Guild Wars 2

It’s impossible to make everyone happy, so obv there will be disagrement and tears.
But if people will give feedback, and if anet will pay attention to the topic, then hopefully at least a couple of these suggestions will survive the meatgrinder-discussion and be approved. That’s what i dream.

Here’s a video (why not?!?) to quickly sum the 10 points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic3wnMzAjEA

And in text form (better read them):

1) Any guild should be able to claim right after a capture. Why:
In a game based on supplies, yes, all these constant supplies left behind due to “sry i can’t +5” are a real deal.

2) A guild with +5 should be able to take over a guild with no +5. Why:
Piles and piles of supplies are unused in depots simply because a guild claimed with no +5 (or it expired).

3) Golem owners should be able to kick people inside them. Why
Kick from own siege works for all siege alredy; why not also for the expensive golems?

4) Mystic forge recipes to get 10x blueprints.
Just refreshing an old suggestion, i know.

5) After a capture, supplies should briefly (like 5 sec) be impossible to take. Why:
So people can start an upgrade if needed before it gets drained.
Edit: according to an HoT announcement, this will basically “be fixed”.

6) Blueprints and traps should be shared between all characters inventory. Why:
Managing all the siege/traps spread across 8 characters is annoying and confusing.

7) /supplyinfo should have a wider AOE and be easier/faster to do. How and Why:
“stack pls” – “/supplyinfo” too much to type for a very frequently needed supply scan which also has a too small radius. Increase the aoe radius and add a “push to sup count” button for commanders.

8) Major upgrades shouldn’t be available for low WvW exp players. Why:
As shown in the video: “hire additional guards” instant -600 supplies while enemies are attacking. Classic. Usually mistakes done by new WvW players simply trying to help. But since upgrades can harm, the power to start the big ones should be granted later; hopefully by that time they’ll have learned from more exp players what is best to do with upgrades.
Edit: according to an HoT announcement, this will basically “be fixed”.

9) Limit N° of rams deployable x gates. Why:
Siege wars should be based on strategy, not on mindless bruteforce ram spamming.

10) Change PvD. How and Why:
PvD should only come in help in those situations where you lowered a gate to 10-15% but the enemies destroyed your rams and you don’t have supplies for more. Gates should take PvD damage only at 10-15% or below. For tagging/contested purposes they can still be attacked even when above 10-15%, but won’t receive dmg.
And since the game shouldn’t give advantages to blobs: the dps that each player can do to a 10-15% gate should be a fixed ammount and should scale based on how many players are close to that gate.

Thanks to Grendel for giving me the n°9 idea and a part of n° 10. And thank you for reading this walltext. Now i’ll head back to the Hunter’s Dream.

1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) yes
5) yes
6) yes
7) yes
8) yes
9) yes
10) yes

More constructive answer to come I promise :P

I agree with all 10 points but truth to be told, wont happen sadly.

6 is not that simple as it would require either a whole new method of siege deployment or a newly designed inventory with some account wide slots for specific items. Both is major rework.

Point 10 I do not agree that people should be able to tag above your 10-15% damage threshold. Only siege should be able to tag. A player running around scratching a door with his dagger to completely incapacitate defender spawn is and has always been kittened.

Otherwise I agree with all your points. Heck they even are simple for a change, unlike the people saying “omg I know the easy fix, make maps 10x larger with support for 1000 players and DX12 for 10,000% more perfomance, its soooooooo simple!!!!”.

1) For convenience I agree, but then you get the really sensitive people who are like “we have more people, we did most of the work, why are you claiming this?”

2) As with no 1, I agree for convenience sake, but then what about other buffs? What if somebody else has claimed and they have MF buffs and combat buffs etc, but no supply buff. Should another guild be able to claim over that? It will get a bit complicated unless the rule is simplied to something like “If a guild has no buffs running, other guilds can claim over them after x minutes/hours/whatever”.

