Guild Wars 2

Ben K.6238:

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.

Not when they can be thrown from stealth, or by a warrior that can pop immunity and run strait up to it.

Really the only chance small groups had was the element of surprise. Before you’d end up fighting the small group that showed up to scout the swords, now they can just delay you and call in a zerg.

That doesn’t equal fights, it equals bigger blobs and more bandwaggoning.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

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.

If you don’t realize that siege disablers are OP only against zerglings then it’s pointless discussing, you can whine or adapt and use your head, simple.

BTW : It’s obvious that 30vs5 the 30 are at great advantage even without supplys/traps/brain, but a 30vs20 or 30vs30 ? the group that coordinate better wins, the 30 people can even have 1000 supplys, but if they keep placing 3/4 rams on the same palce over and over they will waste time and resources and people will just disband and lose interest.

Don’t ask ANet to remove them. Unless it’s entirely kittening up the game mode (which it isn’t tbh, if it’s still ver annoying), it’s not going to happen.

I’m just waiting for them to nerf siege disablers like they said they were considering. Just half the disabler’s radius, range, and duration (30s max, preferably 20-25s). Maybe make it a 1s channel to allow for people to actually be able to reflect, bubble, or swirling winds to counter the disabler’s deployment.

Don’t ask ANet to remove them. Unless it’s entirely kittening up the game mode (which it isn’t tbh, if it’s still very annoying), it’s not going to happen.

I’m just waiting for them to nerf siege disablers like they said they were considering. Just half the disabler’s radius, range, and duration (30s max, preferably 20-25s). Maybe make it a 1s channel to allow for people to actually be able to reflect, bubble, or swirling winds to counter the disabler’s deployment.

If you don’t realize that siege disablers are OP only against zerglings then it’s pointless discussing, you can whine or adapt and use your head, simple.

I hope I misinterpret you here because if not what you say is pretty kitten.

“Siege disablers are only OP vs zerglings”? Do you mean vs Zergs or vs people who can’t play unless in a zerg? But anyway, even in both case it is kitten to say such things. You don’t need to be good to carry supplies and the fact of the matter is siege disabers are going to be even more of a pain on the under dog than it can be on any zerg for the very simple mathematical reason you have less supply to fall back on. Skill is irrelevant on that matter.

BTW : It’s obvious that 30vs5 the 30 are at great advantage even without supplys/traps/brain, but a 30vs20 or 30vs30 ? the group that coordinate better wins, the 30 people can even have 1000 supplys, but if they keep placing 3/4 rams on the same palce over and over they will waste time and resources and people will just disband and lose interest.

So it is a reading skill problem…

But that was never the point of the rebuttal at all. The point is, the introduction of that tool, all things being equal, is making something bad even worse.

Beside, of course you can explain everything with skill difference when you argue your point as if all others were complete morons.

What does it matter if they are billions with infinite supplies if they are so dumb? We, OTOH, are so smart we can compensate all odds with out superior skills. It never occurred to you that some group, no matter how big, can be just as skillful and smart as you (hence the use of “all things being equals” in all of my replies since start)? What then? Does the initial rebuttal seem to have more credit when the group isn’t as kitten as you paint them when you argue?

Basch.1347:

Don’t ask ANet to remove them. Unless it’s entirely kittening up the game mode (which it isn’t tbh, if it’s still very annoying), it’s not going to happen.

I’m just waiting for them to nerf siege disablers like they said they were considering. Just half the disabler’s radius, range, and duration (30s max, preferably 20-25s). Maybe make it a 1s channel to allow for people to actually be able to reflect, bubble, or swirling winds to counter the disabler’s deployment.

They don’t even have to nerf or remove it. Just add one code line testing the score of the siege disabler user team vs the score of the siege weapon to be disabled owner to decide if you can use it. They already test the usage of the tool to see if you have enough suply to use it!!

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

I hope I misinterpret you here because if not what you say is pretty kitten.

“Siege disablers are only OP vs zerglings”? Do you mean vs Zergs or vs people who can’t play unless in a zerg? But anyway, even in both case it is kitten to say such things. You don’t need to be good to carry supplies and the fact of the matter is siege disabers are going to be even more of a pain on the under dog than it can be on any zerg for the very simple mathematical reason you have less supply to fall back on. Skill is irrelevant on that matter.

False, zerglings to me are those that only play in zerg and are unable to think outside the classic “lets build 3+ rams at the same time and autoattack the door”, siege disablers are only a pain to those people, I never had any issue with siege disabler because I tacticaly place my sieges.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

So it is a reading skill problem…

But that was never the point of the rebuttal at all. The point is, the introduction of that tool, all things being equal, is making something bad even worse.

Beside, of course you can explain everything with skill difference when you argue your point as if all others were complete morons.

