Guild Wars 2

A great post, thanks.

We need some sort of calvalry like mechanic to break through the zergs. I would be on board with that.

A well thought out post. A lot of people forget that the current WvW meta is created by the players interacting with the environment, IE the maps themselves.

If the terrain does not promote skillful play, no amount of siege will fix badly designed maps. Make the terrain work for the players, not against them with large open fields.

Improving and adding more siege is only going to intensify the current problems with WvW because that’s just treating the symptoms, not the problem itself.

I agree wholeheartedly with better map design, but I also like the idea of more unique types of siege. I don’t think these need to be mutually exclusive.

pulsecodesgnl.3470:

I agree wholeheartedly with better map design, but I also like the idea of more unique types of siege. I don’t think these need to be mutually exclusive.

This ^

I know the hardcore GvG guys hate siege of all kinds, many claim to even hate walls/gates. There probably should be a separate GvG arena because the interests of GvG fans and WvW players don’t always line up. I know, plenty of people like both, the more the merrier IMO.

WvW is meant to be a large scale siege warfare themed game with elements of RTS and tower defense games, but with each unit an autonomous player controlling his MMO character. Placing turrets (siege), controlling supply, upgrading and fortifying structures, etc are all these type of elements. This is a type of Players vs. Players game, which is what PvP stands for, although many people seem to have forgotten that.

Well, what WvW is supposed to emulate is essentially medival kingdom battles. Assalting castles and keep sand what not, seige is important. More seige can be good, but it has to be done right. Really though, everything needs a strength and a weakness, likely through opposing seige. What we need is something to counter arrow carts, but something that can also be countered in turn. Like an epic massive rock paper scissors game.

I certainly don’t have an objection to siege being part of the strategy of WvW. What I’m trying to communicate is that it’s very misguided say that siege is something organized groups enjoy using and that they would benefit from improvements to siege.

Siege changes must not be the principal solution to the issues we have in WvW.

Excellent post. I agree.

Almost every single WvWvW player I know hates Siege Wars 2. People want less siege, but more open battles, more meaning to the use of terrain.

I really hope that Arrow Cart damage comes down in next patch. That is the only proper way to fix it. Making ACs cost more supply would only benefit the night capping servers more e.g. night cap all enemy towers and keeps, upgrade them and equip with superior ACs. Now when enemy side wakes up and their small team starts roaming they have zero changes as with increased supply requirements it takes forever to build anything. Thus reverting the damage back to where it was is the only option.

Superior ACs were already too good before the +80% damage buff and ridiculously overpowered WXP traits. AC traits are simply by far the best WXP traits and many other WXP traits are really weak compared AC traits. There is no balance between the different WXP traits.

Very good points, I agree. ANET really need to utilize their map space to the fullest given their limited map size. More power to siege is not the way to go.

Personally I like the idea of siege. It lets many classes contribute to different situations regardless of their specs, and depending on the siege it encourages creativity in use. It is unfortunate that we don’t see that much creativity in siege nowadays. Mostly it is just “lay down rams at the gate” or “put trebs real far away to break a wall” or something like that.

When used right it can also let the little man do a ton of damage to zergs. One of my favorite things to do is precariously place a superior arrow cart in a spot that lets me target the whole gate of a tower and keep, and wait for some zerg to rush in. Then I call my buddies over and watch as the combined effort of my arrow cart with their attacks + ballista, and watch as the loot bags just pile up. It seriously lets me defend a keep single-handed.

I do think there should be more kinds of siege. What I’d like to see is more mobile siege. Golems are nice, but what also would be cool are chariots, or something else like that that is mobile while also lower in cost and effectiveness. That way you can get a cavalry effect going with siege, instead of having to run up and then build it right in an enemy group’s face.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Personally I like the idea of siege. It lets many classes contribute to different situations regardless of their specs, and depending on the siege it encourages creativity in use. It is unfortunate that we don’t see that much creativity in siege nowadays. Mostly it is just “lay down rams at the gate” or “put trebs real far away to break a wall” or something like that.

When used right it can also let the little man do a ton of damage to zergs. One of my favorite things to do is precariously place a superior arrow cart in a spot that lets me target the whole gate of a tower and keep, and wait for some zerg to rush in. Then I call my buddies over and watch as the combined effort of my arrow cart with their attacks + ballista, and watch as the loot bags just pile up. It seriously lets me defend a keep single-handed.