3) Yes
4) Yes
5) I don’t see this as a need, but would be nice to have
6) I’d say no, since siege are not account bound.
7) Would be useful
8) No. That just encourages elitist behaviour.
9) No point. If the enemy seriously outnumber you to the point that they have enough supply and people to put down a ridiculous number of rams or catas, they’re going to take it anyway. No need to put an arbitrary cap on the number of siege.
10) Don’t really care either way tbh since won’t really affect me personally.

Nate.3927:

1) For convenience I agree, but then you get the really sensitive people who are like “we have more people, we did most of the work, why are you claiming this?”

2) As with no 1, I agree for convenience sake, but then what about other buffs? What if somebody else has claimed and they have MF buffs and combat buffs etc, but no supply buff. Should another guild be able to claim over that? It will get a bit complicated unless the rule is simplied to something like “If a guild has no buffs running, other guilds can claim over them after x minutes/hours/whatever”.

6) I’d say no, since siege are not account bound.

8) No. That just encourages elitist behaviour.
9) No point. If the enemy seriously outnumber you to the point that they have enough supply and people to put down a ridiculous number of rams or catas, they’re going to take it anyway. No need to put an arbitrary cap on the number of siege.

1: I hope there are no kitten “hey WE were the most here during the cap so WE want to claim to give the +5” out there, but anyway, to “fix” this: The guild with majority members during a cap would still have the “major right” to claim “theyr” structure after capture. So, example: if 10 guys flip 1 camp and 5 are from same guild and 5 are miscelanous ones, if a “miscelanous guy” claim right after a cap, someone from the “5 guys guild” can “overthrow” the claim. But if miscelanous-guy claim with a +5 and 5-guys-guild has no +5, they can’t overthrow.

2: +5 is the most valuable buff. It is the one that really can make a difference between losing or defending a structure. Not to mention it is the most useful one even in time of peace, cause the group can constantly stack up on supplies. Anyway, i’d be fine wine even with your idea of making the “take over in claim” temporary .

6: The problem can be solved witouth turning siege in account bound. Just add an inventory bag (for siege only, available only in WvW) where you can access, put/take all your siege, regardless the character you are playing with at that time.

8: I didn’t mean to sound kitten. There is nothing wrong with being new to the game and having a “blurred idea” of what’s best to do. We’re all like that at the start.
I wasn’t being elitist.
But you need to see it from the other way: Some upgrades at wrong time can really be harmful. The upgrades that drain a lot instantly (hire additional guards, raise guards lvl for example) or slowly over time (WP, fortify) should be unlocked later on as a reward. Like the masteries for WvW really. The more you rank up the more “rewards” you unlock. I am not saying access to the major upgrades should be unlocked by WvW masteries (that doesnt sound too bad actually tho), but it’s just an example to give you the idea. If players obtain the power to do the major upgrades only after they have spent some time in WvW, then hopefully by that time someone alredy told them how upgrades works and what is best to do and why.

9 (and 10). It’s not true that “they’re going to take it anyway”. The number of rams deployable on a gate DOES affect many times if a tower/keep is captured/defended or not. With a limit to how many rams are deployable to a gate, plus the nerfed/scaling PvD things would be way more balanced.

I have only one request… unbind WvWvW from server and makes it AvAvA. Due to megaservers it’s close to impossible to find WvW players willing to band together anymore.

Sirendor.1394:

I have only one request… unbind WvWvW from server and makes it AvAvA. Due to megaservers it’s close to impossible to find WvW players willing to band together anymore.

I don’t know what AvAvA is, but I just returned to the game for the first time since launch and joined a new guild. I was disappointed when no one in my guild, which is PvP centered, could do WvW with me =/. I struggle to find ANYONE to roam with too, to be fair.

AvAvA is short for Alliance vs. Alliance vs. Alliance. So instead of Server vs. Server vs. Server, you’d have alliances not linked to the server you’re on, which makes it unimportant what server you’re on, or what server your guild mates are on.

Sirendor.1394:

AvAvA is short for Alliance vs. Alliance vs. Alliance. So instead of Server vs. Server vs. Server, you’d have alliances not linked to the server you’re on, which makes it unimportant what server you’re on, or what server your guild mates are on.