What does it matter if they are billions with infinite supplies if they are so dumb? We, OTOH, are so smart we can compensate all odds with out superior skills. It never occurred to you that some group, no matter how big, can be just as skillful and smart as you (hence the use of “all things being equals” in all of my replies since start)? What then? Does the initial rebuttal seem to have more credit when the group isn’t as kitten as you paint them when you argue?

You really don’t get it, siege disabler does not make a bigger zerg more powerfull, the onyl thing that does is giving time to lesser populated servers to call for reinforcements.
Before siege disablers introduction a map jumping zerg of 30 + would costantly jump and flip every bl in a neverending circle of K-train (Edit : the classic morning/mid day reset). Now if you are able to coordinate with 5/10 people you can prevent them from resetting the Garry or T3 keeps while you ask for help from other bls or ebg.

If you really can’t manage to place and defend your sieges then you should do something else instead of whining like a baby.

False, zerglings to me are those that only play in zerg and are unable to think outside the classic “lets build 3+ rams at the same time and autoattack the door”, siege disablers are only a pain to those people, I never had any issue with siege disabler because I tacticaly place my sieges.

You really don’t get it, siege disabler does not make a bigger zerg more powerfull, the onyl thing that does is giving time to lesser populated servers to call for reinforcements.
Before siege disablers introduction a map jumping zerg of 30 + would costantly jump and flip every bl in a neverending circle of K-train (Edit : the classic morning/mid day reset). Now if you are able to coordinate with 5/10 people you can prevent them from resetting the Garry or T3 keeps while you ask for help from other bls or ebg.

If you really can’t manage to place and defend your sieges then you should do something else instead of whining like a baby.

I fail to see the “whining like a baby part” when I address a fact. At least I sound less whiny than you apparently whining about my post.

But back to the point, even so, it was completely false to say siege disabler is only OP in that case.

That being said, I see the main problem we have. You reason and argue in terms of local groups, while I reason and argue in terms of server.

When I say siege disabler benefit more the big server I mean the SERVER as a whole. Not just the local group passing by. Sure you can be in local inferiority, but that is so not important when you have all the backup in the world mere minutes away.

I look at the global effect adding that thing had. It is like removing the Orbs to put the ruins… a complete miss. You remove the Orb because it was amplifying a problem and you replace it with solution that does the same. With the siege disabler it is not merely the same, it is making things worst.

You didn’t like loosing your towers to a K-train? I myself don’t like K-train but I like it even less when the only accessible targets become camps because the only advantage a small server could capitalize on, time and surprise, is now nearly nullified. What is the result? The big server still cap, the lesser ones often fail even if they had local superiority in numbers because that superiority is pretty ephemeral when time is out of the equation thanks to our new toy.

It is worst because whether in defense or offense, the bigger server will benefit even more and thus amplify the initial problem paused by the number disparity. Try to take a tower from a big server who uses siege disabler or delay a big server from taking your tower when you have little reinforcements available. I don’t know on what server you play, but it is clear to me you haven’t seen much of the other side of the medal you defend.

In both case, what was easier to do for the big server is now easier still while the opposite is also true for the small server. Conclusion, it is a bad thing more than it is a good one.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

I fail to see the “whining like a baby part” when I address a fact. At least I sound less whiny than you apparently whining about my post.

But back to the point, even so, it was completely false to say siege disabler is only OP in that case.

That being said, I see the main problem we have. You reason and argue in terms of local groups, while I reason and argue in terms of server.

When I say siege disabler benefit more the big server I mean the SERVER as a whole. Not just the local group passing by. Sure you can be in local inferiority, but that is so not important when you have all the backup in the world mere minutes away.

I look at the global effect adding that thing had. It is like removing the Orbs to put the ruins… a complete miss. You remove the Orb because it was amplifying a problem and you replace it with solution that does the same. With the siege disabler it is not merely the same, it is making things worst.

You didn’t like loosing your towers to a K-train? I myself don’t like K-train but I like it even less when the only accessible targets become camps because the only advantage a small server could capitalize on, time and surprise, is now nearly nullified. What is the result? The big server still cap, the lesser ones often fail even if they had local superiority in numbers because that superiority is pretty ephemeral when time is out of the equation thanks to our new toy.

It is worst because whether in defense or offense, the bigger server will benefit even more and thus amplify the initial problem paused by the number disparity. Try to take a tower from a big server who uses siege disabler or delay a big server from taking your tower when you have little reinforcements available. I don’t know on what server you play, but it is clear to me you haven’t seen much of the other side of the medal you defend.

In both case, what was easier to do for the big server is now easier still while the opposite is also true for the small server. Conclusion, it is a bad thing more than it is a good one.

