Guild Wars 2

Forum bug

/15 char

style.6173:

coglin.1867:

It isn’t universally hated by any means in my opinion. Personally, I am all for it. In my opinion, the folks that dislike it, have created their own idea on how to do things, and chose to speak negatively about out of the personal bias of their subjective opinion.

Correct. Open field is not universally hated. There are plenty of people who have no fighting skills and siege is the best way for them to enjoy the game.

hahaha this!! ^

Never mind about honour or skill or whatever, open-field ACs are looked down upon because they’re just boring.

The other side can stand 5000 range away and build their own ACs too.

The result is two groups of players just standing looking at each other.

Now, you say this is where ballistas/trebs come in as counters.

This just intensifies the boredom. Now you’ve got 95% of the group acting as pack-mules, while 3-4 players from the entire server have “fun”.

And once the pack-mules have stood around for 10 minutes doing nothing, you maybe win the supply-war-of-attrition. And then the enemy just disengages, and runs back to their keep to resupply. No loot, no fun, just a massive waste of time.

Now compare that, 100s of players stood around doing nothing, compared to the excitement of a full-on close-quarters engagement between roughly equal forces, and you’ll see why open-field ACs are considered lame. It’s not because it’s not “fair”, it’s just flashing a big neon sign above your head saying “The height of excitement in my life is standing around watching other people play”.

thehipone.6812:

Don’t listen to
The Scrubs

You aren’t playing to win if you use open field siege. It’s such a laughably bad tactic. If you’ve read more of Sirlin’s articles you would also have seen where he defines optimal play as being playing in a way that is least exploitable. Open field siege is insanely exploitable. Open field fighting gives you tons of room to move. Throwing down siege just takes that away from you because siege can’t move at all. You’re getting all of the disadvantages of defending a fort without any of the advantages.

I’ve done plenty of guild vs zerg in my time. The only thing easier to beat than a massive zerg is a massive zerg that sits on arrow carts and waits for you to kill them.

Coldtart.4785:

thehipone.6812:

Don’t listen to
The Scrubs

You aren’t playing to win if you use open field siege. It’s such a laughably bad tactic. If you’ve read more of Sirlin’s articles you would also have seen where he defines optimal play as being playing in a way that is least exploitable. Open field siege is insanely exploitable. Open field fighting gives you tons of room to move. Throwing down siege just takes that away from you because siege can’t move at all. You’re getting all of the disadvantages of defending a fort without any of the advantages.

I’ve done plenty of guild vs zerg in my time. The only thing easier to beat than a massive zerg is a massive zerg that sits on arrow carts and waits for you to kill them.

I find it unlikely that your smaller guild group, against a much larger zerg, that also has siege such as arrow carts, is nearly as successful are your suggesting. It strikes me as a over exaggeration, created to help your argument, but that’s just my opinion.

That aside, I see several comments about having more range to move in an open field. That is true. It is also true that siege can be avoided by moving out of its area or range. Which is precisely why it is utilized to herd a large force as well.

Tseikk.9032:

style.6173:

coglin.1867:

It isn’t universally hated by any means in my opinion. Personally, I am all for it. In my opinion, the folks that dislike it, have created their own idea on how to do things, and chose to speak negatively about out of the personal bias of their subjective opinion.

Correct. Open field is not universally hated. There are plenty of people who have no fighting skills and siege is the best way for them to enjoy the game.

hahaha this!! ^

I do find it interesting that several posters take the approach of exclaiming that someone is “have no fighting skills” or any other negative connotations some of you are suggesting, simply because they do something you do not agree with.

One would believe that if you had an intelligent argument, that you would articulate that over devolving to name calling and insults. By all means, share your views and opinions, but it strikes me as very counterintuitive to see folks sling negative connotation at others, for playing well within in confines of the game mode designs. And some folks wonder why devs limit their posting here, as much as possible, sheeesh.

Siege being unable to move in open field is a disadvantage because it also can’t avoid being killed. No group we ever lost to was using open field siege when they won. Even using siege to defend bases is questionable compared to direct combat. Taking a tower against VR was near impossible, taking a tower from siege spammers merely took longer.

