Guild Wars 2

Gaile Gray.6029:

X T D.6458:

Gaile Gray.6029:

MoonCow.3291:

You actually infracted OP for asking you to fix this. ROFL.

No. The OP was never infracted. The post was removed, pending review. Upon review and after discussion with a dev team member, the post was replaced or reinstated. No points. Not penalty. No drama.

I hope the devs understand this will continue to be an issue for players, and will be constantly brought up until its fixed and done away with so nobody can abuse this.

Let me say I am decidedly not an expert on this situation. I do not speak for the WvW Team here in any way. Is all that really, really clear?

Ok then — and please don’t flame me for this —

In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:

1. Is the counter viable?
2. Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?

I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.

So… thoughts?

Edit: typo

THIS MAN ISNT IN THE WVW TEAM FLAME HIM! FLAME THIS MAN NOW!!!

cough no just fix it.

My thoughts on exploit vs strategy is that this is definitely an exploit. There are places where you can place trebs that cannot be destroyed (even by counter-siege).

Regardless of whether this is ruled an exploit or a valid strategy by Anet, I’m fairly confident in saying that the community would like this exploit/strategy to be removed.

Gaile Gray.6029:

X T D.6458:

Gaile Gray.6029:

MoonCow.3291:

You actually infracted OP for asking you to fix this. ROFL.

No. The OP was never infracted. The post was removed, pending review. Upon review and after discussion with a dev team member, the post was replaced or reinstated. No points. Not penalty. No drama.

I hope the devs understand this will continue to be an issue for players, and will be constantly brought up until its fixed and done away with so nobody can abuse this.

Let me say I am decidedly not an expert on this situation. I do not speak for the WvW Team here in any way. Is all that really, really clear?

Ok then — and please don’t flame me for this —

In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:

1. Is the counter viable?
2. Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?

I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.

So… thoughts?

Edit: typo

I am not interested in flaming you lol. The problem that many of us have, is that this is allowed to happen in the first place. The siege itself is not immune to damage no, the player is immune, which means they will simply rebuild. Now in safe areas like the citadel, players are not allowed to throw down and build siege, however there are certain spots that players have found that make it possible to literally physically throw the blueprint up on a ledge or somewhere from outside the invisible line to make the siege build-able, basically exploiting a flaw in the “Siege Deployment Blocked” effect. There are only certain spots you can do this, that is why when it is reported you will notice a pattern of where they are placed.

Whether or not it can be countered is irrelevant to many of us because this allows people to “game” the system. It simply encourages a very bad style of gameplay.

Just for reference, Devon Carver explicitly said that this was an exploit a few years on these forums. There was a fix put into the game shortly after that to keep people from dropping siege in Invulnerable areas, but people found a way around it by leaving the invulnerable area, turning around, and throwing siege behind them, back into the spawn area (sometimes WAY back into spawn/citadel). That’s the exploit we’re discussing here.

Gaile Gray.6029:

X T D.6458:

Gaile Gray.6029:

X T D.6458:

Gaile Gray.6029:

MoonCow.3291:

You actually infracted OP for asking you to fix this. ROFL.

No. The OP was never infracted. The post was removed, pending review. Upon review and after discussion with a dev team member, the post was replaced or reinstated. No points. Not penalty. No drama.

I hope the devs understand this will continue to be an issue for players, and will be constantly brought up until its fixed and done away with so nobody can abuse this.

Let me say I am decidedly not an expert on this situation. I do not speak for the WvW Team here in any way. Is all that really, really clear?

Ok then — and please don’t flame me for this —

In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:

1. Is the counter viable?
2. Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?

I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.

So… thoughts?

Edit: typo

I am not interested in flaming you lol. The problem that many of us have, is that this is allowed to happen in the first place. The siege itself is not immune to damage no, the player is immune, which means they will simply rebuild. Now in safe areas like the citadel, players are not allowed to throw down and build siege, however there are certain spots that players have found that make it possible to literally physically throw the blueprint up on a ledge or somewhere from outside the invisible line to make the siege build-able, basically exploiting a flaw in the “Siege Deployment Blocked” effect. There are only certain spots you can do this, that is why when it is reported you will notice a pattern of where they are placed.

Whether or not it can be countered is irrelevant to many of us because this allows people to “game” the system. It simply encourages a very bad style of gameplay.

Thanks for that — those details make it clearer for me and gives me a better view of the situation and the perceptions of players, which is a help.

I think we all very much appreciate the communication on this. We have reported this many times in the past, and this is the first time that I can remember anyone officially acknowledging it, so thank you.

