Guild Wars 2

For anyone new, a proxy catapult is one that is built directly against a wall so that it can’t be interacted with by any siege built on top of or inside of the walls with the possible exception of arrow carts that are vulnerable to attack or AoE from below. In short, the only way to defend against a proxy catapult is to leave the structure being attacked and fight outside of the wall with the group that is defending the catapults. If that group is bigger, then there is no viable method of defense.

This leads to the server that has the most people being capable of taking structures with impunity, regardless of upgrades or defenders. It requires no significant thought or action on their part.

Because of this, it is considered a better idea to abandon structures and go hit undefended enemy objectives if you don’t have a comparably sized force. In essence, both servers in question are karma training (flipping undefended structures) rather than interacting.

The problem is made worse by population imbalance, but since there will always be at least temporary population imbalances, it is not a symptom of it.

Proxy catas have been around forever, but that doesn’t mean that Anet is fond of them. Plenty of things in WvW have been problematic forever but Anet just hasn’t gotten around to fixing them for one reason or another. We got some fixes (or attempts, which are nice) with HoT and we’re getting another round in April. Thus, I want to ask if this is one of the things they’re hoping to fix or change.

How would you “fix” that?

FogLeg.9354:

How would you “fix” that?

Minimum effective range?

FogLeg.9354:

How would you “fix” that?

Deny opponent siege placement (excluding flame rams and golems) within a radius of about 1,200 units of a destructible wall.

It would be the same code as is used in area siege cap (maximum of 5 within a radius of each other), with a few slight modifications and with a check for wall ownership compared to home server of the player trying to deploy the bundle.

Virtute.8251:

FogLeg.9354:

How would you “fix” that?

Deny opponent siege placement (excluding flame rams and golems) within a radius of about 1,200 units of a destructible wall.

It would be the same code as is used in area siege cap (maximum of 5 within a radius of each other), with a few slight modifications and with a check for wall ownership compared to home server of the player trying to deploy the bundle.

So basically, you want to nullify flame rams. They need to be NEXT TO A GATE IN ORDER TO WORK.

Well, this type of cata placement is needed since the radius and blind arrow cart shots is ridiculous.

People that complain about this, must just want PPT all the time.

The counters to offensive siege consist of killing the siege or blocking the shots with shield bubbles. The first is a permanent counter, the second is more of a delay tactic.

The counters to defensive siege consist of killing the siege using a height or range advantage and moving further away than it can hit.

With that in mind, there are two possible fixes that I can think of off-hand:

The first would be to change arrow carts to fire in a similar manner to catapults, as suggested by Tricare in a recent thread. This would mean that the area around the walls would be a kill-zone but the fire rate of the carts would effectively be lower, making them less useful against moving targets (players). Thus, players could still use proxy catas on an undefended structure but would be taking a huge risk if anyone showed up.

The second would be to add spikes or such at the base of the walls that disallow such close placement. This would make the accessible area around the walls somewhat of a kill-zone, like the first idea—with similar results. However, I think 500 units is enough distance…1,200 seems excessive.

I prefer the first idea since it doesn’t take any choices away from the attacking server—it simply adds some appropriate risk by giving the defenders a way to respond.

Friendly fire on siege would work. not sure if adding that to ac’s would be good or bad.

Simple answer to that: Give them 10,000 range so that we can actually siege objectives from afar without any danger of ACs, ballistas or quickly responding (hitting another cata from that far would require skill and advance scout).

Hell that would even solve a problem with DBL. Give trebs like 30,000 range so you can hit garri from hills/bay or nw/ne tower.

Catapults already out-range arrow carts, ballistas and cannons. There’s no need to push that to some absurd degree.

Dawdler.8521:

Simple answer to that: Give them 10,000 range so that we can actually siege objectives from afar without any danger of ACs, ballistas or quickly responding (hitting another cata from that far would require skill and advance scout).

