Guild Wars 2

I’m going to keep this brief and this is coming from someone who prefers open field fights more than anything else in the game.

Siege Disablers should be removed from the game.

they might as well have just removed flame rams from the game the day they implemented the disabler.

I have to say I’m quite disappointed in the WvW community being unable to run reflect rotations.

So you prefer open field fights? Then what does siege disabler have to do with any open field fights? Absolutely nothing and how does it ruin the game? Learn some new tactics then building multiple rams at once and PVD’ing a gate

things like this ruin the game:
http://youtu.be/CEv9g1EXOeM

and anet doesn’t do anything to stop it

The only logical reason I could see for adding siege disablers into the game is to encourage distance siege and fighting in the open field. Short range siege has been rendered useless with the addition of siege disablers, there HAS to be another option. Yes there are reflection options, but the majority of the guild wars community doesn’t have the coordination to pull off these tactics. Lastly, the addition of siege disablers has greatly increased the amount of time spent taking a tower.

Let’s use a simple math formula that I’m going to pull out of my kitten.

Reward For Playing in WvW = (Karma*Drops*Gold) / Time Spent

It’s simple to see that as you increase the value of Time Spent, you lower the reward people earn for playing in WvW and drive people out of it. Even if siege disablers did encourage more open field fights and increase the amount of drops, as a WvW enthusiast I can say that the most amount of drops in WvW happen after a tower or keep has been breached.

Turtle.4678:

Lastly, the addition of siege disablers has greatly increased the amount of time spent taking a tower.

And that’s probably the main reason it was added. A fully fortified tower/keep shouldn’t be able to be taken in a matter of minutes no matter how many people are banging on the gate.. Doesn’t seem fair that it takes a couple hours to fully upgrade something and then a zerg can just build 3 – 4 rams and get in within a few minutes..

also I think it needs some adjustments but I just don’t see how it ruined the game.

I’m actually fine with the idea of siege disablers. It adds strategy to the game. That is a good thing.

The problem is with the implementation. I’d make one of two changes:

1. Reduce the effect duration by half
2. Keep the duration, but make the siege disabler require line of site and be single target.

Don’t worry. Anet’s got a fix: remove white swords.

Jerus.4350:

I have to say I’m quite disappointed in the WvW community being unable to run reflect rotations.

Lets talk about this.
Attackers will place 2 rams on gate and run reflect rotations. Because there is not much mesmers and eles, they will probably go with guardian Wall of Reflection.
Defenders will drop siege disabler on inner side of gate. If defender is not stupid he will throw it on ground just in front of gate.
This will result in disabling rams because just the throw can be reflected not effect itself.

Please take disablers out of the game. They are a waste of everyone’s time.

I wasn’t a fan of disablers in the beginning but they are creating more fights. Previously groups might have little time to respond to a big attack. Now attackers have to be more creative in siege placement and will likely get more incoming attackers.

This has negatively effected small teams but the offset of more fights is a reasonable trade off to me.

This is a tough subject to cover carefully. Previously, Defenders had little in the way of options. Sometimes use of defensive siege inside of nodes would be enough to ward off would be attackers and sometimes not. The fights would sometimes play for that node, for better or worse. I think now what siege disablers have done is they have drawn out some fights to span lengths of time that some cant even stick around long enough to finish. Some fights for keeps are lasting long enough that multiple people have logged in, tried to help where they could, and then logged out not being able to see either victory or defeat. Strategy and counter-strategy is what it all comes down to but all things being equal its just more of a stalemate and the fight(and node) will go to whoever has the most time slot coverage.

it beats having to build trebs/cata inside a tower to hit the inside of our own gate in order to destroy the enemy rams. It needs a more visible projectile to encourage blockers and it needs to be blockable from anywhere in its effect are even if the actual projectile doesnt hit the block

my opinion remove all siege Weapons from wvw make it man power like this is beter to make people to play more fight and not stay inside towers and play with AC just boost the people to do more dmg on normal or skills atk on gate and yeah towers must a bit stronger and not to be taken in minute and like Force people to defent keep & towers with fights but if you like siege Weapons just leave the ram only but not like 5 ram in gate max 2 and people that are inside can not dmg behind the gate only from wall or with outside fights but with man powers

I am okay with the disablers. I am not okay with the favt that they can be spammed back on siege as soon as the effect wears off. They are a great idea for a scout to be able to buy time for help to arrive. To have siege disabled permanently is ridiculous. As I see it, a simple immunity to being disabled for 30s to 60s, could be a reasonable balance.

