Guild Wars 2

I know that this is a bit of a touchy subject since more people place siege for the right reasons but there are some people who think it funny to cap a keep and even a map with nothing but ballistas. And I know this does not just happen in one server in particular but this is just a joke to see people running around naked in a guild so obviously set up to ruin the gameplay experience of WvWers.

My specific story is dedicated to Eternal Battlegrounds at Overlook keep where a certain player decided that he would want to cheat by placing 20 ballistas over water gate and outer. Why is this cheating? 1) Siege caps and now we have to wait 1 full hour to place proper siege 2) Supply is falling at an atrocious level where if we were attacked, we have no supply proper. 3) Gives enemy players the opportunity to attack a keep with improper defenses.

Yes, this assumes that the keep is attacked but that is semantics. We are in WvW, everything is contested.

I am not asking for this person and anyone in the [Now] guild to be banned (though everyone else is calling for this person’s head), I am asking Anet take a proactive approach and cap the amount of siege any one person can place in a certain radius. This is far out of control and ruins the gameplay for people actually wanting to play right.

We have gotten so used to Anet’s lack of love for WvW, most forums are dedicated to WvW’s dying. Commanders and other players just ignore this issue by saying “Report him, all we can do” and the siege trolls are just laughing and mocking us in team chat. I am shocked that no one cares enough to actually promote fairness in a competitive matchup.

There are few if any ways to cap/limit siege without applying that to legit usage… which is going to frustrate players, commanders in particular. Any system you can think of can be abused.

Anet could make it so that if enough people report a player for siege trolling he wont be able to build siege on that border for quite some time. But people will probably troll commanders with it.

The only way to completely “solve” this is to limit siege to build sites, much like how cannons/mortars work. Like a keep has 3 positions for arrowcarts, 2 ram positions on the door and 3 surrounding sites where you can place 3 ranged siege on each. That way the hardcap for siege is actually all the siege you can build on a border. But that would probably get boring and predictable.

An easy way could be to raise costs every time you solo build siege. Like, first ram you build cost 40 sups. If you dump all those 40 sups into it, the next ram cost 80 sups. If you dump all those 80 sups into it, the next ram cost 160 sups, etc and so on. But you would have to time limit it in order to make solo play viable (say 10 min cd), which only delay the troll. Or they bring groups to troll. Maybe thats good enough, I dont know.

I like your ideas Dawdler! It is a really tricky problem.

On a not so unrelated note in Underworld (EU T9) we have someone from the opposite server that has an alt account he uses to “spy” (our 5 players XD Not kidding). However he also uses it to occupy some of our defensive siege then proceeds to afk on it and therefore prevent us from using it.

So I’ll add to the to do list:
Thinking of a way to “kick” people from defensive siege to avoid that one troll/spy that will block your AC and fail an entire defense because of it.

There are a few devs that have been dedicated over the past few months to getting rid of these players. After a ban or two, JQ has shaped up quite nicely and its not so much a problem anymore. I would recommend you report them with the excuse of “botting” as that is what Proheals said to do. That way the team can quickly get to the issue. Screenshots do help because they further provide proof of someone’s wrong doings.

Popping an email to support@guildwars2.com will “at least” get ya an acknowledgement response also.

Actually, there is a siege cap. It is for keep, and server.

The best thing you can do is when you see this happening, report the player as a bot. Being on a T1 server, we have had our share of siege -crapping trolls. In fact, one such troll, we know for a fact, is paid in game gold to do this to our server. The troll still exists but hasn’t been around lately. A.Net wants to catch them when they are placing siege, remember the siege needs to be trolly (meaning like a flame ram on top of a wall, etc). Just putting out a bunch of ballistas like that will not do.

how about just add the players name to the siege? just like the guild tag shows up on guild siege.

Dawdler.8521:

The only way to completely “solve” this is to limit siege to build sites, much like how cannons/mortars work. Like a keep has 3 positions for arrowcarts, 2 ram positions on the door and 3 surrounding sites where you can place 3 ranged siege on each. That way the hardcap for siege is actually all the siege you can build on a border. But that would probably get boring and predictable.