Hell that would even solve a problem with DBL. Give trebs like 30,000 range so you can hit garri from hills/bay or nw/ne tower.

what you are doing is completely separating the fight from the siege for both sides. this would encourage more braindead gameplay centered around camping siege, forever. there would be no incentive to engage anything unless the walls are down. so instead of karma trains we would have camp trains.

a very horrible idea imo.

an idea i had a while back would be to lock siege placement to a select number of places. for the attacker and defender. these places would be the ideal location for each type of siege minus unreachable or exploitative locations. make it so you cant place the siege unless you have a tag up and (5?) people in your squad. this fixes all exploits, troll siege, and siege spam. im not sure what sort of problems would pop up with this but i would be interested to hear some of you guys come up with them.

@Stand The Wall

Creativity in siege placement is crucial. With pre-defined places, one can always predict just how to treb that catapult out in the field…defending becomes much more powerful and relies on a chart of distances rather than anything else.

Also, sometimes a ballista just needs to be free, you know? To counter some equally oddball treb placement.

FogLeg.9354:

How would you “fix” that?

the old los and placement mechanics of ACs worked just fine. they also countered siege bunkering very well.

some mouthy ppl, ignorant of good siege placement, cried on the forums. things changed and not for the better.

Proxy catas are, many times, the only way to do something against the ridicolous OPiness of arrow carts that make the gates untouchable, and you want to “fix” it?
You guys want more ppl leave wvw or what? You want destroy the wvw definitveliy?
I really dont understand…..
If you want “fix” the proxy cata ask for a big nerf of arrow carts then there will be no reason to go for proxy catas anymore…

JaKal.4538:

Proxy catas are, many times, the only way to do something against the ridicolous OPiness of arrow carts that make the gates untouchable, and you want to “fix” it?
You guys want more ppl leave wvw or what? You want destroy the wvw definitveliy?
I really dont understand…..
If you want “fix” the proxy cata ask for a big nerf of arrow carts then there will be no reason to go for proxy catas anymore…

Have you considered placing your catapults outside of arrow cart range? In some cases, this won’t even mean you need to charge the throw at all, so it’ll be the same speed.

Sviel.7493:

JaKal.4538:

Proxy catas are, many times, the only way to do something against the ridicolous OPiness of arrow carts that make the gates untouchable, and you want to “fix” it?
You guys want more ppl leave wvw or what? You want destroy the wvw definitveliy?
I really dont understand…..
If you want “fix” the proxy cata ask for a big nerf of arrow carts then there will be no reason to go for proxy catas anymore…

Have you considered placing your catapults outside of arrow cart range? In some cases, this won’t even mean you need to charge the throw at all, so it’ll be the same speed.

Well, I have seen arrow carts hit well beyond their supposed range and that should not happen. Example, arrow carts on 3rd floor of SMC – that is higher than their range yet they do rain down on catas well away from the wall.

The other thing not mentioned is sometimes a cata placed in this position are used to knock down 2 walls, not one. This way it makes it harder for defenders to repair.

If arrow carts are hitting beyond their range, that’s a separate problem that should also be addressed.

If a group wants to hit 2 walls with 1 cata, they simply have to aim for the same spot from a distance. If they want to make it easier by placing the cata against the wall, it should be riskier, not safer. The same holds if you mean hitting an outer wall then an inner wall, too. Such convenience should come with risks or it will always be the best choice as it is now.

Sviel.7493:

Creativity in siege placement is crucial. With pre-defined places, one can always predict just how to treb that catapult out in the field…defending becomes much more powerful and relies on a chart of distances rather than anything else.

Also, sometimes a ballista just needs to be free, you know? To counter some equally oddball treb placement.

fair enough, but dont you think creativity is exhausted at this point? seems to me experienced siegers know every in and out of placement and there arent any surprises. im not saying that the predefined locations should be totally vulnerable and limited, but counter-able by at least one tactic or a combo of some. i think defending would lose a lot by the siege cap alone. add no exploits on top of that and you have a greatly reduced defense by siege.

Simple fix if it is close let splash damage hit the cata and operator.

Stand The Wall.6987:

fair enough, but dont you think creativity is exhausted at this point? seems to me experienced siegers know every in and out of placement and there arent any surprises. im not saying that the predefined locations should be totally vulnerable and limited, but counter-able by at least one tactic or a combo of some. i think defending would lose a lot by the siege cap alone. add no exploits on top of that and you have a greatly reduced defense by siege.

