Guild Wars 2

-1 here. The answer to siege is counter siege. Do larger forces use siege against smaller forces yes, but limiting it hurts the true purpose which is to allow a smaller force in a fortified position a better chance of holding out or making a larger force pay the price for taking a structure. A lot of time forces don’t counter siege which is the problem. There is a paper rock scissors on siege that a lot of people don’t employee. ACs are a close in counter to rams and PvD and wall catapults. Catapults and trebs are counters to ACs.

On top of that before anything would change with this would like to see the scoring change go in for more PPT per level of fortified structure. This change will create an environment where people will need to learn to crack those fortified objective and others to defend more. Additional to that is whatever ANet has in works about options for deploy-able cannon or mortar which seems to be additional counters to ACs.

Not opposed to upping the reward for people fighting hand to hand, but don’t want to discourage people to defend, I like PPK but it also creates the thought in some on why fight and lose since you reward the larger force. We don’t want even less incentive to defenders.

Making walls more useful to defenders using their character’s skills is a good idea.

Giving less incentive to use siege is not. Defensive siege is not overpowered; it is currently the only thing that gives the side with less players a reasonable boost. Yes, making walls something other than a kill zone for standing on them would help, but not enough.

Specifically removing PPK for kills using siege is an awful idea. The big server in any matchup already has a huge PPK advantage because 30 v 15, or 10 v 5 or 4 v 1 is obviously an advantage in getting kills. We don’t need to remove one of the few ways the smaller server has to try to even things up a bit.

Give you an example of why counter siege can be fun. Comm tag with a pug warband set up a counter treb spot on enemy keep in EB this weekend. It created an environment where both the defender and the third side tried to dislodge the trebs and attackers which prompted an increase in open field fighting as trebs were defended. In the meantime it created an environment where havocs were able to break off and try assaults on secondary targets that now had reduced defenders. This lasted for an hour and a half and was a blast even if in the end the defenders were able to push off the assault on the inner.

Now in this scenario would I fault the defenders from using siege, no. Should they be rewarded for repulsing the assault, yes. The counter siege also did what it was suppose to do and draw the enemy out to try and dislodge it. The third side was just looking for a fight but that is fine as well, the siege in this case poised them no threat but created an environment that triggered additional fights.

Can siege be used by a larger force yes, that’s why siege should not be made to be cheap, there should be a price to deploying it and have timers that need to be maintained. But defenders should be discouraged from defending by using it.

2 cents.

Xernth.8561:

Making walls more useful to defenders using their character’s skills is a good idea.

Giving less incentive to use siege is not. Defensive siege is not overpowered; it is currently the only thing that gives the side with less players a reasonable boost. Yes, making walls something other than a kill zone for standing on them would help, but not enough.

DBL’s design started to introduce this. Even if the map was removed I am hoping that these concepts can be retro fitted into ABL and EB in the future.

TheGrimm.5624:

Give you an example of why counter siege can be fun. Comm tag with a pug warband set up a counter treb spot on enemy keep in EB this weekend. It created an environment where both the defender and the third side tried to dislodge the trebs and attackers which prompted an increase in open field fighting as trebs were defended. In the meantime it created an environment where havocs were able to break off and try assaults on secondary targets that now had reduced defenders. This lasted for an hour and a half and was a blast even if in the end the defenders were able to push off the assault on the inner.

Now in this scenario would I fault the defenders from using siege, no. Should they be rewarded for repulsing the assault, yes. The counter siege also did what it was suppose to do and draw the enemy out to try and dislodge it. The third side was just looking for a fight but that is fine as well, the siege in this case poised them no threat but created an environment that triggered additional fights.

Can siege be used by a larger force yes, that’s why siege should not be made to be cheap, there should be a price to deploying it and have timers that need to be maintained. But defenders should be discouraged from defending by using it.

2 cents.

