Guild Wars 2

Now we believe this change would make tons of players happy about WvW
Increasing the arrow carts damage from the first place was a huge mistake to us ;(

Years back Over 100 pages were written about Arrow carts, But we were ignored, thanks to the old AWESOME Devs

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Arrowcarts-merged/page/48#post2149012
ANY OBJECTIONS ?

i object
cuz that would mean trebs get buff to 3 shot walls
anet logic lawl
hurrdurr

Depends on what you want the AC to do. In its current design I’d vote to get rid of it entirely.

But what if the AC didn’t do actual damage but added various impeding conditions like cripple, poison etc. And specifically didn’t give actually tag for lootbags. Perhaps have one attack with a something that messes with people on siege (Don’t know, slow on siege engines, or daze on anyone using siege or something). Make it a pure support device.

joneirikb.7506:

Depends on what you want the AC to do. In its current design I’d vote to get rid of it entirely.

But what if the AC didn’t do actual damage but added various impeding conditions like cripple, poison etc. And specifically didn’t give actually tag for lootbags. Perhaps have one attack with a something that messes with people on siege (Don’t know, slow on siege engines, or daze on anyone using siege or something). Make it a pure support device.

Thats why it should be replaced by something more defensive oriented. Or like you suggest simply changing the skills to be defensive. I have no problems with siege being used defensively, the issue is how ridiculously unbalanced and abused ac’s are. When I see open field ac’s…I literally mutter to myself “good god this is pathetic.”

Hmmm… They are only a problem in certain places really. Like SMC 3rd floor and ramparts. The old EB keeps have places you can load them up a little too easy. Most towers and stuff not much of a prob.

Of course it can all be countered with well place ballista’s or ac’s of your own. If the enemy is dug in hard may have to counter with trebs.

So hmm, hard to say if it’s really that imbalanced. Open field ac’s heh.. just be good at fights and positioning not that much of an issue.

Well since there is already a thread about AC’s on the front page it looks like the anti siege people want to zerg the problem down like they do everything else.

The biggest problem with ACs is that it is effective dmg against EVERYTHING. What is really needed to fix them is to leave the dmg to players as is, and have them do 0 damage to rams, cats, other acs, trebs and golems.

defenders still have ballys, mortars, cannons, trebs and oil to kill the other siege. ACs should damage players only.

Although I do like the idea of making ACs operate like mortars: you have to hold the button down to shoot longer distances. A reload time wouldnt be too bad either, although I would prefer the reflect skills players have to work on ACs to give some counter play..

I say lower the damage by 50% ….. but increase the damage a player receives by 5% for every friendly player within 900 units of them.

It already takes two superior ACs with players that have mastery to actually kill a non-scrub player somewhat slowly. They are also extremely easily countered on most walls. Basically any reduction in their ability would make them relatively useless against a larger force and allow for easy flips of towers and keeps.

ACs are one of the only way to fend off mega blobs. Defense would be near impossible if outnumbered on some servers.

If nerfing ACs then other defensive items will need to be greatly buffed to fend off said mega blobs.

Oh and ACs are fine. L2DODGE.

I think lowering the amount of carts that can be placed in a certain radius would be a nice cut back. Not sure if that already exists? But may help instead of nerfing. That way a defender can have his dps but the amount of red circles would decrease at least.

Lowering native damage means that lot of groups will stand still inside AC shower as if nothing was hitting them, humm even inside toxic some groups can stand and needs several AC to stack good poison stack.
On sup ac ic damage lower than 1k, sometimes arround 750-900, max arround 2.5k.

Before nerf/abalance AC damage A lot of things need to chang.

Paulie.6215:

ACs are one of the only way to fend off mega blobs. Defense would be near impossible if outnumbered on some servers.

If nerfing ACs then other defensive items will need to be greatly buffed to fend off said mega blobs.

Oh and ACs are fine. L2DODGE.

Paulie i guess people want to counter AC’s by PvD and proxy catas.

Aeolus.3615:

Lowering native damage means that lot of groups will stand still inside AC shower as if nothing was hitting them, humm even inside toxic some groups can stand and needs several AC to stack good poison stack.
On sup ac ic damage lower than 1k, sometimes arround 750-900, max arround 2.5k.

