Guild Wars 2

I’m well aware that the new FoV slider changed some things with siege placements, and that’s perfectly fine, makes some WvW aspects more interesting. However, there is no reason that my server should have to lose a T3 Hills and Garrison because the other server can AC down the inner cannons at cata spot and make it near impossible to defend the keep 30 v 7.

On top of all of this, there was an ArenaNet employee running with them, after whispering him/her the response I recieved was “The people in charge of that are aware of it” “its deefinitely a topic of discussion.”

When can we expect to see something to fix this? I’d rather not lose another T3 keep.

From what it sounds like you saw the fix in progress. Devs will often follow along with players to spot things like this. Devs can only fix what they know about so make sure to use /bug when you find something like this. I’ve bug reported spots before and seen them patched quickly.

Just so we are clear, you making a thread to complain that you lost a 30 v 7 fight, not once, but twice ?

I do not like that inner siege can be hit from outer with ACs either, but I am not certain what mentioning that you were 7 against 30 had to do with it.

This has also happened on other servers. Where enemies places AC’s outside a keep and then proceed to shoot down all the sieges we got on inner and outer. It’s quite annoying honestly and the scouts are getting quite frustrated over this. Changes are always good, i’m not complaining about that, but when people are using it to take down sieges that should not be reacheable, then there’s something wrong.

if you’re not fine with this, then you’re not fine with the camera changes that were made because it’s the only thing that made it possible with the current and old los and trajectory rules.

Considering that defenders can also build ACs in such a way as to take out enemy catas and AC at that spot using the same fov settings, I’m not understanding the issue here.

Chaba.5410:

Considering that defenders can also build ACs in such a way as to take out enemy catas and AC at that spot using the same fov settings, I’m not understanding the issue here.

Yeah, I didn’t have that thought in my mind when I made my previous post, but when you take that into consideration, it really comes down to a matter of "why didn’t you hit their siege with your siege as well.

Since it is equal on both sides, I feel you make a perfectly reasonable counter point here.

This will not matter once the new BL maps come out, unless they didnt’ address this on the new maps.

I agree it is OP and I believe an easy fix would be to just disable the FOV while on siege, I know that its within Anet capabilities to do such things. Even though I use this all the time now, it seems like anet took the lazy approach to zoomhackers and instead of banning them, they gave everyone the ability to AC over walls now. Screenshot below shows how easy it is to setup an AC and start killing all the siege now, you can even see in my chatbox saying i can wipe out all there stuff.

I agree with the OP this is something that has to be looked into, Anet should take both the zoomhack + this into consideration and fix it for Wvw. As suggested above, make it so that when on siege you have limited view. Zoomhackers should be banned on the spot! then again for that we would need an option in game to report hackers. When reporting it should take a screenshot so people do not get reported randomly. Even that I am sure Anet ingores the fact that these two things ruin Wvw and that they don’t reply on this thread I gave it a shot .

Also Anet, change the walls in WvW so people can’t place siege on a wall to take things down

coglin.1867:

Chaba.5410:

Considering that defenders can also build ACs in such a way as to take out enemy catas and AC at that spot using the same fov settings, I’m not understanding the issue here.

Yeah, I didn’t have that thought in my mind when I made my previous post, but when you take that into consideration, it really comes down to a matter of "why didn’t you hit their siege with your siege as well.

Since it is equal on both sides, I feel you make a perfectly reasonable counter point here.

I think the issue is enemies building outside the gate/wall have a time advantage since this can occur when nobody is even aware the tower/keep siege is being destroyed by a single AC. The only way this would be fair is to literally post somebody to stand guard 24/7. Otherwise the damage would be done before you even arrive to counter siege the enemy AC, assuming they didn’t first focus down any AC in range to counter them.

Dhemize.8649:

coglin.1867:

Chaba.5410:

Considering that defenders can also build ACs in such a way as to take out enemy catas and AC at that spot using the same fov settings, I’m not understanding the issue here.

Yeah, I didn’t have that thought in my mind when I made my previous post, but when you take that into consideration, it really comes down to a matter of "why didn’t you hit their siege with your siege as well.

Since it is equal on both sides, I feel you make a perfectly reasonable counter point here.

I think the issue is enemies building outside the gate/wall have a time advantage since this can occur when nobody is even aware the tower/keep siege is being destroyed by a single AC. The only way this would be fair is to literally post somebody to stand guard 24/7. Otherwise the damage would be done before you even arrive to counter siege the enemy AC, assuming they didn’t first focus down any AC in range to counter them.