Coldtart.4785:

Siege being unable to move in open field is a disadvantage because it also can’t avoid being killed. No group we ever lost to was using open field siege when they won. Even using siege to defend bases is questionable compared to direct combat. Taking a tower against VR was near impossible, taking a tower from siege spammers merely took longer.

Bases? I gather that you meant keeps?

Are you suggesting using siege to defend a keep is a questionable? What server are you on?

Well I was informed my post was hateful for this one will be of roses and dandelions. Open field siege is annoying yes I see some guilds like Als and BAT using it seems to work for them. Open field siege is a counter to blobs which is why organized guild groups use them. It’s frowned upon by Lies a competitive gates of madness guild because the ac’s melt them like any other group because arrow carts are viable just as any other means to kill someone ingame. From experience it’s discouraging when you get yelled at because your commander made a mistake and he blames it on someone else. Open field siege is a double edge sword. For if you only rely on the siege you can easily be killed by a portal bomb of veils work well also. Open field siege has an opinion from both sides. Lets all show the less skilled players that siege is good.

Open field siege is like bringing a gun to a knife fight, that’s kind of how people view it and feel about it. Now of course, if you’re being greatly outnumbered, and fighting a constant 2 servers vs 1 scenario, then hey I think anything goes. But if it’s a 1 server vs 1 server open field, fairly even numbered zergs, or maybe even if you’re slightly outnumbered, then people expect a good fight without having to deal with siege. It’s common courtesy, you give it your best, win or lose, at least you know you fought without using open field siege. When people siege a keep/tower, they expect to see siege. But when people fight in the open, they expect a fight without siege.

If we can just encourage more people to do the same, it can be really fun when you duke it out in the open with a fairly even numbered group. Some open field fights are really intense without siege involved, try it sometime.

dancingmonkey.4902:

What server are you on?

What are signatures?

You are vastly overestimating the effectiveness of arrow carts against anyone better than a 11111 blobber.

To me it depends on the reason siege was built, trebs and catas to take down a wall, nice. Ballista and AC to take down defensive siege, yep, nice one. However I do find it annoying being in a 3 way where both enemies outnumber you 2-3 to 1 and they both start building ACs in the middle of the field.

Can we go around? Sure but we find it harder to push the blob off the AC especially as we’re 15 and have maybe some roamers with few (or no) mesmers given the skill required to be good at Mesmer. In the end we just left the other two to play while we tagged their keeps and dispersed the fight.

The whole thing just reminds me of bad RTS games where you get PD creep and arty wars, where you’re more likely to die to boredom as whenever a side “wins” the fight they can’t solidify the territory they just took due to the enemy already having siege.

But that’s just the thoughts of someone in the largely forgotten, unloved and insignificant T8 soon to be T9.

Can’t wait for the new shield siege!! lol

Now we just need to wait for the ability to have omegas man other siege. Then open field siege wars will be complete.

For me it’s a sign of weakness and lack of skill. Just as with 5 gankers or more

Open field siege is as legitimate a tactic as any, excepting hacks.

I’m pretty sure the Brits didn’t waste their time telling Napoleon that he was being pathetic and should fight “honorably” because he used massed open field artillery.

If a commander skillful enough to maneuver the enemy zerg into range of deployed field artillery then kudos to his skills and sucks to be commander who let his zerg be lured into range. By wiping out the enemy zerg with field artillery that commander has gained a valuable time advantage allowing him/her to move on to the next objective with minimal casualties. There is nothing glorious about frontal assaults on each other.

Sebrent.3625:

Aside from golems, Siege is immobile … golems are slow.
If your side is unable to take advantage of this fact, then you deserve to be mowed down.

I imagine with the winding paths, etc. coming with the new maps that we might see even more open field siege as there are likely to be more choke points.

People can learn and adapt … or they can stagnate.

There are no rules stating that siege is only for towers/keeps/etc.. There is no reason for a smart group to not take advantage they can to win.

If someone beats you … sorry … unless they used exploits, you got outplayed (or zerged down, lol)

I will always use proper siege whenever I can. There are no “Proper” fights. If I place AC, you place ballista and counter me. Or stealth some players, flank me and destroy the immobile siege before I react.

Bam. RTS rules apply.

