Guild Wars 2

What is ‘Siege Cap’ing?
It is when a player builds a ridiculous amount of siege equipment (usually flame rams) in useless places. This makes your team reach the siege cap a lot quicker than it would take in normal play. This can be done by an opposing team, transferring a player to your server, builds a bunch of flame rams in random places, using up your supplies and stopping you from deploying sieges. It could also be done by a random troll on your server.

Impact:
If a team is Siege Capped, it severely limits that team’s ability to deploy defensive siege equipment to fend off an opposing team’s attack. Likewise, it also severely limits the impacted team’s ability to deploy offensive siege equipment to attack towers/keeps/etc.

Comments:
Please take a look at the screenshots I have attached here to see what I mean. It is frustrating to mount any kind of offensive/defensive effort when you cannot deploy any siege equipments…meanwhile, you have 10+ flame rams sitting along your keep in random places.

I have seen this done since release and nothing has been done. I don’t know how to fix this issue, but I’m hoping that by raising awareness for this issue, we can:
1. Bring more attention to ANET regarding this issue.
2. Get a discussion going on how to fix it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Spies-Saboteurs

Simple fixes to address siege sabotage:

• Remove mapwide siege cap
• Section off the map and give each section its own siege cap
• Limit the construction of flame rams to gates, and up to 3-4 per gate.

Or you know… actually respond to all the people who have been reporting the character for days…

If it doesn’t fit in their narrow little categories in the report box ArenaNet is 100% deaf.

TwoBit.5903:

Simple fixes to address siege sabotage:

• Remove mapwide siege cap
• Section off the map and give each section its own siege cap
• Limit the construction of flame rams to gates, and up to 3-4 per gate.

These are some great suggestions. Definitely agree with limiting the construction of flame rams to gates only, as well as each section having its own siege cap.

Monsoon.2589:

But limiting rams to gate will NOT fix the issue of people purposefully wasting supplies hence this would just be a band aid and people will find another way to waste supplies.

Even after you remove all siege and supplies mechanics form the game, people would STILL be able to grief others by simply NOT fighting and wasting a spot on the map…and you can not force people to fight or tell them how to play.

The ram issue is a problem but I think most of you guys are not able to see the bigger picture. Remove one thing and people will use another.

Yes limiting rams to doors of enemy keeps would help but it still would not stop people from wasting supplies if they want to

That already happens with players ordering frivolous upgrades during siege. Sectioning and limiting won’t fix the siege cap problem, but it will help contain it and make attempts more difficult.

Ram issue: as I have seen: it has longer despawn timer than any other sieges (ram is still there even though your tower has upgraded to lvl 2 door upgrade finish (which take more than 15 minutes).

Solution: Make all sieges have 15 minutes despawn timer. (Except superior and golem which should have 30 minutes despawn timer).

or

Solution: Allow people to de-construct sieges which is has been in game for 15 minutes. Result: siege gone (no supply back or blueprint back).

This will not prevent a saboteur for wasting supply, but it will prevent them to achieve siege cap.

How about give commanders a command to destroy sieges? It won’t solve the supply waste issue, but at least siege cap won’t be so much a problem. Some people will probably say the trolls will buy a commander tag and destroy all our sieges. But, then this would be very easy to track who the troll is because we can see the player’s name on the entire map, which means that it’ll be a lot easier to report that player. Well, it’s just my suggestion.

deviller.9135:

Solution: Allow people to de-construct sieges which is has been in game for 15 minutes. Result: siege gone (no supply back or blueprint back).

So instead the saboteur will go around and deconstruct all you trebs, ballista, AC’s and catas right before an attack comes so you’ll have zero defenses left.

Catisa.6507:

deviller.9135:

Solution: Allow people to de-construct sieges which is has been in game for 15 minutes. Result: siege gone (no supply back or blueprint back).

So instead the saboteur will go around and deconstruct all you trebs, ballista, AC’s and catas right before an attack comes so you’ll have zero defenses left.

Its better than you cannot put any siege to defense. The meta of this game allowed siege to be build in a second. (as long as you have supply).

There is another solution:
-. Treat siege like consumable which have requirement lvl. Lets say 15 or 20.

Grithan Soulforge.5726:

Or you know… actually respond to all the people who have been reporting the character for days..

This.

The in game GM’ing of this game is pretty bad compared to other games I’ve played. In other MMO’s I’ve had GM’s pop up next to me to go over an issue I was reporting.