We already do that. They are scouts. You should already have siege built in your keep. The scout s should easily be on siege raining down on the enemy before they even get siege up. In my opinion, if you want to keep it, you would have it scouted. If an enemy has players at your own towers, before you do, as I see it, you either do not feel it is that important in the first place, or you made a bad strategic move for the map as a whole.

This needs to be fixed. We just lost a T3 garri to this behavior.

I don’t agree with the argument “well, you should just pov/zoom hack too and take down the pov/zoom hackers”.

Anet, please either disable the new POV functionality when you are on siege or disable it entirely when you are on a WvW map.

Are you suggesting it is a hack?

I am against any artificially created or hacking scenario, for sure, but when it occurs with standard FoV, it is fine. There were hundreds of threads demanding expanded FoV since release. So they finally offered what was requested very very often.

It’s not a zoomhack. It’s a setting in your game client. If you aren’t going to have counter-siege and scouts, of course you are going to lose your T3 garri. It happens even without the larger FOV.

The funny thing is that they filled in QL’s bridge because attackers were able to kill siege in the tower. So maybe they’ll do a sloppy fix for this just like with QL?

coglin.1867:

Dhemize.8649:

coglin.1867:

Chaba.5410:

Considering that defenders can also build ACs in such a way as to take out enemy catas and AC at that spot using the same fov settings, I’m not understanding the issue here.

Yeah, I didn’t have that thought in my mind when I made my previous post, but when you take that into consideration, it really comes down to a matter of "why didn’t you hit their siege with your siege as well.

Since it is equal on both sides, I feel you make a perfectly reasonable counter point here.

I think the issue is enemies building outside the gate/wall have a time advantage since this can occur when nobody is even aware the tower/keep siege is being destroyed by a single AC. The only way this would be fair is to literally post somebody to stand guard 24/7. Otherwise the damage would be done before you even arrive to counter siege the enemy AC, assuming they didn’t first focus down any AC in range to counter them.

We already do that. They are scouts. You should already have siege built in your keep. The scout s should easily be on siege raining down on the enemy before they even get siege up. In my opinion, if you want to keep it, you would have it scouted. If an enemy has players at your own towers, before you do, as I see it, you either do not feel it is that important in the first place, or you made a bad strategic move for the map as a whole.

So you’re saying you literally have 1 or 2 people sitting on ACs within cover range of all siege within every tower/keep on every map at all times?

Also noting in bold that you assume one server is not massively outnumbering the other. Just to clarify, it’s bad strategy and not manpower at fault, correct?

Dhemize.8649:

coglin.1867:

Dhemize.8649:

coglin.1867:

Chaba.5410:

Considering that defenders can also build ACs in such a way as to take out enemy catas and AC at that spot using the same fov settings, I’m not understanding the issue here.

Yeah, I didn’t have that thought in my mind when I made my previous post, but when you take that into consideration, it really comes down to a matter of "why didn’t you hit their siege with your siege as well.

Since it is equal on both sides, I feel you make a perfectly reasonable counter point here.

I think the issue is enemies building outside the gate/wall have a time advantage since this can occur when nobody is even aware the tower/keep siege is being destroyed by a single AC. The only way this would be fair is to literally post somebody to stand guard 24/7. Otherwise the damage would be done before you even arrive to counter siege the enemy AC, assuming they didn’t first focus down any AC in range to counter them.

We already do that. They are scouts. You should already have siege built in your keep. The scout s should easily be on siege raining down on the enemy before they even get siege up. In my opinion, if you want to keep it, you would have it scouted. If an enemy has players at your own towers, before you do, as I see it, you either do not feel it is that important in the first place, or you made a bad strategic move for the map as a whole.

So you’re saying you literally have 1 or 2 people sitting on ACs within cover range of all siege within every tower/keep on every map at all times?

Also noting in bold that you assume one server is not massively outnumbering the other. Just to clarify, it’s bad strategy and not manpower at fault, correct?

No. I am not saying they are sitting on ACs, that wouldn’t be very help full as a scout. The are generally looking scouting the horizon for incoming enemies, so they know which AC to occupy for the best defense.

I never made any assumptions or population. A properly sieged and scouted tower can easily defend a much larger force, at least in my experience.

As well, if your scouting a way pointed keep, if you see the enemy before they actually contest it, you can get help ported in before the fight even starts.

Your comment about population is irrelevant. If you want to cry about population, please go do so on one of those threads please. This is a thread about ACs, their ability to reach inner siege, and FoV, and we would appreciate staying on that topic.