Before nerf/abalance AC damage A lot of things need to chang.
.

That’s why I suggested giving a damage buff that’s dependent on the amount of players around who the ac is hitting.
Zergs would end up being hit even harder, or they would have to spread out which means they lose the protection from the 5 man aoe limit.
At the same time you wouldn’t have groups hiding behind ac’s instead of coming out to fight roamers because the ac’s would be ineffective against small parties.

Puck.9612:

Aeolus.3615:

Lowering native damage means that lot of groups will stand still inside AC shower as if nothing was hitting them, humm even inside toxic some groups can stand and needs several AC to stack good poison stack.
On sup ac ic damage lower than 1k, sometimes arround 750-900, max arround 2.5k.

Before nerf/abalance AC damage A lot of things need to chang.
.

That’s why I suggested giving a damage buff that’s dependent on the amount of players around who the ac is hitting.
Zergs would end up being hit even harder, or they would have to spread out which means they lose the protection from the 5 man aoe limit.
At the same time you wouldn’t have groups hiding behind ac’s instead of coming out to fight roamers because the ac’s would be ineffective against small parties.

I see your point, but ondt forget that GW2 always had problems with calculations in the past, that made the game run real bad, so we need to avoid to talk in more calculation on server side, with all the cleave damage and aoe, going arround more calculation would be really bad lol.

About fighthing roammers… that is not a AC problem, if i play a mace shield build on my guardian because Anet made that not work, what was working poorly at realeasse is worse shape now, i might stale some fights but will loose most of the fights aginst Anet gimmick user (except a guardians or Dh lol. against this is hard to loose…. )so i will not engage against 2 or 3 roamming to get easilly spiked….., it is not a AC problem.

Paper arrow carts are already really weak. I think superior arrow carts are in a reliable place, damage-wise, right now.

I don’t think a proximity based damage buff will fly since it will likely lead to yelling at other players to go away. Also, Anet is notoriously bad at communicating how things work so I doubt people would really get it…making the yelling somewhat necessary.

Cecilia.5179:

Paper arrow carts are already really weak. I think superior arrow carts are in a reliable place, damage-wise, right now.

If you think that AC’s are fine then you haven’t been on the receiving end of an over sieged keep. AC’s along with siege generators should be disabled for now while A.Net fixes the peek over issue with them.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Cecilia.5179:

Paper arrow carts are already really weak. I think superior arrow carts are in a reliable place, damage-wise, right now.

If you think that AC’s are fine then you haven’t been on the receiving end of an over sieged keep. AC’s along with siege generators should be disabled for now while A.Net fixes the peek over issue with them.

Moon how can a server full stack so many AC’s and shields that cant be countered, every castle is 24/7 guarded???

I imagine your server has a much lower population ????

Aeolus-just go and try take a keep or tower that YB owns and wishes to defend…I think then you might get Moon’s point.

XTD wrote this and it is the “word”
“Siege wars/creep is cancerous gameplay, and is not fun nor does it require any skill.”

I am in strong agreement that something needs to be done to address the hideous overuse of siege and the ability to place so much in one place! Be it a nerf to damage of ac’s or limit placement big time!

NotKalkz.1286:

ANY OBJECTIONS ?

Yes….if anything I would want it raised not lowered.
The carts are still less effective than the base damage a player can dish out on it’s own with aoe. Couple this with the ease of rez’ing downed players presently and the blocks and everything else you can use to dodge them….I don’t understand why you would want them nerfed to begin with! Everything has a counter in this game except huge zergs that are more huge than you are….it’s not rocket science.

No thx, if we get the Alpine Borders back I want to still be able to get rid of catapults at hills before the wall goes down.
You are not meant to just sit in ac fire and survive without doing anything (even though with some builds it’s exactly like that). Learn to dodge, learn to use your heal at the right moments, learn to time and blast waterfields and learn to get rid of siege. I’ve watched so many commanders throwing siege when there’s still cannons/mortars/acs up and then wondering why they won’t get into a bloody keep. Well guess what? It’s your fault, not the system.

AC are fine…. You need 2 or 3 sups ac to really kill ennemy players….
1 AC alone do just nothing, it’s just good to kill proxy cata, and useless against ram. Even 2 ACs are not enough against ram. Basic AC are just useless.