Here….meh…..not even close to the same thing. Reporting seems to be a total waste of time here.

I don’t think allowing players to deconstruct siege equipment is the answer, as it will allow trolls/griefers to deconstruct legitimate equipment. However, I do think that setting a minimum level on siege construction may help…perhaps lvl 30+?

It does suck that a few people trolling spoils it for everybody else. Kind of like how the power orbs were removed due to the exploits/hacking. Hopefully ANet can do something about the siege caps without going to that extreme.

I don’t see why they wouldn’t be able to only allow rams to be deployed within x feet of an opposing towers gate. Any other use would be against what the makers of the game intended anyway.

Porky.5021:

Grithan Soulforge.5726:

Or you know… actually respond to all the people who have been reporting the character for days..

This.

The in game GM’ing of this game is pretty bad compared to other games I’ve played. In other MMO’s I’ve had GM’s pop up next to me to go over an issue I was reporting.

Here….meh…..not even close to the same thing. Reporting seems to be a total waste of time here.

Rift’s version of WvW (Conquest) was horrible, which is why I left that game, but they had GREAT customer service. Devs commented on issues and problems quickly and candidly in the forums, and GM’s were so responsive that they often whispered me for clarification within minutes of my submitting a ticket or report. ANet is at the far end of the bell curve in this regard … their attention to their customers is amazingly bad.

You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.

Tobias Steele.2071:

You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.

Didn’t know that. But regardless, if you limit the number of rams by restricting them to doors, you limit the amount of siege wasted. Arrow cars, ballistae and trebs can at least be somewhat useful if the saboteur resorts to building them.

Tobias Steele.2071:

You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.

Please explain. I remember having 50 flame rams in our EB keep, and personally as well as many others were not able to place any other type of siege anywhere else on the map. No balista to take out trebs. No trebs to take out trebs. No arrow carts. Even the ramma spamma was unable to drop more rams and moved on to another map. The only thing we could make were golems.

TwoBit.5903:

Tobias Steele.2071:

You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.

Didn’t know that. But regardless, if you limit the number of rams by restricting them to doors, you limit the amount of siege wasted. Arrow cars, ballistae and trebs can at least be somewhat useful if the saboteur resorts to building them.

If this what they plan (or they code), it means there is a bug in their program. As rams is still counted toward siege cap (except golem). Which needs to be addressed.

Looks like solution: siege should have minimum lvl requirement to deploy it is a (bit) good solution. Its will not stop troll/griefer/saboteur, but with minimum lvl requirement, at least they need to leveling their character first. (as this does not required significant effort in coding and the probability to cause another bug is small).

deviller.9135:

TwoBit.5903:

Tobias Steele.2071:

You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.

Didn’t know that. But regardless, if you limit the number of rams by restricting them to doors, you limit the amount of siege wasted. Arrow cars, ballistae and trebs can at least be somewhat useful if the saboteur resorts to building them.

If this what they plan (or they code), it means there is a bug in their program. As rams is still counted toward siege cap (except golem). Which needs to be addressed.

Looks like solution: siege should have minimum lvl requirement to deploy it is a (bit) good solution. Its will not stop troll/griefer/saboteur, but with minimum lvl requirement, at least they need to leveling their character first. (as this does not required significant effort in coding and the probability to cause another bug is small).

Sounds good in theory, but leveling isn’t difficult at all in GW2. If the new progression system will be good for anything, maybe a minimum WvW level will suffice as a requirement.

TLSolomon.6083:

Tobias Steele.2071:

You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.

Please explain. I remember having 50 flame rams in our EB keep, and personally as well as many others were not able to place any other type of siege anywhere else on the map. No balista to take out trebs. No trebs to take out trebs. No arrow carts. Even the ramma spamma was unable to drop more rams and moved on to another map. The only thing we could make were golems.

This was revealed by one of the devs in that wvw question and answers thread floating around from a few weeks back. I think from memory they stated the despawn timer as half an hour as well.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Willing-to-share-WvW-details

The despawn timer for rams should be 15 minutes if unmanned, imo. They are usually destroyed during failed sieges in even less time and they are effectively irrelevant after successful ones.

Oh but they can use other types of siege and be just as offensive.

See if you can spot the repair agent in this mess. We have the troll siege builders name, reports have been sent in.

New siege should destroy old siege when cap has been reached. This would would mean someone can burn through all of our supply completely but it would take them a very very long time. If they are willing to do that every day then I would be seriously concerned for that persons health.