Sorry caid, I always feel compelled to write provocative thread titles. Then I go and write long posts because I can’t explain my ideas in fewer words and everyone just replies to the thread title.
I’d like to think of the current WvW maps as sort of a trial model. Something that the devs put out to test how the game developed on a large stage and how well it accommodated each kind of player. There are some fantastic elements in these maps, which show the incredible potential of this game – but that’s all it is right now, potential.
They’ve shown us that they have the tools to make an environment where zergers, roaming guilds, and solo players alike can have an impact. Now they need to examine their successes and failures and build a fully engaging WvW environment from the ground up.
I don’t think adding a separate GvG is really what we need for organized guilds or WvW as a whole. I know there are people who disagree, but with that kind of arena mode you lose all the unpredictability which is the true excitement of WvW. It’ll also be a loss for those who choose to stick to WvW, every WvW community will suffer tremendously if its guilds move on. If WvW becomes catered more to casuals, there is less depth for those who stay to develop as players and ultimately they’ll get bored and move on as well.
(edited by Bertrand.3057)
I agree with “less siege;” we should remove ACs, ballistae, rams, catapults and golems in favor of golems with flamethrowers on one arm, ballistae on the other, shoulder-mounted arrow carts and the ability to materialise and throw rocks (while still being able to melee.)
If the omni-golem proves too powerful, these abilities could be split between melee/assault golems, fire support golems and siege golems.
Who are you…
• Best way to start a debate
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.
Focus on map design
Did you even read Soggy frog’s intro? Here, I’ll post it for you….read the first paragraph. Usually, the first paragraph of a literary piece stakes out the claim of the entire piece, then uses the following material to bolster those points.
Soggy starts out with:
“…I’ll begin by stating where the objection comes from, then offer some solutions.
Organized groups are not especially interested in using siege in combat (one of Gandara’s most prominent guilds, XxX, hates using any siege altogether), and the most fun you get out of WvW will not be from how you place siege. It’s much more exciting to wipe a large group with coordination, tactics and patience than it is to wipe it with large amounts of siege.
What’s really thrilling about the PvP in WvW is being able to use all your profession skills, coordinate your combo fields and area skills (e.g. warding, feedback), and outmanoeuvre your opponent as a group. You don’t get this by placing an arrow cart or ballista and cycling skills 1-4 while standing in one spot.
Making siege more effective wonn’t give organized groups any particular advantage over zergs either. While the former can manage their supply better, the latter will simply have more of it, and all a zerg needs is one person to drop blueprints so that the organized group has no advantage in siege….."
Basically, what Soggy has said here is that this is what he gets out of WvW…and then he goes on to assume that everyone else shares his views.
My point on his entire treatise that everyone “does not” share his views. I remained fairly silent during the first forum lead charge for more “End Game” material. And look what we ended up with…gear progression via fractals.
If ever there was a time for the silent majority to speak up. Its now. Before these pinheads get ANet to totally mess up WvW.
Sorry if I generalized too much when I said “organized groups”, it’s obviously a broad category.
Yes, I state here what it is I get out of WvW; I’m making my case to the developers that these elements are an important part of WvW and should not be shuffled to the side. It’s partly a normative statement.
But I also offer a criticism of the solution Devon proposes for what he has already identified as a problem: That numbers are the deciding factor even when nuanced tactics (and strategy) aren’t employed. Devon offers more siege options as the answer, and I explain why that conclusion is flawed. That has nothing to do with my opinion of how the game should be played, it’s simply my logical reasoning.
However, as a guild and community leader regularly in contact with other guilds, and having heard the opinion of number of guilds on this statement specifically, I think I do speak for many of the players whom Devon attempted to address in his statement on the future of WvW. We (those who share my opinions) consider ourselves to be organized groups, but do not agree with his assessment of how WvW should be changed to give dedicated WvW players a better chance against large zergs.
If you want to address my criticisms, stop building strawmen and resorting to personal attacks and explain to me why the strong combat mechanics that this game features should be universally subordinated to a few environmental weapon skills. I enjoy the use of siege in appropriate situations, but I don’t think that it needs to define WvW.
(edited by Bertrand.3057)
disclaimer: lots – just scroll above
@Raf: For the other part to this particular argument please refer to:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Less-Siege-Not-More/2172193
Did you even read Soggy frog’s intro?
Yes. Link above I let you know I did
Usually, the first paragraph of a literary piece stakes out the claim of the entire piece
(…)
Basically, what Soggy has said here is that this is what he gets out of WvW…and then he goes on to assume that everyone else shares his views.
Both partly true, and both assumptions
If ever there was a time for the silent majority to speak up. Its now. Before these pinheads get ANet to totally mess up WvW.
We can agree there, but your opinion is as good as mine or any other – just trying to debate, not attack or ‘destroy’ as been wrongly assumed.
You may not agree with his experience of the game, which is entirely fine; but you avoiding discussing the idea behind the initial post, I won’t copy/paste what he has written, since you wanted to prove you read the 1st paragraphs, I trust you finish reading the post.