Could you please tell me couple of examples of the creative use of a siege?

Placing superior arrow carts just like you described doesn’t sound creative at all. In fact it is extremely boring as it has turned this game into Arrow Carts Wars 2 as every single fight is more or less the same huge AoE circles up to about 3500 range from the walls (3500 from 1st WXP trait, then 4th AC trait increases radius, so you can build your AC in a safe location away from enemy fire).

I am sorry to say this, but your post just sounds that you like to have to have a very easy way to farm loot bags. Nothing wrong with that, but better be honest.

My theory is: those people who like the overpowered ACs, like to have easy way to farm WXP and loot. Plain and simple. And it has nothing to do with creativity.

All this madness leads to bigger and bigger problems with the match up imbalances:
Imagine your opposite server(s) has a night time coverage and you don’t. Imagine they are running multiple big WvWvW guilds on the same map, each of them can have 20-30 guys. Now tell me how you’re gonna capture their fully upgraded towers and keeps with a smaller force as just few of them can stall your group with their superior siege and destroy most of what you try to build and soon their giga zerg comes in and facerolls everything. Must be a fun game for that one side… been on that other side for 5 months already and almost all of our WvWvW guilds left as result of it!

Summary: Siege doesn’t currently work as intended. It further worsens the imbalanced match ups, allowing the side with better coverage face roll even more.

Deniara Devious.3948:

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Personally I like the idea of siege. It lets many classes contribute to different situations regardless of their specs, and depending on the siege it encourages creativity in use. It is unfortunate that we don’t see that much creativity in siege nowadays. Mostly it is just “lay down rams at the gate” or “put trebs real far away to break a wall” or something like that.

When used right it can also let the little man do a ton of damage to zergs. One of my favorite things to do is precariously place a superior arrow cart in a spot that lets me target the whole gate of a tower and keep, and wait for some zerg to rush in. Then I call my buddies over and watch as the combined effort of my arrow cart with their attacks + ballista, and watch as the loot bags just pile up. It seriously lets me defend a keep single-handed.

Could you please tell me couple of examples of the creative use of a siege?

Placing superior arrow carts just like you described doesn’t sound creative at all. In fact it is extremely boring as it has turned this game into Arrow Carts Wars 2 as every single fight is more or less the same huge AoE circles up to about 3500 range from the walls (3500 from 1st WXP trait, then 4th AC trait increases radius, so you can build your AC in a safe location away from enemy fire).

I am sorry to say this, but your post just sounds that you like to have to have a very easy way to farm loot bags. Nothing wrong with that, but better be honest.

My theory is: those people who like the overpowered ACs, like to have easy way to farm WXP and loot. Plain and simple. And it has nothing to do with creativity.

All this madness leads to bigger and bigger problems with the match up imbalances:
Imagine your opposite server(s) has a night time coverage and you don’t. Imagine they are running multiple big WvWvW guilds on the same map, each of them can have 20-30 guys. Now tell me how you’re gonna capture their fully upgraded towers and keeps with a smaller force as just few of them can stall your group with their superior siege and destroy most of what you try to build and soon their giga zerg comes in and facerolls everything. Must be a fun game for that one side… been on that other side for 5 months already and almost all of our WvWvW guilds left as result of it!

Summary: Siege doesn’t currently work as intended. It further worsens the imbalanced match ups, allowing the side with better coverage face roll even more.

I LOVE YOU, you hit me in the very center. This Game WvW can be more enjoyable whit this ACs spam. i lovely how a uplevel manage to enter the tower to just spam 1-2-3 from a safe location and split out group.

Naffy.1493:

We need some sort of calvalry like mechanic to break through the zergs. I would be on board with that.

Did I just hear we need mounts?

Great post OP. I agree on the map design aspect. More chokepoints and having less of large open fields will help remove the benefits a zerg enjoys.

If the idea is to add siege, add barricades or something that helps break up zergs. AC’s aren’t your answer. AC’s excel against small to medium groups who don’t have the raw numbers to outbuff the damage. Zergs can shrug off a few AC’s with ease.

Deniara Devious.3948:

Could you please tell me couple of examples of the creative use of a siege?

So you ask for examples then declare me wrong before I respond…

Do me favor, prove to me that you can even listen to what I say, Mr. “I bold important things because they’re just so true”.

I totally agree with you Talley.