I laugh at the back and forth … 111 blobbers still 111 blob down guys on AC’s … even more so than people following a specific strategy. You see it all the time … one group moves a little closer to bait any CD’s and a handful of 111 heroes charge and crush the guy on the AC.

Back on topic, siege is used all the time for any number of purposes. Fights groups tend to identify when faced off with a non fights group and … move on. As another posted already way up the chain. It doesn’t make either group stronger or weaker … they just look to another match up with like minded competitors. As does the map blob or other group who dropped the siege… they will carry on there merry little way to go to their next objective. Which is likely a supply depot to top up.

Neither are superior to one another. They just play differently.

I do carry most forms of siege around at all times so I don’t share this whole hate against siege weapons. But as for what I think…

The point of siege is to create area of denial zones to defend strategic objectives of which rhe enemy will find hard to ignore.

Building siege in the middle of nowhere greatly reduces their usage since the enemy could just ignore and go around you. This not only makes it boring, but now you’ve effectively siege griefed your own server. Consider the efficiency of a siege weapon that will only be used for 1 battle vs siege in towers/keeps or even camps that can be easily refreshed and protected, thus used for a very long time.

It has really nothing to do with cowardice. If a smaller group can build siege at a bridge or a tunnel to defeat greater numbers, then it is a great play. If you are doing it to defend a structure, well, that’s sort of the point. But if a larger group can wipe a smaller group without siege and chooses to do it anyways, then they’re wasting supplies and putting siege that will contribute to the siege cap… aka a tactical blunder. In this case, I would want to ask why they picked a fight with a superior force with no terrain or building advantages and didn’t simply pull to a better location. So even saying they were playing to win is often debatable as Coldtart brought up since such a move is very exploitable. More like they screwed up and are just trying to not die, at the server’s expense.

Supply isn’t free after all. It really does take a village to make sure camps are not flipped via scouting, and even more pain to those that run supply to structures. (Upgrades cost money too!). Taking the supply that people may have worked hard to get set up so one can go on a joyride is generally not that cool. But then I guess that goes the other way when people kitten on ppt’ers even though without them, people wouldn’t get those fights and karma trains.

I know a lot will think “but we won anyways!”, but to me it’s the same if 2 people can’t capture a camp and need 20 people to do it. Sure the camp was captured, but it’s horrifically inefficient.

In terms of fun, siege wars tends to slow down the pace of the game, meaning that people won’t be as willing to engage if they know siege is going up. But since this is subjective, YMMV.

And in any case OP, you probably had to build siege anyways to attack the keep, so people were clearly just not being aware. I don’t really care to chide anyone over it really because it is merely my opinion, and it could be argued that one side imposes their will too much on people.

The only time I, as a commander, will use open field siege, no matter the numbers, unless they are less than my zerg, then I won’t, is when I am pugmanding and cannot depend upon them to do as much as an organized zerg could.

I will use ACs only in that situation. Never will I use ACs in a coordinated zerg battle, even if we are outnumbered, because that means nothing if you know how to play your characters and classes correctly. I am from a large server, and we are constantly fighting larger servers, and walk away victorious. We run 30-40 man groups, average, and take on 60-70 man groups.

Open Field Siege should only be acceptable if you are pugmanding equal-larger groups, or not at all. It is a way to win, sure. But was it a great battle? Probably not. I look for the thrill of the fight and coordination, not the volley of AC fire :P

ArchonWing.9480:

I do carry most forms of siege around at all times so I don’t share this whole hate against siege weapons. But as for what I think…

The point of siege is to create area of denial zones to defend strategic objectives of which rhe enemy will find hard to ignore.

Building siege in the middle of nowhere greatly reduces their usage since the enemy could just ignore and go around you. This not only makes it boring, but now you’ve effectively siege griefed your own server. Consider the efficiency of a siege weapon that will only be used for 1 battle vs siege in towers/keeps or even camps that can be easily refreshed and protected, thus used for a very long time.

It has really nothing to do with cowardice. If a smaller group can build siege at a bridge or a tunnel to defeat greater numbers, then it is a great play. If you are doing it to defend a structure, well, that’s sort of the point. But if a larger group can wipe a smaller group without siege and chooses to do it anyways, then they’re wasting supplies and putting siege that will contribute to the siege cap… aka a tactical blunder. In this case, I would want to ask why they picked a fight with a superior force with no terrain or building advantages and didn’t simply pull to a better location. So even saying they were playing to win is often debatable as Coldtart brought up since such a move is very exploitable. More like they screwed up and are just trying to not die, at the server’s expense.