I disagree that siege disablers gave more open-field fights.

It’s either defenders just sit inside the tower/keep and throw disablers or a prolonged long range siege battle with occasional yolo/stealth disabler runs till its 10 v 50

retsuya.4708:

I disagree that siege disablers gave more open-field fights.

It’s either defenders just sit inside the tower/keep and throw disablers or a prolonged long range siege battle with occasional yolo/stealth disabler runs till its 10 v 50

This has been my experience. People just keep disabling siege until they can get counter siege to take yours down or until they outnumber you by at least 3 to 1 before they will engage you.

If you are in a zerg of your own you will have enough people to run bubble rotations or even just PvD once you are disabled. There were already enough reasons to blob, this shouldn’t have been added.

I agree with the notion of helping defenders defend longer against large zergs.

I don’t agree with them being spammable, which is something we all vehemently warned them about before they were even implemented. As they are, they’re way too powerful. If they gave siege a buff that made them immune to disablers for a minute or two after being disabled, it would be a lot more balanced than it is currently.

Right now, defenders can hold off the enemy indefinitely if the tower has supply, unless they start PvDooring. Which happens pretty often now since there’s no other way to get into a tower…and I don’t think that’s what they intended WvW to become. Or at least, I seriously hope not.

I assume the reasoning behind making it spammable is to force attackers to drop more siege when assaulting in order to help clear some siege from the trading post. I cant come up with a solid reason that makes sense other than that. That one doesn’t make much sense as it is.

Funny story, small group of us were assaulting a keep and what should’ve taken 5 mins was drawn out to about 40 minutes because of 1 defender. He could spam disablers on rams at gate. No problem, we will make catas further back. Nope. He can stealth out to catas and disable and immediately stealth back into keep and disable rams again. We could’ve made more siege weapons but at this point its just an annoyance and why bother? Same thing again on inner gate.

Could we have built trebs and made the long distance more of a pain for him to contend with? Sure. Treb is always the way to go. Could we have spread out siege out all over the map to keep at least one siege weapon going at all times? Yup. Mostly we just wanted to see how long one guy could keep this up while he had the supply to do so.

5 Minutes turned into 40 minutes. That’s 40 minutes of no rewards. No loot, no world exp, no fun fights, etc… Just a few of us staring at a gate wondering who thought siege disablers would be a good idea. #annoyed to no end

I think the disablers need a long cd like the Ash Legion Spy Kits.

they can just spam it!! like there is no siege at all…

If I spent 4 hours to get a T3 keep with full supplies, I’m not going to let anyone take it in under 10 minutes because they decided to use 4+ superior rams.

RedStar.4218:

If I spent 4 hours to get a T3 keep with full supplies, I’m not going to let anyone take it in under 10 minutes because they decided to use 4+ superior rams.

That is utterly beside the point. Of course you will use all you have to protect what you build.

The point is, siege disablers do a lot more bad than good. It is yet another “solution” that benefit the stronger server more than it does the others. Any solution that benefit the stronger server is not a solution.

It’s pretty on-off tool at the moment. If it lands, tough luck for the siege users. No using for next 40 seconds. Kinda lame, yes. It’s something we needed, but not as powerful as it is.

I would see it more fit if it worked a bit like debuff for the siege. Make the cooldowns increase by 100% so they are 50% less effective. This way they work as intended, slow the momentum and not totally stop it.

Also, I just threw the numbers there. The cooldown increase could be anywhere from 100% to 200% I suppose.

Nothing wrong with siege disablers imo. You got your 3+ rams disabled ? then build a cata or a treb far back and protect it instead of blob on the gate.

sminkiottone.6972:

Nothing wrong with siege disablers imo. You got your 3+ rams disabled ? then build a cata or a treb far back and protect it instead of blob on the gate.

Again, that way you always will benefit the most powerful server (that is the most crowded). No way to build 3-4 rams and a trebuched with 20 people, even more when other server can disable teh trebuchet too. Is too op atm, and the strongest server will be more benefited than the others

They do need a nerf,either remove them from being AOE so only 1 siege is affected or lower that timer on being disabled.

Caedmon.6798:

They do need a nerf,either remove them from being AOE so only 1 siege is affected or lower that timer on being disabled.

