Guild Wars 2

Is there anything wrong with this screenshot? Is this allowed now?

The catapult can hit and damage the tower, in case you are wondering.

It used to be possible to place siege on that ridge but that was changed last year. Maybe it is just a specific spot that still allow it. I guess you should report this using the in game bug reporting (/bug).

Don’t see what’s wrong with it

You know you can hit that right?

It looks damaged to me so what’s the issue?

Great strategy if you ask me

The point is, that siege engine was placed in an area which is safe. An enemy zerg can sit with those catapults and siege the tower with impunity.

Yes, those catapults can be hit, in fact, we just destroyed 3-4 of them before we took this screenshot, but guess what happened when we tried to destroy those 3-4? We got wiped by a zerg that was invulnerable.

If the developers decided that no siege can be deployed in the safe zones, then no siege should be deployed in the safe zone. Regardless whether the siege engine can be destroyed or not, the defenders cannot be hurt while we try to destroy those siege engines.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but if siege engines are not allowed to be placed in the safe zone, then isn’t it exploitation of “holes” within those safe zones by placing those siege engines?

Yup it’s an exploit and people who do it suck rotten eggs.

then report it as a bug

to place things like that, stand outside of the safe zone and throw it.

do you want them to extend the siege lock to outside the throwing radius for invulnerable spots or something?

The catapult don’t have Determined buff which make it invulnerable… Where is the issue?

florence.1674:

Yes, those catapults can be hit, in fact, we just destroyed 3-4 of them before we took this screenshot, but guess what happened when we tried to destroy those 3-4? We got wiped by a zerg that was invulnerable.

Set a treb in the tower and be happy…

Jeknar.6184:

The catapult don’t have Determined buff which make it invulnerable… Where is the issue?

florence.1674:

Yes, those catapults can be hit, in fact, we just destroyed 3-4 of them before we took this screenshot, but guess what happened when we tried to destroy those 3-4? We got wiped by a zerg that was invulnerable.

Set a treb in the tower and be happy…

But the players defending the catapult do. It really is not fair and should not operate like that.

Catisa.6507:

But the players defending the catapult do. It really is not fair and should not operate like that.

Build your own Catapult to counter-siege it, you don’t need to engage any players to destroy it.

Much like if you have a catapult on your tower wall that can’t be reached by enemy players directly, they have to do the same thing.

Like others have said, standing outside the invulnerable zone and throwing siege back into the zone in the past has allowed for these exploits.

It seems in those cases the game recognizes the player as “throwing” in a siegeable area, rather than registering the siege “landing” in an “un-siegeable” area.

Well what about placing a Treb on top of the dome of the blue keep in EB (at least thats where I think it was, can’t quite remember, on the little ledges like where the vista is I think)? It could hit two of the forts/towers, and yet the Trebs we had in either fort/tower couldn’t even come close to it.

I don’t have a big problem with this.

their siege can be destroyed using siege of your own; complaining that you can’t melee it down because their defenders are invulnerable is like complaining when an enemy builds siege inside a keep or tower because their defenders can’t be hit while inside the walls.

if something prevents you from directly destroying well-placed siege, then you use siege of your own to do it. this is common knowledge. now, if it were placed somewhere where you couldn’t reach it with siege either, that I agree would be a problem.

and if you want to prevent the enemy from rebuilding it after you’ve destroyed it, deny them access to supply. take their supply camps. if they have keeps with portals, attack the guards to keep them contested so they don’t portal supply into their garrison.

that said, I don’t have a problem with Arenanet “fixing” this either, although I’d prefer they focus their attention on more important things, like dolyak kills causing the amount of supply I’m carrying to drop from 15 to 10.

-ken

DevonCarver.5370:

We’ll look into this today and likely get a bug in on it, as that seems like something we’d prefer not to have be the case.

Good to hear you guys are finally going to look into this; considering that not only did I send a very detailed report including video to exploits@arena.net on the 15th of febuary, but also sent it directly to Habib and sent you the same one 12 days ago because nothing was being done about it!

Hey there Devon, thanks for your great presence in the WvW forums. I’d like to take this opportunity and let you know of an exploit. I sent the same message to Habib a while back, so you may know of it already (hopefully even working on a fix).

Now I had already sent a report to exploits@arena.net, but I figured it best to also let you know in hopes of suggesting a quick and effective way to stop it.

You see, at present time siege build sites can be thrown to a location up to 1200 range away. This has caused an alarming increase of abuse from certain players/guild in WvW who throw their siege back up into their invulnerability zone (that has a siege deployment restriction). This behaviour can no longer be attributed to being done by ‘randoms’ as certain images clearly show commanders calling the shots and manning the siege now.

As such I believe that this form of exploiting should be fixed as soon as possible. Not only is the siege placed in spots where it is (almost) impossible for the other servers to reach, but its defenders are invulnerable to harm. Imagine a trebuchet being flanked by arrowcarts and ballistae, with people manning them that are not affected by damage or cc!

As such I firmly believe that the easiest and most effective way to fix this is to reduce the throw distance. That way the build sites can’t be exploited by throwing them back up into invulnerability zones.