Creativity is stifled, not exhausted. The existence of an indisputable best choice renders all other options meaningless. Experienced siegers know the best place to put siege so that it cannot be interacted with—remove or alter that reality and suddenly a whole host of alternatives will open up.

Sviel.7493:

JaKal.4538:

Proxy catas are, many times, the only way to do something against the ridicolous OPiness of arrow carts that make the gates untouchable, and you want to “fix” it?
You guys want more ppl leave wvw or what? You want destroy the wvw definitveliy?
I really dont understand…..
If you want “fix” the proxy cata ask for a big nerf of arrow carts then there will be no reason to go for proxy catas anymore…

Have you considered placing your catapults outside of arrow cart range? In some cases, this won’t even mean you need to charge the throw at all, so it’ll be the same speed.

Have you considered that if cata is not in the arrow cart range that means it is in the range of trebs/mortar?
Otherwise what should be the reason to use proxy catas?

JaKal.4538:

Have you considered that if cata is not in the arrow cart range that means it is in the range of trebs/mortar?
Otherwise what should be the reason to use proxy catas?

Ah, so what you’re looking for is a catapult placement that can’t be hit by anything? Well, I can’t help you there.

Unless, perhaps, you’re satisfied with building shield bubbles to shut down the mortar/treb.

Sviel.7493:

JaKal.4538:

Have you considered that if cata is not in the arrow cart range that means it is in the range of trebs/mortar?
Otherwise what should be the reason to use proxy catas?

Ah, so what you’re looking for is a catapult placement that can’t be hit by anything? Well, I can’t help you there.

Unless, perhaps, you’re satisfied with building shield bubbles to shut down the mortar/treb.

So what you are looking for is a wall that cant be hit by anything?
The gates are already untouchable, and now you want make even wall untouchable?
And not, im not looking for a cata placement that cant be hit because catas can be always disabled and hit by other players.
The problem is that you always want repel the attackers without going outside and fight them/disable/destroy catas. All you want do is sit behind/on wall pressing one button on a sige and never die.
Meanwhile the wvw population drop.

Sviel.7493:

Experienced siegers know the best place to put siege so that it cannot be interacted with—remove or alter that reality and suddenly a whole host of alternatives will open up.

which is the heart of the problem. they should always be able to be interacted with, on both sides of the fence. alternatives to attack or defend should be encouraged.

Stand The Wall.6987:

Sviel.7493:

Experienced siegers know the best place to put siege so that it cannot be interacted with—remove or alter that reality and suddenly a whole host of alternatives will open up.

which is the heart of the problem. they should always be able to be interacted with, on both sides of the fence. alternatives to attack or defend should be encouraged.

I agree with you, 100%.

However, rather than limit the interactions to a set number of positions, I’d rather modify the existing game to better reflect your statement. I don’t think that the interactions are too far off right now—if proxy catas are addressed then the other non-interactive spots will be only map hiccups (Firekeep stairs) or wonky hitboxes (NE Rampart).

Scale damage based on charging time. Point-blank might be safer with fewer counters, but it’ll take way longer and likely the siege will get destroyed or reinforcements can be called in for the fight outside.

Imho, cannon and AC fire radius need nerfing to make ballistae more viable as anti-siege solutions rather than just humping tons of AC’s.

Easy fix: reduce radius of meteor shower.

DeceiverX.8361:

Scale damage based on charging time. Point-blank might be safer with fewer counters, but it’ll take way longer and likely the siege will get destroyed or reinforcements can be called in for the fight outside.

Imho, cannon and AC fire radius need nerfing to make ballistae more viable as anti-siege solutions rather than just humping tons of AC’s.

People will just build them point-blank and full charge for damage. Besides, it doesn’t solve the lack of interaction—it just makes things take longer. The siege still won’t get destroyed because there’s so little that can be done to hit it, if anything.

guilddabd

Easy fix: reduce radius of meteor shower.

Not only would that have repercussions in fights, but it would still not solve the issue as some of these placements are nigh impossible to target due to camera limitations.

Sviel.7493:

DeceiverX.8361:

Scale damage based on charging time. Point-blank might be safer with fewer counters, but it’ll take way longer and likely the siege will get destroyed or reinforcements can be called in for the fight outside.