Agree with that, cap the target sieges, nerf the disable time a bit or even do what someone proposed here, just make the CD go really high, so it will slow the process while siege is still up to use

antonbalboa.7280:

sminkiottone.6972:

Nothing wrong with siege disablers imo. You got your 3+ rams disabled ? then build a cata or a treb far back and protect it instead of blob on the gate.

Again, that way you always will benefit the most powerful server (that is the most crowded). No way to build 3-4 rams and a trebuched with 20 people, even more when other server can disable teh trebuchet too. Is too op atm, and the strongest server will be more benefited than the others

I don’t know about you, but I and my guild mates always run with 20 supplys each and a treb costs only 100, with 20 people you can build 4 trebs lol, if all 20 of you are new to WvW and without a guild you can still build 2 rams and 1 treb, you can also make supply runs or ask a WvW guild to claim a supply depot if you need more supplys.

I’m not sure about “the strongest server is advantaged”, few weeks me and other 5 people managed to defend bay from a zerg of 30+ only thanks to these siege disablers.
Those traps punish only the mindless zergs and give defenders enough time to react, if a group is well organized they will take the tower/keep no matter how many siege disablers you trow at them.

Caedmon.6798:

They do need a nerf,either remove them from being AOE so only 1 siege is affected or lower that timer on being disabled.

It wont be usefull then if you can only effect 1 siege

try to put your siege outside of throwing range once and have 2-3 players with brains to stand between the siege and the disabler-guy for once
yeah, instead of deploying that catapult 1 meter from the wall deploy it further away
requires too much thinking? you can’t simply waltz inside a t3 tower now with your flame rams, you actually have to think a little? how horrible

Well…how about siege disablers can’t be deployed by Server 1 if they outnumber the targeted Server?

Simple. Massive zergs can’t use Siege disablers.

I think there should also be a debuff. If you Outnumber other servers, it doubles (?) the amount of supply you need to build siege.

Getting rid of white swords is their fix for siege disablers. Genius, right?

It’s really only k-trainers that have a problem with it.

And if you don’t consider yourself a k-trainer but still insist on clustering your siege rather than adapting to a new defensive tool… you’re a k-trainer. Switch to catapults or trebs and spread them out enough that a single siege disabler can’t hit them all.

Or if you must use rams, use them on the wider gates that let you put them at extreme opposite sides.

Or use golems, which get disabled for much less time.

You have options, so stop crying that the way you’re used to doesn’t work anymore. The game is heavily tilted toward offense over defense as it is. Spec to provide barriers to the disablers too – they’re a thrown projectile.

Scryeless.1924:

5 Minutes turned into 40 minutes. That’s 40 minutes of no rewards. No loot, no world exp, no fun fights, etc… Just a few of us staring at a gate wondering who thought siege disablers would be a good idea. #annoyed to no end

I think the disablers need a long cd like the Ash Legion Spy Kits.

I completely agree. If you’re going to keep them in the game, which I think is a mistake, there should be a really large cool down so people can’t chain disable siege and render it useless.

Poor zergs get mad when their trains get derailed by siege disabliers….I’m not feeling y’all’s pain.

Sreoom.3690:

Poor zergs get mad when their trains get derailed by siege disabliers….I’m not feeling y’all’s pain.

as if k-train zergs are affected by siege disablers, they have a ton of supplies and capable of wrecking a gate with bare hands.

problem is, 5-10 man gameplay is rendered useless.

Sreoom.3690:

Poor zergs get mad when their trains get derailed by siege disabliers….I’m not feeling y’all’s pain.

It doesn’t have to be a zerg. It is the same if it is a single scout against a 5 man group or 2 groups of 5 each. Why should the be forced to have to assault a door with their characters when a smaller number of defenders already have counter seige?

I think being able to disable them on a limited bases, in order to slow them down until help arrives, makes sense. The problem is that walls cannot be damage by player characters, yet the siege that can damage walls, can be permanently disabled by rotating out a minimal amount of defenders, to redisable, and allow no siege uptime.

Sreoom.3690:

Poor zergs get mad when their trains get derailed by siege disabliers….I’m not feeling y’all’s pain.

You should try roaming. There is a whole other life out there besides zerging. Small havocs are what was impacted by this change. For zergs it is an inconvenience, but not a killer.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

RedStar.4218:

If I spent 4 hours to get a T3 keep with full supplies, I’m not going to let anyone take it in under 10 minutes because they decided to use 4+ superior rams.

