that argument because I have experience with fighting undermanned or busting zergs (and specifically trolling zergs with parties around forward objectives, even being in guilds formed for that purpose). Players who complain about dying on walls "all the time" clearly do not know how those things work or they wouldn't making such arguments.

>

> So on one hand we ask that people do not just throw an L2P statement in our face, but when someone comes along to honestly discuss the topic he is just being called dishonest and there seems to be little interest in discussing the topic openmindedly. Given the mindset a crude L2P would have been in order.

 

More advantages? No.

 

A couple things though: structures at T3 tend to stagnate. I am on one of the bigger servers and it is one of the reasons we tend to stay in T1. Our T3s are really hard to take. Drop the wall strength down significantly, or remove T3s, or nerf tactics. One, or some combination would be great.

 

But if I can be hit on a wall by projectiles, I should be able to hit people **from the same spot that I can be hit** with projectiles.

 

Wells/shades/AOEs are not in my definition.

 

If staff 1 of Necro, ele, auto attack from ranger, etc can hit me on the wall, I should be able to hit them as well.

 

If I can’t be hit, then I shouldn’t be able to hit them either.

[Bored.8461]

> @"Silver.2076" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Bored.8461" said:

> > > I think if we want to have different play styles in WvW we need different maps designed for different play styles. We need a map designed for small scale groups, and we need a map designed for roamers. As it stands right now people run around in zergs, because that is what the maps are designed for.

> >

> > Exactly.

>

> there is one! the red borderland map - nor large scale grp like the long paths and chokes. so feel free, get all there!

 

No, it was designed as a zerg map. Anet changed some of it, because people complained. I think the reason that there aren't any zergs there is because of how the map was first received, and it left a bad impression.

[displayname.8315]

> @"Nitrosiili.5628" said:

> What I see is if you are 5-10 people hitting a tower. The defenders come with 10 people and build 5 arrow carts and then sit inside the tower shooting arrow carts, instead of killing the enemy with proper profession skills anet has created.

 

What you don't see is the attackers building a counter arrow cart. You don't see the ele's and rangers properly clearing siege even if their build is made for it. If they actually used voice chat they would quickly learn the skills they are missing.. but nah. Not even going to mention joining a guild no one seems to do that at all anymore.

[Duckota.4769]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Small scale isn’t dead. There are several small groups out there of under 15.

>

> Hit a camp or tower with 5-10. You’ll get wiped by Zergs at times, but more often, I am seeing other small groups engage.

>

> And that is in T-1.

>

> Part of what people are seeing for the past 10 days has been related to acquiring the mount. That’ll change.

>

> Large numbers of new players run in the Zerg. As they leave, and it’s already started, you’ll see more small groups.

 

Sounds nice. What I find most common. Is another small group runs into the tower even though they outnumber us by 1 or 2 and proceed to siege us. Then the enemy zerg tries to portal bomb just as the wall or whatever is about to go down with 35 people.

 

> @"displayname.8315" said:

> > @"Nitrosiili.5628" said:

> > What I see is if you are 5-10 people hitting a tower. The defenders come with 10 people and build 5 arrow carts and then sit inside the tower shooting arrow carts, instead of killing the enemy with proper profession skills anet has created.

>

> What you don't see is the attackers building a counter arrow cart. You don't see the ele's and rangers properly clearing siege even if their build is made for it. If they actually used voice chat they would quickly learn the skills they are missing.. but nah. Not even going to mention joining a guild no one seems to do that at all anymore.

 

Yeah building counter siege sure sounds engaging /s

[TheGrimm.5624]

Zerg play is just more encouraged anytime you further restrict people's abilities to defend and or/reduce the value of holding objectives. You need to give people reasons to break into smaller groups if you want to encourage more spread out fights. In a lot of cases though players will choose zerg over havoc or roamers because they don't like to be run over. And each time a player is run over their mindset might switch to, well we will group up and then lets try that again. A regular havoc or roamer might just rack that up as the cost of doing business and head back out but a lot of people don't think that way. Can't blame, it comes to each person at the end of the night in deciding was the time well spent or was it wasted. Hence each time I see people asking to make it more difficult on defenders it makes me question since it typically favors zerg play in my experience. Good hunting!

