Guild Wars 2

i like the idea i read in other thread of the siege to be neutral, anybody can use them.
You leave a cata, anybody that comes later can use it.

On the other hand anybody could damage any siege, even it’s own. Not that you will drop an AoE on top of you ofc… Unless the enemy is fighting on top of you to destroy such siege.

Son once you took the keep you should destroy all siege, or the enemy could use your own AC if they got inside.

What do you think? Discuss.

Heh while it would be interesting for anyone to be able to use siege that is not restricted to either side. The fact that we have blueprints owned and supplied by the player and that siege can be damaged, would make it impossible for such a thing to be implemented. There would be no way to prevent friendly fire to siege, which could render it useless.

Yeah, no. Often times my squad will go to a tower to flip it shortly after, or right when, it can be flipped, and siege from the last players to take it are still there. It wouldn’t be right for us to just use their siege while saving our blueprints and supply. Besides, you get a tiny bit of WXP when destroying siege, and every little bit helps.

Edit: And it means the amount of supply required to build siege would probably increase due to the chance of needing to build less of your own siege if you could just use someone else’s. This would cause squad to have to resupply more often, which wastes time when you’re working on capturing multiple locations.

Being able to use them for free might be a bit much. You could put up some catas to take a tower, after you’ve taken it the next enemies to come along grab the catas you build and use hem to take the tower. On the other hand, it would be more realistic. Well, I’d guess in that type of setting if a group needed to get a wall or gate down and came across some siege weapons lying about they’d use them.
Maybe if there was a new blueprint made, cost need supplies to use but allows you to steal a siege weapon. So you wouldn’t be able to just grab an enemy siege weapon for free but you could convert it to your own for the cost of the blueprint and a far smaller amount of supplies than it would be to build a new one. Not allowed to be used wile in combat or while the machine is being used otherwise defending would be too easy with a small group vs another, just convert their siege weapons and they can’t use them anymore.

A system allowing players to use all siege should have been implemented a long time ago. To clarify, when I suggest all siege I mean everything from cannons to arrow carts. One way to ensure that those who build siege aren’t offering it up on a platter to others who simply use it is to introduce “capture” times to siege that function in a similar way to control point circles. Basically, the ability to capture siege is linked to a WvW skill. Once you reach a certain level in that skill you can interact with enemy siege and capture it if you can hold it undisturbed for, say, 30 seconds. To help improve balance, you could introduce a supply cost for capturing too. As part of this system, the ability to destroy siege that you control would need to be added to the options available to siege operators.

The ability to sabotage and capture siege of all kinds would enrich and deepen the WvW combat experience, providing Commanders and squads with new strategies and tactics, revitalising a strategically stale game mode.

Friendly fire causes too much grieving. Just imagine the new levels of trolling.

Also defending your siege becomes impossible with all profs having only AoE skills. An enemy warrior just needs to stand on your catapults and your own squad will destroy them.

I was thinking about arrow carts and siege weapons used to defend towers/keeps. Maybe if you flip a tower any siege weapon built on or inside the walls should be converted to yours. Just thinking after a real life siege the invaders wouldn’t destroy intact equipment just because it was the enemy’s, they’d take it.
Rams and catas, would have belonged to the invading team so wouldn’t be effected.

+1000

I’ve always wanted this idea. Siege should be neutral so spamming a ton of it has a downside. If you’re yaks bend, and then break outter, grats those 1,000 arrow carts are now shooting you instead.

The system I propose would mean that, as long as someone is manning a siege weapon it cannot be either 1) captured or 2) damaged by friendly fire. Only siege “captured” by enemies would be damaged by players and those same players would have the opportunity to recapture it if they wished. Friendly-fire would not be a problem.

So, to clarify: If your side builds a siege engine and it is never captured, friendly players will not be able to damage it. If the engine is captured, players will be able to choose whether to recapture it or simply destroy it. This is a better option than previously as it means that siege often left for dead by advancing enemy forces may be recovered from them during a counter-push. Hence, no real problem with friendly fire.

THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM WITH ADDING THE ABILITY TO DEMOLISH SIEGE TO THE GAME MODE. HOWEVER, SIEGE ALREADY NATURALLY EXPIRES WHEN LEFT UNATTENDED. RAMS EXPIRE AFTER 15M. MOST OTHER SIEGE EXPIRES AFTER 60M. TO HELP REDUCE TROLLS DELIBERATELY DESTROYING SIEGE PRIOR TO ITS NATURAL EXPIRATION I PROPOSE ADDING A COIN OR SUPPLY COST TO THE DECISION TO DESTROY IT PREMATURELY.

Korgov.7645:

Friendly fire causes too much grieving. Just imagine the new levels of trolling.

Also defending your siege becomes impossible with all profs having only AoE skills. An enemy warrior just needs to stand on your catapults and your own squad will destroy them.

These would both be huge problems.

Edit: The “capture” idea is interesting, but trolling, and alt-account destruction of siege would be epic, I think.

slingblade.1437:

Korgov.7645:

Friendly fire causes too much grieving. Just imagine the new levels of trolling.

Also defending your siege becomes impossible with all profs having only AoE skills. An enemy warrior just needs to stand on your catapults and your own squad will destroy them.

These would both be huge problems.

Edit: The “capture” idea is interesting, but trolling, and alt-account destruction of siege would be epic, I think.

I disagree that the process of capturing siege would be too easy to make the idea viable. First, you would need to clear the circle of friendly forces and hold that circle for a period of time, perhaps 20-30 seconds. Think of PvP control points and how difficult capturing them can be if someone from the opposition either stays inside or moves through the point as you try to wrestle control of it.

Second, I propose that a further step is required, in which those able to capture siege through levelling WvW skills must approach the siege over which they now have control and select the F function, at which point they would channel the capture skill for, say, 2-3 seconds uninterrupted. During this period the force attempting to capture siege can still damage it. Hence, winning the control point around unattended/unmanned siege merely offers enemies qualified in siege capture the F function associated with it.

Adding a supply cost to destroy friendly siege means in addition to trolls/spies destroying siege, they can also drain supply at the same time, so that might make it even more appealing to them.

As far as adding a coin cost to destroy siege, say you’re on server A and are approaching Hill’s “cata spot.” Hill’s is owned by server B. You find players from server C have already built 3 catas there, but you outnumber them and so they run. So now you capture their 3 catas and use them to take Hills. Now there are 3 catas you need to destroy. Who pays to destroy them? Remember, it has to be expensive enough to discourage trolls, some of which may have hundreds or thousands of gold at their disposal.

I think each problem raised by this proposal will require an increasingly complex solution that will likely introduce other untended consequences. Noting wrong with bringing the idea up for discussion though.

slingblade.1437:

Adding a supply cost to destroy friendly siege means in addition to trolls/spies destroying siege, they can also drain supply at the same time, so that might make it even more appealing to them.

As far as adding a coin cost to destroy siege, say you’re on server A and are approaching Hill’s “cata spot.” Hill’s is owned by server B. You find players from server C have already built 3 catas there, but you outnumber them and so they run. So now you capture their 3 catas and use them to take Hills. Now there are 3 catas you need to destroy. Who pays to destroy them? Remember, it has to be expensive enough to discourage trolls, some of which may have hundreds or thousands of gold at their disposal.

I think each problem raised by this proposal will require an increasingly complex solution that will likely introduce other untended consequences. Noting wrong with bringing the idea up for discussion though.

Trolls have always been able to deplete supply by building siege so using supply to destroy siege won’t change whether trolls can drain supply from structures. In fact, the structure upgrade process was unhinged from supply levels and relies solely on dolyak deliveries now in an effort to reduce the impact trolls can have on supply.

I guess what I’m saying is: trolls will be trolls and whether this idea gains traction or not they can use siege to drain a structure’s supply.

As to a monetary cost: It doesn’t have to be standard game currency. A WvW currency either currently in circulation or yet to be created could be tied in to reward tracks. It would serve as the currency you use to pay for siege to be demolished. Furthermore, siege expiration timers would remain in place so you could just as easily give the ability to demolish siege to a Commander or those within his squad that he promotes to specific ranks. A system that doesn’t feed the trolls would be VERY EASY to implement.