You’re forgetting the point of this thread’s 10 suggestions: “simple things”. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this AvAvA-thing, but i’m saying it would basically change WvW complitely. So it’s not a “simple thing”. And it is not related to the original topic either.

Sirendor.1394:

I have only one request… unbind WvWvW from server and makes it AvAvA. Due to megaservers it’s close to impossible to find WvW players willing to band together anymore.

Well yeah, but as i know only bronze servers are dead cos ppl just ran out of there to have fights and don’t stay in toxic pve community( example: Blacktide) of players who don’t want WvW. Also how u search for them(players)? Via WvW map? LFG? TS? Forum? U have plenty of ways to find players but maybe they just don’t want to play WvW. Also AvAvA would bring such bigger unbalance cos who will it determinate players to which alliance they belong? By current WvW ranking? They will join specific alliance? Random throwing into some alliance? And how would it work? Actually in t1-3 u have 20 man queues during prime time which is 19 CET to 23 CET at last for Europe. So with AvAvA it will be overextended, also if u set it into overflows( I mean borderlands as overflows like EoTM) it will still be unbalanced cos some oveflows will have only “green” color cos rest wouldn’t be fitted by players from “red” and “blue”. As u see too hard to make AvAvA atm. at last now when SvSvS is developped.

Please make OS cross server or something. (Or more OS servers like Eotm)

1. Guids should have a WvW Rank per world. Guilds that earn more score for a world would have a higher rank in that world, and that rank would also count negatively when ranking on worlds teamed against the world in which they have the highest rank.
2. A guild with a higher rank would always be able to take over a location claimed by a guild with lower rank, but they’ll only be able to keep the last location. If they already had another location, the location ownerships would switch instead being replaced.
3. I’m amazed this is not happening already. And this explains why a “bought account on sale” spy was able to steal our golems and move them to a dangerous spot with impunity.
4. The mystic forge needs a rework with hand health features, including but not limited to a list of recipes like other crafting stations.
5. I’d rather have upgrades require something else, like badges of honor instead supplies or some location-based an alternate value. If there was such a time, then spies would be able to trigger upgrades, preventing people from taking supply they may need for something else.
6. There should be an account-wide inventory slot you can purchase to then put any bag you want on it. All characters would have access to that slot once unlocked.
7. Supplyinfo got already increased from 180 to 240 range. For some reason people don’t seem to beleive it and insit on people to stack until they can sniff each others armpits. Instead, supplyinfo should have an animation and visuals. Like a large banner with a nice red circle radius. So people can actually see the range of the thing. Commaners should also get a little floating skillbar they can move anywhere on screen with orders and commands for quick use without typing.
8. WXP skills should be converted into masteries that require WXP instead XP to increase. Upgrades would then be require a WXP “Upgrades” mastery. The higher your rank in that mastery, the higher scoring locations you can upgrade. Supply camps would require just the first rank, Stonemist would require the last rank. That’ll give people time to understand how these things work before they can mess around with them, and the WXP skills would also have descriptions they should read.
9. This makes sense. But keep in mind that people may drop normal rams on purpose so others can’t put superior ones. So if a the limit is reached with normal ones and someone throws a better one, like a guild or superior one, instead stopping that, it should allow it, and the supply from the lesser one with less supply should transfer to the newly placed superior one, and the normal one refunded in a mail message to the one who placed it.
10. Why not making the door have increased armor vs player skills the higher its health? When its at 100%, it’ll take 0 damage from any player skill, right under that the damage would be minimal and negligible. At 10% they’ll start taking as much damage as now, and under that the damage will increase more and more. This would make keeping the doors with high health important. So people may not exploit tricks like holding repairs if the doors are getting upgraded soon to save lots of supply, because the lower their health gets, the more damage they may take.
But If I could have a say on that, when it comes to door, I’d rather require people to build an APC mobile siege machine, take it to a mercenary camp, capture the mercenary camp, recruit NPCs, take them into the APC, then travel with the APC to a door, and then they break the door while you defend them. So if your team is offensive, you go catapult and trebuchets but if your builds are mostly about defense, you go the ‘defend NPCs while they break the door’ way.