Imho, cannon and AC fire radius need nerfing to make ballistae more viable as anti-siege solutions rather than just humping tons of AC’s.

People will just build them point-blank and full charge for damage. Besides, it doesn’t solve the lack of interaction—it just makes things take longer. The siege still won’t get destroyed because there’s so little that can be done to hit it, if anything.

guilddabd

Easy fix: reduce radius of meteor shower.

Not only would that have repercussions in fights, but it would still not solve the issue as some of these placements are nigh impossible to target due to camera limitations.

It’ll take so much longer that the few mechanisms which can interact will likely be viable enough to take them out. Positioning is always going to be exploited no matter how one looks at it. The next complaint would be that a cliff way out in the distance is too high/safe, etc.

Player weapon skills can kill catas faster than ACs.

Coldtart.4785:

Player weapon skills can kill catas faster than ACs.

Depends on bubbles and whatnot, but yes, if given free reign, pretty much all siege melts to glassy players’ big nukes.

DeceiverX.8361:

Scale damage based on charging time. Point-blank might be safer with fewer counters, but it’ll take way longer and likely the siege will get destroyed or reinforcements can be called in for the fight outside.

Imho, cannon and AC fire radius need nerfing to make ballistae more viable as anti-siege solutions rather than just humping tons of AC’s.

Like this one, or a variant and make the catapult scale damage based on distance traveled.

But I agree that I’d like to know if ANet considers Proxy Cata to be a valid tactic or not.

Sviel.7493:

JaKal.4538:

Proxy catas are, many times, the only way to do something against the ridicolous OPiness of arrow carts that make the gates untouchable, and you want to “fix” it?
You guys want more ppl leave wvw or what? You want destroy the wvw definitveliy?
I really dont understand…..
If you want “fix” the proxy cata ask for a big nerf of arrow carts then there will be no reason to go for proxy catas anymore…

Have you considered placing your catapults outside of arrow cart range? In some cases, this won’t even mean you need to charge the throw at all, so it’ll be the same speed.

Cara’s at long range tend to be vulnerable to mortars, balistas and trebs. It also means you need a second set to hit the inner walls of a keep.

The real problem is the LOS rules that make it kitten near impossible to man the walls and attack proxy cats without being pulled off the wall.

Not sure I understand the problem. If catas are too close they are vulnerable to easy throw disablers. If they are back from a wall, trebs and often counter catas hit them pretty easily with some exceptions (looking at you Klovan, Durios and Wildcreek).

@DeceiverX

There are some placements, like on NET in the DBL, where the cata cannot be hit by anything short of a ballista placed on the vulnerable front gate, in full view of the attackers. No matter how long it takes, that spot would remain absolutely safe.

Also, if damage is based on the time traveled, then the time it takes to break into an undefended structure will greatly increase. I don’t think there’s any need to make people wait longer to flip something that isn’t even being attended to—that’s why fortified walls and gates on towers were nerfed, right?

@Coldtart

Good luck using player weapon skills on a cata tucked so far into your corner that you have to lean out to hit it.

@Wanderer

Catas at any range should be vulnerable to destruction by something. There must be a way for offensive siege and defensive siege to interact.

Even if LoS rules were reverted, there would still be places where a proxy cata would be out of the way of any attack.

@Straegen

Disablers are a delay tactic, not a tool for destruction. Even if we ignore the lopsided danger in tossing them, they are not a viable means for defense unless you have a comparably sized force on the way…which brings us right back to the most populous server k-training everything with impunity.

Proxy catas are fine IMO. One of the few ways to breach a t3 structure currently (especially in T1). Nerfing cata’s further is not a good idea, unless all siege is nerfed.

Baratta.1083:

Simple fix if it is close let splash damage hit the cata and operator.

LOVE this idea!

Even just knock back would work, too.

There is nothing wrong with proxy cata’s. If you limit the placing cata’s to some min distance, then you will make cata’s completely useless, because there are few if any place to place cata’s not next to a wall that they can’t be hit by treb or motor fire. And treb and mortar fire kills other seige way too fast

Defense is already way too strong. There are,already multiple servers who refuse to engage any oposing force even when they out number the other servers 2 to 1.