Supply isn’t free after all. It really does take a village to make sure camps are not flipped via scouting, and even more pain to those that run supply to structures. (Upgrades cost money too!). Taking the supply that people may have worked hard to get set up so one can go on a joyride is generally not that cool. But then I guess that goes the other way when people kitten on ppt’ers even though without them, people wouldn’t get those fights and karma trains.

I know a lot will think “but we won anyways!”, but to me it’s the same if 2 people can’t capture a camp and need 20 people to do it. Sure the camp was captured, but it’s horrifically inefficient.

In terms of fun, siege wars tends to slow down the pace of the game, meaning that people won’t be as willing to engage if they know siege is going up. But since this is subjective, YMMV.

And in any case OP, you probably had to build siege anyways to attack the keep, so people were clearly just not being aware. I don’t really care to chide anyone over it really because it is merely my opinion, and it could be argued that one side imposes their will too much on people.

This guy writes my thoughts pretty well. While “playing to win” means you should remain open to using siege (I seen people not use ACs to defend structures on purpose because of this “rules of honor” thing), it also means you should be playing to win. Saying you are throwing down the siege because you are playing to win is disingenuous in the case of combat in the open field. You’re really building an open field AC because you find it fun, not because you considered the meta issue with it.

Perfectly fine for open world fighting. Unless you outnumber the other group by far. If you still build siege when you outnumber them by far I dont know what to say.

In wvw you play as dirty as possible to win

yiksing.9432:

In wvw you play as dirty as possible to win

How do you define “dirty”?

I only consider “hacking” as dirty. All else is fair play. All is fair in love and war, as they say.

gricks.1897:

So this question has been rattling in my head. Why is there hatred for Open World siege such as ballista and arrow carts aimed at blobs? It was my understanding that this was one of their purposes. From Maguuma, I see blobs rolling around the gate of a keep out of supplies, complaining about nothing to fight (cause Dragonbrand has no idea how to commit), I put a couple superior trebs down and start hitting the gate from range. Then the yelling happens.

I sorta thought that’s the point of siege….to siege.

Could anyone clarify the mentality here or is it purely because folks just want to stomp face in hand to hand? This is the most confusing thing I have seen.

I had a good laugh at this. So typical maguuma lol. You are correct that open field arrow carts and balistas are largely frowned upon. However using a treb to take out a gate while ineffective is not even remotely open field. If you were using cows on the enemy Zerg that would be different.

The good thing about open field fights is that there is nothing at stake, it doens’t matter wether you lose or win. Since there is nothing at stake the thing you want to do is having as much fun as possible. You can achieve that either by using all your tactics and skills you have as a zerg in a siegeless open field fight (1) or be dirty and annoy the enemy by making AC’s (2). The problem with the 2nd option is that the oponent will start using AC’s aswell because they don’t want you to have an unfair advantage, so now both sides have AC’s. Because there is a crapload of AC fire you can’t do anything as a non-AC guy making it incredibly boring for you.

you can compare these options with the prisoners dilemma, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma where option A would be no use of siege and option B would be usage of siege. Just don’t use sieges, it provides the best outcome in the end. Also this lets your commander and your zerg train in combat so you all improve abit.

Ofcourse using sieges when you’re either heavily outnumbered or defending important objectives is fine, but please just keep it out of fair open field fights <3

style.6173:

coglin.1867:

It isn’t universally hated by any means in my opinion. Personally, I am all for it. In my opinion, the folks that dislike it, have created their own idea on how to do things, and chose to speak negatively about out of the personal bias of their subjective opinion.

Correct. Open field is not universally hated. There are plenty of people who have no fighting skills and siege is the best way for them to enjoy the game.

This pretty well sums it up: another form of silly elitism invented by people who feel the need.

That said, I wouldn’t bother using it most of the time because open field is, by definition, mobile and any intelligent opponent will just move out of range. There are zergs dumb enough to push into it though… then they complain about opponents with no skill.