MithranArkanere.8957:

1. Guids should have a WvW Rank per world. Guilds that earn more score for a world would have a higher rank in that world, and that rank would also count negatively when ranking on worlds teamed against the world in which they have the highest rank.

How? Just how u want to check out which servers teamed against other? U can’t make official alliances so HOW? By rumors? Players speculations? :P

2. A guild with a higher rank would always be able to take over a location claimed by a guild with lower rank, but they’ll only be able to keep the last location. If they already had another location, the location ownerships would switch instead being replaced.

Ye, but what about abuse of this system? As u know many night guilds earn a lot of points, so according to that they will have highest place, but those guilds aren’t always with buffs and what if they claim fully buffed keep without buffs?

5. I’d rather have upgrades require something else, like badges of honor instead supplies or some location-based an alternate value. If there was such a time, then spies would be able to trigger upgrades, preventing people from taking supply they may need for something else.

Yeah and put free upgrades everywhere. Atm. u need to w8 for supply to put upgrade on and it is worth roaming and taking those camps out, with BoH instead of supplies ppl will just don’t care about camps, cos they will be able to upgrade it for free and have full upgraded camp in no time

7. Supplyinfo got already increased from 180 to 240 range. For some reason people don’t seem to beleive it and insit on people to stack until they can sniff each others armpits. Instead, supplyinfo should have an animation and visuals. Like a large banner with a nice red circle radius. So people can actually see the range of the thing. Commaners should also get a little floating skillbar they can move anywhere on screen with orders and commands for quick use without typing.

They want to stack to have clear image, 240 isn’t much tho – meele range. Also typing orders? Hello it’s 2015, use ts3, ventrillo or some other voice chat app for leading unless u want to be wiped out cos it takes some time to type / click / use macro and for ppl to read it.

[quote=5029754;MithranArkanere.8957:]

24h matchups. Resets every day, increased upgrade speed by 2×.

1,2: Why not allow guilds to add their buffs to objectives claimed by others. If guild A claims the objective but doesn’t have buffs and guild B comes along with buffs guild B would get an option “Add my Guild’s buffs to this location”. Solves the +5 supply problem while keeping the claim on the objective for whoever got it first.

3: agree
4: definitely agree but should maybe be able to select the size of the recipe order directly so long as I have the parts for it (order 20 sup rams if i have the mithril, wood, siege books, and normal rams for it)
5: iffy. It’s nice to be able to start an upgrade immediately but it’s also nice to be able to immediately loot supply for the next capture. In the “strategy” of wvw the faster you can do something the better chance of it succeeding and having to wait for 5 seconds for a supply grab may hinder my eventual objective cap. That 5 seconds is the difference between smoking a lord and getting kittenjammed by an enemy zerg.
6: i’d like it but I don’t suspect ANET to get around to it until Q3 2016
7: 1000x yes! Maybe a live update of the supply count for those nearby or in my squad. It would be nice to not have to guess about how much supply my zerg has (I estimate it by how many camps we took and whether they got cleaned out)
8: Double edged sword with this one. Having roamers be able to queue upgrades makes for an easier to defend borderland while also having it possible for them to blow away supply needed for an active defense. I’d rather have the current system.
9. No. One strategy and a fairly effective one at that is to blitz a structure before the enemy can react to it. Limiting the rams on the structure prevents this. In reality the first enemy responder should be loaded with siege disablers to fight off the blitz attack till their zerg can counter attack. I’ve taken structures by distracting their defenders and blitzing them. I’d rather keep this option on the table. Build a proper siege wars defense (3 arrow carts and a treb in the lords room area for countering) and 4 players can hold off an enemy zerg effectively until help arrives. If you have no help to fight the enemy zerg then your defense was never meant to be anyway.
10. I think the expansion will handle this. Similar sentiment to fighting off the enemy zerg from answer 9.