If it was that you needed to use supply to break your own siege weapon. For attacking the supply drain wouldn’t be quite as appealing for trolls. They wouldn’t have access to a stack of supplies, would need to take from the nearest camp. Defending would be the opposite. They could destroy siege used to defend the structure while draining supply at the same time.
If you build a siege weapon it decays and expires in 1 hour, interacting with it changes the timer. Maybe converting a weapon could give it a very quick decay. Maybe, you capture a siege weapon, convert it using either supplies or whatever it would cost. The weapon becomes free for anyone to use, say for example you are the red server, you steal a blue catapult. The blues can still use it, the greens can also use it if they come across it but it has a quick decay then it will be gone. Couldd make it something like 5 mins, maybe also have it that instead of resetting the timer interacting with it only pauses the decay.

Sinmir.6504:

If it was that you needed to use supply to break your own siege weapon. For attacking the supply drain wouldn’t be quite as appealing for trolls. They wouldn’t have access to a stack of supplies, would need to take from the nearest camp. Defending would be the opposite. They could destroy siege used to defend the structure while draining supply at the same time.
If you build a siege weapon it decays and expires in 1 hour, interacting with it changes the timer. Maybe converting a weapon could give it a very quick decay. Maybe, you capture a siege weapon, convert it using either supplies or whatever it would cost. The weapon becomes free for anyone to use, say for example you are the red server, you steal a blue catapult. The blues can still use it, the greens can also use it if they come across it but it has a quick decay then it will be gone. Couldd make it something like 5 mins, maybe also have it that instead of resetting the timer interacting with it only pauses the decay.

Accelerating decay times would be an interesting way to try and promote the concept of cost to siege capture.

How about a way to salvage enemies siege into mats to make new ones.

Offair.2563:

How about a way to salvage enemies siege into mats to make new ones.

When you destroy an enemy siege you have a chance to gain the corresponding blueprint?

Offair.2563:

How about a way to salvage enemies siege into mats to make new ones.

It would probably be better to give the player who demolishes a piece of siege the chance to recover supply, just as they do when you kill a dolyak.

Stephen.6312:

Offair.2563:

How about a way to salvage enemies siege into mats to make new ones.

It would probably be better to give the player who demolishes a piece of siege the chance to recover supply, just as they do when you kill a dolyak.

That would make defending keeps harder: “go destroy some siege to resupply”. And that opens up another exploit: trolls building useless siege for the attackers to destroy.

How about they first focus on fixing things like not allowing players to jump into keeps? Oh, wait… ;-)

I just noticed this. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weapon#Notes

Siege blueprints can be dropped on the ground for other players to pick up by using the weapon swap key when holding the blueprint bundle. Players from other worlds can also pick up the bundle.

Technically speaking, there already is a way for players to use siege from another server under certain circumstances. Although, they would have to spend supply to build it.

Korgov.7645:

Stephen.6312:

Offair.2563:

How about a way to salvage enemies siege into mats to make new ones.

It would probably be better to give the player who demolishes a piece of siege the chance to recover supply, just as they do when you kill a dolyak.

That would make defending keeps harder: “go destroy some siege to resupply”. And that opens up another exploit: trolls building useless siege for the attackers to destroy.

Lol. I wonder how many trolls would bother.

slingblade.1437:

How about they first focus on fixing things like not allowing players to jump into keeps? Oh, wait… ;-)

Ease up on the sarcasm. What I’m proposing is a level playing field for all players, complete with countermeasures, not exploits.

I’m curious though: Why does the thought of players using tools to simply jump over walls or gates cause you so much angst?

IF there was a option to burn siege after use and convert to a small RNG ammount of supply it would interesting lol…

If u leave siege on field its your own fault XD
The issue is taking over defensive siege over enemy siege while enemy is far less in numbers…. since it is easy to take structures (ok.. needs some time and commitment).