B…but I had my pitchfork ready
you live this day Anet dev but soon the flames will come! >:D

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

• We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.

• This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

• It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

Thank you Tyler. Its understandable that there wasn’t enough time to work on certain issues before bringing alpine back, but I dont think many people would have minded 2 extra weeks if thats what it would have taken to fix the issues. I mean we didnt even know when it was coming back, you could have postponed until August lol. This issue was constantly being reported before HoT, there were many many threads. Nostalgia has nothing to do with genuine concerns for map flaws especially when it comes to things we see as exploits. These things need to be a priority for fixes.

All that being said, love the work you folks have been doing recently, and thanks again for the great news

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

• We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.

• This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

• It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

I strongly disagree with this decision. The counters are viable and, speaking as somebody who has played on both sides of this siege placement, this makes the game worse.

When one server has pushed another back to its spawn, there ought to be any reason to continue playing and logging into WvW.

The notion that vastly outmanned servers should filter out 1 by 1 to fight 1v20 is absurd.

Heimlich.3065:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

• We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.

• This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

• It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

I strongly disagree with this decision. The counters are viable and, speaking as somebody who has played on both sides of this siege placement, this makes the game worse.

When one server has pushed another back to its spawn, there ought to be any reason to continue playing and logging into WvW.

The notion that vastly outmanned servers should filter out 1 by 1 to fight 1v20 is absurd.

Exploits are not, and should never be a viable counter. Whats to stop people with an equal sized force or more people on the map from using this? I will answer that for you, nothing.

X T D.6458:

Heimlich.3065:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

• We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.

• This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

• It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

I strongly disagree with this decision. The counters are viable and, speaking as somebody who has played on both sides of this siege placement, this makes the game worse.

When one server has pushed another back to its spawn, there ought to be any reason to continue playing and logging into WvW.

The notion that vastly outmanned servers should filter out 1 by 1 to fight 1v20 is absurd.

Exploits are not, and should never be a viable counter. Whats to stop people with an equal sized force or more people on the map from using this? I will answer that for you, nothing.

The thing that stops them is that this, literally, only ever affects servers pushed back to their citadel, which is where your server had mine on Tuesday.

When I’ve been on the receiving end of citadel trebs, that’s the situation we were in. We owned the entirety of the underdog server’s territory and had waypointed their garrison. If they hadn’t been able to breach the outer walls, we’d have easily fended them off for an indefinite time.

If this change goes through, I promise that T1 will stagnate as long as it persists. The self-selected servers that feel they own T1 will spawn camp any upstart absolutely and they will not see the inside of their garrison all week starting 1 hour after reset.

This is a big balance change.

X T D.6458:

Heimlich.3065:

I strongly disagree with this decision. The counters are viable and, speaking as somebody who has played on both sides of this siege placement, this makes the game worse.

When one server has pushed another back to its spawn, there ought to be any reason to continue playing and logging into WvW.

The notion that vastly outmanned servers should filter out 1 by 1 to fight 1v20 is absurd.

Exploits are not, and should never be a viable counter. Whats to stop people with an equal sized force or more people on the map from using this? I will answer that for you, nothing.

Distance and that an invading team cannot make use of it at the citadel.
(although there was an invuln area that an invader could run to but except for being annoying it gave little benefit beyond that, I imagine it is still on the map and if I knew the report would be acted upon I would log in, go there, and report it for the millionth time)

Regardless of opinion on the matter, it is well suited to allow the home team to defend/take back the nearest objectives, and that is it. It does not allow them to do anything more than assist with taking back/defending home diamond.

In short, depending on actions taken to ‘fix’ this, there could be serious consequences.
(imo there are other things that should be added to discourage spawn camping while fixing this, but I don’t expect that to be done.)

forum bug

/15 quaggans

Gaile Gray.6029:

X T D.6458:

Gaile Gray.6029:

MoonCow.3291:

You actually infracted OP for asking you to fix this. ROFL.

No. The OP was never infracted. The post was removed, pending review. Upon review and after discussion with a dev team member, the post was replaced or reinstated. No points. Not penalty. No drama.

I hope the devs understand this will continue to be an issue for players, and will be constantly brought up until its fixed and done away with so nobody can abuse this.

Let me say I am decidedly not an expert on this situation. I do not speak for the WvW Team here in any way. Is all that really, really clear?

Ok then — and please don’t flame me for this —

In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:

1. Is the counter viable?
2. Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?

I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.

So… thoughts?