Honestly, I think WvW is broken and no matter how Anet try to spin that they encourage small group tactics I don’t see it because most of the things they did up to know encourage zerging.

I am fine with the zerg if you give smaller groups ways to counter them (the answer is not siege btw) also please fix the lag and skill lag those zergs cause.

Sometimes If I pass by a zerg a few meters away I lag like crazy and watch everything on a delay.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Deniara Devious.3948:

Could you please tell me couple of examples of the creative use of a siege?

So you ask for examples then declare me wrong before I respond…

Do me favor, prove to me that you can even listen to what I say, Mr. “I bold important things because they’re just so true”.

He was trying to make a rhetorical point. He doesn’t actually care what you think, because you don’t agree with him.

I don’t agree with him either.

Without strong siege weapons keeps lose all strategic value and become a source of WXP that nobody would bother defending.

But a lot of people don’t really care about that. They want Group vs Group combat and rolling zergs with their finely tuned team. If an upleveled newbie can hop on an AC and ruin all that fun then it doesn’t need to be there.

I agree that every kind of player should be able to find a way to contribute to WvW. But if one new player can use an AC to beat an organized group in the open field, then any player can use an AC to beat an organized group in the open field, which simply makes that kind of organization in this game obsolete.

If Anet wants this game to keep players engaged for years, it needs to have the depth that will keep players’ interest. Introducing siege that neutralizes all the depth of the game’s combat mechanics is not the way to do that.

I wish people would make some vague attempt to stay on topic.
The op isn’t asking them to remove siege from the game or to nerf them into the dirt. He’s saying if the devs plan to level the playing field a bit between zergs and smaller more organised groups is via siege then its doomed to failure for 2 reasons:
Small organised groups that hate the zerg playstyle aren’t overly fond of siege – see the 5 billion ‘nerf ac threads’. Even if the plan was a good one, it wouldn’t satisfy small organised groups because they’d still be stuck using tactics they dont enjoy
Zergs have access to more supply and all it takes is one person in the zerg to think ‘lets counter their siege with siege’ for the organised groups siege advantage to dissapear (realistically it’ll quickly turn into an advantage to the zerg due to having more supply).

All these topics turning into ‘you want to remove zergs/siege/my fun from the game’ are silly straw man arguments. We want alternatives to be a bit more effective not to be the only playstyles available.
Zerging is too strong atm – something has to be adjusted to either make other playstyles more effective or zerging less effective.

Try and keep an open mind and debate the topic instead of rejecting every idea off hand without even reading it with a stupid ‘your elitist and want to ruin my fun’ type arguments.

I’m here to +1!

What bothers me with modern MMO’s is the implementation of gamebreaking stuff. Let’s compare it this way: It’s like you bought an almost perfect FPS and all of a sudden they add freakin tanks and nuclear bombs to the game that ruin the fun completely. The game you have played (and payed for) is now completely changed and you wish you could play that game that you payed for at the start.

Why just not add different environments and let the player choose what he likes best? It’s impossible to please everyone and ofcourse with every change you’ll have people liking it and other people wishing they could have that old game back.

The only thing that might help smaller groups is a change in downed state or a longer ress time for dead people. (Personal preference to the longer ress period.)
I play in this XxX guild Tally mentioned and when we fight much bigger groups (40+) this what happens:

1) Win: Our first push puts 10 people into downstate, we can aoe them to death before the big group reacts, we retreat a bit and push again, fight over in less then 1min.

2) Loose: The first push puts 10 people into downstate, we can aoe just a couple to death, the group reacts quickly and put the pressure on, we retreat a bit and push again. All those in downed state and even the death are being ressed easily and are up again, like nothing happened. We killed them for nothing. We die or retreat. Fight over in less then 1min.

+1 Talley, awesome post, well written and I hope Anet will take a serious look to this.

My current worry about the update given by Anet is that it aims to much on siege and towers.

Please Devon know that there is way more than siege and capping towers and keeps in this game. If there is anything which makes this game really thrilling, exciting and worth to come for it is the battles you have! The real thrill of this game for me personally comes from fighting another organized group/guild or fighting the enormous zerg while being greatly outnumbered.

I think you and the team are doing a great job by visiting multiple servers and guilds such as you might do soon with TUP. This will give you hopefully a real good idea of the game from the user perspective. I beg/urge you, please make sure you get as much perspectives as possible to view the different faces of WvW outside siege and towers.