That is utterly beside the point. Of course you will use all you have to protect what you build.

The point is, siege disablers do a lot more bad than good. It is yet another “solution” that benefit the stronger server more than it does the others. Any solution that benefit the stronger server is not a solution.

It’s not beside the point at all.

Only reason I can spam it is because I have supplies. And because the opponent is trying to take an objective with rams or tightly positioned catapults.

And it also benefits the weaker servers. It allows 3 defenders to build siege and push away 25+ attackers. Or gives more time for other defenders to come in.
But if the defenders have nothing to push away the attackers, siege disablers are simply going to drag on the inevitable.

The ability to spam them can be considered too good. But so is using 4 sup rams on a gate.

It forces strategic play, which is something that has gone down quite considerably in the past year from my observation (bronze tier and bottom silver). Unfortunately, some players aren’t willing to adapt and then complain about how siege disablers are a completely broken mechanic.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Getting rid of white swords is their fix for siege disablers. Genius, right?

What you wouldnt chop off your hand if your leg had gangreen?

Currently I feel they are pretty over powered. I like them, and I use them a lot, but here is my suggestion on how to improve their function.

I think the siege that got disabled should get an immunity to siege disablers buff for 20 seconds afterword. So at least you can get a brief window to use your siege, before they get spammed over and over, and eventually are destroyed.

That still makes them very effective to stall time for reinforcements, while not getting totally blocked from siege disabler spamming.

sminkiottone.6972:

antonbalboa.7280:

sminkiottone.6972:

Nothing wrong with siege disablers imo. You got your 3+ rams disabled ? then build a cata or a treb far back and protect it instead of blob on the gate.

Again, that way you always will benefit the most powerful server (that is the most crowded). No way to build 3-4 rams and a trebuched with 20 people, even more when other server can disable teh trebuchet too. Is too op atm, and the strongest server will be more benefited than the others

I don’t know about you, but I and my guild mates always run with 20 supplys each and a treb costs only 100, with 20 people you can build 4 trebs lol, if all 20 of you are new to WvW and without a guild you can still build 2 rams and 1 treb, you can also make supply runs or ask a WvW guild to claim a supply depot if you need more supplys.

I’m not sure about “the strongest server is advantaged”, few weeks me and other 5 people managed to defend bay from a zerg of 30+ only thanks to these siege disablers.
Those traps punish only the mindless zergs and give defenders enough time to react, if a group is well organized they will take the tower/keep no matter how many siege disablers you trow at them.

Caedmon.6798:

They do need a nerf,either remove them from being AOE so only 1 siege is affected or lower that timer on being disabled.

It wont be usefull then if you can only effect 1 siege

I’m sorry but using anecdotal logic to “counter” the argument that siege disablers will always favor the strongest is plain fallacious.

No matter what you say, or how in love with your own hype you are, all things being equals, more players = more supplies. Supplies is the name of this game. When you are a zerg of 30 + you don’t care too much to waste 3 rams. When you are 5, this is a disaster.

Beside, it’s not like siege disablers are hard to use and easy to counter. It is as close to fool proof as can be.

More importantly, there was already counter propositions to your opponent’s siege deployment that were using supplies: other siege weapons. Why was that solution needed? All it did was move the same problem around. He who has more supplies will prevail all things being equal.

The only way this could have been a good idea is if the siege disabler was only usable if the siege you try to disable comes from a team that has a higher score than you. If they ever introduce such a condition, very easy to implement, the siege disabler would become relevant. Otherwise, it is a pure waste of time.

RedStar.4218:

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

RedStar.4218:

If I spent 4 hours to get a T3 keep with full supplies, I’m not going to let anyone take it in under 10 minutes because they decided to use 4+ superior rams.

That is utterly beside the point. Of course you will use all you have to protect what you build.

The point is, siege disablers do a lot more bad than good. It is yet another “solution” that benefit the stronger server more than it does the others. Any solution that benefit the stronger server is not a solution.

It’s not beside the point at all.

Only reason I can spam it is because I have supplies. And because the opponent is trying to take an objective with rams or tightly positioned catapults.

And it also benefits the weaker servers. It allows 3 defenders to build siege and push away 25+ attackers. Or gives more time for other defenders to come in.
But if the defenders have nothing to push away the attackers, siege disablers are simply going to drag on the inevitable.

The ability to spam them can be considered too good. But so is using 4 sup rams on a gate.