Edit: typo

Bahahahahahahahaa you are a kittening g! I love you!!!

Gaile Gray.6029:

In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:

1. Is the counter viable?
2. Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?

I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.

So… thoughts?

o_O

Gaile, you trying to trick me into posting a video of the counter, which many players consider an exploit, yet supposedly isn’t an exploit since it is the only reasonable counter to spawn siege? Or are you referring to the counter-siege for the spawn siege that isn’t always reasonable (for example, the spawn trebs for northeast tower cannot be countered with siege placed outside the spawn.) The only reasonable counter currently for spawn siege is to jump into citadel and stealth past any legendary defenders.

Chaba.5410:

Gaile Gray.6029:

In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:

1. Is the counter viable?
2. Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?

I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.

So… thoughts?

o_O

Gaile, you trying to trick me into posting a video of the counter, which many players consider an exploit, yet supposedly isn’t an exploit since it is the only reasonable counter to spawn siege? Or are you referring to the counter-siege for the spawn siege that isn’t always reasonable (for example, the spawn trebs for northeast tower cannot be countered with siege placed outside the spawn.) The only reasonable counter currently for spawn siege is to jump into citadel and stealth past any legendary defenders.

There are many locations where you can attack NE tower without drawing fire from a citadel treb. Catapults in the tunnel, a treb in NE camp, a treb in Garrison, a cata between garrison and NE tower, or a cata from the cliff below the back of NE tower.

And from inside NE tower, you can countertreb to remove the offending citadel treb easily (even moreso with shield generators).

There is no need to make an excursion into citadel to capture the tower or to destroy the offending trebs. People who do that do it to make a statement.

Heimlich.3065:

Chaba.5410:

Gaile Gray.6029:

In this very thread, which I have read with great interest, there are details of a counter, a means to react to the trebs in the placement that seems to be a prime point of concern. So I can’t help but wonder two things:

1. Is the counter viable?
2. Can something be called an exploit if there’s a reasonable counter?

I truly do not know the answer to either question, but I’m genuinely curious about it and it’s easy to see that opinions vary.

So… thoughts?

o_O

Gaile, you trying to trick me into posting a video of the counter, which many players consider an exploit, yet supposedly isn’t an exploit since it is the only reasonable counter to spawn siege? Or are you referring to the counter-siege for the spawn siege that isn’t always reasonable (for example, the spawn trebs for northeast tower cannot be countered with siege placed outside the spawn.) The only reasonable counter currently for spawn siege is to jump into citadel and stealth past any legendary defenders.

There are many locations where you can attack NE tower without drawing fire from a citadel treb. Catapults in the tunnel, a treb in NE camp, a treb in Garrison, a cata between garrison and NE tower, or a cata from the cliff below the back of NE tower.

And from inside NE tower, you can countertreb to remove the offending citadel treb easily (even moreso with shield generators).

There is no need to make an excursion into citadel to capture the tower or to destroy the offending trebs. People who do that do it to make a statement.

I do not recall that those can be counter-trebbed. Of course it has been awhile…

Gaile Gray.6029:

Thanks for posting, Tyler. I know you were looking into this today and it’s great you have all this great info to share. I mean, as I said, I’m not the subject-matter expert. In fact, I posted only because I really was interested in learning more (the situations sounded pretty fascinating) so I dipped my toe in. Everyone was super nice about it, and gee, not a flame to be seem!

Thanks for the info, everyone!

And sincere thanks to the WvW Team — they’ve been super communicative lately and are working really hard on all this stuff. I think that’s fantastic!

P.S. CrimeMaker — what’s a g? Is that a good thing?

Don’t be so surprised, we can be very nice, one sec /wipes blood Greatly appreciate the communication, and interest. Glad to see this will be getting fixed.

It has been there for years, it is a solid proof of how long anet has neglected wvw.
Since they are working on wvw now, we should expect some “fixes”.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Alpine-Border-Land-Back-Spawn-Treb-Bug/page/2#post6140423

its probably past the point of putting my 2 cents in on this issue.

the thing about this that rly drives ppl nuts is that most players dont know how to place spawn trebs. they hate that someone else came up with something clever and they cant figure it out.

along with that, they cant figure out any counter whether it be destroying spawn trebs or simply avoiding them.

what ever youre feelings are on spawn trebs, this is something that adds options to the game. the reality of the situation is these treb are strong when players are communicating about inbound attacks, prepare and assist in targeting. when a surprise force arrives to attack its alrdy too late for random pug to jump on a treb and save the day.