GreyWraith.8394:

style.6173:

coglin.1867:

It isn’t universally hated by any means in my opinion. Personally, I am all for it. In my opinion, the folks that dislike it, have created their own idea on how to do things, and chose to speak negatively about out of the personal bias of their subjective opinion.

Correct. Open field is not universally hated. There are plenty of people who have no fighting skills and siege is the best way for them to enjoy the game.

This pretty well sums it up: another form of silly elitism invented by people who feel the need.

That said, I wouldn’t bother using it most of the time because open field is, by definition, mobile and any intelligent opponent will just move out of range. There are zergs dumb enough to push into it though… then they complain about opponents with no skill.

I’d take that “silly elitism” that comes with coordination and people being good with their actual characters over being stationary and pressing three keys maximum.

any intelligent opponent will just move out of range.

In other words, the fight is done prematurely.

Yay!

Trust me. Elitism and “coordination and people being good with their actual characters” are not even remotely the same thing. I appreciate that you see it that way though. Pride is a fun weakness to exploit.

coglin.1867:

Trust me. Elitism and “coordination and people being good with their actual characters” are not even remotely the same thing. I appreciate that you see it that way though. Pride is a fun weakness to exploit.

That’s why he said it, because it isn’t the same thing.
Hey, you have one of if not my favourite video in your link, so you must kind of get irony, right?

Jana.6831:

coglin.1867:

Trust me. Elitism and “coordination and people being good with their actual characters” are not even remotely the same thing. I appreciate that you see it that way though. Pride is a fun weakness to exploit.

That’s why he said it, because it isn’t the same thing.
Hey, you have one of if not my favourite video in your link, so you must kind of get irony, right?

You need to re read that. The prior poster suggest he would take the elitism, and irrationally suggest that it some how implies skill. Which we all know is not true.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Jana.6831:

coglin.1867:

Trust me. Elitism and “coordination and people being good with their actual characters” are not even remotely the same thing. I appreciate that you see it that way though. Pride is a fun weakness to exploit.

That’s why he said it, because it isn’t the same thing.
Hey, you have one of if not my favourite video in your link, so you must kind of get irony, right?

You need to re read that.

No, I don’t, I know what quotation marks are.

Edit: I get what you guys try here “We are just as skilled as you or even more so as we know how to use siege!!”, but various people have explained why open field siege (ACs) are “bad”.
For once; it would be supply wars, only few would have fun, if enough acs the opponents would either build acs themselves or run away, thus two zergs standing on a field with 5 people on stationary siege – it’s silly, no matter how you turn it. There can be exceptional situations in which an AC is strategic and good and whatnot but that’s really rare.
And I once did a 5 vs 25 in our Garri (all gates down, lord alive and dead) without siege and we won, just us 5 and we were pugs without TS or anything and yeah, maybe the opponents were bad, it was CDI back then – a year ago).
Edit²: And to be honest; that was the best fight I ever had.

gennyt.3428:

GreyWraith.8394:

any intelligent opponent will just move out of range.

In other words, the fight is done prematurely.

Yay!

This is the situation in which you miss the point. Intelligent leader see that they just controlled you with area denial and controlled the flow of your group. Something that is impossible for you when you limit yourself by refusing to use siege for no logical reason.

It would seem that the people so passionately whining and moaning against open-field siege were victims of some outside AC’s and ballistae, otherwise I believe they wouldn’t be so zealously against it. Or rather, if they didn’t die to it, they wouldn’t have cared to come complain on the forums in the first place.

Therefore, these crybabies died to open-field siege. Which means the other side killed them, won the fight, etc. So the anti-sieger’s died, the siege-users didn’t die. Huh. Funny how that works. Looks like a pretty effective World Vs. World tactic to me! I’ll have to try it more often!

No sorry Turk, I don’t die to open field siege, I just roll my eyes and think I’m in EotM.

dancingmonkey.4902:

gennyt.3428:

GreyWraith.8394:

any intelligent opponent will just move out of range.

In other words, the fight is done prematurely.

Yay!

This is the situation in which you miss the point. Intelligent leader see that they just controlled you with area denial and controlled the flow of your group. Something that is impossible for you when you limit yourself by refusing to use siege for no logical reason.