The current state of WvW for group who enjoy roaming and the fights ( which are many) is not always that positive. Currently the game relays too much on numbers. Skill, tactics and coordination of organized groups/guilds are not rewarded because the enormous zerg simply spams 1 and puts down all their AOE and you don’t stand a change. And with the coming of WPX, chest and other fancy rewards this has only encouraged and increased the amount of enormous zergs, so to say blobs.

A key element of countering this beating these “blobs” is like Talley said the use of the terrain and the map. By the use of choke-points or for instance hills on the map you can strategically get and advantage over these blobs and still have a chance on victory. I don’t know how this is for other organized guilds/groups, but we try to continuously make use of the terrain in our gameplay and battles.

Therefore the key of helping smaller groups does not lie in siege but in the map. Of course I do not know how you plan on using siege when you say to use it for smaller groups vs. larger groups, but my reaction on the WvW post was please no… Usage of siege at in a battle only makes you stuck to a spot while the key of organized battles lies in movement. We don’t want to stand still to have to build something..

I would love to moan about the AC’s as well with their extreme ridiculous range as well, but that is not of the topic here.

Again Devon Carver I think you are doing a wonderful thing by visiting servers and guilds, but I urge you to get a point of view from each different playstyle within WvW. The game is not only about towers and siege but its greatest element lies in to battles for me and many others. I hope TUP and all other coming servers you will visit will give you this perspective and insights.

I think that a pretty easy fix would be to stop players from being able to carry supply at all. Force them to hire a Dolyak from a place with spare supply (usually a camp), and then lead it to wherever they want to build. Once they get there, they’d have to interact with the Dolyak to order it to start laying down supplies, and if a single Dolyak can’t finish the build in one trip, they’d need to hire two or more, or else escort the first one back to the camp to get more supplies.

That would make the use of siege into a far more skill and coordination-based activity, since the Dolyaks would be vulnerable to player attacks. It wouldn’t completely remove the zerg (since you could have a whole zerg escorting a bunch of Dolyaks, admittedly), but it would slow them down a bit, and make them more vulnerable to well-coordinated small-group play (i.e. a small group of Thieves/Rangers taking out the Dolyaks while other characters try to distract the zerg)

If people think this is a good idea, let me know and I’ll make it a Suggestion If people think this is a terrible idea, let me know and I’ll refine it and then make it a suggestion ;3

Good Post Talley. The main issue for me at the moment is there is no risk running in a large Zerg. You can send 95% of all your maps forces into a ball and charge around the map without the fear of much happening. For example, a Zerg could go to a T3 tower, and start to melee the door down, they get a shout from a scout at their keep saying there is a 5/10 man group ramming their gates. They drop what they are doing and charge across the map (with pretty much perma swiftness) and demolish the small group. They then charge back across the map to finish off the reinforce door, no problems. (No reinforced door should be able to brought down without rams in my opinion)

This should not be possible, if you commit all your forces to one area of the map, the risk you are taking is leaving your keeps/towers lightly defended so small groups if well organised can take them.

I like Talleys idea about bridges to be destroyed, and more terrain obstacles & choke points. Having choke points and destroyable bridges brings siege back into the mix, as an attacking team will need to defend a bridge to ensure they have direct routes to their objectives, and chokepoints can be defended by small teams to slow Zerg progress, or make them go the long way around.

Something that might be far easier to implement, but would provide a similar feeling of commitment of forces, would be waypoint cooldowns in WvW. I think 5-10 minutes would be sufficient. Basically, the idea is that once you go to a zone in WvW all of your WvW waypoints go on cooldown. This would mean that once your forces enter a zone (a Borderlands, for example) you’re essentially stuck there for 10 minutes, which means that whichever zone you left would have to do without instant reinforcements for the same amount of time.

I’m not sure that I understand the points being made here as they seem generally short sighted.

From what I read so far this is what this thread is about.

WvW is more fun if you don’t use siege (according to some random WvW guild in gandara)

as a result of random guild from Gandara not liking siege, Anet is supposed to almost totally re-work the type of warfare to not incorporate any new types of siege designs and modify the existing siege because “it hurts too much”

So essentially, Gandara would prefer to run around in clever circles against another group doing the same and call it “creative”.

Correct me if I’m wrong but WvW is an objective based warfare map. So the focus is to capture and hold structures in order to win points for your server.