The part I’m trying to get you engaged, and with this threat has tried to discuss to some degree is the section that starts with:
Focus on map design
I do not wish to continue this conversation with you for as long as I’m trying to talk about dogs and you reply me talking about cats. I will gladly rekindle conversation if we can keep on the topic of discussion.
I really just dont get how map design has anything to do with siege or how its going to destroy peoples ability to enjoy that aspect of the game.
I also dont really get the unwillingness to even entertain making some changes to the game.
People talk about small groups forcing others to play the game the way we want it to be played … theres some truth to that. We all get enjoyment from different aspects of the game and of course theres going to be some selfishness involved in the changes we ask for.
The problem is the current meta involving huge zergs and heavy defensive siege forces US to play the game in a manner we dont enjoy … is it not possible to find some middle ground were we can all play as we wish and not feel like were being punished for doing so?
Is it not worth even debating the possibility of doing so?
Would some more dynamic maps really harm your ability to play the game in the manner you currently enjoy?
@ talley
I’m starting to think the thread title really isn’t the issue : /
I like the idea, theres a massive space in the middle of each bl filled with a lake thats just such a waste of map. The best fights ive been involved in tend to take place in vale camp (lots of interesting hills, los and choke points), ruins and bay. I once had an amazing fight in garrison lords room which seems a minor miracle because there was no skill lag despite it being a 3 way fight with 50 people split in groups of 15 or so on each side fighting in different parts of the room.
All these places have really interesting, varied enviroments and i think it helps a great deal in creating great fights.
Siege can be employed in all these areas and can give you a great advantage too – i dont believe it’ll work purely in the favour of people who enjoy fights that dont involve sieging keeps, towers and the use of siege.
Offhand i dont remember any particularly memorable fights to the east of bay in the wide open space between it and briar. I also find the usual gvg spot very … dry (?) enviroment wise and makes fights … a bit dull (i like a lot of things about the format but it’ll never replace wvw for me personally).
(edited by Caid.4932)
disclaimer: lots – just scroll above
@Raf: For the other part to this particular argument please refer to:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Less-Siege-Not-More/2172193Did you even read Soggy frog’s intro?
Yes. Link above I let you know I did
Usually, the first paragraph of a literary piece stakes out the claim of the entire piece
(…)
Basically, what Soggy has said here is that this is what he gets out of WvW…and then he goes on to assume that everyone else shares his views.Both partly true, and both assumptions
If ever there was a time for the silent majority to speak up. Its now. Before these pinheads get ANet to totally mess up WvW.
We can agree there, but your opinion is as good as mine or any other – just trying to debate, not attack or ‘destroy’ as been wrongly assumed.
You may not agree with his experience of the game, which is entirely fine; but you avoiding discussing the idea behind the initial post, I won’t copy/paste what he has written, since you wanted to prove you read the 1st paragraphs, I trust you finish reading the post.
The part I’m trying to get you engaged, and with this threat has tried to discuss to some degree is the section that starts with:
Focus on map design
I do not wish to continue this conversation with you for as long as I’m trying to talk about dogs and you reply me talking about cats. I will gladly rekindle conversation if we can keep on the topic of discussion.
You cherry picked a single item out of his entire post as the focus of what he’s saying. Thats not what I read as the main point of his post. Map design? Really? Thats all you took from that wall of text?
Well..okay…I’ll refrain from commenting on map design as I think it has little to do with Soggy’s main points.
Sorry if I generalized too much when I said “organized groups”, it’s obviously a broad category.
Yes, I state here what it is I get out of WvW; I’m making my case to the developers that these elements are an important part of WvW and should not be shuffled to the side. It’s partly a normative statement.
But I also offer a criticism of the solution Devon proposes for what he has already identified as a problem: That numbers are the deciding factor even when nuanced tactics (and strategy) aren’t employed. Devon offers more siege options as the answer, and I explain why that conclusion is flawed. That has nothing to do with my opinion of how the game should be played, it’s simply my logical reasoning.
However, as a guild and community leader regularly in contact with other guilds, and having heard the opinion of number of guilds on this statement specifically, I think I do speak for many of the players whom Devon attempted to address in his statement on the future of WvW. We (those who share my opinions) consider ourselves to be organized groups, but do not agree with his assessment of how WvW should be changed to give dedicated WvW players a better chance against large zergs.
If you want to address my criticisms, stop building strawmen and resorting to personal attacks and explain to me why the strong combat mechanics that this game features should be universally subordinated to a few environmental weapon skills. I enjoy the use of siege in appropriate situations, but I don’t think that it needs to define WvW.
I was addressing Xenn. Not you. That said, what makes you think that limited contact with a few guilds on your server is indicative of world-wide opinion? I’d say that was an extremely limited sampling bordering on outright heresay.
Siegecraft is as much a skill as anything else in this game. I think you’ve got it backwards. The game was designed around the deployment and use of that equipment in combat situations. Also, Siege is not an environmental weapon..at least as ANet uses the term.