Nedus.6952:

Sirendor.1394:

AvAvA is short for Alliance vs. Alliance vs. Alliance. So instead of Server vs. Server vs. Server, you’d have alliances not linked to the server you’re on, which makes it unimportant what server you’re on, or what server your guild mates are on.

You’re forgetting the point of this thread’s 10 suggestions: “simple things”. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this AvAvA-thing, but i’m saying it would basically change WvW complitely. So it’s not a “simple thing”. And it is not related to the original topic either.

Indeed. Its not simple. And in particular, I dont think its good.

The only reason we have good communities now is just because its still server vs server in WvW. Its manageable. A server often has a public TS. The server I am on has a huge TS with all guilds on it. We can gather on commanders and have fun together, we can easily join each others closed raids if there is a need.

If you where to make AvA, then it will become unmanageable. No one can maintain a TS for 6+ servers. No one will want to do that just for the “greater good”. Guilds will keep to themselves, pug commanders wont have TS.

Its going to ruin WvW and turn it into a quiet battlefield of headless chickens running after commanders that cant talk. If Anet would step up and make a huge alliance TS with 500+ guild channels, all the border channels etc and so on then fine, it could be doable. One huge official TS server per alliance.

But I think we all know that is completely unrealistic. Not going to happen. They wont even allow a competetive WvW forum where we could write stuff to each other, imagine them having a place we could talk? Lol!

Dawdler.8521:

Nedus.6952:

Sirendor.1394:

AvAvA is short for Alliance vs. Alliance vs. Alliance. So instead of Server vs. Server vs. Server, you’d have alliances not linked to the server you’re on, which makes it unimportant what server you’re on, or what server your guild mates are on.

You’re forgetting the point of this thread’s 10 suggestions: “simple things”. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this AvAvA-thing, but i’m saying it would basically change WvW complitely. So it’s not a “simple thing”. And it is not related to the original topic either.

Indeed. Its not simple. And in particular, I dont think its good.

The only reason we have good communities now is just because its still server vs server in WvW. Its manageable. A server often has a public TS. The server I am on has a huge TS with all guilds on it. We can gather on commanders and have fun together, we can easily join each others closed raids if there is a need.

If you where to make AvA, then it will become unmanageable. No one can maintain a TS for 6+ servers. No one will want to do that just for the “greater good”. Guilds will keep to themselves, pug commanders wont have TS.

Its going to ruin WvW and turn it into a quiet battlefield of headless chickens running after commanders that cant talk. If Anet would step up and make a huge alliance TS with 500+ guild channels, all the border channels etc and so on then fine, it could be doable. One huge official TS server per alliance.

But I think we all know that is completely unrealistic. Not going to happen. They wont even allow a competetive WvW forum where we could write stuff to each other, imagine them having a place we could talk? Lol!

Well said! This already happens in eotm so ill stay in WvW where i play with the same ole reliable peple everyday instead of a bunch of randoms that dont care about anything but capcapcapcapcapcap.

1) Any guild should be able to claim right after a capture. Why:
In a game based on supplies, yes, all these constant supplies left behind due to “sry i can’t +5” are a real deal.

Any Guild can if they cap it. (are main force to cap it)

2) A guild with +5 should be able to take over a guild with no +5. Why:
Piles and piles of supplies are unused in depots simply because a guild claimed with no +5 (or it expired).

Supply camp yes other building no, to claim a building you should have to have buff running, camps +5, Tower, Keep, SM defensiv buff and when buff run out you lose hte claim.

3) Golem owners should be able to kick people inside them. Why
Kick from own siege works for all siege alredy; why not also for the expensive golems?

Why not.

4) Mystic forge recipes to get 10x blueprints.
Just refreshing an old suggestion, i know.

Would prefer if you hold shift/alt you get to select how manny you want to make.

5) After a capture, supplies should briefly (like 5 sec) be impossible to take. Why:
So people can start an upgrade if needed before it gets drained.