As far as I’m aware, Anet means for WvW to be open for everyone. Meaning that low levels and casual / entry level players can turn up and feel that they contribute to the points that their server generate by capturing and holding objectives.

Now while running around in the middle of a field trying to kill players in a new and “creative way” plays a part in WvW, it is only a part of what is supposed to have to ensure a win for your server.

What’s wrong with someone killing people with an arrow cart? That’s its job. Come up with a creative way of not dying or taking it out. Not all players spend hours and hours a day playing WvW so they are going to get rolled without a viable way to fight back.

Also I don’t get the whole “nerf arrow carts” thing either, “zergs are bad, we hate zergs, find us a way to get away from zerg play”

Anet give high damage siege equipment which pretty effectively smashes up a zerg and then it’s “those arrow cars are killing our zergs!!!”

Perhaps you’re playing the wrong game if you just want to run around doing nothing but killing enemy guilds.

@huwpewpew
You are reading the topic wrong.

Anet solution to zergs according to what they wrote is siege but not all confilct in WvW happen at objectives. Many fights happen in the open, and to counter those the solution is not “hey lets stop and build some siege” especially since the map itself is mostly open so even if you try to make a defendable place with siege to counter that zerg you will just be run over since there is always ways around most of the terrain. ie not defendable.

Also open field combat is fun and if there are people that like that exclusively (which there are a lot) why not make it better for then and the rest of us to combat zergs? I think that is a reasonable request and will make the game better.

Also the roaming guilds help the objective based game because they take the pressure of the other people defending the objectives by reducing the threat of an enemy zerg.
So they are in fact playing the right game.

tldr the problem isnt that there is too much siege the problem is that siege is too powerful right now.

I think the only siege that is a problem are the arrow carts. Remove them and no more issues. Simple and doesn’t take much resources.

oblivious.8074:

@huwpewpew
You are reading the topic wrong.

Anet solution to zergs according to what they wrote is siege but not all confilct in WvW happen at objectives. Many fights happen in the open, and to counter those the solution is not “hey lets stop and build some siege” especially since the map itself is mostly open so even if you try to make a defendable place with siege to counter that zerg you will just be run over since there is always ways around most of the terrain. ie not defendable.

Also open field combat is fun and if there are people that like that exclusively (which there are a lot) why not make it better for then and the rest of us to combat zergs? I think that is a reasonable request and will make the game better.

Also the roaming guilds help the objective based game because they take the pressure of the other people defending the objectives by reducing the threat of an enemy zerg.
So they are in fact playing the right game.

Summary of your post:

You’re from Gandara and like to run around killing where there aren’t any objectives or any tangible results from fighting open field besides badges loot bags.

You haven’t found a way of defending siege equipment in the open field.

If you that’s what you like to do, fair enough but that isn’t what WvW is intended for.

huwpewpew.6075:

WvW is more fun if you don’t use siege (according to some random WvW guild in gandara)

A while ago we had this bug that made us unable to build any siege except golems.

Many, many people on my server (which isnt Gandara) thought it was fantastic fun. Finally it was players vs players even inside keeps, no stupid 10+ arrowcarts raining down death 5 miles from the keep.

The fact that only siege golems could be used also meant that we had to split up and consider the “supply line” of portalling golems all over the place and their protection. The cost of them meant we couldnt just slap up a million of them at a keep either, it was valuable resources.

It actually felt like GW2 was designed to play like that.

huwpewpew.6075:

Summary of your post:

You’re from Gandara and like to run around killing where there aren’t any objectives or any tangible results from fighting open field besides badges loot bags.

You haven’t found a way of defending siege equipment in the open field.

If you that’s what you like to do, fair enough but that isn’t what WvW is intended for.

No you’ve misunderstood again
tldr version of op: “If more effective siege isn’t the answer, what is it that will give smaller, organized groups a better chance in this game?”

Anets proposed solution to leveling the playing field somewhat between zergs and smaller organised groups is via siege (thats what the quote suggests). We (the gandara community not any one guild) think its short sighted for various reasons which have been listed. Talley put forward a solution we think is more effective and would be more fun.

Its Anets plan to change the meta, not ours – were making suggestions and giving feedback on how we think they should change it.

Warlord.9074:

tldr the problem isnt that there is too much siege the problem is that siege is too powerful right now.