When I outnumber an opponent or know that my group can sustain through the enemy siege, basically when I know I can win the fight without it, my own lack of use of it is perfectly logical.

Chaba.5410:

dancingmonkey.4902:

gennyt.3428:

GreyWraith.8394:

any intelligent opponent will just move out of range.

In other words, the fight is done prematurely.

Yay!

This is the situation in which you miss the point. Intelligent leader see that they just controlled you with area denial and controlled the flow of your group. Something that is impossible for you when you limit yourself by refusing to use siege for no logical reason.

When I outnumber an opponent or know that my group can sustain through the enemy siege, basically when I know I can win the fight without it, my own lack of use of it is perfectly logical.

That wasn’t the example he made though.

The quote is about moving out of range. Your point is an entirely separate situation and a different discussion entirely.

dancingmonkey.4902:

gennyt.3428:

GreyWraith.8394:

any intelligent opponent will just move out of range.

In other words, the fight is done prematurely.

Yay!

This is the situation in which you miss the point. Intelligent leader see that they just controlled you with area denial and controlled the flow of your group. Something that is impossible for you when you limit yourself by refusing to use siege for no logical reason.

Nope, I think I got the point just fine. Move out of range and do what exactly? Build counter siege based on which group skillfully has the most the supply? Completely withdraw and hope more siege doesn’t go up at the next engagement? Terms like “area denial” sound pretty and tactical but since we’re talking open field fights in a video game, it becomes another way of saying “chase people away”, especially when there was really nothing to lose like an upgraded keep or something. Is that a win? Unless the group building siege is vastly outnumbered, I can see why it’s frowned upon.

Jana.6831:

No sorry Turk, I don’t die to open field siege, I just roll my eyes and think I’m in EotM.

Bingo! Being “zealous” is such a strong word lol. I just shake my head and leave.

Either way, these are all opinions and people play for various reasons, obviously. Some want to win at all costs, some would rather not be poor sports.

gennyt.3428:

Either way, these are all opinions and people play for various reasons, obviously. Some want to win at all costs, some would rather not be poor sports.

Seems to me that any negative connotations that are arbitrarily conjured towards open field siege would be the definition of being a poor sport. Looking down on the idea of using all of ones tools to get the job done efficiently seems very un sportsman like indeed, unless there is some previously agreement between all members of all parties evolved.

At this point the only thing I really hate about WvW is really this disjointed bipolar view of it needs to be fair, but it also war so anything goes vibe it gives off. Really just make it one or the other none of this half measure skritt.

coglin.1867:

gennyt.3428:

Either way, these are all opinions and people play for various reasons, obviously. Some want to win at all costs, some would rather not be poor sports.

Seems to me that any negative connotations that are arbitrarily conjured towards open field siege would be the definition of being a poor sport. Looking down on the idea of using all of ones tools to get the job done efficiently seems very un sportsman like indeed, unless there is some previously agreement between all members of all parties evolved.

Yeah sure just like looking at the guy who brings a gun to a knife fight as kind of being a kitten is poor sportsmanship! This will conclude my replies to you good sir.

if you want to win a war use the tools you have, if you just want to play soldier in a sandbox then don’t cry when ya get a buncha holes in your toys.

but it’s a game so do whatever ya want and have some fun!

It’s not looked down upon, just exasperating from a meta perspective. Because the game mode is stale and the establishment wants variety in engagements with pre-established rules.

If a guild wanted to play “srs mode: anything goes in war” ppt siege wars, they can find it easily by assaulting an objective. No one assaults a T3 keep with the idea it will be siege free. We know that there will be a bazillion acs and trebs.

By engaging open field there is the unspoken assumption between many in “the WvW community” that both sides don’t want siege wars and want fair ZvZ engagements. If a ppt guild is caught in the open and doesn’t want that kind of open field fights, they can easily disengage and move towards a tower or keep. It is exceedingly difficult to force an open field engagement that the other side doesn’t want.

By using open field siege not in support of assaulting an objective, all that says is that you do want open field combat, but with siege as well. The reasons some guilds don’t like playing this style have been iterated by previous comments. At this point the fights guild’s expectations were let down and usually leave unhappily without engaging.