Simple say no one take supply and stand next to were upgrader spawn.

6) Blueprints and traps should be shared between all characters inventory. Why:
Managing all the siege/traps spread across 8 characters is annoying and confusing.

Dont feel the need for it.

7) /supplyinfo should have a wider AOE and be easier/faster to do. How and Why:
“stack pls” – “/supplyinfo” too much to type for a very frequently needed supply scan which also has a too small radius. Increase the aoe radius and add a “push to sup count” button for commanders.

Sounds good.

8) Major upgrades shouldn’t be available for low WvW exp players. Why:
As shown in the video: “hire additional guards” instant -600 supplies while enemies are attacking. Classic. Usually mistakes done by new WvW players simply trying to help. But since upgrades can harm, the power to start the big ones should be granted later; hopefully by that time they’ll have learned from more exp players what is best to do with upgrades.

No, if anything do so only players from owner Guild can do upgrades, but then you need peneltys for losing Buildings so it is a danger to claim.

9) Limit N° of rams deployable x gates. Why:
Siege wars should be based on strategy, not on mindless bruteforce ram spamming.

Here i would prefer they did better LOS, smaller damage area and gates on keep is 2 parts so if you have 4rams and they 2 hit left 2right it will be same as 2 rams hitting 1 off the gates. (same with wall parts and all wall parts should be able to be damaged)

10) Change PvD. How and Why:
PvD should only come in help in those situations where you lowered a gate to 10-15% but the enemies destroyed your rams and you don’t have supplies for more. Gates should take PvD damage only at 10-15% or below. For tagging/contested purposes they can still be attacked even when above 10-15%, but won’t receive dmg.
And since the game shouldn’t give advantages to blobs: the dps that each player can do to a 10-15% gate should be a fixed ammount and should scale based on how many players are close to that gate.

I dont know part off me would prefer that players cant damage at all and that your own siege can damage so you cant Place a treb behind gate then you will destroy your own gate, but to make that then you also need so players can destroy siege, Canon, mortar with AOE attacks only mele attacks (sword, hammer, axe).

@ Shadow (i’m not quoting just to avoid 1km long posts)

1: I don’t know why, but it seems many people miss what’s the point of this suggestion.
I assume some people are used to just being in a/following a guild that “always” has a +5. Stick with them, stuff gets flipped, they have access to claim (due to majority), they put the +5. Everyone happy.
But if you’re in a pug zerg or a small roaming group with mishalaneous guilds tags this is not how it goes (most the times).

I really don’t understand why if i have a +5 i can’t immediately give it to everyone just because in that group we have more [guild x] guys, who don’t want to/can’t put a +5 anyway. It is just stupid.

2: If we allow the “take over rule”, then there’s no need to “lose the claim” when buffs end anyway. I’ll repeat myself tho: +5 is the one really important buff than can make a difference in defending. That is why this should apply to all structures and not only camps. Also: I’d rather have only a +5 then all buffs exept +5; so in this take over thing, +5 should always be the 1 value that matters.

5: You don’t play often with pug groups, do you? XD Ofc this doesn’t happen always, but when it happens it’s just silly. 5 secs of sups invulnerability won’t change anything in WvW rythm really. Ah, ps, standing right next to quartermaster doesnt help. When camp flip people just need to press f to take sups, while you have to press f to talk to quartermaster, click on upgrade and click to start. It’s impossible to be faster and avoid drain.

6: Means you don’t play 8 characters, all with siege, refill theyr stacks, and swap between them often.

+ 5 is not that important, in defense on a building its totally pointless, if you have a lot off defenders the first thing attack force do is make sure the building get to 0 supply with removing Canon, small attack gate x then move to next and so on until its empty, so better armor, more hp, more damage than +5 on empty Building, personally never want +5 on a building if its not a keep with 1200 + supply. This is ofc bigger servers like SFR and so.

Have siege in bank/Guild bank and only take out what you nedd and problem solved, bank/Guild bank you can allways get to in border maps.