Choosing to not utilize siege and focusing on player combat is a personal choice that can be made in this game regardless of siegecraft as it stands now. The game doesn’t have to be changed for you to do that.
Personally, I’m pretty excited to see the siege concepts they have up their dev sleeves.
I didn’t follow a basic introduction-content-conclusion format and I explicitly stated the fact. You even quoted the part where I said, “I’ll begin by stating where the objection comes from, then offer some solutions”, yet somehow you assumed that I adopted the usual structure of a argumentative piece.
The sentence Xenn picked was a clear, concise one which was the first prescriptive statement in a section dedicated to proposing solutions. It headed its own paragraph, and it followed some exposition. It is a point I refer to throughout my post, in both the first and second parts.
I’m not sure if you really this much difficulty with reading comprehension or if you’re just trying to get my thread shut down.
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 as well, the match ups have largely became stale and people become bored with WvW because of the maps being continually the same, Each BL in my opinion should be different, all camps, towers and keeps mixed up and terrain changed. As well as EB being a much larger map. EB as it is, is not large enough for all three servers with the population some servers field in my opinion.
I was addressing Xenn. Not you. That said, what makes you think that limited contact with a few guilds on your server is indicative of world-wide opinion? I’d say that was an extremely limited sampling bordering on outright heresay.
Siegecraft is as much a skill as anything else in this game. I think you’ve got it backwards. The game was designed around the deployment and use of that equipment in combat situations. Also, Siege is not an environmental weapon..at least as ANet uses the term.
Choosing to not utilize siege and focusing on player combat is a personal choice that can be made in this game regardless of siegecraft as it stands now. The game doesn’t have to be changed for you to do that.
Personally, I’m pretty excited to see the siege concepts they have up their dev sleeves.
Raf, by saying “you or the OP”, you were addressing me, so allow me to respond.
I’ll speak with as much authority I have and you can speak what as much as you have. My experience represents most if not all of the organized groups on my server, and the experience of a number of guilds we’ve encountered from other servers, but even then I have already acknowledged the fact that it was a generalization. But if you want to know who I am to make this suggestion (followed up by reasoning), there you have it.
I don’t expect my argument’s strength to be the authority of my position, however, I expect it to be from the rational case I present.
I’m not speaking about siegecraft as it stands now, however I am also not making the assumption that the game’s design as it stands today is optimal. If I were, we wouldn’t be having that discussion. I worry that if siege is too strongly the focus of development, then other approaches to the game will likely become non-viable – this is what I object to. Sure, we can keep doing what we’re doing, but if the developers decide to make new siege skills entirely nullify what we’re doing, then that’s not much of a choice.
I’ve already explained why a focus on siege isn’t a practical way to reduce the effectiveness of zerging. As for skill, you’ve been challenged to provide examples of especially skilful siege deployment. One problem I see with siege deployment is that once you’ve seen an effective deployment, it’s really easy to copy; there’s no steep learning curve.
In my experience skill in group combat is far more difficult to develop and perfect, which is why you see a huge gulf between organized groups of different calibres. My own guild has a long way to go before we can stand toe-to-toe with most. It relies on a lot of factors, including strong group composition, coordination of area effects and fields, the ability to read the opponent and the terrain, and thinking and moving on the fly. It simply draws in more aspects of the game, which I think is fantastic.
(edited by Bertrand.3057)
…I’ll refrain from commenting on map design as I think it has little to do with Soggy’s main points.
You refrain to comment on the part that is actually suggesting solutions and not talking about experiences – you’re misinterpreting the post, at least the part I’m trying to get you engaged. You don’t agree with initial statement (fine) but you can’t comment on suggestions on how to improve WvW
You cherry picked a single item out of his entire post as the focus of what he’s saying. Thats not what I read as the main point of his post. Map design? Really? Thats all you took from that wall of text?
.
I really don’t know what to say…
SoggyFrog.4170:the section that starts with:
Focus on map design
You NOT meant to stop reading there.
…or if you’re just trying to get my thread shut down.
I really hope that’s not the case, but this threat could do with some cleaning of out of topic.
Would have liked to create a table, nvm:
Scout: Minimal Force/Resouces, Minimal Suvival, High Mobility
GroupS: Medium Force/Resouces, Medium Suvival, Medium Mobility
Zerg: High Force/Resouces, High Suvival, Low Mobility
Ideally I feel this could be fun (and without putting ‘buffs’, ‘debuffs’ or any sort of penalty due to numbers alone) but right now due to map design (layout, WP…), mobility doesn’t take part on the equation, leaving zerg as best option to success (talking about pursuit of game objective). Soggy’s suggestions can help address this balance.
(edited by Xenn.3809)
This thread is supposed to be more of a, “What’s the best thing the devs can do to limit the power of zergs?” rather than a slugfest between proponents of organized group combat and proponents of siegecraft.
I’m really regretting the direction Raf has yanked my thread towards.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.