while on the subject of using creativity to gain an advantage. before hot released there was a vid of a mesmer who was using portal to stack ACs beyond the area seige cap. a dev popped into the thread and said… oh thx we’ll nerf that!

this was something done by pretty much no one ever but this nerf destroyed a lot of other strategies. before hot i was on a low pop bronze server and we held our own by training our wvw players good methods of siege placement. we didnt build dozens of ACs to defend a tower, just a single well positioned AC to defend a wall or gate. we used team work to get effective use of our trebs.

specifically what im talking about since its useless knowledge now anyway. when thrown, siege boxes could be made to clip terrain and deploy on locations we were otherwise coded as invalid. just behind the cata wall on south outer bay is just such a place with a small rock step. this wall is heavily attacked, the walls are low and narrow meaning all siege placed on top is quickly destroyed. this rocky step behind the wall is the perfect place for an ac to counter catas.

im sure many of you will think… oh boo hoo cant hump that siege. tricks of these types were something i spent hours discovering, teaching and training my server mates. it wasnt just something you could know and thats all you need. doing these tricks were difficult enough that if one hadnt practiced it, defenders wouldnt be able to do it under pressure.

this play style is no less valid than those who cry about their ZvZ or their havoc being too difficult now. we were often the low pop server in a match up, we had to play smarter, we couldnt afford to waste supply when theres barely 10 players across all maps so we used every advantage.

something unique has alrdy been killed off that only a very few ppl even understood. might as well be done with anything else clever. everyone here should be wondering what ppl will cry about next, like gate trebs dmg’ing rams from inside the tower? surely gaile and tyler you realize these ppl will just keep finding more stuff to complain about.

Appreciate the post being re-instated, glad it’s being addressed.

To others:

There is no spawn camping here. The entrance to NW tower is right next to where you jump down from spawn. You have to walk passed it on the way to garrison, it isn’t spawn camping. Additionally, on the NW tower, the trebs fire over your head if you’re in that area, so again, it doesn’t really help with that. And for NE tower the spawn decent is farther north.

Lastly, you can use other siege to defend this siege. Without being able to engage the user of said siege, it becomes impossible to kill these. Glad it’s being handled at some point, appreciate all the responses and support.

Consider this, it’s equally available to all three Worlds in a match. So therefore it is equally balanced. It’s allows players to get a foothold while outnumbered. Which is what the NPC events were created for. Since they are not operational at the moment, the treb’s are acting as that right now.

Also, holding an enemy’s north should never be a thing. It’s always been considered bad form to try and upgrade and enemy’s Garrison. So I question the intentions of those wanting the Treb’s removed.

Lastly, it’s a Citadel and a Worlds stronghold, should it not have offensive or defensive capabilities? The simply theme of a Citadel requires it to have some capacities.

Naithe.4271:

To others:

There is no spawn camping here. The entrance to NW tower is right next to where you jump down from spawn. You have to walk passed it on the way to garrison, it isn’t spawn camping. Additionally, on the NW tower, the trebs fire over your head if you’re in that area, so again, it doesn’t really help with that. And for NE tower the spawn decent is farther north.

Lastly, you can use other siege to defend this siege. Without being able to engage the user of said siege, it becomes impossible to kill these. Glad it’s being handled at some point, appreciate all the responses and support.

The siege is all fully counterable. And please don’t tell me that BG hadn’t pushed YB back to spawn when we built them, and don’t tell me we weren’t substantially outnumbered at the time. These trebs are only useful when you’re being spawn camped or at risk of that.

They’re useful to somewhat slow enemy incursions into your northern towers and to break walls on an enemy occupied garrison or enemy occupied northern towers.

I promise that when this is removed, imbalanced matchups will become an even greater problem. This is a recipe for even worse snowballing.

Heimlich.3065:

Naithe.4271:

To others:

There is no spawn camping here. The entrance to NW tower is right next to where you jump down from spawn. You have to walk passed it on the way to garrison, it isn’t spawn camping. Additionally, on the NW tower, the trebs fire over your head if you’re in that area, so again, it doesn’t really help with that. And for NE tower the spawn decent is farther north.

Lastly, you can use other siege to defend this siege. Without being able to engage the user of said siege, it becomes impossible to kill these. Glad it’s being handled at some point, appreciate all the responses and support.

The siege is all fully counterable. And please don’t tell me that BG hadn’t pushed YB back to spawn when we built them, and don’t tell me we weren’t substantially outnumbered at the time. These trebs are only useful when you’re being spawn camped or at risk of that.

