Guild Wars 2

Instead of coming with this junk you could fix your forum which is broken since launch

#forumbug2016

Voted yes simply because I’m willing to try anything on a temporary basis. At the end of the day, it’s a trial so if we hate it (and in this case we almost certainly will) then we can get rid of it anyway. I’m not a fan of not at least TRYING things, because thats how we miss things that might pleasantly surprise us and improve the game mode.

However, I would make a suggestion to you Anet: Perhaps it’d be good to include some basic information about the things you want to be testing either within the poll or in your inital post on the forums? I mean, you could tell us right away what kind of damage/health/supply cost/etc you’re talking about in relation to the cannons we already have, it’d make it easier for us to decide which way we want to vote and it’d be a more informed decision rather than “These gonna be OP as kitten so nah”.

By the Six no! I’d rather have another year without any content than this…

This + repair hammer = Zerg Wars again!

Cannons are pretty good destroying golems, aren’t they? Thats why I voted yes.

I voted yes as well due to golems but hopefully it takes more than 50 supplies to make, wouldn’t want to see it deployed easily everywhere.

Akuni.8604:

If you want it or not, Siege is a defining part of WvW. Without Siege, WvW would turn into a mindless, generic mass zerg PvP #1 spamfest which you can find in literally every asia grinder out there.
tl&dr: If you prefer that stuff, kindly move to another game.

Yet what will happen is that the game will turn into a #1 spamfest on siege exactly what you apparently don’t want.

And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.

Would rather want to see some work on re-designing siege in the game, before adding new/more etc. I do think Siege has its space, but never did like the current iteration.

Hard to specify just why, I just find all the siege really boring to use, especially the Ram where I have to sit click 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 etc. Would have liked to see siege work in a different way, perhaps Ram’s that doesn’t have a "user" as it is now, but auto rams as long as someone stands near it, and perhaps rams faster if more people are near up to max of say 5. And rather limit so you can’t fit more than 1-2 rams near a gate. Make them more combat hotspots instead of boring spam 1.

And all the siege on walls, and how they work and interact, how you get killed before you can man oil or cannons on the wall etc. I think that looking into those and re-design it would be much more important and FUN than just adding more siege to the current mess.

Guild Aura with -75% siege damage ? one iwht -90% siege damage and perm stability while on siege ? How far do we have to go to be able to use wall-siege ?

Honestly, forget seige this seige that. Spend more time on new armor pieces EXCLUSIVE of WvW, in fact dedicate 90% of the team to that and suddenly WvW will become immensely popular. Heck put a poll up about this and I can tell you the voting will be +90% will be yes DO IT (cuz there’s always trolls that like to go against the grain).

In the previous post about repair hammers they mentioned it was ready for a long time but never got around to putting it in game. I am guessing other siege related item is in the same boat and these polls are a way to get them in to clear the back log of useless ideas they once had.

My concern is that the casuals or PvD lovers will win every vote like this giving Anet the impression that we need even more siege.

Where is the fix to ppt? Where is the fix for skill lag? Where are the big important polls going to come?

This is what I think about cannons!

Forestgreen.7981:

Honestly, forget seige this seige that. Spend more time on new armor pieces EXCLUSIVE of WvW, in fact dedicate 90% of the team to that and suddenly WvW will become immensely popular. Heck put a poll up about this and I can tell you the voting will be +90% will be yes DO IT (cuz there’s always trolls that like to go against the grain).

You must have missed the Hero armour and weapon reward tracks and the return of tribal armour.

Sarrs.4831:

Jeknar.6184:

You don’t build Trebs for somenthing you can hit with catas. Why would you build a cannon for somenthing that you can hit with a ballista?

Cannons and ballistas have the same, or similar, range. I don’t see them having distinct enough roles for the cannon to be worth adding, and the distinctions which do exist (cannon has a blast radius) make the cannon blatantly better at ballista’s job than ballista.

That’s a very good point. Indeed, there’s no need for two that similar siege weapons., and cannons are superior to ballistas in most applications.

I’m going to go with no. Deployable cannons would make ballistas obsolete aside from supply cost, and in groups they’ll be far too powerful. I can’t see a good outcome here even in a test.

My concern is that as that cannons function similar to arrow carts with the only real difference being burst vs. Damage over time; in open WvW fights burst would generally be a straight upgrade making arrow carts somewhat obsolete.