[DemonSeed.3528]

Embrace fighting with an open heart, even if it's from getting stabbed.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

> @"DemonSeed.3528" said:

> Embrace fighting with an open heart, even if it's from getting stabbed.

 

This guy gets it!

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Bored.8461" said:

> > @"Silver.2076" said:

> >

> > there is one! the red borderland map - nor large scale grp like the long paths and chokes. so feel free, get all there!

>

> No, it was designed as a zerg map. Anet changed some of it, because people complained. I think the reason that there aren't any zergs there is because of how the map was first received, and it left a bad impression.

 

Actually see quite a bit of zergs on DBL, but each server is different.

[Straegen.2938]

devolved? Something cannot devolve that hasn't changed... WvW has always been a zerg-fest with a handful of GvG bright spots.

[spectrito.8513]

> @"Straegen.2938" said:

> devolved? Something cannot devolve that hasn't changed... WvW has always been a zerg-fest with a handful of GvG bright spots.

 

I think he meant that zergfest is the **ONLY** thing going on in WvW.

There's no gvg's,roamers,small scale fights

WvW nowadays is only about who has the bigger blob.

 

[Substance E.4852]

> @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> The blobfest gets old almost instantly. It's a shame really. Imagine seeing actual large-scale fights, where hundreds of people are actually dueling one another over a large mass of field, like in Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. You know... like a war.

>

> Instead, we have "Agar.io the MMO"

 

1. Those are literally fictional settings that are choreographed in a way that is pleasing to watch and can be understood. Real war is a clusterfuck and dying because some guy ganked you from behind while you were fighting someone else was absolutely a real thing.

 

2. What we have is a product of no player collision. Everyone can just walk through each other. I don't think I need to explain to anyone here what an absolute nightmare of trolling and body block cheesing player collision would be in WvW.

[XenoSpyro.1780]

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

>Real war is a kitten

Well it's a good thing I didn't bring up "REAL WAR" then. Christ, you people and your "but but real life" arguments. Sad.

>and dying because some guy ganked you from behind while you were fighting someone else

You say this like it doesn't already happen. *coughThiefMesmerCoughAndnowprobablystealthScrapperCough*

 

[Substance E.4852]

> @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> >Real war is a kitten

> Well it's a good thing I didn't bring up "REAL WAR" then. Christ, you people and your "but but real life" arguments. Sad.

> >and dying because some guy ganked you from behind while you were fighting someone else

> You say this like it doesn't already happen. *coughThiefMesmerCoughAndnowprobablystealthScrapperCough*

>

 

Bruh...

 

> You know... like a war.

 

Come on now...

[oOStaticOo.9467]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > > @"subversiontwo.7501"

> > > >

> > > > Obviously, being alone isn't ideal, but that's clearly not what he was talking about. The problem was specifically the ease of attacking over the top of the wall compared to attacking people at the base of it. You can manage to do some things in the current system, but there's no argument that this basic inequality exists.

> > > I beg to differ, I'd say that's exactly what's being talked about here. The argument was for immunity on walls. That would enable classes to stand and fire with impunity as opposed to having to be adaptive, smart and organised about it. The only inequality with regards to walls is that it is better to have them than not. What is being asked for is making that inequality more favourable to defenders to which my response was that it is already quite favourable and people in general are just not good at taking advantage of it anymore because dedicated defenders are as rare as most other dedicated subgroups of players these days. I'm not saying the mode is entirely made up of tag-followers and solo players these days but it has certainly gravitated alot in that direction. That is also why we see these kinds of suggestions.

> > >

> > > At the end of the day, a single Soulbeast on a wall should be far less successful than four Weavers and a spririt Druid (or a Scrapper, a Spellbreaker and three staff Daredevils) etc. That dedicated defenders are rare doesn't make it any less appealing, competetive or effective, rather the opposite. It isn't expected anymore and competition is low. The same goes for commanding or havocing around commanders. The available content is ripe for it if you do it right. Most of these issues have nothing to do with new, bad, casual or PvE, they have to do laziness and consumption - and the developer taking that direction over instigation and creativity when it comes to most things in the game (-mode).

> > >

> >

> > He doesn't mention immunity at all. He just said that he hates that you can't defend from on top of a wall. He didn't ask for or make any suggestion. The whole bit about standing and firing with impunity is entirely your creation.