I’m for limiting the max siege on the same spot at 3, for every siege. This should be fine.

Sich.7103:

AC are fine…. You need 2 or 3 sups ac to really kill ennemy players….
1 AC alone do just nothing, it’s just good to kill proxy cata, and useless against ram. Even 2 ACs are not enough against ram. Basic AC are just useless.

I’m for limiting the max siege on the same spot at 3, for every siege. This should be fine.

I think at least lowering the damage and target limit would at bring them in line, I dont have a problem with them getting a small buff in damage against siege. But In its current form, its ridiculously unbalanced especially considering how many can be used at once in an area.

Shazmataz.1423:

XTD wrote this and it is the “word”
“Siege wars/creep is cancerous gameplay, and is not fun nor does it require any skill.”

I have to heavily disagree on that one. Siege war requires a lot of skill to be successful. People are just too lazy to do it right (Which I understand because there is no reward as long as you don’t cap)

Let’s look at a keep your enemies want to defend. What can you do? (considering you also got decent numbers and don’t suck completely at open field fights)
There could be such an enormous amount of coordination required to do something if people were to organise it.
First of: get 3 small parties to constantly cap their camps, keep them empty and kill their dolyaks. Second: make sure you got a constant supply flow on your side. Get scouts to follow their zerg and go defend your supply camps if needed.
Now we go offensive. Try to get a relatively safe spot. A plateau that you can defend with ac’s yourself or whatever. Build some trebs and attack their supply camp until the keeps supply is drained empty. Get some cata attacks going, do everything to get inside. (on the old borders I would have said go for the North towers but… Dessert) Once inside you can easily clear all their siege and because they have neither supply nor camps left they won’t be able to rebuild anything and the keep is open for you.
At this point you could even consider an omega rush to finish the inner keep.
And what can also help a lot is to leave the 3rd party entirely untouched. They may first try to go for your easy targets but once you show them how things are going you may have double the forces going for your enemy.

You have to note that this procedure can take several hours and only really rewards you in the end (besides tons of loot if you don’t suck at fighting) which is why this is almost non existent nowadays. Your people need to have the endurance and the iron strong will to pull this off. To show who’s got the pants on in this match up. And if you regularly achieve things like that you won’t need a score to tell you who is the better server.

That’s the wvw spirit.

Oh yeah… Ac’s are fine.

X T D.6458:

Sich.7103:

AC are fine…. You need 2 or 3 sups ac to really kill ennemy players….
1 AC alone do just nothing, it’s just good to kill proxy cata, and useless against ram. Even 2 ACs are not enough against ram. Basic AC are just useless.

I’m for limiting the max siege on the same spot at 3, for every siege. This should be fine.

I think at least lowering the damage and target limit would at bring them in line, I dont have a problem with them getting a small buff in damage against siege. But In its current form, its ridiculously unbalanced especially considering how many can be used at once in an area.

Why would you want to lower the target limit?

fine with me to lower damage on AC and fix so players AOE cant hit up at wall/Cliffs.

I’d love to see AC’s treated more like mortars and cannons. IMO, they should have fixed build sites inside towers and keeps set back far enough so they can’t be killed by attackers. That would fix a lot of AC abuse. If they could only be constructed in set locations, a defender couldn’t spam them. Also, this would remove them as an option in open field battles.

Shazmataz.1423:

Aeolus-just go and try take a keep or tower that YB owns and wishes to defend…I think then you might get Moon’s point.

Most of the time neither BG or JQ even try to clear defensive siege before attacking. They drop their attack siege right next to the objective and stay on it till it is destroyed or they get in. Then they move on.

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

Straegen.2938:

Shazmataz.1423:

Aeolus-just go and try take a keep or tower that YB owns and wishes to defend…I think then you might get Moon’s point.

Most of the time neither BG or JQ even try to clear defensive siege before attacking. They drop their attack siege right next to the objective and stay on it till it is destroyed or they get in. Then they move on.

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

No Dear YB Siegecreeper, Your ACS can’t be cleared even with Ele metors, Hump more

To wade into this argument the damage to players doesn’t need a (heavy) nerf. The damage to siege DOES. As mentioned by others we have bali’s for that.

It would be interesting though perhaps ill-thought to give balis a damage reduction to siege.
Perhaps a little damage boost to gates, so we have another (read: viable) option for DBL siege attacks.