They’re useful to somewhat slow enemy incursions into your northern towers and to break walls on an enemy occupied garrison or enemy occupied northern towers.

I promise that when this is removed, imbalanced matchups will become an even greater problem. This is a recipe for even worse snowballing.

And when dbl comes back whats going to be your excuse then? Its really sad anyone would defend the use of exploits because they believe they are entitled to use it.

X T D.6458:

Heimlich.3065:

Naithe.4271:

To others:

There is no spawn camping here. The entrance to NW tower is right next to where you jump down from spawn. You have to walk passed it on the way to garrison, it isn’t spawn camping. Additionally, on the NW tower, the trebs fire over your head if you’re in that area, so again, it doesn’t really help with that. And for NE tower the spawn decent is farther north.

Lastly, you can use other siege to defend this siege. Without being able to engage the user of said siege, it becomes impossible to kill these. Glad it’s being handled at some point, appreciate all the responses and support.

The siege is all fully counterable. And please don’t tell me that BG hadn’t pushed YB back to spawn when we built them, and don’t tell me we weren’t substantially outnumbered at the time. These trebs are only useful when you’re being spawn camped or at risk of that.

They’re useful to somewhat slow enemy incursions into your northern towers and to break walls on an enemy occupied garrison or enemy occupied northern towers.

I promise that when this is removed, imbalanced matchups will become an even greater problem. This is a recipe for even worse snowballing.

And when dbl comes back whats going to be your excuse then? Its really sad anyone would defend the use of exploits because they believe they are entitled to use it.

Pardon? Dbl had a catchup mechanism in the form of instant waypoints for spawn-proximate keeps and has better defense capability in the form of shrine buffs. We’re talking about Alpine borderland.

And I disagree with your assessment that this is an exploit. Please do not try to put words into my mouth.

Heimlich.3065:

X T D.6458:

Heimlich.3065:

Naithe.4271:

To others:

There is no spawn camping here. The entrance to NW tower is right next to where you jump down from spawn. You have to walk passed it on the way to garrison, it isn’t spawn camping. Additionally, on the NW tower, the trebs fire over your head if you’re in that area, so again, it doesn’t really help with that. And for NE tower the spawn decent is farther north.

Lastly, you can use other siege to defend this siege. Without being able to engage the user of said siege, it becomes impossible to kill these. Glad it’s being handled at some point, appreciate all the responses and support.

The siege is all fully counterable. And please don’t tell me that BG hadn’t pushed YB back to spawn when we built them, and don’t tell me we weren’t substantially outnumbered at the time. These trebs are only useful when you’re being spawn camped or at risk of that.

They’re useful to somewhat slow enemy incursions into your northern towers and to break walls on an enemy occupied garrison or enemy occupied northern towers.

I promise that when this is removed, imbalanced matchups will become an even greater problem. This is a recipe for even worse snowballing.

And when dbl comes back whats going to be your excuse then? Its really sad anyone would defend the use of exploits because they believe they are entitled to use it.

Pardon? Dbl had a catchup mechanism in the form of instant waypoints for spawn-proximate keeps and has better defense capability in the form of shrine buffs. We’re talking about Alpine borderland.

And I disagree with your assessment that this is an exploit. Please do not try to put words into my mouth.

Here’s my advice for you, try creating a constructive thread on how population balance and map layouts can be improved.

Then my advice is to make these trebs permanent and indestructible features of every citadel. They’re a positive feature, every server should have them.

An opponent insufficiently creative to avoid easy-to-predict fields of fire doesn’t deserve to capture deep into enemy territory.

The spawn treb is definitely an exploit. It is dropping siege that players can not get to.

While I do appreciate bringing back the alpine for the variety, the DBL is a great map with the changes you guys made in the last quarterly update. I know a lot of people who prefer the DBL, and many who just don’t care. Most of these folks just aren’t going to come here and be a forum warrior to fight the very angry people who just hate DBL, post multiple times per day saying so, and will never be able to have their minds swayed.

Keeping these two in rotation will help keep WvW varied and interesting. Keep up the great work in WvW.

X T D.6458:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

• We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.

• This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

• It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

Thank you Tyler. Its understandable that there wasn’t enough time to work on certain issues before bringing alpine back, but I dont think many people would have minded 2 extra weeks if thats what it would have taken to fix the issues. I mean we didnt even know when it was coming back, you could have postponed until August lol. This issue was constantly being reported before HoT, there were many many threads. Nostalgia has nothing to do with genuine concerns for map flaws especially when it comes to things we see as exploits. These things need to be a priority for fixes.