> >

> > But you surely can't be acting in good faith if you're saying that the only inequality with walls is that is better to have them than not. They are certainly useful in a certain sense, but that doesn't change the way AoE wraps in this game engine. Or how LoS works.

>

> It was suggested by Kylden after s/he quoted Static, if that came across as misrepresenting Static (who had more sweeping arguements) that was my mistake, however, I find it to be relevant to the thread. The argument was made. What I said was that it was being talked about here and clearly it was. There is nothing dishonest about it. Static said that you can't stand on walls to defend, but clearly, you can do that too.

>

> That goes for you too, Sviel, as you made the argument that there is an inequality between being on a wall and the base of it. I highly doubt that you implied that it was favourable to be on the wall as opposed to the base. However, that is exactly what is true. The only inequality that actually exists is that opposite, that it is more favourable to be inside an objective than at the base of it.

>

> The only arguments I see from you people in this thread is that it isn't good enough and that there should be even more advantages to it, beyond the advantages that already exists. My argument is simply that it is useful enough if you know how to make it count, without needing equal numbers because the advantage is a force multiplier. I make that argument because I know the ways AoE wraps and LoS works, for a multitude of classes, and that is why I can't identify with what is being said here. I also make that argument because I have experience with fighting undermanned or busting zergs (and specifically trolling zergs with parties around forward objectives, even being in guilds formed for that purpose). Players who complain about dying on walls "all the time" clearly do not know how those things work or they wouldn't making such arguments.

>

> So on one hand we ask that people do not just throw an L2P statement in our face, but when someone comes along to honestly discuss the topic he is just being called dishonest and there seems to be little interest in discussing the topic openmindedly. Given the mindset a crude L2P would have been in order.

 

What I meant by saying that you can't stand on the walls to defend, is this. If you are up on a wall you will have every necro in the group casting their AoE's on the wall where people will try to stand forcing them away from that area or killing them. You will have Eles raining down Meteor Shower over a larger area than you can stand, again forcing people away from defensible areas of the wall. You will have Rangers pew pewing away at you from the ground and raining arrows down from above, forcing you away from the wall. You will have Thieves and Mesmers yank you off of the wall if you stand on the wall, heck even if you are standing behind the wall they will yank you up and over the wall somehow (which should NOT be possible).

 

Now, I can agree with Eles and Rangers being able to rain down death from above, as that is part of what they do. I am all in favor of those two being able to do that as that would mean more inclusiveness into blobs and zergs. I do not agree with the others being able to do what they do though, that to me is poor design and needs to be fixed. Let Eles, Rangers, and some siege attacks be able to hit defenders on a wall. Being in a Tower or Keep up on a wall should be more difficult for the attackers and more defensible by the defenders. That is just basic warfare knowledge.

 

Unfortunately Anet has chosen to listen to the complaints that Towers and Keeps are "Too hard to take" and have weakened the defenses so much that they are now almost too hard to defend and people would just rather let them go and then retake them later after the enemy blob or zerg has left. That is no fun to me. It's turned into an EotM K-train in WvW now where people will look for open field fights once they get bored of capturing and recapturing objectives. Do I want it to take 3 hours to take a Tower or a Keep? No. Neither do I want it to take only 5 minutes to take one as well. Cannons and Mortars have very little HP and are therefore pointless to build and use during a defense. I feel that Anet should increase the amount of HP they have so that they last longer than 30 seconds. Same with the Oil above the gates. Also while on a Cannon or Oil one should have some kind of protection while using them. Or they should be positioned in such a way that they are harder to hit from the ground.

 

Defenders in a Tower or Keep SHOULD have an advantage over attackers. That is the way it is supposed to be and, as someone else has mentioned from history, is the way it was. Sieges were more a thing of attrition than anything else. Sieges would last months sometimes years until the defender ran out of supplies and had to surrender. Not because they couldn't defend their area. So basically WvW has become a glorified version of EotM with better rewards, which is why EotM is dead now.

 

Anyways, I highly doubt anything will change for the better. I'm sure the blobs will scream the loudest and Anet will listen and make it even more easy to take Towers and Keeps. Heaven forbid a few people can actually make a difference vs. a large blob, that's just sacrilegious.