Currently siege build sites can be thrown up to 1200 range, which doesn’t make any sense. Setting the range to 200 seems more than enough and will effectively and immediately stop players from throwing them back up into spots where they are not supposed/allowed to deploy them.

Here’s a proof-of-concept video me and my guild did in order to find out why our opponent was able to constantly set up siege in areas where siege deployment was prohibited:
<removed the link because it was only meant for ANet to see>

The video shows a spot on the western side of the Citadel. However, I have seen screenshots of players being able to throw them straight up on the east side (that steep cliff) as well.

Changing the deployment range of all siege build sites from 1200 to 200 would (in my humble opinion) be the easiest and most effective solution.

Greetz,

Aveneo

And while you’re at it, please also look into that exploit where people can abuse those warrior banners and the like to instantly revive dead Keep Lords over and over again (for which I also sent an email to exploits@arena.net on the 16th of febuary).

This is more of a general notification that you should change the mechanics currently being applied to ‘Revive Downed Allies’ abilities (like the Battle Standard). Now it’s being structurally exploitied because it also instantly revives a Keep Lord in WvW!!

Certain guilds are now doing this constantly by keeping their Warriors outside behind an unbroken door so they can’t be reached. Then once the Keep Lord goes down, one of them quickly rushes in to pop their Battle Standard to instantly revive their Keep Lord and run out. By exploiting this they can keep an area contested indefinitely.

As such I would STRONGLY recommend an immediate change of all ‘Revive Downed Allies’ abilities so they will no longer work on Defeated NPC’s (because they shouldn’t; as Defeated is not Downed). Only then can this extreme exploiting be stopped.

Thank you,

Aveneo

We had this happen yesterday at the back of our SW camp up on the hills. Several “enemies” were building ballista and shooting at us from the “invulnerable zone”.

Aveneo.2068:

Good to hear you guys are finally going to look into this; considering that not only did I send a very detailed report including video to exploits@arena.net on the 15th of febuary, but also sent it directly to Habib and sent you the same one 12 days ago because nothing was being done about it!

And while you’re at it, please also look into that exploit where people can abuse those warrior banners and the like to instantly revive dead Keep Lords over and over again (for which I also sent an email to exploits@arena.net on the 16th of febuary)

Neither of these issues are important enough to warrant your level of dissatisfaction.

Xirin.8593:

Neither of these issues are important enough to warrant your level of dissatisfaction.

Do you have an example of an exploit that should warrant dissatisfaction?

Pedra.4381:

Xirin.8593:

Neither of these issues are important enough to warrant your level of dissatisfaction.

Do you have an example of an exploit that should warrant dissatisfaction?

I said his level of dissatisfaction (which is apparently very high). Not any dissatisfaction.

Although it is possible to place siege in that particular spot you do not have to “throw” it and you can destroy it with counter siege from the tower or even with AoE from the ledge just below it. It is not invulnerable.

Xirin.8593:

Neither of these issues are important enough to warrant your level of dissatisfaction.

An exploit is an exploit, plain and simple. My ‘dissatisfaction’ becomes warranted when devs pretend the issue has just recently come to their attention when it has been reported to them -in detail- quite some time ago.

skullmount.1758:

Well what about placing a Treb on top of the dome of the blue keep in EB (at least thats where I think it was, can’t quite remember, on the little ledges like where the vista is I think)? It could hit two of the forts/towers, and yet the Trebs we had in either fort/tower couldn’t even come close to it.

That’s not an exploit. This is an exploit because it’s people building siege in an area that has been designated by the game as not allowing siege deployment. The players in question had to find a method to get around game mechanics in order to get around it (likely some luck in finding a tiny hole in the “buff” area, although I’m sure there’s a variety of exploits they could have been abusing to cause it). This siege can be damaged and destroyed (a treb on the vista would be the safest method).

Aveneo.2068:

Xirin.8593:

Neither of these issues are important enough to warrant your level of dissatisfaction.

An exploit is an exploit, plain and simple. My ‘dissatisfaction’ becomes warranted when devs pretend the issue has just recently come to their attention when it has been reported to them -in detail- quite some time ago.

How did Devon “pretend the issue has just recently come to his attention?” He simply stated that he would look into it today. Nowhere did he state that he had not been previously aware of the issue.

DevonCarver.5370:

We’ll look into this today and likely get a bug in on it, as that seems like something we’d prefer not to have be the case.

simple solution to exploited siege: farm the zerg by putting 10 arrow carts on the stairs in the tower or on the roof of the tower, youll get a lot of badges and loot bags.

If there is to be any safezone around spawnbase at all, it has to have its border. There’s a line, which splits the zone into safe and not safe; a clearly defined line.
You can build siege on the verge of that line, just as the ‘not safe’ part of the zone starts, while standing behind it, manning it from the safe zone.

You still can destroy siege built like that, you can even kitten it down with your zerg swords and clubs if you have enough of them.

An easy ‘fix’ would be to expand the siege deployment blockade 300 range beyond the invulnerability zone, but i do not think that’s necessary. Just countersiege.