All that being said, love the work you folks have been doing recently, and thanks again for the great news

I completely disagree. They made the right choice by bringing back the alpine first. I’m seeing people that haven’t played in months logging back on.
The treb exploit can be fixed any time, it definitely wasn’t enough of a reason to leave us with a broken map.

I wouldn’t even say fixing it should be their highest priority (although it should be dealt with eventually), there’s plenty of other things that should be worked on first, like scoring and fixing the kinks in the server links.

Puck.9612:

X T D.6458:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

• We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.

• This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

• It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

Thank you Tyler. Its understandable that there wasn’t enough time to work on certain issues before bringing alpine back, but I dont think many people would have minded 2 extra weeks if thats what it would have taken to fix the issues. I mean we didnt even know when it was coming back, you could have postponed until August lol. This issue was constantly being reported before HoT, there were many many threads. Nostalgia has nothing to do with genuine concerns for map flaws especially when it comes to things we see as exploits. These things need to be a priority for fixes.

All that being said, love the work you folks have been doing recently, and thanks again for the great news

I completely disagree. They made the right choice by bringing back the alpine first. I’m seeing people that haven’t played in months logging back on.
The treb exploit can be fixed any time, it definitely wasn’t enough of a reason to leave us with a broken map.

I wouldn’t even say fixing it should be their highest priority (although it should be dealt with eventually), there’s plenty of other things that should be worked on first, like scoring and fixing the kinks in the server links.

It was more of a general sentiment regarding these kind of issues. I was as happy as anyone to have alpine back, and I can understand with all the work they have been doing that certain things are prioritized differently. But as a general feeling I believe certain kind of fixes need to be done before bringing back a feature or a map, that is what I was trying to say.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

Fix it with the next update and let the flamers flame. You will never be able to get everyone satisfied anyway.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

ABL is a terrible map. An empty DBL is just worse.
Do you want a ABL-improvement-thread? Go for it an open one. I know the map well enough to say something.

btw. if you are looking for general points to improve, I would like to have a shorter treb-range. An inch should be enough. I don’t think it is right that you can reach the red keep on eb from sm and vice versa.

An exploit by definition is an exploit because it abuses bugs/glitches/loopholes in the game in order to achieve benefit not intended by the game developers. The spawn siege clearly falls into this because the clear intention was for there to be a lock in the spawn/invulnerable area; this lock is present in EBG and in DBL so its quite clear that spawn siege should not be happening. Lets get this out of the way: there is no such thing as a “good exploit”, anyone debating for it is simply doing so because they clearly get benefit and don’t want to lose it. No different from when dungeon skip exploits had to be fixed despite how elaborate some of those where, if its unintended then it should be fixed.

On the topic of the siege being counterable -and more importantly if it was viable: the answer is no. Yes the siege was technically damageable but it was also ridiculously easy to defend, the counter siege was even easier to counter with the same spawn siege and even if it was destroyed it could easily be rebuilt again because home server can easily accumulate supply thanks to their spawn being right there. Trying to “counter” the spawn siege is an exercise in futility and a battle you will lose because you have so many factors against you. The counter is not a solution if it is defeated easily by the same thing its supposed to counter in the first place.

Now theres the topic of “spawn camping” which in the alpine borderlands citadel is impossible as there are 7 exit points from where a group can exit the citadel and avoid this evil “blob”(more if we account the fact that you can jump from plenty of the ledges towards north camp. This is way more than the 2 exits the Desert Borderlands spawn had and the “defensive” buffs you claim the shrines gave you worked against you if they were in such a superior position they were spawn camping you. Anyone that claims you need the spawn siege to prevent spawn camping is simply making up situation to justify their abuse.

Finally as mentioned in other posts this exploit was often abused by the home server to maintain a stranglehold on their side of the map -often times when they didn’t deserve it and prevented legitimate captures/holding of objectives by enemy servers. WvW is a competitive game mode and there are times when simply you wont win and you cant prevent your stuff from being taken over. If the intention was for the enemy servers to never take your structures, be able to upgrade them and properly defend them then the structures would be invulnerable in the first place and the mechanics would be removed (the siege spawn effectively made the towers impossible to hold and defend for enemy servers)

In the end im glad this is getting a fix -same way i hope all other exploits across all game modes are.

Hm maybe this thing is seen too sensible at all. The siege at spawn can be damaged so what?

If you are upset by a player who builds siege at his spawn you might want to be upset about any player building any siege no matter where.