ACs, the way I see it, should be a purely defensive siege option. An anti-siege option, if you will. Similar to the way ballistas work, except with AoE, as well as having siege damage nerfed to players, but increased hard against other siege.

That way you could take out enemy siege with ACs pretty quickly as a defensive option (let’s say, 5-7k damage per tick rather than 1-1.5k on siege structures), while still forcing you to fight to defend your structure if they break in. It should not be an anti-zerg tool.

The current mindset is that a few people should be allowed to hold a structure against a larger force indefinitely without having to fight for it. I think all this does is encourage siege bunkering – something that is extremely boring to play against. We need to encourage more fighting for structures, not sieging.

Reverence.6915:

ACs, the way I see it, should be a purely defensive siege option. An anti-siege option, if you will. Similar to the way ballistas work, except with AoE, as well as having siege damage nerfed to players, but increased hard against other siege.

That way you could take out enemy siege with ACs pretty quickly as a defensive option (let’s say, 5-7k damage per tick rather than 1-1.5k on siege structures), while still forcing you to fight to defend your structure if they break in. It should not be an anti-zerg tool.

The current mindset is that a few people should be allowed to hold a structure against a larger force indefinitely without having to fight for it. I think all this does is encourage siege bunkering – something that is extremely boring to play against. We need to encourage more fighting for structures, not sieging.

so ac’s 1shot all other siege units?

are you on YB?

Puck.9612:

X T D.6458:

Sich.7103:

AC are fine…. You need 2 or 3 sups ac to really kill ennemy players….
1 AC alone do just nothing, it’s just good to kill proxy cata, and useless against ram. Even 2 ACs are not enough against ram. Basic AC are just useless.

I’m for limiting the max siege on the same spot at 3, for every siege. This should be fine.

I think at least lowering the damage and target limit would at bring them in line, I dont have a problem with them getting a small buff in damage against siege. But In its current form, its ridiculously unbalanced especially considering how many can be used at once in an area.

Why would you want to lower the target limit?

One of the reasons for this is because of the current siege cap. When you can have multiple ac’s spamming ranged skills that can each hit 50 players at a time. Nothing should have a target limit of 50, especially when its spammable by multiple people. This is just part of the imbalance.

First post got infracted because mods like to make up rules, so I will repost

They should be heavily nerfed in multiple ways, or entirely removed from the game and replaced with something more defensive oriented, perhaps tweaking shield generators.

I think reducing damage is not enough..

-An actual siege cap that limits how much siege can be placed by a group in a smaller radius, this would force servers to actually think before mindlessly dropping siege everywhere. So an attacking group cannot just place down 5 rams at a gate to melt it, and defenders cant just place 5 ac’s right next to each other all over the place.

- Lower damage radius and target limit, having multiple people being able to spam skills that let you hit 50 people at a time…seriously? It needs to be halved at least.

- Increased supply cost

Siege wars/creep should not be encouraged, it is not fun nor does it require any skill.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

To wade into this argument the damage to players doesn’t need a (heavy) nerf. The damage to siege DOES. As mentioned by others we have bali’s for that.

It would be interesting though perhaps ill-thought to give balis a damage reduction to siege.
Perhaps a little damage boost to gates, so we have another (read: viable) option for DBL siege attacks.

Ballistas are even worse than ACs when it comes to destroying proxy catas. they must be placed in even more vulnerable wall positions and sometimes can’t get an angle at all. I wouldn’t want to see AC siege damage nerfed unless other significant changes were made. Doing it now would only reinforce the current siege imbalance.

Arrowcarts are not all that bad, they can be destroyed fairly easily.

What is more important is the guild buffs that massively increase defense potential at towers and keeps.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Reverence.6915:

ACs, the way I see it, should be a purely defensive siege option. An anti-siege option, if you will. Similar to the way ballistas work, except with AoE, as well as having siege damage nerfed to players, but increased hard against other siege.

That way you could take out enemy siege with ACs pretty quickly as a defensive option (let’s say, 5-7k damage per tick rather than 1-1.5k on siege structures), while still forcing you to fight to defend your structure if they break in. It should not be an anti-zerg tool.