This game should always be about player vs player interaction not player vs door, player vs wall, or player vs seige. What a lot of people do not understand is the true purpose of the towers and keep are. The towers and keeps are not there for people to hide inside and defend. They are there for the other servers to attack, and to force you to engage them.

Then build some offensive treb…. Split your zerg to attack multiple spot at one time…
Drain supply inside the keep with multiple attack and force players inside to repair…
Attacker can resupply and continu to attack, defender can’t…
Siege mean time…. And there is so many place where you can place offensive weapon…. Just try different spot to drain supply… Or another solution, attack another keep…
If some defender choose to heavy siege one keep, I doubt they will do it on the other keep… Take all the map, and then come back for the last keep…

Building siege inside the keep cost a lot of gold… Same to activate the guild upgrade (I hate those guild upgrade). It’s normal that you can’t enter in the keep in 2min with 1 proxy cata that defender can’t destroy…

what about applying some real life / physics to it ? – if the cata is too close to wall, it makes a dent, but not as much damage as if projectiles had more distance to generate more momentum ? the ram, makes sense because it’s meant to work up close, but on the same hand if you launched a flaming ram from a teb distance, you will take down the doors in one shot.

Sviel.7493:

@DeceiverX

There are some placements, like on NET in the DBL, where the cata cannot be hit by anything short of a ballista placed on the vulnerable front gate, in full view of the attackers. No matter how long it takes, that spot would remain absolutely safe.

This is a design failure on the elevation of some regions and shape of the keeps, and isn’t relevant to Proxy Catapult placement.

Sviel.7493:

Also, if damage is based on the time traveled, then the time it takes to break into an undefended structure will greatly increase. I don’t think there’s any need to make people wait longer to flip something that isn’t even being attended to—that’s why fortified walls and gates on towers were nerfed, right?

And this helps solve the age-old problem of getting people to respond to a siege attempt. Frankly, if they removed safe sieging in general (trebbing structures from other structures), there would be no need to have the fortified upgrade; it could cap on reinforced.

I think AC’s, cannons, and trebs all need range reductions as well. This done with the changes to catas would result in more frequent siege offenses. If placement issues get fixed potentially with reduced splash radius on catapults or terrain tweaks (like the dumb spots on Langor and Klovan in EBG), we’d see siege between groups be more tactical in both offense and defense and help motivate fights rather than prevent them.

Noein

Proxy catas are fine IMO. One of the few ways to breach a t3 structure currently (especially in T1). Nerfing cata’s further is not a good idea, unless all siege is nerfed.

Can you expound on this? I don’t want to make assumptions about your argument but I can’t really say anything about it as is without doing so. Specifically, what is it about proxy catas that makes them the only way to breach a T3 structure? Is it their safety? Their speed?

Baratta

Simple fix if it is close let splash damage hit the cata and operator.

That would work in some cases. It probably wouldn’t be a nerf to taking undefended structures either. It would also make sense, for what that’s worth. However, in the case where the cata is fired horizontally so that it doesn’t strike the wall near where it’s built, it would be no help at all.

Bearded

There is nothing wrong with proxy cata’s. If you limit the placing cata’s to some min distance, then you will make cata’s completely useless, because there are few if any place to place cata’s not next to a wall that they can’t be hit by treb or motor fire. And treb and mortar fire kills other seige way too fast

Am I right in reading this as you saying that catas that can be killed are useless? If so, what are your thoughts on using the catapult shield bubble and/or shield generators to block treb/mortar shots?

Defense is already way too strong. There are,already multiple servers who refuse to engage any oposing force even when they out number the other servers 2 to 1.

If a server does nothing but defend, they will get hammered in score. It should be child’s play to knock them out of your tier in favor of someone more feisty. If they aren’t getting beaten in score then your assessment is either off or they’ve been allowed to keep all of their camps for free.

Even then, defense is not an infinite game. No matter how well they defend, a wall will fall eventually. How quickly that happens should depend on the skill and ingenuity of the attacking force.

This game should always be about player vs player interaction not player vs door, player vs wall, or player vs seige. What a lot of people do not understand is the true purpose of the towers and keep are. The towers and keeps are not there for people to hide inside and defend. They are there for the other servers to attack, and to force you to engage them.