Two things: the orbs weren’t replaced by the ruins – we had a lake there for an awfully long time before the ruins appeared.

Second, siege disablers are a deitysend for the lower servers, and I say that as a member of one who was T8 when they came out, and have gone up six ranks since then. They do exactly what has been said – allow us to buy time while we muster our thinly-spread forces. And they don’t us down while taking objectives other than if we’re stupid and cluster siege. You would only want to do that if you flipping an empty objective anyway – otherwise, you build catapults or trebs that are spaced such that they can’t be taken out simultaneously, and you knock down whatever is in your way. Simple as that.

My server in the tier that it’s in is outpopulated by both of the other servers – I don’t find that siege disablers are giving them any particular advantage over us that we don’t also have over them.

I could see your point if you applied it to people that don’t know how to place siege, of course. But they can learn, or be taught.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

When I say siege disabler benefit more the big server I mean the SERVER as a whole. Not just the local group passing by. Sure you can be in local inferiority, but that is so not important when you have all the backup in the world mere minutes away.

That’s the problem we are having. We aren’t really talking about the same thing. You are trying to assume a lot of things.
In the end, in your arguments, it’s population imbalance that shines. Not siege disablers being too helpful for “stronger” server.

And it completely matters how many players we are talking about. How many attackers are there versus defenders ? How many scouts does each side have ? How fortified are the towers/keep ?
Those things matters because it’s what makes siege disablers more interesting for the out-manned side.

Let’s do it with some examples.

Attack of a T3 tower with no siege (except oil and cannon) but supplies. Weaker has only 5 attackers and Stronger has 1 defender.
Before :
- At best weaker gets 2 superior rams up
- The lone defender has oil and cannon to destroy those while calling for help. Since he’s only facing 5 players, if he’s not dumb he can stay on oil or cannon long enough to do a lot of damage. So not only will he be able to take the rams down, his buddies will show up in great number anyway.

Now :
- A 45 second siege disabler won’t change the outcome

Let’s now look at 30 attackers from stronger against 1 lone defender from weaker.

Before :
- Oil and cannons are going to get destroyed rather quickly
- With at least 3 superior rams the gate is going to fall down rather quickly so back up won’t do much.
- By the time the defender manages to build a superior AC behind the gate, who cares. Unless they are dumb, the 30 players should manage to keep alive those on rams for the few seconds left.

Now :
- 45 seconds delay or 90 or even more gives the defender a lot of time to at least put 1 superior AC. If he’s lucky, at least 2-3 other players will show up. Good luck staying on rams with 2 or more superior AC raining hell on the gate.
If the commander trusts the defenders words enough, he won’t have to go on defense and can keep doing whatever he was doing on the same map or on another map.

Yes, the attackers can change strategy. But it’s not an advantage given to them because of siege disablers.

Siege disablers give time. Time to build siege, time for defenders to arrive. Stronger didn’t need that time before and still don’t really need it. Weaker however does need it.

You can poke a lot of holes to what I wrote. Because it completely relies on the assumption that stronger has always 30 man with scouts and weaker can barely get anyone to play.

But playing theory in WvW isn’t fun or too relevant so I’ll stop the argument here. We’re talking about things that completely rely on players behavior. And players aren’t machines. They get bored, they do dumb things, they complain, the focus, they can be really determined to their objective.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Ben K.6238:

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.

Not when they can be thrown from stealth, or by a warrior that can pop immunity and run strait up to it.

Really the only chance small groups had was the element of surprise. Before you’d end up fighting the small group that showed up to scout the swords, now they can just delay you and call in a zerg.

That doesn’t equal fights, it equals bigger blobs and more bandwaggoning.

It works the other way too. The only way a smaller group can defend is to delay. If a zerg comes with a bunch of rams, what can the smaller group do? Nothing.

Black Frog.9274:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Ben K.6238:

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.

Not when they can be thrown from stealth, or by a warrior that can pop immunity and run strait up to it.

Really the only chance small groups had was the element of surprise. Before you’d end up fighting the small group that showed up to scout the swords, now they can just delay you and call in a zerg.

That doesn’t equal fights, it equals bigger blobs and more bandwaggoning.

It works the other way too. The only way a smaller group can defend is to delay. If a zerg comes with a bunch of rams, what can the smaller group do? Nothing.

3 nights ago I watched a DB zerg melt our gates in our T3 Garri by PvDing them down. They disabled a good chunk of our defense siege and they spike built sup ac’s to wipe out the rest of our siege (even hitting some spots that seemed like they shouldn’t have been able to be targeted). I would disable their ac’s and they would just spike build another. I don’t think it took them even 5 minutes to flip the keep.

Disablers did nothing to help us, they actually made it much easier for the larger zerg because they were able to negate our defenses while they PvDoor.