The current mindset is that a few people should be allowed to hold a structure against a larger force indefinitely without having to fight for it. I think all this does is encourage siege bunkering – something that is extremely boring to play against. We need to encourage more fighting for structures, not sieging.

so ac’s 1shot all other siege units?

are you on YB?

There’s a thing call shield generators. As broken as they are, they are a useful anti-siege tool. You can see which server I’m on in my signature.

What I want is for siege to be useful for a few defenders to hold out, but not to hold out indefinitely. I want to force people to fight for structures, not just sit on siege. If you have better ideas, I’m all ears.

Yes, reducing AC damage could help but what I would really like is for players not on siege to get increased drop rates for ascended and legendary items and extra XP for damage to players without siege used and players using siege damage on players get NO loot or Xp for doing so. NO DROPS for siege humping! What kittenhead is going to be sitting on an AC when they will get Ascended and legendary LOOT for not using it? XD

Reverence.6915:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Reverence.6915:

ACs, the way I see it, should be a purely defensive siege option. An anti-siege option, if you will. Similar to the way ballistas work, except with AoE, as well as having siege damage nerfed to players, but increased hard against other siege.

That way you could take out enemy siege with ACs pretty quickly as a defensive option (let’s say, 5-7k damage per tick rather than 1-1.5k on siege structures), while still forcing you to fight to defend your structure if they break in. It should not be an anti-zerg tool.

The current mindset is that a few people should be allowed to hold a structure against a larger force indefinitely without having to fight for it. I think all this does is encourage siege bunkering – something that is extremely boring to play against. We need to encourage more fighting for structures, not sieging.

so ac’s 1shot all other siege units?

are you on YB?

There’s a thing call shield generators. As broken as they are, they are a useful anti-siege tool. You can see which server I’m on in my signature.

What I want is for siege to be useful for a few defenders to hold out, but not to hold out indefinitely. I want to force people to fight for structures, not just sit on siege. If you have better ideas, I’m all ears.

Increase PPK for players fighting in/near an objective without use of siege, increase drop rate for players who fighting in/ near objective under attack for ascended items and legendary crafting supplies without use of siege. Have defenders receive slightly more drop rate and XP than the attackers ( to encourage players not to just K train but to defend as well) Siege damage on players gets no PPK, XP or LOOT at all. You cost your server points and your pockets $ by using it instead of fighting without it.

This brings the zerg back for loot bags to defend, encourages enemies to attack objectives and if you use siege on players to do so you get nothing. This rewards players to fight over objectives and does not reward siege humping or afkers.

Who is going to be sitting on an AC or fighting in a field over nothing when they get ascended and legendary lOOT for not doing so?

X T D.6458:

Puck.9612:

X T D.6458:

Sich.7103:

AC are fine…. You need 2 or 3 sups ac to really kill ennemy players….
1 AC alone do just nothing, it’s just good to kill proxy cata, and useless against ram. Even 2 ACs are not enough against ram. Basic AC are just useless.

I’m for limiting the max siege on the same spot at 3, for every siege. This should be fine.

I think at least lowering the damage and target limit would at bring them in line, I dont have a problem with them getting a small buff in damage against siege. But In its current form, its ridiculously unbalanced especially considering how many can be used at once in an area.

Why would you want to lower the target limit?

One of the reasons for this is because of the current siege cap. When you can have multiple ac’s spamming ranged skills that can each hit 50 players at a time. Nothing should have a target limit of 50, especially when its spammable by multiple people. This is just part of the imbalance.

Yeah…. I understand how ac’s work… that wasn’t the question.
Why do you think 50 people that don’t have the common sense to move out of ac fire (or to destroy the ac) shouldn’t be hit by it?
This is how aoe is supposed to work. The only reason the aoe limit is so small on other skills is because supposedly if they removed the limit the calculations would lag the game, and instead of coming up with a proper solution the devs chose this lazy way to patch it.

Puck.9612:

X T D.6458:

Puck.9612:

X T D.6458:

Sich.7103:

AC are fine…. You need 2 or 3 sups ac to really kill ennemy players….
1 AC alone do just nothing, it’s just good to kill proxy cata, and useless against ram. Even 2 ACs are not enough against ram. Basic AC are just useless.

I’m for limiting the max siege on the same spot at 3, for every siege. This should be fine.