Siege not being cheap makes that harder on the smaller force, not the larger force.. The larger force has more players contributing to the siege so they have wayy more. Money is not an issue for larger forces. Making it more expensive only hurts the little guys. In larger forces they throw money around like it is nothing… Bubba just got a 100g tip for running a boon share mesmer for a short while last night .. reducing how much can be thrown in an area would reduce the number of players that could use it at once, but outside of that and making deterrents for doing so, the zerg will do whatever they can to get on it on servers that promote that style of game play. Bottom line is when players are using siege instead of their players to fight it just rewards lazy game play and makes it boring for anyone who kills their AC then they still won’t fight and run off instead.
That is lame, not fun.

The cannon and mortar placements in DBL are the most hilariously bad ideas I’ve ever seen in several cases.

Let’s see, if I walk out onto that narrow un-sheltered ledge over the bad guys, I might be able to get on the cannon. What could possibly go wrong?

I understand what you mean, and you’re right to a certain extent, but walls need to do more than what they do in DBL to be viable.

Xernth.8561:

The cannon and mortar placements in DBL are the most hilariously bad ideas I’ve ever seen in several cases.

Let’s see, if I walk out onto that narrow un-sheltered ledge over the bad guys, I might be able to get on the cannon. What could possibly go wrong?

I understand what you mean, and you’re right to a certain extent, but walls need to do more than what they do in DBL to be viable.

Not just the DBL.. don’t they know why actual castle walls had all those holes in them and the players would hide behind and shoot out and then hide? Where is that mechanic in any of their fortresses? Here the walls are death traps, they should be at least useful. not OP, but where they offer some protection and advantage than they currently do.

Superior Arrow carts are fine as is. They wreck point blank catapults, pressure flame rams, and deter players. However, regular arrow carts are completely useless. Too weak to pressure flame rams, destroy catapults in a timely manner, or deter players. They should be removed entirely, because they are a total waste of supply.

General population don’t care about PPK, if they do, they would have used wvw builds.

I don’t think general population will care about loots from body either, you already get rewarded via reward trek. However, thinking of a perspective that general population that do care about loots from body, they will just altogether stop doing WvW and make lots of complain in the forums

+1
Siege damage on players should not reward the users with bags/wexp.
The “reward” for using siege should just be the ability to defend/take over the objective.

Vova.2640:

+1
Siege damage on players should not reward the users with bags/wexp.
The “reward” for using siege should just be the ability to defend/take over the objective.

In that instance, I would never jump on a ram to open a gate again.

lil devils x.6071:

As for siege trolls, I was told that if players were building usesless siege just to aggravate other players we were supposed to report them for botting and a dev would come watch them and ban them if they found they were actually trolling. That is what we have been doing for years to address that issue.

If there’s going to be an appeal to tradition to argue for something, guess what else we’ve been doing for years. Playing WvW with siege and getting loot from it.

Organised groups can deal with any amount of ACs and take objectives.
They will use AoE bombing,counter siege,and coordinated mass heals for their groups.
Pug blobs won’t be organised and will get decimated.
Working as intended I believe.
Given the size of attacking blobs,I’d say AC damage is a bit low.
It should get a slight buff,maybe 10% more damage.
Not to mention you can always build your siege engines out of AC range and take out any walls or gates you want.

Aenaos.8160:

Given the size of attacking blobs,I’d say AC damage is a bit low.

Counter-intuitively, the actual effect is the opposite. When AC damage was buffed a few years ago, blobs attacking defended keeps got bigger. Anytime something defensive is buffed, the offense side has to bring bigger numbers in order to be successful.

Chaba.5410:

Aenaos.8160:

Given the size of attacking blobs,I’d say AC damage is a bit low.

Counter-intuitively, the actual effect is the opposite. When AC damage was buffed a few years ago, blobs attacking defended keeps got bigger. Anytime something defensive is buffed, the offense side has to bring bigger numbers in order to be successful.

That is just the thing people are not realizing. This doesn’t help the little guy against the zerg, the zerg can handle their ACs and bulk up even bigger and still kick their teeth in. What this actually hurts is the smaller guilds, havoc and roamers making them ineffective rendering them useless against objectives that are sieged. Blobs just get bigger and havoc becomes obsolete.