You’ve misunderstood too. You might be right but its not what the topic is about

Edit:
Tbh talley you should change the title of the topic, this is fast turning into a nerf ac thread. Another post below asking for ac nerfs.

huwpewpew.6075:

From what I read so far this is what this thread is about.

WvW is more fun if you don’t use siege (according to some random WvW guild in gandara)

as a result of random guild from Gandara not liking siege, Anet is supposed to almost totally re-work the type of warfare to not incorporate any new types of siege designs and modify the existing siege because “it hurts too much”

So essentially, Gandara would prefer to run around in clever circles against another group doing the same and call it “creative”.

Correct me if I’m wrong but WvW is an objective based warfare map. So the focus is to capture and hold structures in order to win points for your server.

As far as I’m aware, Anet means for WvW to be open for everyone. Meaning that low levels and casual / entry level players can turn up and feel that they contribute to the points that their server generate by capturing and holding objectives.

Now while running around in the middle of a field trying to kill players in a new and “creative way” plays a part in WvW, it is only a part of what is supposed to have to ensure a win for your server.

What’s wrong with someone killing people with an arrow cart? That’s its job. Come up with a creative way of not dying or taking it out. Not all players spend hours and hours a day playing WvW so they are going to get rolled without a viable way to fight back.

Also I don’t get the whole “nerf arrow carts” thing either, “zergs are bad, we hate zergs, find us a way to get away from zerg play”

Anet give high damage siege equipment which pretty effectively smashes up a zerg and then it’s “those arrow cars are killing our zergs!!!”

Perhaps you’re playing the wrong game if you just want to run around doing nothing but killing enemy guilds.

I am not from some random guild from Gandara. I come from an alliance of many guilds from Desolation. I attend Desolation meetings where we have representatives from big guilds. We have a lot of players and commanders, who all think Arrow Carts are overpowered. In fact I have never heard a differing opinion from any of our commanders or guild leaders.

There was one day in WvWvW when laying siege was bugged and people were extremely happy in the map chat “this is the best of day of WvWvW”. The only down side that breaking down reinforced doors was a chore, but golems actually worked that day which several players still remember as the best WvWvW experience is ever.

I haven’t yet found a single example of the creative use of siege. Please present me couple of examples. As a commander I am honestly interested to learn more.

I would also love to hear what is a creative counter against tier 3 keep, which is full of defensive siege. Superior ACs placed far enough from the walls, couple of ballistas and trebs. What should the attackers do? If they start trying to build something, those trebs will demolish anything and flaming rams are made useless because of ACs. Perfect for the night capping server.

Currently the arrow carts (and especially superior ACs) are very effective countering small to medium sized group of PuGs. But a huge zergs usually have so many water and light fields that they have tons of area healing, condition removal and retaliation to counter couple of ACs. Thus overpowered siege wars is giving more power to the winning server.

I am very strongly against completely broken game mechanisms which add more power to the winning side and unfortunately the current WvWvW is full of them.

Just look at this week’s match up:
http://mos.millenium.org/eu

You can see a lot of imbalanced match ups, with even 1 to 30 point difference. And that is not a temporary situation. It has been continuing for months upon months without a single comment or intervention from Arenanet developer.

removing siege will just lead to more mindless zergs running around with no skill attacking each other. should take at least 2 hours of none stop effort to take a tower.

huwpewpew.6075:

WvW is more fun if you don’t use siege (according to some random WvW guild in gandara)

Please those who just drop in this thread and start bashing ideas as usual, read OP again, even if just that post – and note the following main idea behind it all:

SoggyFrog.4170:

Focus on map design

I dont mind seige as it is atm. AC are a bit OP and personally I’d like to see them weakened, but its not too bad as it is.

I would LOVE to have updated maps though. I know its a big task but nothing freshens up a game like new or greatly improved maps, especially if they map has a lot of interesting and useful gameplay elements like you describe.

More varied terrain would be very, very welcome. All these open fields result in a general deficiency in flanking maneuvers, and those wonderful cliffs are as scarce as they are defensible.

SoggyFrog.4170:

…the most fun you get out of WvW will not be from how you place siege.

I’m afraid you don’t speak for me – pretty much all my favorite combat tactics involve siege in some manner, whether it be engaging an enemy within range of hidden arrow carts to inflict greater losses, filling choke points with ballistae, or just generally sieging up really weird, hard-to-reach places.