TLDR: when an guild “announces” (by mighting up) that they wish to engage open field, then drop siege (or run towards seige cover of a tower/keep), they make their opponents (who were looking for open field fights) feel like a teenage boy that his hopes raised, got strung along, and then dumped.

gennyt.3428:

coglin.1867:

gennyt.3428:

Either way, these are all opinions and people play for various reasons, obviously. Some want to win at all costs, some would rather not be poor sports.

Seems to me that any negative connotations that are arbitrarily conjured towards open field siege would be the definition of being a poor sport. Looking down on the idea of using all of ones tools to get the job done efficiently seems very un sportsman like indeed, unless there is some previously agreement between all members of all parties evolved.

Yeah sure just like looking at the guy who brings a gun to a knife fight as kind of being a kitten is poor sportsmanship! This will conclude my replies to you good sir.

You seem to misunderstand that siege was part of WvW long before you were. What is happening here, is your bringing a knife to a gun fight, then crying fowl at those who brought the gun.

gennyt.3428:

dancingmonkey.4902:

gennyt.3428:

GreyWraith.8394:

any intelligent opponent will just move out of range.

In other words, the fight is done prematurely.

Yay!

This is the situation in which you miss the point. Intelligent leader see that they just controlled you with area denial and controlled the flow of your group. Something that is impossible for you when you limit yourself by refusing to use siege for no logical reason.

Nope, I think I got the point just fine. Move out of range and do what exactly? Build counter siege based on which group skillfully has the most the supply? Completely withdraw and hope more siege doesn’t go up at the next engagement? Terms like “area denial” sound pretty and tactical but since we’re talking open field fights in a video game, it becomes another way of saying “chase people away”, especially when there was really nothing to lose like an upgraded keep or something. Is that a win? Unless the group building siege is vastly outnumbered, I can see why it’s frowned upon.

Didn’t play any WvW for like a year, but I figure, the same base principles still apply.
If someone deploys open field siege, it is, because they don’t want you to pass.
Usually, it’s because they want to buy time for whatever it is, they try to do to happen. Whether they spotted a large Zerg coming to defend the objective, they are currently besieging or whether they just want to cut off reinforcements, open field siege is typically deployed at choke points to force opponents to take large detours or to chase them off completely.
Generally, the purpose of open field siege is not to win “the fight”, but rather to reverse the roles of attacker and defender. If the Zerg reaches the keep, they can man the walls, do repairs, build more siege, start employing hit and run tactics, etc.
If you can lock them out of the keep and reverse the roles of attacker and defender by creating a strong defensive perimeter in a choke point, you deprive them of those tactical options, while the time for their objective is slowly ticking down.

If the deployment of siege leads to a standoff with nobody achieving anything, it’s a waste of resources, though. Not a war crime or a breach of international law, like some people here claim, but still a waste of resources.

dancingmonkey.4902:

You seem to misunderstand that siege was part of WvW long before you were. What is happening here, is your bringing a knife to a gun fight, then crying fowl at those who brought the gun.

Hey, don’t speak bad about bringing knives to gun fights… I’d always bring a knife to a gun fight…
…In addition to a gun.

I remember the days when we’d load down supply camps with Siege and defend those as well as the towers/keeps.

If the opposition can’t get supply then the opposition has a harder time taking our towers/keeps.

Whether or not you personally think something is/isn’t fun is irrelevant. I’m sure you don’t think dying is fun, but that doesn’t mean other players shouldn’t kill you.

It doesn’t take skill to just throw down siege and have it be overrun by the opposition. It does take some skill to coordinate and lay down siege and effectively use it to repel the opposition despite their zerging.

I feel like the people that are complaining about open field siege are the same ones that complain about how a Havoc group killed their zerg and used Blast Finishers in Water Fields to heal to full constantly between each spear through their blob.

Anti-player Siege to me is like Biological/Nuclear Weapons. As soon as it starts it Creates an ARMs race. You build an AC they Build an AC, They build an AC you build a Cata, they build a Cata you build a Bali……, or we all just put the Siege away and fight it out with our ANET given class ability’s and leave the Siege for taking down the walls that divide us!