Two things: the orbs weren’t replaced by the ruins – we had a lake there for an awfully long time before the ruins appeared.

True, but among the reason given for the removal of the orb was that it was giving the winning server even more power. A REALLY bad thing. What do we have later? Ruins! What do ruins do? It gives bonus that augment your stats. Who all things being equal get these bonuses? Yeah, you got that right. The big server does.

As an aside, I truly don’t understand why they decided to back pealed aquatic combat. So many who say L2P all the time probably forgot to live by that motto…

Second, siege disablers are a deitysend for the lower servers, and I say that as a member of one who was T8 when they came out, and have gone up six ranks since then. They do exactly what has been said – allow us to buy time while we muster our thinly-spread forces. And they don’t us down while taking objectives other than if we’re stupid and cluster siege. You would only want to do that if you flipping an empty objective anyway – otherwise, you build catapults or trebs that are spaced such that they can’t be taken out simultaneously, and you knock down whatever is in your way. Simple as that.

My server in the tier that it’s in is outpopulated by both of the other servers – I don’t find that siege disablers are giving them any particular advantage over us that we don’t also have over them.

I could see your point if you applied it to people that don’t know how to place siege, of course. But they can learn, or be taught.

I’m on SoR and I almost choked when you said it is a gift given to the lower tier. Being a T8 is by no mean representative of a problem. The problem arise when the opposition is unfair from go. There is no problem from being T8 if you face an opposition that isn’t too far from what you can handle. However, if the match-ups are clearly unfair (not just unfavorable) the unfairness become worse because of that new toy. Being outpopulated can also say a lot of things. Do you mean, you always have the outnumbered buff or you mean something else? Because, WE are always having that buff and these gizmos are putrid as hell.

Using Tier as an argument is irrelevant. How unfair was the match-up is what matters. And believe me, as much as we did save some towers from our opponents from time to time, they saved a lot more than we ever did courtesy of the same gizmo. Hence the point being made that whatever help it gives the underdog, it gives more still to the overwhelming forces.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

True, but among the reason given for the removal of the orb was that it was giving the winning server even more power. A REALLY bad thing. What do we have later? Ruins! What do ruins do? It gives bonus that augment your stats. Who all things being equal get these bonuses? Yeah, you got that right. The big server does.

Until three people, or two with one of the two being fast, decide to go into the always unguarded ruined and flip the bloodlust. Who gets the bonus? Whoever bothered to go into the ruins last.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

I’m on SoR and I almost choked when you said it is a gift given to the lower tier. Being a T8 is by no mean representative of a problem. The problem arise when the opposition is unfair from go. There is no problem from being T8 if you face an opposition that isn’t too far from what you can handle. However, if the match-ups are clearly unfair (not just unfavorable) the unfairness become worse because of that new toy. Being outpopulated can also say a lot of things. Do you mean, you always have the outnumbered buff or you mean something else? Because, WE are always having that buff and these gizmos are putrid as hell.

Who are you preaching to? We underwent our own implosion and dropped down to T8 with the kind of WvW population that wouldn’t be able to completely drain a camp even at prime time. The outnumbered buff is an old friend.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Using Tier as an argument is irrelevant. How unfair was the match-up is what matters. And believe me, as much as we did save some towers from our opponents from time to time, they saved a lot more than we ever did courtesy of the same gizmo. Hence the point being made that whatever help it gives the underdog, it gives more still to the overwhelming forces.

Okay, now you’re talking about when you’re on the offensive and the other server uses disablers against you in defense of their objectives.

But what does that have to do with population? It’s not like they’re throwing ten of them on you at once and stacking the durations! They are a force leveler – they blunt the effect of siege over time. And if a “stronger” (by which you mean ‘more populated’) server builds a lot of siege, it can all still be disabled. If a stronger server is defending and they use a disabler against you, it has the exact same effect. How do you think your rams being disabled is somehow unfair compared to you disabling their rams?

Yes, your particular server is falling because you’ve recently had another exodus and you’re still sorting yourselves out to decide what kind of server you’re going to be… but you’re not being unfairly advantaged by siege disablers!

If you’re still rolling up to towers and keeps, killing the guards, and dropping rams… and then are stymied because your rams get disabled… you’re doing it wrong. You either use properly spaced ranged siege (which forces people to come out of their objectives to disable you, and they can’t get all of your siege with one shot) or if you insist on being in close, you use golems which only have a twenty second disabled period.

It’s how you’re playing, it’s not the siege disablers.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Black Frog.9274:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Ben K.6238:

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.

Not when they can be thrown from stealth, or by a warrior that can pop immunity and run strait up to it.

Really the only chance small groups had was the element of surprise. Before you’d end up fighting the small group that showed up to scout the swords, now they can just delay you and call in a zerg.