To answer your direct question, yes, I am basically telling you that. If your have a scout, and they do their job and scout the enemy. There should be no problem at all taking out their siege first in my opinion. Although, I cannot say that I agree with inner siege being able to reach enemy siege outside the outer wall, nor do I agree with siege outside the outer wall being able to reach inner wall siege. At least in terms of AC, obviously not referring to ballista’s, trebs, and catapults. But as long as they can reach each other, on equal footing, as they do now, I do not see any justification for a complaint.

You shouldn’t be relying on inner cannons to do anything other than hit rams on the outer gate, which imo is much worse than what you described.

Build more siege.

coglin.1867:

Dhemize.8649:

coglin.1867:

Dhemize.8649:

coglin.1867:

Chaba.5410:

Considering that defenders can also build ACs in such a way as to take out enemy catas and AC at that spot using the same fov settings, I’m not understanding the issue here.

Yeah, I didn’t have that thought in my mind when I made my previous post, but when you take that into consideration, it really comes down to a matter of "why didn’t you hit their siege with your siege as well.

Since it is equal on both sides, I feel you make a perfectly reasonable counter point here.

I think the issue is enemies building outside the gate/wall have a time advantage since this can occur when nobody is even aware the tower/keep siege is being destroyed by a single AC. The only way this would be fair is to literally post somebody to stand guard 24/7. Otherwise the damage would be done before you even arrive to counter siege the enemy AC, assuming they didn’t first focus down any AC in range to counter them.

We already do that. They are scouts. You should already have siege built in your keep. The scout s should easily be on siege raining down on the enemy before they even get siege up. In my opinion, if you want to keep it, you would have it scouted. If an enemy has players at your own towers, before you do, as I see it, you either do not feel it is that important in the first place, or you made a bad strategic move for the map as a whole.

So you’re saying you literally have 1 or 2 people sitting on ACs within cover range of all siege within every tower/keep on every map at all times?

Also noting in bold that you assume one server is not massively outnumbering the other. Just to clarify, it’s bad strategy and not manpower at fault, correct?

No. I am not saying they are sitting on ACs, that wouldn’t be very help full as a scout. The are generally looking scouting the horizon for incoming enemies, so they know which AC to occupy for the best defense.

Read you previous quote again. Either you back peddled or you’re not clearly conveying what you mean. Either they are running around scouting or they are already prepared in the keep/tower.

coglin.1867:

I never made any assumptions or population. A properly sieged and scouted tower can easily defend a much larger force, at least in my experience.

Obviously, but not every enemy on map will be accounted for nor will every nook and cranny be observed by defenders 24/7.

coglin.1867:

As well, if your scouting a way pointed keep, if you see the enemy before they actually contest it, you can get help ported in before the fight even starts.

Building an AC to destroy inner siege does not contest it, allowing all siege to be destroyed. So again, unless you have somebody standing on the wall of each side of every keep/tower, this comment is pointless.

coglin.1867:

Your comment about population is irrelevant. If you want to cry about population, please go do so on one of those threads please. This is a thread about ACs, their ability to reach inner siege, and FoV, and we would appreciate staying on that topic.

Population is needed to man every wall of every keep/tower for you argument to be valid. Otherwise the enemy gets free reign during a dead TZ over what seige is destroyed before you arrive to defend. If you don’t understand this you may as well abandon the conversation.

coglin.1867:

To answer your direct question, yes, I am basically telling you that. If your have a scout, and they do their job and scout the enemy. There should be no problem at all taking out their siege first in my opinion. ….. But as long as they can reach each other, on equal footing, as they do now, I do not see any justification for a complaint.

Enemies will hold the time advantage because they freely choose what to attack. You can scout and run ahead of them to jump in a tower, but if they turn and go for another your effort is moot. The point of defense is to give an advantage to the often smaller group running inside. If the attackers hold all the power in both attack and defense (being able to take down all inner seige) then that negates having defense at all.

Yes, both ACs are able to attack each other, but you cannot attack an enemy AC that has yet to be built and you can’t defend with nobody there. Again, time advantage. They pop in, build one AC, destroy everything, run away. This only takes about two people to accomplish.

You can ask somebody on your server who actually plays WvW to explain any further details.

+1 to the above post (Dhemize, not the other fellow).

Making it easier to destroy defensive siege can result in the outnumbered side building less siege, leading to a further decline in population due to a decline in morale, resulting in to more “paper” structures and more PvDoor.

It is not a zoomhack. The problem is caused by the functionality of arrow carts. They do not have a trajectory. If ACs would work like ballistas or catapults the FOV would not have any influence. I hope the devs are able to introduce a trajectory to ACs in a way that obstacles simply block the arrows.