I mean there are alot different spots around where its hard to reach an enemy siege and if you destroy it they are likely to rebuild it.

Thats the game people will always seek and do stuff which makes it hard for the enemy.

On eternal battlegrounds i can completely treb anzalia without getting hit by players, can only be done if they treb me also. So what? You come inside my keep or not?

But i must also say i hardly saw servers which drop siege at spawn at all. Happens when we push the enemy back but then its ok for me also as the other side needs possibility to free themselves and to stop the nonsense looting.

Btw if i catch the enemy using something legal but yet somewhat unclean action in terms of sportsmanship i will not only camp his spawn with 15 acs i will also take every tower and keep on his map later. I found it out that it hits the enemy harder if you strike back on the field than discussing with the referee.

http://imgur.com/aMskkuw

Rasudido.6734:

An exploit by definition is an exploit because it abuses bugs/glitches/loopholes in the game in order to achieve benefit not intended by the game developers. The spawn siege clearly falls into this because the clear intention was for there to be a lock in the spawn/invulnerable area; this lock is present in EBG and in DBL so its quite clear that spawn siege should not be happening. Lets get this out of the way: there is no such thing as a “good exploit”, anyone debating for it is simply doing so because they clearly get benefit and don’t want to lose it. No different from when dungeon skip exploits had to be fixed despite how elaborate some of those where, if its unintended then it should be fixed.

On the topic of the siege being counterable -and more importantly if it was viable: the answer is no. Yes the siege was technically damageable but it was also ridiculously easy to defend, the counter siege was even easier to counter with the same spawn siege and even if it was destroyed it could easily be rebuilt again because home server can easily accumulate supply thanks to their spawn being right there. Trying to “counter” the spawn siege is an exercise in futility and a battle you will lose because you have so many factors against you. The counter is not a solution if it is defeated easily by the same thing its supposed to counter in the first place.

Now theres the topic of “spawn camping” which in the alpine borderlands citadel is impossible as there are 7 exit points from where a group can exit the citadel and avoid this evil “blob”(more if we account the fact that you can jump from plenty of the ledges towards north camp. This is way more than the 2 exits the Desert Borderlands spawn had and the “defensive” buffs you claim the shrines gave you worked against you if they were in such a superior position they were spawn camping you. Anyone that claims you need the spawn siege to prevent spawn camping is simply making up situation to justify their abuse.

Finally as mentioned in other posts this exploit was often abused by the home server to maintain a stranglehold on their side of the map -often times when they didn’t deserve it and prevented legitimate captures/holding of objectives by enemy servers. WvW is a competitive game mode and there are times when simply you wont win and you cant prevent your stuff from being taken over. If the intention was for the enemy servers to never take your structures, be able to upgrade them and properly defend them then the structures would be invulnerable in the first place and the mechanics would be removed (the siege spawn effectively made the towers impossible to hold and defend for enemy servers)

In the end im glad this is getting a fix -same way i hope all other exploits across all game modes are.

Excellent post, absolutely nails it, +100

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

Just be philosophical about it .. it’s simply another truth about MMO development seen in MMO forums throughout time .. pander to one vocal minority and you simply provoke another one.

Sorry, but as a wvw player with almost 10k hours almost all in WvW game mode I have to disagree with the OP. Siege in spawn has never bothered me at all, countering is easy peasy and any server that has been pushed back to their north towers or has already lost garrison could do with a hand. More helpful than siegerazer who just wanders out to give free loot bags to the enemy (gg on removing those btw).

So again spawn trebs are no problem, move to the north to a higher spot than their treb and counter, they can’t reach you but you can reach them. Or the other option is just build one in a direction their treb is not facing. We all know you have a good 20-30 seconds before they can rotate and power up the treb.

I suggest to the OP to stop trying to spawn camp and go find something to fight =)

This is a exploit ok. And should be fixed ok.
But honestly, this just allow the home team to take back is tower when they are pushed into their spawn… It’s not like you can place exploit treb to attack the keeps or the south tower…
And this will not block offensive team to take those tower…
This just allow to the home team to take back is north tower… And if ennemy zerg is not here to fight…

It’s not an emergency… It’s need to be done, but it’s not an emergency.

People defending cheesy siege locations like this should also welcome flyhackers because you know you can pewpew at them, its a viable counter ahum?

Heimlich.3065:

Was I really only a Silver Major on Tuesday? I guess ranks fly by when you’re having fun.

That treb is counterable, in fact your server has destroyed it during this matchup. Build some siege.