That doesn’t equal fights, it equals bigger blobs and more bandwaggoning.

It works the other way too. The only way a smaller group can defend is to delay. If a zerg comes with a bunch of rams, what can the smaller group do? Nothing.

3 nights ago I watched a DB zerg melt our gates in our T3 Garri by PvDing them down. They disabled a good chunk of our defense siege and they spike built sup ac’s to wipe out the rest of our siege (even hitting some spots that seemed like they shouldn’t have been able to be targeted). I would disable their ac’s and they would just spike build another. I don’t think it took them even 5 minutes to flip the keep.

Disablers did nothing to help us, they actually made it much easier for the larger zerg because they were able to negate our defenses while they PvDoor.

So you used disablers, but they used them too? Sure the disablers helped you, it’s just that their disablers helped them too.

In the end, in your arguments, it’s population imbalance that shines. Not siege disablers being too helpful for “stronger” server.

Population imbalance does shine, but also the effect of siege disablers on that imbalance.

And it completely matters how many players we are talking about. How many attackers are there versus defenders ? How many scouts does each side have ? How fortified are the towers/keep ?
Those things matters because it’s what makes siege disablers more interesting for the out-manned side.

Numbers does matter in a sense of course, but not if you keep in mind the idea was the SD will favor the bigger server more than it does the small one.

Let’s do it with some examples.

Attack of a T3 tower with no siege (except oil and cannon) but supplies. Weaker has only 5 attackers and Stronger has 1 defender.
Before :
- At best weaker gets 2 superior rams up
- The lone defender has oil and cannon to destroy those while calling for help. Since he’s only facing 5 players, if he’s not dumb he can stay on oil or cannon long enough to do a lot of damage. So not only will he be able to take the rams down, his buddies will show up in great number anyway.

That example is not great. Whoever drop a ram when there is oil and canon still operational deserve death.

As for the result of that scenario, I’ve seen it plenty of time both in defense and offense and very rarely a tower with no siege could prevent 5 guys and 2 rams from being taken unless the tower was camped and the reinforcement was immediately called and not too far.

[/quote]Now :
- A 45 second siege disabler won’t change the outcome[/quote] It not only completely change the outcome in theory it did many time in practice. I saw it first hand on both side of the fence. Even a very late scout coming to the tower when gate is down to 20% can completely stop an assault and make sure reinforcements will be there before the gate is ever going down. 2 sup rams = 100 sup. which mean everybody had maximum possible supply and they are now as dry as the Sahara. Attack is over. Before that, as long as the ram was going the game wasn’t over. Killing one guy was meaningless since the 4 others would have him on his feet in no time.

Let’s now look at 30 attackers from stronger against 1 lone defender from weaker.

Before :
- Oil and cannons are going to get destroyed rather quickly
- With at least 3 superior rams the gate is going to fall down rather quickly so back up won’t do much.
- By the time the defender manages to build a superior AC behind the gate, who cares. Unless they are dumb, the 30 players should manage to keep alive those on rams for the few seconds left.

True.

[/quote]Now :
- 45 seconds delay or 90 or even more gives the defender a lot of time to at least put 1 superior AC. If he’s lucky, at least 2-3 other players will show up. Good luck staying on rams with 2 or more superior AC raining hell on the gate.
If the commander trusts the defenders words enough, he won’t have to go on defense and can keep doing whatever he was doing on the same map or on another map.

Yes, the attackers can change strategy. But it’s not an advantage given to them because of siege disablers… snip[/quote]

Two things:

1) I can’t help but notice you left aside SOME meaningful scenarios like, for example, a group of 15 trying to get back it’s keep from the big server and where there is only ONE defender inside the tower. Sure he is only ONE, but not for long…

Before: the group of 15 would have had very good odds of retaking the keep/tower if only one was inside a tower close to your spawn. Specially if there was no sieges.

Today: That single defender can make it so that the big server will NEVER yield your own Keep EVER as long as someone is there to tell them when to come help and manage to buy them the time to do it (Thank you siege disabler!!).

If we reverse the situation and we have one guy from a poorly populated server trying to do the same…

Before: The big server Roflstomp you.

Today: You can buy time and hope for some help but what you will get will often only delay the inevitable. There is no stopping a big server from retaking it’s keep or tower if you managed to took it when you had insomnia.

2)When you say “But it’s not an advantage given to them because of siege disablers” you kinda miss the point. It is not that the siege disabler give or remove an advantage in itself so much as it amplify the problems that were already there.

But playing theory in WvW isn’t fun or too relevant so I’ll stop the argument here. We’re talking about things that completely rely on players behavior. And players aren’t machines. They get bored, they do dumb things, they complain, the focus, they can be really determined to their objective.