Proxy catas are Player vs. Wall and are valued, apparently, for that reason. There is as little player interaction involved as possible. In fact, many of the complaints listed here state that they should be immune to player interaction but then claim that the goal is to force player interaction. It sounds more like people want to force fights (even lopsided fights) but don’t want any interaction other than that.

I suppose we must disagree about towers and keeps. You seem to view WvW as some sort of convoluted arena that is all about large groups clashing. I wouldn’t mind such a game mode, but this isn’kitten While that is a welcome part of the experience it is not the only part of it.

DeceiverX

This is a design failure on the elevation of some regions and shape of the keeps, and isn’t relevant to Proxy Catapult placement.

There’s no elevation involved. The spot in question isn’t no odd shape either: it’s a corner. I’ll post a screenshot later when I am able.

And this helps solve the age-old problem of getting people to respond to a siege attempt. Frankly, if they removed safe sieging in general (trebbing structures from other structures), there would be no need to have the fortified upgrade; it could cap on reinforced.

If catas are both easier to destroy and take longer to bring a wall down, we’ve dealt offense a double blow. I don’t think that’s necessary—at the very least, only one thing should be done at a time.

Ricky

what about applying some real life / physics to it ? – if the cata is too close to wall, it makes a dent, but not as much damage as if projectiles had more distance to generate more momentum ? the ram, makes sense because it’s meant to work up close, but on the same hand if you launched a flaming ram from a teb distance, you will take down the doors in one shot.

No momentum is generated after the boulder leaves the cata—it is only lost due to wind resistance, though that amount is fairly insignificant. The only exception to this is if the cata is at a higher elevation that the point of impact.

Anyway, it wouldn’t make sense in terms of real life physics to base damage on horizontal distance—vertical distance would, though.

safe sieging isn’t necessarily a bad thing, there are only a few spots that can do it, and it invites skirmishes which can be fun……but on the same hand it’s very bad when you are fighting a larger server that is using every short cut / dirty fighting trick in the book and you can barely keep up with their numbers, let alone tactics meant for balanced fights.

fun for one group, torment in a bully match.

Yes, skirmishes are great, but they should be encouraged rather than forced. A group should skirmish to save a camp because they want the supply. They have the option to avoid the fight and lose at least 5m worth of yaks instead.

A skirmish is also required once the walls are down on an objective. Most of the epic WvW fights I recall happen in the lord room’s and courtyards of keeps. I absolutely don’t want to change that.

However, if a skirmish is required to keep the wall up as well, then there’s no chance for a server that is temporarily less populous to launch a meaningful defense. They clearly can’t skirmish once the walls are down, so they have to desperately keep the wall up as long as they can. If they’re denied any options for doing so, they might as well log off or go attack undefended objectives elsewhere.

Point being, safe sieging does not encourage fights by trying to force them. The only time safe sieging results in a fight is when there was going to be a fight anyway because the defending server had enough people. Whether or not the walls go down, if you have the people you’re going to want to kill the defenders to stop all of the supply damage being taken.

If you want a “fix” to the problem allow treb splash damage to hit through the wall. The same trick with shield gens would also work. I personally think walls should be wider allowing for siege to be placed outside of Meteor Shower requiring attackers to build counter siege.

Sviel.7493:

Disablers are a delay tactic, not a tool for destruction. Even if we ignore the lopsided danger in tossing them, they are not a viable means for defense unless you have a comparably sized force on the way…which brings us right back to the most populous server k-training everything with impunity.

Disablers are very effective against close up siege. A small group of players with a full set of supply can often keep siege locked up for extended periods of time. Not much can stop a significantly larger determined force as they can simply keep building in varioius locations until they take the objective but it isn’t difficult to frustrate an entire zerg.

Disablers cost 15 badges and 4+ silver for 35 seconds of piece. That’s not sustainable at all and it still doesn’t address the issue of being unable to actually destroy the siege.

I realize that not much can stop a larger determined force. I’m not advocating for a change in that reality. Rather, I think the force should have to be determined—making them wait for long periods due to mass siege disablers is not the way. They should attack and possibly be repelled then have to attack again. What must change is the fact that a breach is inevitable no matter what actions anyone takes.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Virtute.8251:

FogLeg.9354:

How would you “fix” that?