While I think open field cannons would be amazingly fun and I never really liked how arrow carts work I’m of the opinion cannons should be changed mechanically for the open field; for example making them fire in a line or a cone rather than a circle and having them do slight damage to fortifications even if only the first 2 tiers.

Just imagine of setting up a bunch of cannons at dredge and when the enemy zerg is packed into a tunnel and you mow them down with cannons, especially if they fire in a line.

Ben K.6238:

I’m going to go with no. Deployable cannons would make ballistas obsolete aside from supply cost, and in groups they’ll be far too powerful. I can’t see a good outcome here even in a test.

Honestly ballista are almost useless as they are now might as well replace em with cannons.

it would be really cool to have sniper riffle with 10 k range, as siege weapon.
I also can’t understand why we don’t have tanks already, and why not airplanes
Imagine how much would help an tank or airplane when you are outnumbered. Population balance woudn’t be an issue anymore, and we really need more siege to counter blobs

What next? Dig the trashcan deeper and rediscover the Golem Rush event? That was the week that I skipped playing WvW altogether.

These features were shelved for a reason. Releasing them for a few months of live testing will not make them any better.

Next one will be deployable mortars. Think they had a topic on a cpl of weeks ago saying all these siege would have a “test”.

This polls make me think that all in Anet suddenly became Trump supporters. No offence. It’s just that special state of mind. I’m long time wvwer and my eyes bleeding of seeing last 2 polls. It’s disgusting.

what a terrible idea….

Well, A.Net really knows how to kill their own game. If you want only 2 game play modes in a game, maybe you should have actually designed it with 2 not 3.

With all the junk you have put into WvW, the blob mentality servers win and ever other server dies. By the time you realize what is going on you will only have 3 server left playing WvW and none of them, fight. They just sit on siege.

GET RID OF ALL the garbage – tactivators, shield gens, trebs, arrow carts (which you haven’t fixed BTW and can still fire through walls, etc.) and, this siege repair kit.

Now you want the blob servers to have open field cannons too? Do you even play the game? Try a server that doesn’t blob and see how it is on the other foot.

What the kitten is this kitten?
Are you people kitten kitten or some kitten?
This is the kittenist kitten vote I have ever seen!!!

Nerf condi, Balance stability and quit kittening around with siege!!!

I’m going to try and look at this objectively (I voted no for disclosure).

The issue in my mind with every potential siege addition that can be deployed open field, is that while in theory it benefits both sides in a fight the same (potentially) it will almost always in reality benefit the larger force more. Large force = more supply to build, more people to soak damage, and greater ability to just nuke down the smaller force’s siege.

Personally as a 1-5 man roamer, siege is a pain in my butt and I dislike it. But I can acknowledge that it could potentially be a benefit for defenders to have greater options open to them in siege placement. Instead of allowing for cannons to be built open field, maybe allow for them to only be placed and built within towers/keeps and with a limit (2-3 for towers, 4-5 (probably more due to the number of gates needed to cover) for keeps?). This would be in replacement of the current standard for the cannons. This would allow for defenders to cover more of the current “weak spots” in defense ie cata spots, without being too overpowered since you would be limited in the number you can deploy. This would require more coding of course, but this is the only implementation I could see having a net neutral impact on WvW, more potential for open field siege will always be a negative impact in my mind.

Helly.2597:

The issue in my mind with every potential siege addition that can be deployed open field, is that while in theory it benefits both sides in a fight the same (potentially) it will almost always in reality benefit the larger force more. Large force = more supply to build, more people to soak damage, and greater ability to just nuke down the smaller force’s siege.

Excactly.

Cannons strip boons and apply bleed and chill to up to 50 enemies.

Seems be a bit too powerful for deploying them in larger groups on open field.

morrolan.9608:

And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.

I see lots of posts saying things along these lines: “this game need less siege and not more”. You better read other posts before posting things like this.

Korgov.7645:

Crise.9401:

There is also the fact that the community basically voted to prioritize the most demanding stuff on the scoring changes list. They will take a while, so in the mean time they don’t have much to show for those… better this than dead air, no?

I do not want to suffer from bad features just because they are easy to make.

The bit you chose to quote was referring to having polls about minor changes in the interim in general. Whether this specific change is good or bad, since we are given the option to do so I choose to not decide it is bad outright without at least trying it if the developers believe it is worth the consideration.