Oh gosh no, please!

I only two months ago discovered brand new siege placement spots to counter the abuse of the fov camera angles. This plan would have thwarted that creativity and effort to counter

Dawdler.8521:

An easy way could be to raise costs every time you solo build siege. Like, first ram you build cost 40 sups. If you dump all those 40 sups into it, the next ram cost 80 sups. If you dump all those 80 sups into it, the next ram cost 160 sups, etc and so on. But you would have to time limit it in order to make solo play viable (say 10 min cd), which only delay the troll. Or they bring groups to troll. Maybe thats good enough, I dont know.

This would only enable those trying to drain supply from a keep so that defenses are low. This actually would delight most siege trolls who’s sole purpose is to keep supply low so a tower or keep is easier to flip.

As you said, anything that can be abused by players will be.

Zepher.7803:

how about just add the players name to the siege? just like the guild tag shows up on guild siege.

The more I hear about this the more I like it. However, I’d be concerned with map harassment of a player who say, only dropped a regular AC, or put a piece of siege in an odd spot because they were learning or they were experimenting with new placements. You know how people are — “we do it this way and this way ONLY!” -- and they freak over any changes. I’d hate to see this tool being used to harass someone.

I actually had someone on my NA account be snotty to me over me placing a treb in a newly found spot I’d discovered in EU. It’s really effective and works brilliantly versus the new fov angles. They stood there and criticized the new spot because it wasn’t the USUAL spot. It made me not log into my NA account for a month, lol. When I did, however, I found some people who weren’t closed minded and they were overjoyed with the new placements and what they could hit.

Jayne.9251:

Dawdler.8521:

The only way to completely “solve” this is to limit siege to build sites, much like how cannons/mortars work. Like a keep has 3 positions for arrowcarts, 2 ram positions on the door and 3 surrounding sites where you can place 3 ranged siege on each. That way the hardcap for siege is actually all the siege you can build on a border. But that would probably get boring and predictable.

Oh gosh no, please!

I only two months ago discovered brand new siege placement spots to counter the abuse of the fov camera angles. This plan would have thwarted that creativity and effort to counter

Dawdler.8521:

An easy way could be to raise costs every time you solo build siege. Like, first ram you build cost 40 sups. If you dump all those 40 sups into it, the next ram cost 80 sups. If you dump all those 80 sups into it, the next ram cost 160 sups, etc and so on. But you would have to time limit it in order to make solo play viable (say 10 min cd), which only delay the troll. Or they bring groups to troll. Maybe thats good enough, I dont know.

This would only enable those trying to drain supply from a keep so that defenses are low. This actually would delight most siege trolls who’s sole purpose is to keep supply low so a tower or keep is easier to flip.

As you said, anything that can be abused by players will be.

Zepher.7803:

how about just add the players name to the siege? just like the guild tag shows up on guild siege.

The more I hear about this the more I like it. However, I’d be concerned with map harassment of a player who say, only dropped a regular AC, or put a piece of siege in an odd spot because they were learning or they were experimenting with new placements. You know how people are — “we do it this way and this way ONLY!” -- and they freak over any changes. I’d hate to see this tool being used to harass someone.

I actually had someone on my NA account be snotty to me over me placing a treb in a newly found spot I’d discovered in EU. It’s really effective and works brilliantly versus the new fov angles. They stood there and criticized the new spot because it wasn’t the USUAL spot. It made me not log into my NA account for a month, lol. When I did, however, I found some people who weren’t closed minded and they were overjoyed with the new placements and what they could hit.

I laugh at people that don’t know my “leet” siege placement skills but the name tag thing would be for screen caps of obvious siege trolling, 100 rams/trebs etc. it’s more of a “oh kitten everyone will know I put this siege down” which might help.

Yeah but I’ve seen people blast others for putting down a regular piece of siege vs a superior one. While I do agree superior siege is more useful, I’m more in the camp of “oh look! someone’s making an effort to learn/place siege, I don’t care what kind it is, they’ll figure it out on their own soon enough that regular siege is only so-so for defense. I’d rather they try than not at all…”

And there are plenty of times when a regular treb works just as well as a superior one.