Nedus.6952:

4) Mystic forge recipes to get 10x blueprints.
Just refreshing an old suggestion, i know.

Easier and better: Move blueprint upgrades from the mystic forge to any crafting profession. Make the recipes buyable for 1000-5000 BoH each.

Nedus.6952:

6) Blueprints and traps should be shared between all characters inventory. Why:
Managing all the siege/traps spread across 8 characters is annoying and confusing.

Make a special bank (mats-tab) container for all siege, sell it for say 500gems in the gemshop.
If you bought it, you can deploy all your siege in there (up to 250-1500 depends on your bank-upgrades). “Transfer all Materials” also transfers all siege in your inv into the bank. To use the siege, You also get a small “skill-bar” with 1 button for each siege type (ram, AC, ballista,cata, treb, golem and a popup for the quality (normal, upgraded, guild (or guild1, guild2, but why are there two different items for each, both methods to get them could produce the same item)

Nedus.6952:

9) Limit N° of rams deployable x gates. Why:
Siege wars should be based on strategy, not on mindless bruteforce ram spamming.

Isn’t there already a limit on how many siege you can place in a specific radius?
(5 if I remember correctly)

Nedus.6952:

5) After a capture, supplies should briefly (like 5 sec) be impossible to take. Why:
So people can start an upgrade if needed before it gets drained.

This seems cool but could lead to some epic trolling. For example: I build a spy account, follow the zerg, run Yak Guards every time zerg takes a camp. “Hahaha you wanted that supply? Sorry!”

I’ve often been frustrated by people taking supply when I’m trying to run upgrades, but I’m not sure this is an improvement.

Great suggestions overall though!

Nedus.6952:

3) Golem owners should be able to kick people inside them. Why
Kick from own siege works for all siege alredy; why not also for the expensive golems?

That makes sense. I’ve always wondered why it wasn’t so

Nedus.6952:

9) Limit N° of rams deployable x gates. Why:
Siege wars should be based on strategy, not on mindless bruteforce ram spamming.

Bruteforce ram spamming is a legitimate strategy. If you have the means why shouldn’t you be able to do it? If the idea is to take the keep/tower, wouldn’t it make sense to do so in such a way that limits the amount of reenforcements that can respond? If you can quickly overwhelm the defenses, then the defenders don’t always have enough time to react and mount a solid defense.
See: Blitzkrieg
(The idea is to completely overwhelm the enemy quickly)

I can agree with most of the other points, but these are the ones that stuck out the most to me.

timmyf.1490:

Nedus.6952:

5) After a capture, supplies should briefly (like 5 sec) be impossible to take. Why:
So people can start an upgrade if needed before it gets drained.

This seems cool but could lead to some epic trolling. For example: I build a spy account [etc]

It’s inevitable some features can be used as troll. In fact this alredy happens for countless things (order guards upgrade in keep while its under attack, go suicide golems off cliff, drop trebuchet in the middle of a zerg and have some pugs waste supplies, etc etc, you name it).

And they can’t really be fixed. So, we can’t really go paranoia for that and stop proposing suggestions.

Nedus.6952:

timmyf.1490:

Nedus.6952:

5) After a capture, supplies should briefly (like 5 sec) be impossible to take. Why:
So people can start an upgrade if needed before it gets drained.

This seems cool but could lead to some epic trolling. For example: I build a spy account [etc]

It’s inevitable some features can be used as troll. In fact this alredy happens for countless things (order guards upgrade in keep while its under attack, go suicide golems off cliff, drop trebuchet in the middle of a zerg and have some pugs waste supplies, etc etc, you name it).

And they can’t really be fixed. So, we can’t really go paranoia for that and stop proposing suggestions.

I’m not saying we should stop proposing suggestions, I’m saying this particular suggestion needs some further thought.

So, according to the latest HoT news announcement: the n° 5 and n° 8 points will be (basically) done/will no longer matter;
but ofc i am curious to see how the whole “new WvW” big picture will look like.

2 down 8 to go. Yay-ish Anet!