…Unfortunately, I’ve only ever known one commander to get creative with siege placement with any degree of regularity.

Nice post, really.But,but i have some different oppinions about wvw.I am looking from the aspect of a player without a guild group.Of course i like tactics and GvG fights as they are always awesome.But in time my guildies have to go and im stucked in a solo roaming Battleground.WvW is a 24 hour dinamic pvp event and i have time to be online for a long night shift
Hardly to watch when you have a couple of friends in the night with you and all your efforts in sieging a keep is going to nothing in a couple of seconds when 15 man group is knocking on your door.We all know the feeling.
So we need sieges and we need groups coz all that is based on capturing objects coz they give us points.
But as the damage of the siege weapons raises we need bigger groups to take the towers, and not to mention castles.
And as a player who is a lot on the sieges i think ACs are really overpowered.They are a badge farming tools.Let them stay as they are or nerf them a bit coz they do not need any damage improvement.

Why is everyone focussed on points and objectives etc…? They give you NOTHING but a unbalanced matchup when you go up in ranks imo.

Talley is trying to explain something here. That there are people who like to fight with their actual character skills, coordinating with other human beings on a slightly higher lvl, instead of frikkin boring stale siege.

How about instead of asking for WvW to be destroyed so you can GvG, ask for a seperate GvG mode?

Some of us actually like playing WvW as it was intended….

Mif.3471:

How about instead of asking for WvW to be destroyed so you can GvG, ask for a seperate GvG mode?

Some of us actually like playing WvW as it was intended….

Ditto….except I’d like to see even more siege options.

I don’t get these guys that seem to want ANet to turn WvW into open field pvp for everyone. There is plenty of room in the all the maps for you guys to indulge without making it mandatory for the rest of us.

Mif.3471:

How about instead of asking for WvW to be destroyed so you can GvG, ask for a seperate GvG mode?
Some of us actually like playing WvW as it was intended….

Raf.1078:

Ditto….except I’d like to see even more siege options.

I don’t get these guys that seem to want ANet to turn WvW into open field pvp for everyone. There is plenty of room in the all the maps for you guys to indulge without making it mandatory for the rest of us.

And I don’t get why people don’t want to read properly and listen to suggestions so we all can agree contribute on some terms.

OP is not trying to ‘destroy’ WvW and turn it into a GvG – please read OP, full post – 1st part may be putting his experience with siege, but second part is nothing to do with siege.

It’s about adding more depth, with different map design amongst other ideas, not changing the ruleset, not changing the concept, not taking existent siege away or only allow one type of person in WvW – it’s meant to suggest improvements to current system that is still inclusive to all players that not ONLY relies on ‘Moar siege’ like latest Anet post seems to suggest.

Step 1: Strech out the grassy plains between objectives so that it is atleast 2 full range treb shots from each objective to the next.

Step 2: and tree’s

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Profit

Disclaimer; Tree’s aren’t necessary.

The problem with AC’s is that you don’t have a reliable counter to it, since it typically employs the role of squad/zerg suppression. IRL, machineguns fill that role, and what we have ingame is a primitive counter to it, namely high-learning curve artillery pieces (mortars, trebs, catas, etc).

Methinks AC’s should have either a.) slower turn rate for targeting (give AC a sight arc, and add considerable turn rate to it or b.) have it’s range reduced so that it can’t be used to take out gunners from other counter-siege mechanisms (ballista’s come in mind).

Newer kinds of siege are welcomed, though. Maybe some kind of shielding for mobility, group cloaking, etc?

Another thing of note: I haven’t seen servers use traps effectively in meta, well, in EU. Are there examples of it being used often?

I assume that well placed siege comment was an actual joke…right? I guess well-placed means exploiting the fact that stuff goes through corners and doors and walls….

It’s sort of sad. The vast majority of players would love the focus to be on fighting… but there’s a vocal minority (including some devs, I guess) who think dropping 10 arrow carts and mashing buttons should be able to turn back a siege….

And if you dare criticize, you’re trying to turn this into an open field fight only game! (Which would be a great trick, since the WvW maps are basically jam-packed full of structures…)

Xenn.3809:

Mif.3471:

How about instead of asking for WvW to be destroyed so you can GvG, ask for a seperate GvG mode?
Some of us actually like playing WvW as it was intended….

Raf.1078:

Ditto….except I’d like to see even more siege options.