I think at least lowering the damage and target limit would at bring them in line, I dont have a problem with them getting a small buff in damage against siege. But In its current form, its ridiculously unbalanced especially considering how many can be used at once in an area.

Why would you want to lower the target limit?

One of the reasons for this is because of the current siege cap. When you can have multiple ac’s spamming ranged skills that can each hit 50 players at a time. Nothing should have a target limit of 50, especially when its spammable by multiple people. This is just part of the imbalance.

Yeah…. I understand how ac’s work… that wasn’t the question.
Why do you think 50 people that don’t have the common sense to move out of ac fire (or to destroy the ac) shouldn’t be hit by it?
This is how aoe is supposed to work. The only reason the aoe limit is so small on other skills is because supposedly if they removed the limit the calculations would lag the game, and instead of coming up with a proper solution the devs chose this lazy way to patch it.

Often players think about it from the perspective of " Ac vs Zerg", what you should consider though that is not the issue, the issue is Zerg on ACs vs anyone not on ACs.. LOL the best way to solve this is to take away LOOT, XP and PPK for siege damage on players and greatly increase Xp PPK and LOOT for players who are not. That way you can have Zerg vs Zerg instead of everyone else VS Zerg on AC’s.
You always have to keep in mind that anything the individual can do, the zerg can do in mass. If you properly place AC’s, Bali’s cats and trebs you have a kill box where no one can get close enough to AOE any of them.

lil devils x.6071:

Puck.9612:

X T D.6458:

Puck.9612:

X T D.6458:

Sich.7103:

AC are fine…. You need 2 or 3 sups ac to really kill ennemy players….
1 AC alone do just nothing, it’s just good to kill proxy cata, and useless against ram. Even 2 ACs are not enough against ram. Basic AC are just useless.

I’m for limiting the max siege on the same spot at 3, for every siege. This should be fine.

I think at least lowering the damage and target limit would at bring them in line, I dont have a problem with them getting a small buff in damage against siege. But In its current form, its ridiculously unbalanced especially considering how many can be used at once in an area.

Why would you want to lower the target limit?

One of the reasons for this is because of the current siege cap. When you can have multiple ac’s spamming ranged skills that can each hit 50 players at a time. Nothing should have a target limit of 50, especially when its spammable by multiple people. This is just part of the imbalance.

Yeah…. I understand how ac’s work… that wasn’t the question.
Why do you think 50 people that don’t have the common sense to move out of ac fire (or to destroy the ac) shouldn’t be hit by it?
This is how aoe is supposed to work. The only reason the aoe limit is so small on other skills is because supposedly if they removed the limit the calculations would lag the game, and instead of coming up with a proper solution the devs chose this lazy way to patch it.

Often players think about it from the perspective of " Ac vs Zerg", what you should consider though that is not the issue, the issue is Zerg on ACs vs anyone not on ACs.. LOL the best way to solve this is to take away LOOT, XP and PPK for siege damage on players and greatly increase Xp PPK and LOOT for players who are not. That way you can have Zerg vs Zerg instead of everyone else VS Zerg on AC’s.
You always have to keep in mind that anything the individual can do, the zerg can do in mass. If you properly place AC’s, Bali’s cats and trebs you have a kill box where no one can get close enough to AOE any of them.

I have no problem with lowering the rewards for using them. I’m not arguing that people should sit on them instead of fighting. My personal belief is that you resort to ac’s when the numbers make fighting impossible and you have something worth defending. Even in those situation I prefer someone else take the ac’s so I can go pick off the fat kids at the back of the zerg.
I just don’t agree with lowering their aoe limit.

I will be fine with no loot or xp from siege, and more loot without siege…
This can be a good solution, but don’t touch AC’s…. Just remove reward if you use them…
Protecting your stuff and killing ennemy is enough for me as reward.

NotKalkz.1286:

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

No Dear YB Siegecreeper, Your ACS can’t be cleared even with Ele metors, Hump more

Kalkz you just made my point. Next time build a ballista, counter ac or a treb first and clear the siege. Having followed you for a long time on BP and fighting against your zerg on YB, I know exactly what you do. Show up and if it is easy flip it otherwise move on or come back with a half dozen golems (something you don’t do much anymore). YB is taking advantage of enemy server’s laziness.