Ballads.2509:

Anti-player Siege to me is like Biological/Nuclear Weapons. As soon as it starts it Creates an ARMs race. You build an AC they Build an AC, They build an AC you build a Cata, they build a Cata you build a Bali……, or we all just put the Siege away and fight it out with our ANET given class ability’s and leave the Siege for taking down the walls that divide us!

Well, if one side wants to stall to win an objective and the other side wants to win a field fight, it’s clear, who will win the arms race…

My rule for WvW is that anything short of exploits/cheating is fair. If your server doesn’t win, it doesn’t matter why; you didn’t win. You might have been outnumbered, you might have been outplayed. Regardless, you lost.

Siege in an open field, to me, is a question of tactics, not of ethics. Is the result worth the blueprints and supply spent on the siege? That depends on the situation, so there isn’t a blanket answer.

1v1s are for “fair fights”. WvW has no such restriction.

I’m confused at what’s considered “open field siege”. A camp or a choke point doesn’t seem very “open field” to me. I’ve personally made myself a golem at a camp in a close matchup to prevent camps from being taken even (or at least use up supply so the enemy couldn’t use them). But as Sylentir may have suggested above, I tend to evaluate this situation as a tactical thing, and not an ethical thing. I don’t think it’s “Unethical” to stop someone to take my camp. That’s just absurd; why would I ever let them? But there’s a certain reasoning behind it that’s consistent with my goals that goes beyond a generic “play to win” banner. And that’s generally what I look for in arguments.

To me it seems to mean open fights not close to any strategical objective.

In fact the topic itself is confusing because building a treb to attack a keep isn’t exactly a questionable move, unless you take down gates with autoattacks.

Anyhow, there’s really no way to objectively define people’s sentiments. I don’t think anyone’s advocating the restriction of siege built in the open field, but just a distaste of the use. It’s much like about my example of a group NEEDING say, 20 people to take a tower or camp. It’s obviously a legitimate move, but some people might call them “bad”. Of course, this has no connotation in the game itself, but I don’t think it was ever meant to be.

For example, someone might view me as being bad for sieging a camp, and ask why I don’t fight fairly. I don’t care because I’m not out to duel and consider an irreelvant part of wvw, but would his thoughts have any relevance about my lack of confidence of skills? Yes, but as you can see it’s rapidly heading into apples and oranges here. And he is free to think that and he may not even be wrong; I just don’t have to justify myself. It really is playing a different game at times.

“You suck”
“At what?”
“Dueling on your character”
“Oh, ok, I’m not even here to do that”

:p

So if an open field group calls you bad for placing siege, all one has to really say is they’re not out looking for fights. After all, you’re not looking for it because it is irrelevant to your goals. On the other hand, /snicker, why get so worked up over being bad at an irrelevant measure of skill? I don’t care if people call me a bad duelist, because there is no content in this game that is focused on 1v1 pvp and the game wasn’t designed upon that! Easy explanation. I don’t act so salty that it looks like I fell into the Pacific Ocean.

Finally, I would advise to stop comparing this to a war because it can represent a lot of the worst of humanity and in a lot of ways downplays it since this is a video game. In that case, wouldn’t it be reasonable for people to feel revulsion towards some aspects?

My guild went roaming a couple days ago. Just 6 of us. We were on FABL. We went to north camp. Guess what we found there? 3 superior AC’s, 4 ballistas, and 2 normal AC’s, upgraded camp, and about 20 people.

Guess what happened? You lost the camp against 6 people without a single one of us dying after about 30 minutes of fighting. Can you spell

O U T P L A Y E D.

Personally I don’t care about sieges. It’s just even funnier if you get wiped like I mentioned above. Because honestly…That’s pretty sad if you can’t kill a single member of 6 people with 20 people + upgraded camp + all those sieges and we haven’t even used one siege at all. I like sieges because it makes people overconfident hence their downfall. At the end of the day, skillful and coordinated players will always trump sieges and mindless blobs.

gennyt.3428:

Yeah sure just like looking at the guy who brings a gun to a knife fight as kind of being a kitten is poor sportsmanship! This will conclude my replies to you good sir.

But why would anyone frown upon the gunfighter, who cleverly did not allow the knife-fighter to harm him? I’m assuming the gunfighter won in this little scenario, which brings back the point of – someone won, someone else lost. Doesn’t matter how it happened, the outcome was victory.