It does rely on player behavior but also on what is available to them.

Okay, now you’re talking about when you’re on the offensive and the other server uses disablers against you in defense of their objectives.

What do you mean NOW? The subject was never about siege disablers only having an impact on your defensive play. I’m talking about ALL the implications that toy has. And YES, retaking our keep sux big time since that toy is out. Realllllly sux. Dont loose anything or else…

But what does that have to do with population? It’s not like they’re throwing ten of them on you at once and stacking the durations! They are a force leveler – they blunt the effect of siege over time. And if a “stronger” (by which you mean ‘more populated’) server builds a lot of siege, it can all still be disabled. If a stronger server is defending and they use a disabler against you, it has the exact same effect. How do you think your rams being disabled is somehow unfair compared to you disabling their rams?

Siege disabler and sieges work on supply. Who has more suppliesall things being equal? Any other question about how it make the population imbalance even worse?

Yes, your particular server is falling because you’ve recently had another exodus and you’re still sorting yourselves out to decide what kind of server you’re going to be… but you’re not being unfairly advantaged by siege disablers!

Yes, we are. Before siege disablers we could still have gotten back our structures unless the opponent was camping them massively. Now only 1 has to remain inside and buy time with disablers for the rest to arrive in time if needed… and believe me, they do… The opposite is totally not happening so, yes, siege disabler made pop imbalance even worse.

Sure it help both side in defense, but once you get your hand on something, it is way easier to keep it for good or bad… When you are small you can’t keep anything even with disablers while the big server can T3 everything that was once yours and keep it all week long. This was impossible before. The real problem is it makes defense stronger for all and the stronger server often has everything in the map so he is almost always in a defensive position while you desperately try to retake (offense) what used to be yours.

If you’re still rolling up to towers and keeps, killing the guards, and dropping rams… and then are stymied because your rams get disabled… you’re doing it wrong. You either use properly spaced ranged siege (which forces people to come out of their objectives to disable you, and they can’t get all of your siege with one shot) or if you insist on being in close, you use golems which only have a twenty second disabled period.

Come on… give us some credit here…

It’s how you’re playing, it’s not the siege disablers.

I’ll make a deal with you. We will switch server and stay one month on the other’s server… you will see what it does to your side when the other side use siege disablers to defend all they took from you and what you do to them when you use it to ry and prevent them from taking anything… after that, if you still believe it is a matter of only you knowing how to play i’ll listen to you.

It took them about a minute to burn through the door. At the same time they were able to shut down our siege.

Siege disablers favor heavy zergs.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

What do you mean NOW? The subject was never about siege disablers only having an impact on your defensive play. I’m talking about ALL the implications that toy has. And YES, retaking our keep sux big time since that toy is out. Realllllly sux. Dont loose anything or else…

“Now” was in reference to what you were saying at the time.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Siege disabler and sieges work on supply. Who has more suppliesall things being equal? Any other question about how it make the population imbalance even worse?

Usually the defender, unless it’s a tower or keep that you only got back five minutes ago. Attackers potentially have access to more supplies, as they’re not penned inside the tower or keep, but the tower/keep has a stockpile that you don’t have to go anywhere to get. Population doesn’t come into it here.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Yes, we are. Before siege disablers we could still have gotten back our structures unless the opponent was camping them massively. Now only 1 has to remain inside and buy time with disablers for the rest to arrive in time if needed… and believe me, they do… The opposite is totally not happening so, yes, siege disabler made pop imbalance even worse.

You’ve got to stop using rams – seriously. ONE guy sitting on your BL holding your stuff isn’t much of an issue – build a cata that he will be forced to come out to disable, and kill him when he does. It’s not a big deal at all.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Sure it help both side in defense, but once you get your hand on something, it is way easier to keep it for good or bad… When you are small you can’t keep anything even with disablers while the big server can T3 everything that was once yours and keep it all week long. This was impossible before. The real problem is it makes defense stronger for all and the stronger server often has everything in the map so he is almost always in a defensive position while you desperately try to retake (offense) what used to be yours.

And yet, I don’t find that to be the case. Sure, siege disablers are used by anybody but if you use your siege correctly, it forces the defenders to come out or else squander their finite supplies while you can be mobile and have access to all of their camps (especially the ones feeding the objective).

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

I’ll make a deal with you. We will switch server and stay one month on the other’s server… you will see what it does to your side when the other side use siege disablers to defend all they took from you and what you do to them when you use it to ry and prevent them from taking anything… after that, if you still believe it is a matter of only you knowing how to play i’ll listen to you.

You understand that I’m on Ehmry Bay, right? We’ve fought you several times since you came to bronze, including when you had the population and we were the smaller server from the lower tier. It’s knowing how to play.