It forces strategic play, which is something that has gone down quite considerably in the past year from my observation (bronze tier and bottom silver). Unfortunately, some players aren’t willing to adapt and then complain about how siege disablers are a completely broken mechanic.

No, it is beside the point unless you can convince anyone that the siege disabler is as good for the weaker server as it is for the strongest. Good luck with that.

As useful as it was for you, the same, and more, is true for the strongest force. This was a bad implementation. If this makes it harder for the strongest player to take your precious T3 structure, imagine what it does to weaker server.

Siege disablers has only one purpose: delay. If you are alone in your T3 tower on a server were you are 5 playing, you are only prolonging your agony. If you are alone in the same tower but you know you have tons of buddies away that only need time to come back, taking that T3 might be impossible even when there is only 1 guy inside. And placing one guy in every structure is something the bigger server can do but not the little one.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

I’m sorry but using anecdotal logic to “counter” the argument that siege disablers will always favor the strongest is plain fallacious.

At least I bring something usefull to the thread instead of whining.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

No matter what you say, or how in love with your own hype you are, all things being equals, more players = more supplies. Supplies is the name of this game. When you are a zerg of 30 + you don’t care too much to waste 3 rams. When you are 5, this is a disaster.

LOL, a zerg of 30+ can only take so much supplys, after a while every camp will be empty and they will waste a lot of time resupplying, if you are 5vs30 you need to be smart, retake supply camps then use supply traps and place siege disablers, this will slow down the zerg that eventually will jump to another map.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Beside, it’s not like siege disablers are hard to use and easy to counter. It is as close to fool proof as can be.

You know you can kill the guy with a trap right ? it’s not like hes invulnerable, if they disable you rams you just need to step back and build catas/trebs, then protect them instead of autoattacking the gate like any zerglings do.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

No, it is beside the point unless you can convince anyone that the siege disabler is as good for the weaker server as it is for the strongest. Good luck with that.

As useful as it was for you, the same, and more, is true for the strongest force. This was a bad implementation. If this makes it harder for the strongest player to take your precious T3 structure, imagine what it does to weaker server.

Siege disablers has only one purpose: delay. If you are alone in your T3 tower on a server were you are 5 playing, you are only prolonging your agony. If you are alone in the same tower but you know you have tons of buddies away that only need time to come back, taking that T3 might be impossible even when there is only 1 guy inside. And placing one guy in every structure is something the bigger server can do but not the little one.

How low are we talking ? I mean I’m from higher bronze, not even silver.
And 5 players can hold off a zerg dumb enough to not think about siege disablers when they put 4 superior rams.

I understand the complaints from havoc groups who are trying to take objectives while everyone else is busy.

But if the weaker server main “zerg” is 10 players (assuming best case scenario, that’s 200 supplies, so 4 superior rams), siege disablers or not they would most likely get killed by the time they get to the lord if the stronger server is that strong to put scouts in every tower (and because it’s the strongest server, of course everything is going to be fortified).

Has the populations of lowest bronze US diminish that much ? Is there such a huge population divide in the same tier (not talking about number 7 facing 11 and 13). Or are we only talking about night cap time ?

And really, speaking from spending excessively a lot of time in WvW for the past month, I’m quite shocked about how little siege disablers are being used.
I’m abusing the kitten out of it (and sometimes my opponents are really smart), but it’s not as widespread on my server or my opponents.

So is this huge complaint about siege disablers just something some players are extremely vocal about ? Or am I playing in the only tier right now where this isn’t a rampaging problem ?

At least I bring something usefull to the thread instead of whining.

1) Stating a fact != than whining.
2) You actually bring nothing relevant to the problem. Does any of what you propose counter the fact siege disablers is a greater advantage to the bigger server than it is the smaller one? If not then scratch the adjective “useful” from what you said above.
3) I did proposed a solution: siege disablers only work if used on a siege belonging to a server that has a score that is higher than yours. Easy to implement and it would prevent the vicious effects we see.

LOL, a zerg of 30+ can only take so much supplys, after a while every camp will be empty and they will waste a lot of time resupplying, if you are 5vs30 you need to be smart, retake supply camps then use supply traps and place siege disablers, this will slow down the zerg that eventually will jump to another map.

That is a pretty lame counter if we can even call it that. Regardless of the amount of supply available in any camp, all things being equal, a group of 30+ people will carry 6+ times more supplies than the group of 5. And that is BEFORE even going for a refill o any camp that the group of 30+ will have no problem keeping if it wants to. We aren’t talking the same impact at all from being on the receiving end of a siege disabler.