You assume it is bad, and you may be correct… however, it doesn’t have to be bad… you have no way to prove that it will be bad for certain no more than I can say that it won’t be bad at this point. Without seeing how it actually plays out we can only speculate one way or another.

I can’t believe yes is winning….

Crise.9401:

Korgov.7645:

Crise.9401:

There is also the fact that the community basically voted to prioritize the most demanding stuff on the scoring changes list. They will take a while, so in the mean time they don’t have much to show for those… better this than dead air, no?

I do not want to suffer from bad features just because they are easy to make.

The bit you chose to quote was referring to having polls about minor changes in the interim in general. Whether this specific change is good or bad, since we are given the option to do so I choose to not decide it is bad outright without at least trying it if the developers believe it is worth the consideration.

You assume it is bad, and you may be correct… however, it doesn’t have to be bad… you have no way to prove that it will be bad for certain no more than I can say that it won’t be bad at this point. Without seeing how it actually plays out we can only speculate one way or another.

In that case then why bother having the pools instead of just saying “hi gize, we’ll test X feature this week and then we’ll make a pool about what you thought about it”?

morrolan.9608:

Akuni.8604:

If you want it or not, Siege is a defining part of WvW. Without Siege, WvW would turn into a mindless, generic mass zerg PvP #1 spamfest which you can find in literally every asia grinder out there.
tl&dr: If you prefer that stuff, kindly move to another game.

Yet what will happen is that the game will turn into a #1 spamfest on siege exactly what you apparently don’t want.

And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.

And why so? You guys just deliver baseless claims. You don’t know how those things will work out. Try them. They are implemented for testing after all. If you can’t give good arguments I’m not sure why I or anyone else should give you credit.

And yes. People do hate Siege with a passion. I’ve heard that delete siege claim often enough. If you don’t want that, good. There are those people though. And having more options to choose from is usually never bad (Do I wan’t Golems? Trebs? Cannons? What are the Up and Downsides?) – As long as they are properly balanced of course.

I think you still need to fix the issue where canons become useless when the enemy zerg casts 300 aoe skills on it!

Make walls higher so zergs cannot do this! Or at least something.

Even acs buils at the back of the wall can still be aoe’s by a zerg very easily.

3 cannon deployed, aimed at the same area and fired at the same time == insta-killed zerg without any warning since the shot will be nearly instant, unlike ramping up AC fire and clearly visible cata/ballista shots.

Dis gun be gud.

As some others have posted in this thread, I would be fine with deployable canon blueprints in structures……

Open field?…..not so much.

But it wouldn’t destroy wvw for me if this poll passes. Might see some interesting strategies with deployable canons in open field battles. Supply traps would certainly become more popular.

Teon.5168:

As some others have posted in this thread, I would be fine with deployable canon blueprints in structures……

Open field?…..not so much.

But it wouldn’t destroy wvw for me if this poll passes. Might see some interesting strategies with deployable canons in open field battles. Supply traps would certainly become more popular.

With that and repair hammers, there’s going to be a lot of fighting over camps, lol.

The only people who benefit out of this will be the larger server. No!

Loosmaster.8263:

Teon.5168:

As some others have posted in this thread, I would be fine with deployable canon blueprints in structures……

Open field?…..not so much.

But it wouldn’t destroy wvw for me if this poll passes. Might see some interesting strategies with deployable canons in open field battles. Supply traps would certainly become more popular.

With that and repair hammers, there’s going to be a lot of fighting over camps, lol.

Yea, that would certainly make supply camps interesting. Like I said before, it would be much better if they were made deployable just in structures, and not open field.

I still don’t understand why i allow myself to get disappointed with how this “development” team goes about things. Time after time you implement / change nothing that actually appeals to the hardcore reliable players who played / play this game mode. Always catering to the casual players that like to run around in blobs pressing 1 focusing on ppt “server pride”….i mean i can see the thought process “lets implement something that makes it looks like we’re actually trying to improve this gamemode…i know….MORE SIEGE”. I guess that’s the only playerbase that you can cater to these days huh.

FeelsBadMan

Maybe next expansion you can just replace the character with a mobile siege platform. That way you can completely ignore that tricky part about making combat fun again.
Seriously, looking at WvW and going “hmm, maybe if we shove more siege on it?”, that boggles the mind.

Jeknar.6184:

morrolan.9608:

And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.