But yes, come switch to us if you like. We have a few who are also from bronze that came over just to avoid the drama in their own communities. You’ll probably have a better time AND we can show you why siege disablers aren’t a huge issue for us.

Rimmy.9217:

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

What do you mean NOW? The subject was never about siege disablers only having an impact on your defensive play. I’m talking about ALL the implications that toy has. And YES, retaking our keep sux big time since that toy is out. Realllllly sux. Dont loose anything or else…

“Now” was in reference to what you were saying at the time.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Siege disabler and sieges work on supply. Who has more suppliesall things being equal? Any other question about how it make the population imbalance even worse?

Usually the defender, unless it’s a tower or keep that you only got back five minutes ago. Attackers potentially have access to more supplies, as they’re not penned inside the tower or keep, but the tower/keep has a stockpile that you don’t have to go anywhere to get. Population doesn’t come into it here.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Yes, we are. Before siege disablers we could still have gotten back our structures unless the opponent was camping them massively. Now only 1 has to remain inside and buy time with disablers for the rest to arrive in time if needed… and believe me, they do… The opposite is totally not happening so, yes, siege disabler made pop imbalance even worse.

You’ve got to stop using rams – seriously. ONE guy sitting on your BL holding your stuff isn’t much of an issue – build a cata that he will be forced to come out to disable, and kill him when he does. It’s not a big deal at all.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Sure it help both side in defense, but once you get your hand on something, it is way easier to keep it for good or bad… When you are small you can’t keep anything even with disablers while the big server can T3 everything that was once yours and keep it all week long. This was impossible before. The real problem is it makes defense stronger for all and the stronger server often has everything in the map so he is almost always in a defensive position while you desperately try to retake (offense) what used to be yours.

And yet, I don’t find that to be the case. Sure, siege disablers are used by anybody but if you use your siege correctly, it forces the defenders to come out or else squander their finite supplies while you can be mobile and have access to all of their camps (especially the ones feeding the objective).

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

I’ll make a deal with you. We will switch server and stay one month on the other’s server… you will see what it does to your side when the other side use siege disablers to defend all they took from you and what you do to them when you use it to ry and prevent them from taking anything… after that, if you still believe it is a matter of only you knowing how to play i’ll listen to you.

You understand that I’m on Ehmry Bay, right? We’ve fought you several times since you came to bronze, including when you had the population and we were the smaller server from the lower tier. It’s knowing how to play.

But yes, come switch to us if you like. We have a few who are also from bronze that came over just to avoid the drama in their own communities. You’ll probably have a better time AND we can show you why siege disablers aren’t a huge issue for us.

Like I said multiple times, I’m used to totally unfair matches. Before recently coming to SoR I was on Mag and we had SoS as a perpetual opponent. I did the first 2 season in the gold league knowing way before starting that we had ZERO chances ofdoing better than 5th. Don’t bring me that L2P BS to avoid the point being made.

If you are red and everything is green, the siege disabler will benefit green a lot more often than it will red because the siege disabler is a more potent mean of defense and the green being stronger will naturally be in a position where they can only defend most of the places of the map. This is purely mathematical. There is no learn to play here when we look at the facts. If anything, it’s a learn to reason issue.

That being said, it sure doesn’t help that my server almost doesn’t play at all save for very short windows of time. Yesterday we could retake our keep after an extended battle and had 15+ ppl on line at the same time! I was almost not able to believe it.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Like I said multiple times, I’m used to totally unfair matches. Before recently coming to SoR I was on Mag and we had SoS as a perpetual opponent. I did the first 2 season in the gold league knowing way before starting that we had ZERO chances ofdoing better than 5th. Don’t bring me that L2P BS to avoid the point being made.

If you are red and everything is green, the siege disabler will benefit green a lot more often than it will red because the siege disabler is a more potent mean of defense and the green being stronger will naturally be in a position where they can only defend most of the places of the map. This is purely mathematical. There is no learn to play here when we look at the facts. If anything, it’s a learn to reason issue.

That being said, it sure doesn’t help that my server almost doesn’t play at all save for very short windows of time. Yesterday we could retake our keep after an extended battle and had 15+ ppl on line at the same time! I was almost not able to believe it.

The L2P wasn’t intended as a slight, but the flow and style of lower tier servers is very different than in the upper tiers. Everybody who moves comments on this.

Personally, I would have enjoyed the extended battle.

Game was fine without disablers. Disablers should only be available to the team in third place.

Brutal Augus.5917:

Game was fine without disablers. Disablers should only be available to the team in third place.

That was pretty much my suggestion. The leading server should not be allowed to use them. In fact, you should not be able to use a disabler vs a server that has a score below yours. You could even wrap this mechanic inside a buff/defuff called Balthazar’s Outrage or Dwayna’s Mercy! Whatever… The gods like fair matches to entertain them and they are about to switch channel.