Stop being siege meat bags and put a little thought into a flip when it has defenders.

Straegen.2938:

NotKalkz.1286:

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

No Dear YB Siegecreeper, Your ACS can’t be cleared even with Ele metors, Hump more

Kalkz you just made my point. Next time build a ballista, counter ac or a treb first and clear the siege. Having followed you for a long time on BP and fighting against your zerg on YB, I know exactly what you do. Show up and if it is easy flip it otherwise move on or come back with a half dozen golems (something you don’t do much anymore). YB is taking advantage of enemy server’s laziness.

Stop being siege meat bags and put a little thought into a flip when it has defenders.

I don’t think you get it… You are not fighting a couple of ACs here… you are fighting a zerg on siege with ACs, balis, cats, generators and trebs vs a smaller group outside, siege all placed to counter/ cover existing siege . Welcome to the new garbage player WvW post HoT siege humping zergs now equipped with airships and fog.. LOL

This IS the current state of WvW. So much for the fun days of knocking on the door just trying to get the kids to come out and play to have fun.. They just want to sit their lazy rears on siege and never step outside anymore. The players who actually wanted to have fun left already. * Yawn* Better off playing pokemon than spending 6 hours mindlessly wasting time playing siege vs siege. Actually turning on the stove and touching it over and over again would be more entertaining than that…

lil devils x.6071:

Straegen.2938:

NotKalkz.1286:

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

No Dear YB Siegecreeper, Your ACS can’t be cleared even with Ele metors, Hump more

Kalkz you just made my point. Next time build a ballista, counter ac or a treb first and clear the siege. Having followed you for a long time on BP and fighting against your zerg on YB, I know exactly what you do. Show up and if it is easy flip it otherwise move on or come back with a half dozen golems (something you don’t do much anymore). YB is taking advantage of enemy server’s laziness.

Stop being siege meat bags and put a little thought into a flip when it has defenders.

I don’t think you get it… You are not fighting a couple of ACs here… you are fighting a zerg on siege with ACs, balis, cats, generators and trebs vs a smaller group outside, siege all placed to counter/ cover existing siege . Welcome to the new garbage player WvW post HoT siege humping zergs now equipped with airships and fog.. LOL

This IS the current state of WvW. So much for the fun days of knocking on the door just trying to get the kids to come out and play to have fun.. They just want to sit their lazy rears on siege and never step outside anymore. The players who actually wanted to have fun left already. * Yawn* Better off playing pokemon than spending 6 hours mindlessly wasting time playing siege vs siege. Actually turning on the stove and touching it over and over again would be more entertaining than that…

That is the current state of WvW in T1 apparently but not everywhere.

It’s not this in T1 on EU… I don’t see this…
We don’t have too much siege inside our keep, we don’t have any scout anymore…

bloodletting wolf.2837:

lil devils x.6071:

Straegen.2938:

NotKalkz.1286:

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

No Dear YB Siegecreeper, Your ACS can’t be cleared even with Ele metors, Hump more

Kalkz you just made my point. Next time build a ballista, counter ac or a treb first and clear the siege. Having followed you for a long time on BP and fighting against your zerg on YB, I know exactly what you do. Show up and if it is easy flip it otherwise move on or come back with a half dozen golems (something you don’t do much anymore). YB is taking advantage of enemy server’s laziness.

Stop being siege meat bags and put a little thought into a flip when it has defenders.

I don’t think you get it… You are not fighting a couple of ACs here… you are fighting a zerg on siege with ACs, balis, cats, generators and trebs vs a smaller group outside, siege all placed to counter/ cover existing siege . Welcome to the new garbage player WvW post HoT siege humping zergs now equipped with airships and fog.. LOL

This IS the current state of WvW. So much for the fun days of knocking on the door just trying to get the kids to come out and play to have fun.. They just want to sit their lazy rears on siege and never step outside anymore. The players who actually wanted to have fun left already. * Yawn* Better off playing pokemon than spending 6 hours mindlessly wasting time playing siege vs siege. Actually turning on the stove and touching it over and over again would be more entertaining than that…

That is the current state of WvW in T1 apparently but not everywhere.