I don’t get these guys that seem to want ANet to turn WvW into open field pvp for everyone. There is plenty of room in the all the maps for you guys to indulge without making it mandatory for the rest of us.

And I don’t get why people don’t want to read properly and listen to suggestions so we all can agree contribute on some terms.

OP is not trying to ‘destroy’ WvW and turn it into a GvG – please read OP, full post – 1st part may be putting his experience with siege, but second part is nothing to do with siege.

It’s about adding more depth, with different map design amongst other ideas, not changing the ruleset, not changing the concept, not taking existent siege away or only allow one type of person in WvW – it’s meant to suggest improvements to current system that is still inclusive to all players that not ONLY relies on ‘Moar siege’ like latest Anet post seems to suggest.

Who are you or even the OP to suggest the relying heavily on siege is any less tactical than mano y’ mano in open field.? Its the equivalent of saying don’t use the machine gun or mortar and lets go at each other with bayonets only?

Small group play sans siege is simply a choice on your part. Its not or required (not yet anyway) and it shouldn’t be forced down the throats of those who shoose to play that way.

Sorry my zergs speed building of ac’s is messin with your small group’s efficiencies…perhaps you should hit another map instead of forcing everyone to play your way?

I agree on map design. As well as fixing issues. Look at the SW supply camp where it is possible to scale the short steep hill to the left of the archway (from the perspective of facing in toward the camp). You can’t run up it but if you use the right skill, it will put you up there. I believe that the original design was to make that archway a choke point making the camp easy to cap and defend for the invader but more difficult to take and hold for the home team.

I also believe that there is too much seige. The use of seige is about necessity in an offensive vs defensive role. We have seige that is being used in the game that actually replaced and made obsolete other types of seige that we also use in the game. Cannon and mortars basically replaced ballistas and trebs. Also the mortars and cannons currently used as defense are way too weak.

Also, as far as I can tell, there is a cap on the amount of seige that can be made and in addition to this, people are required to touch the seige periodically to reset a despawn timer?

Then you look at how some work like the ACs. You select a spot on the ground and the arrows rain down from straight up?

As much as this is a game and not RL, many problems that occur stem from throwing RL out the window. Take those ACs, which should fire their salvo as an arc from the cart to the selected point of impact. the height of the arc would then depend on the distance and you would not be able to hit people who are hugging a wall from the other side. If you shot high enough to clear the wall, the shot would land a decent distance beyond it creating a safe zone behind it. The other seige alreay does this.

Then there is the no clipping with the placement of seige. You can basically spam a gate with rams. Not only should they not be allowed to overlap at all but there should be a minimum distance that should be between them.

Raf.1078:

Who are you…

• Best way to start a debate

Raf.1078:

Who are you or even the OP to suggest the relying heavily on siege is any less tactical than mano y’ mano in open field.? Its the equivalent of saying don’t use the machine gun or mortar and lets go at each other with bayonets only?

Small group play sans siege is simply a choice on your part. Its not or required (not yet anyway) and it shouldn’t be forced down the throats of those who shoose to play that way.

Sorry my zergs speed building of ac’s is messin with your small group’s efficiencies…perhaps you should hit another map instead of forcing everyone to play your way?

Again, will repeat, as the post where you quote me, read and focus on ideas than don’t involve siege ONLY. Is not about getting rid of siege.

SoggyFrog.4170:

Focus on map design

Though it is mostly ACs I hate seeing in WvW, and I hated and thought they ruined the game even before they were buffed , I’d be perfectly fine with all siege but maybe rams (as needed for doors) were removed.

Some siege needs changes but so does that kittening downed state. Currently it gives extremely high boost to the side who already has the upper hand. In WvW it essentially makes a zerg immune to hit and run tactics. It’s really bad piece of game design. I don’t want it to get removed but it has to be tuned somehow.

Advent Leader.1083:

Another thing of note: I haven’t seen servers use traps effectively in meta, well, in EU. Are there examples of it being used often?

I used traps on a couple of occasions – but don’t have any impact on large group since doesn’t hit the whole group – will only really damage smaller teams.

Seen activated twice from my drops – both right near front of gates, where sentries are standing. On one occasion gate was melted via normal attacks – second multiple rams still went up due to size of group, supply drain didn’t have any effect (though on a positive note they did use rams to break gate)

Also I think they are too expensive (maybe 5 supply will be more fun – a scout could drop 2 in quick succession)