It was an easy solution to deploy nothing more, IMO Anet does not care if content is good or bad, they dont rework game mechanics if they think will spend time away from pve since is the main of FW2.

Here is why siege disablers ruined the game.

The matches were already imbalanced enough…
The smaller servers had to count on being mobile and quickly taking a tower before the zerg got there.

Now with a siege disabler you have 1 guy who can disable all your siege and wait for the zerg. If you can PVD then you don’t care about the disablers. So all they did was make a bad thing worse.

Seriously I think its time Anet started examining decisions and recruiting new blood for their design team.

siege disablers just buy a little time. If you are not organized with a zerg, you will lose your objective anyway.

probably people who object to them are small teams, correct?

Siege disable is not that big of a deal for big teams. Just waste some junk siege to waste the disablers, pay attention to how much supply they have, always

Yup the small team is nerfed here giving yet another nonus to the zerg.

Siege disablers add another dimension to taking a tower but the duration needs to be reduced. Whilst the new tactics are fun, it really is – above all else – boring having to wait to use your siege again. I also agree with the fact that it is far more zerg-friendly and discriminates against smaller groups who actually have to work to get enough sups to build siege

wvw runs on volunteers. If you are low on volunteers, it gets hard to do anything.

siege disable barely matters in T1. minor annoyance.

has about the same effect as a door treb, but cheaper.

There are other ways to add dimensions to the game. Disablers removed strategic mobility and ninja tactics, both of which people love way more than watching 1 person with a little bit of silver burn into their PvP fight time. The cost/benefit analysis on disablers is kitten out of control.

Nanyetah Elohi.4852:

siege disable barely matters in T1. minor annoyance.

has about the same effect as a door treb, but cheaper.

Yes because T1 has multiple zergs on most maps. You can break open a reinforced gate by PVD

non-T1 has small groups that has limited supply and must race against time.

They’re an enormous buff for border hopping zerg balls. Attempted to take a tower with 3 other people earlier this week. Hit with two siege disablers which was enough time for the enemy zerg to leave EB and run us down. Where as in the past there was a sense of urgency for border hopping zergs to choose between carrying on PvDing their current objective or responding to a scout and zerging down the attackers, they can now have a player spam siege disablers until they have time to do something about it. It’s making things worse.

Theses were obviously put in place to prevent multi ram rushes from zergs, but the effects trickle down and hit smaller groups very hard. Most zergs can easily back off and build some catapults instead or simply dps a door down. Small groups can rarely do this.

Siege disablers do nothing but empower zergs in the long run.

Scryeless.1924:

. . . small group of us were assaulting a keep and what should’ve taken 5 mins . . .

Scryeless.1924:

. . . 5 Minutes turned into 40 minutes. That’s 40 minutes of no rewards. No loot, no world exp, no fun fights, etc…

You shouldn’t get into a tower in 5 minutes, much less into a keep.

If you were PvDing a keep with just one guy inside defending it, you weren’t looking for fun fights anyway.

EBay has been fighting GoM for the past few weeks, I would say they have experienced out manned.

I would like to think I had earned some rep as a good defensive commander. When setting up defenses, I start off explaining that no defense can hold forever, it is a delay until help can arrive. If no help will come, the defense is pointless against a determined attacker.

Those on SoR have no back up coming… ever, but this is not the case with nearly all other servers.

Siege disablers take the place of well placed ACs, door trebs and scouts even. One quick, dmg immune warrior can arrive first and throw disables until supply runs out. If your entire map force is 5ppl it doesnt take many defenders to nullify your attack and even 1 disabler gives them plenty of time to get there.

Siege disablers have ruined the game in the sense that its certainly dumbed down the defensive strategies but the dynamic is still the same. Defend, delay, reinforce or fail.

I agree: just remove this crap. They’re not good for anything and they just make the game that little bit less fun. Before siege disablers, we did fine building arrowcarts, trebs or ballistas to counter siege, so why would we need them now?

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 ?

I’m on a T1 wvw server, and it doesn’t seem to be over used much there. And when it is used, the group usually just changes their tactics and takes down the walls from range.

I have a feeling that this is just a small minority screaming really loudly about it, because either they won’t adapt and change their tactics, or they’re just against any sort of change that might affect their ability to bring a gate down in less than a minute with multiple rams. (And that is considered fair?? Seriously?…. )

That being said, I wouldn’t see a problem with slightly reducing the timers, maybe adding a cooldown, and adding los on disablers…..as that would help the lower pop wvw servers.

Hule.8794:

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.

This. Just this. It seems like every person that sides with siege disabler implementation makes that argument. They don’t seem to understand that reflects will not work with a gate in between the reflect and the effect.