With this logic i can also say to build ballistas to counter flyhackers. These trebs are being build in no siege deployment locations thus an exploit but go on defending this stuff gogo

It’s better to fix it, remove any of these inconsistencies in how siege work on alpine.

When all the small bugs are fixed we can look forward to potential improvements on Alpine (if any), although I think we need to have the map be played on for weeks before any informative feedback comes round.

It’s an exploit and needs to be fixed. I’m glad there is now a wvw team and it’s being addressed. It was the lazy man’s way of taking down outer garri and north tower walls- now people will have to gather a few supplies and 5 man a couple catapults to do the same job.

Maybe it will teach people to group together even when there is only 5-10 people around rather than wondering off to do their own thing…

Heimlich.3065:

The thing that stops them is that this, literally, only ever affects servers pushed back to their citadel, which is where your server had mine on Tuesday.

Wrong, it affects everyone, because certain servers also use the trebs in spawn to defend the towers, including servers that have way more players on than the opposition, it’s an exploit and should be removed.

DeWolfe.2174:

Also, holding an enemy’s north should never be a thing. It’s always been considered bad form to try and upgrade and enemy’s Garrison. So I question the intentions of those wanting the Treb’s removed.
.

Are we playing the same MMO? Taking and holding the enemy’s structures is the entire game mode of WvW. Taking, holding and upgrading the enemy’s garrison is a significant victory condition. A perfect match would consist of your server taking, holding and upgrading every structure on all four maps for the full week.

It’s no wonder it’s so hard to get agreement on what is or isn’t appropriate behavior when some payers consider an action to be the entire point of playing while others consider it unfair play.

When ANet address the scoring issues in the next round of fixes for WvW they seriously need to make some open and unequivocal clarifications of what is and isn’t intended gameplay in WvW and to reinforce those clarifications with self-evident and inarguable scoring mechanics. There will never be consensus so long as its left to players to interpret.

If we aren’t supposed to upgrade structures after we take them then those structures should not be upgradeable when taken. If they are only supposed to be held for a limited time then they should be forced back to neutral or original ownership after a specific period. If we are supposed to hold them for as long as possible and to upgrade them when we own them then there should be bonuses to the score based on how long they are held and how far they are upgraded. Etc etc.

This isn’t a sandbox or a free-for-all arena. It’s a competitive league with matches and a scoring system. It needs to operate that way and if there is a widespread desire for a more open, player-based, non-score oriented game mode, be it free-for-all or Guild vs Guild or whatever then that needs to be separated off and developed appropriately. These aims and purposes are not compatible and cannot operate effectively in the same gamespace.

They actually fixed this old exploit though:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/RUIN-Keeping-it-Classy/first

Tiny Doom.4380:

This isn’t a sandbox or a free-for-all arena. It’s a competitive league with matches and a scoring system. It needs to operate that way and if there is a widespread desire for a more open, player-based, non-score oriented game mode, be it free-for-all or Guild vs Guild or whatever then that needs to be separated off and developed appropriately. These aims and purposes are not compatible and cannot operate effectively in the same gamespace.

I disagree completely. WvW is a free-form sandbox gamemode. There are a great many mechanics that developers never intended which are used in different proportion among servers. Some servers have large population, some servers have talented spies with accounts on other servers, some servers have crass spies & meddlers that destroy supply and waste tactivator cooldowns, some servers have crafty and talented use of siege.

A WvW match lasts 168 hours. That’s not a reasonable length of time for any person to play in one sitting (except DK o7), so community and morale are fundamental to the game as well. So are rivalries and disdain and spite.

Offair.2563:

Heimlich.3065:

Was I really only a Silver Major on Tuesday? I guess ranks fly by when you’re having fun.

That treb is counterable, in fact your server has destroyed it during this matchup. Build some siege.

With this logic i can also say to build ballistas to counter flyhackers. These trebs are being build in no siege deployment locations thus an exploit but go on defending this stuff gogo

That is a bad analogy. Placing siege where the game engine allows is legitimate play.

Every player should place every piece of siege in the game in its most advantageous position. That means on the furthest-back corner of parapets, on top of tower domes, at the edges of citadel, on the bridge east of north camp, on 3rd floor of stonemist, etc…

There are no hacks, no third party programs, no radical advantage from this placement.

If and when the developers alter the game against this creative placement, I will find the next-best location and continue to use tactics that grant the best leverage possible.

A tactic that allows one player to defend against 20 will always be unpopular with those 20 that it frustrated, but WvW should not be decide merely on population.

The tower is not hard to assault, though it requires more creativity than literally walking up to its front door.