You know you can kill the guy with a trap right ? it’s not like hes invulnerable, if they disable you rams you just need to step back and build catas/trebs, then protect them instead of autoattacking the gate like any zerglings do.

Are you being obstructive on purpose or you just can’t get the point for some obscure reasons? Of course anybody can kill anybody. But tell me, how does your answer here counter anything about the argument the new toy called “siege disabler” tipping the odds even further in favor of the bigger server?

The facts are:

1) 30 ppl will have more supplies than 5 ppl. Therefore, able to deploy more sieges and use more disablers.

2) 30 ppl will have no problem resing any dead people or keeping any camp it wants to keep, The opposite isn’t true at all.

3) 30 ppl loosing 3 rams can fall back on other sieges and just rebuild them. 5 ppl loosing 3 rams are stopped cold.

4) A big server gaining time thanks to siege disabler = win. A low pop server gaining time = agony since there are no reinforcements available anyway so you only prolong your loss by seconds.

5) Yes, 1 player can kill 5 in theory. But 5 an easily kill one 99.99% of the time. All things being equal, whatever 1 player can do, 5 can do it more and better.

TL;DR: Does what you answer change anything to the fact siege disablers tips the odds even further in favor of the big server? If yes, I’m listening, if not stop wasting my time and server space.

RedStar.4218:

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

No, it is beside the point unless you can convince anyone that the siege disabler is as good for the weaker server as it is for the strongest. Good luck with that.

As useful as it was for you, the same, and more, is true for the strongest force. This was a bad implementation. If this makes it harder for the strongest player to take your precious T3 structure, imagine what it does to weaker server.

Siege disablers has only one purpose: delay. If you are alone in your T3 tower on a server were you are 5 playing, you are only prolonging your agony. If you are alone in the same tower but you know you have tons of buddies away that only need time to come back, taking that T3 might be impossible even when there is only 1 guy inside. And placing one guy in every structure is something the bigger server can do but not the little one.

How low are we talking ? I mean I’m from higher bronze, not even silver.
And 5 players can hold off a zerg dumb enough to not think about siege disablers when they put 4 superior rams.

I understand the complaints from havoc groups who are trying to take objectives while everyone else is busy.

But if the weaker server main “zerg” is 10 players (assuming best case scenario, that’s 200 supplies, so 4 superior rams), siege disablers or not they would most likely get killed by the time they get to the lord if the stronger server is that strong to put scouts in every tower (and because it’s the strongest server, of course everything is going to be fortified).

Has the populations of lowest bronze US diminish that much ? Is there such a huge population divide in the same tier (not talking about number 7 facing 11 and 13). Or are we only talking about night cap time ?

And really, speaking from spending excessively a lot of time in WvW for the past month, I’m quite shocked about how little siege disablers are being used.
I’m abusing the kitten out of it (and sometimes my opponents are really smart), but it’s not as widespread on my server or my opponents.

So is this huge complaint about siege disablers just something some players are extremely vocal about ? Or am I playing in the only tier right now where this isn’t a rampaging problem ?

It absolutely doesn’t matter how many we are speaking of. The concept remain the same. Siege disablers tips the odds even further in favor of the big server. Full stop. Any idea that produce that effect is bad as far as WvW is concerned.

briggah.7910:

Doesn’t seem fair that it takes a couple hours to fully upgrade something and then a zerg can just build 3 – 4 rams and get in within a few minutes..

This argument doesn’t work for me. A few minutes is more than enough time for a server to respond and an upgraded tower takes at least 10 minutes to take with 1 person inside. If a server doesn’t want to respond to save an upgraded tower then they should be punished for it. Hitting an unmanned tower is simply good strategy, and instead of punishing players for not defending their upgraded keeps, Anet is eliminating strategy all together.

My bottom line: The element of surprise was on of the greatest weapons lower population servers had to compete with higher population servers. Anet took that away, created greater imbalance, and are trying to give that back with the removal of white swords. Siege disablers ruined the game.

Allow each player to carry only TWO siege disablers MAX at any given time.

As long as you can PvDoor siege disablers don’t stop zergs, they only stop smaller groups. Some of us are looking for something more from WvW than blobbing up and steamrolling.

5-10 player groups just have to use catapults or trebuchets from a distance. They can still be hit by siege disablers but it’s easier to counter.