Your right, MOST servers do not have zergs anymore as it is, so many do not realize that if it can be done by the individual, it can be done by the zerg TO the individual.

lil devils x.6071:

bloodletting wolf.2837:

lil devils x.6071:

Straegen.2938:

NotKalkz.1286:

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

No Dear YB Siegecreeper, Your ACS can’t be cleared even with Ele metors, Hump more

Kalkz you just made my point. Next time build a ballista, counter ac or a treb first and clear the siege. Having followed you for a long time on BP and fighting against your zerg on YB, I know exactly what you do. Show up and if it is easy flip it otherwise move on or come back with a half dozen golems (something you don’t do much anymore). YB is taking advantage of enemy server’s laziness.

Stop being siege meat bags and put a little thought into a flip when it has defenders.

I don’t think you get it… You are not fighting a couple of ACs here… you are fighting a zerg on siege with ACs, balis, cats, generators and trebs vs a smaller group outside, siege all placed to counter/ cover existing siege . Welcome to the new garbage player WvW post HoT siege humping zergs now equipped with airships and fog.. LOL

This IS the current state of WvW. So much for the fun days of knocking on the door just trying to get the kids to come out and play to have fun.. They just want to sit their lazy rears on siege and never step outside anymore. The players who actually wanted to have fun left already. * Yawn* Better off playing pokemon than spending 6 hours mindlessly wasting time playing siege vs siege. Actually turning on the stove and touching it over and over again would be more entertaining than that…

That is the current state of WvW in T1 apparently but not everywhere.

Your right, MOST servers do not have zergs anymore as it is, so many do not realize that if it can be done by the individual, it can be done by the zerg TO the individual.

T1 problems are problems that you all created yourself to the detriment of the servers below you so I have no sympathy for you. Why don’t you manipulate things again so YB drops(causing chaos below you again)?
Maybe you should stop living in your own short sighted bubble and realize that there are other players in tiers that don’t have your problems and it’s not because of a lack of zergs.

No sympathy

bloodletting wolf.2837:

lil devils x.6071:

bloodletting wolf.2837:

lil devils x.6071:

Straegen.2938:

NotKalkz.1286:

Attacking a defended objective is supposed to be difficult and require tactics. Showing up and beating their heads against a gate or wall while under ACs doesn’t mean ACs are OP.

No Dear YB Siegecreeper, Your ACS can’t be cleared even with Ele metors, Hump more

Kalkz you just made my point. Next time build a ballista, counter ac or a treb first and clear the siege. Having followed you for a long time on BP and fighting against your zerg on YB, I know exactly what you do. Show up and if it is easy flip it otherwise move on or come back with a half dozen golems (something you don’t do much anymore). YB is taking advantage of enemy server’s laziness.

Stop being siege meat bags and put a little thought into a flip when it has defenders.

I don’t think you get it… You are not fighting a couple of ACs here… you are fighting a zerg on siege with ACs, balis, cats, generators and trebs vs a smaller group outside, siege all placed to counter/ cover existing siege . Welcome to the new garbage player WvW post HoT siege humping zergs now equipped with airships and fog.. LOL

This IS the current state of WvW. So much for the fun days of knocking on the door just trying to get the kids to come out and play to have fun.. They just want to sit their lazy rears on siege and never step outside anymore. The players who actually wanted to have fun left already. * Yawn* Better off playing pokemon than spending 6 hours mindlessly wasting time playing siege vs siege. Actually turning on the stove and touching it over and over again would be more entertaining than that…

That is the current state of WvW in T1 apparently but not everywhere.

Your right, MOST servers do not have zergs anymore as it is, so many do not realize that if it can be done by the individual, it can be done by the zerg TO the individual.

T1 problems are problems that you all created yourself to the detriment of the servers below you so I have no sympathy for you. Why don’t you manipulate things again so YB drops(causing chaos below you again)?
Maybe you should stop living in your own short sighted bubble and realize that there are other players in tiers that don’t have your problems and it’s not because of a lack of zergs.

No sympathy

No, T1 problems are what happens if the game had population on all servers. You see, T1 just shows what happens where you have the most players. If the game mode was healthy, EVERY server would be like T1. It is a warning of what is to come when they mush together all the dead servers and still have the same PPT valued scoring system rewarding siege humping and ignoring PvP player skill. In the end you only get siege wars with zergs. PvP players leave the game bored and that is all that gets left in it.