Deny opponent siege placement (excluding flame rams and golems) within a radius of about 1,200 units of a destructible wall.

It would be the same code as is used in area siege cap (maximum of 5 within a radius of each other), with a few slight modifications and with a check for wall ownership compared to home server of the player trying to deploy the bundle.

So basically, you want to nullify flame rams.

No. I specifically accounted for that.

Dusty Moon.4382:

They need to be NEXT TO A GATE IN ORDER TO WORK.

No. I specifically accounted for that.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this type of cata placement is needed since the radius and blind arrow cart shots is ridiculous.

No. Catapult has longer range.

Dusty Moon.4382:

People that complain about this, must just want PPT all the time.

No. We just want ArenaNet to try harder at making siege play more varied and nuanced. This thread barely scratches the surface of it, and to OP I gave -the- one correct solution for the most likely fix with the least amount of programmer effort and player pain. Read it again. If you’re still upset, just accept that you’re wrong and walk away.

PS: The next best solution is to allow friendly fire on the catapult projectile’s AoE when it hits a wall, so that the “blowback” damages players and the catapults themselves. It probably should be doing that anyway, but ANet is fanatical about disallowing friendly fire as an anti-griefing measure; and that position does make good sense, if online forums and chats are any measure of player behavior. :^)

Ricky.4706:

what about applying some real life / physics to it ? – if the cata is too close to wall, it makes a dent, but not as much damage as if projectiles had more distance to generate more momentum ? the ram, makes sense because it’s meant to work up close, but on the same hand if you launched a flaming ram from a teb distance, you will take down the doors in one shot.

RL physics don’t work that way.

IRL siege was not placed against walls because defenders would drop large objects and/or boiling hot liquids on the attackers.

Wanderer.3248:

Ricky.4706:

what about applying some real life / physics to it ? – if the cata is too close to wall, it makes a dent, but not as much damage as if projectiles had more distance to generate more momentum ? the ram, makes sense because it’s meant to work up close, but on the same hand if you launched a flaming ram from a teb distance, you will take down the doors in one shot.

RL physics don’t work that way.

IRL siege was not placed against walls because defenders would drop large objects and/or boiling hot liquids on the attackers.

Siege towers and ladders were used. Siege tower might be an interesting addition to the game.

Siege towers and ladders work best when the defender was heavily outnumbered. At least, that’s what my time spent playing Total War taught me.

I imagine siege towers were pretty expensive to build as well.

Virtute.8251:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Virtute.8251:

FogLeg.9354:

How would you “fix” that?

Deny opponent siege placement (excluding flame rams and golems) within a radius of about 1,200 units of a destructible wall.

It would be the same code as is used in area siege cap (maximum of 5 within a radius of each other), with a few slight modifications and with a check for wall ownership compared to home server of the player trying to deploy the bundle.

So basically, you want to nullify flame rams.

No. I specifically accounted for that.

Dusty Moon.4382:

They need to be NEXT TO A GATE IN ORDER TO WORK.

No. I specifically accounted for that.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this type of cata placement is needed since the radius and blind arrow cart shots is ridiculous.

No. Catapult has longer range.

Dusty Moon.4382:

People that complain about this, must just want PPT all the time.

No. We just want ArenaNet to try harder at making siege play more varied and nuanced. This thread barely scratches the surface of it, and to OP I gave -the- one correct solution for the most likely fix with the least amount of programmer effort and player pain. Read it again. If you’re still upset, just accept that you’re wrong and walk away.

PS: The next best solution is to allow friendly fire on the catapult projectile’s AoE when it hits a wall, so that the “blowback” damages players and the catapults themselves. It probably should be doing that anyway, but ANet is fanatical about disallowing friendly fire as an anti-griefing measure; and that position does make good sense, if online forums and chats are any measure of player behavior. :^)

If you really wanted that, Arrow carts would be removed as they are OP and do damage to other siege faster than any player can. Remove Shield Gens from the game as they literally are OP.

I think the way the game is designed, any ‘friendly damage’ would also include AoE skills, etc. and I don’t think you want that. This is the way it was described n GW1 and since this is a modified GW1 engine, I am assuming the same can be said for GW2.