I see lots of posts saying things along these lines: “this game need less siege and not more”. You better read other posts before posting things like this.

Wanting less siege does not equate to getting rid of siege. I want AC damage toned down that doesn’t mean I want all siege gone.

Akuni.8604:

And why so? You guys just deliver baseless claims. You don’t know how those things will work out. Try them. They are implemented for testing after all. If you can’t give good arguments I’m not sure why I or anyone else should give you credit.

And yes. People do hate Siege with a passion. I’ve heard that delete siege claim often enough. If you don’t want that, good. There are those people though. And having more options to choose from is usually never bad (Do I wan’t Golems? Trebs? Cannons? What are the Up and Downsides?) – As long as they are properly balanced of course.

I do know how it will turn out, it will be abused just like when they increased AC damage, just like during the golem event. Thats human nature.

As for siege see what I wrote above, and how are we meant to take objectives without siege?

so cannons will only benefit large servers because they will wipe zergs too easy?

i’d rather see arrow carts removed from the game than cannons added…

morrolan.9608:

Jeknar.6184:

morrolan.9608:

And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.

I see lots of posts saying things along these lines: “this game need less siege and not more”. You better read other posts before posting things like this.

Wanting less siege does not equate to getting rid of siege. I want AC damage toned down that doesn’t mean I want all siege gone.

Read the post above this one… There are several posts like this one all over this forum.

Ever spent an evening banging your head against fortified objectives, with the entire enemy server just hiding behind their walls spamming siege? It isn’t fun. It’s migraine inducing. It already happens too frequently, because you’ve already made it too easy.

Repair hammers were a bad idea, but this is just flat-out insane.

Jeknar.6184:

morrolan.9608:

Jeknar.6184:

morrolan.9608:

And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.

I see lots of posts saying things along these lines: “this game need less siege and not more”. You better read other posts before posting things like this.

Wanting less siege does not equate to getting rid of siege. I want AC damage toned down that doesn’t mean I want all siege gone.

Read the post above this one… There are several posts like this one all over this forum.

This particular debate started with an assertion about players wanting ALL siege gone, that is what I’m objecting to not about wanting some siege gone.

These polls are verging on becoming a farce. There are many players on the salt forum boasting about voting yes purely to troll and destroy the mode.

What a bad idea. Like seriously stop with these polls and just play the game to see what needs to be improved, it’s quite evident.

morrolan.9608:

These polls are verging on becoming a farce. There are many players on the salt forum boasting about voting yes purely to troll and destroy the mode.

I’m one of the people on the salty forums who “boasted” about voting yes and honestly, idc…. I actually voted No, but I guess I’ll change my vote now. Whatever Arena Net throw on my way, I’ll overcome. Unlike some crybabies who couldn’t even take desert borderlands just because it have some small gimmicks.

morrolan.9608:

These polls are verging on becoming a farce. There are many players on the salt forum boasting about voting yes purely to troll and destroy the mode.

Hate it all you want, I still voted Yes. I hate it more than any one else.

Crise.9401:

morrolan.9608:

Actually no, dead air would be better.

We will just have to agree to disagree on that… four years in and only now they realize the only way to get anything through in WvW is to throw it on live and see what happens. The PvP community in GW2 is so averse to changes that it is this only way for any progress to happen.

Either way I would rather see developers actively pushing for any change, good or bad, than not see any activity at all… the fact is we don\t know what is good or bad before we have played with the stuff.

This topic is a prime example of that, people assume cannons on the field would be identical to cannons on the walls (which is reasonable assumption, given nothing else has been said), however, cannons on walls have been designed to be static siege, ergo their numbers reflect that… a cannon on the field would likely be different, and even if it isn’t right now in their design/implementation it has the possibility to be.

Just to point out, we are not game designers… before you say that they have lost it you should for a moment consider that these people have been at it for a while and they do this for a living… they have no incentive to poll the community on changes that they believe will be bad for the game type. Now, if what they believe WvW is diverges from what the community believes it is or what it should be is a different matter entirely.

Edit: besides we knew this poll was coming from Tyler’s post way back, so lets not act like this poll existing is somehow news for people who have actually kept up with the forums.

Remember Golem week, that worked out well for them.

Jeknar.6184:

morrolan.9608:

These polls are verging on becoming a farce. There are many players on the salt forum boasting about voting yes purely to troll and destroy the mode.

I’m one of the people on the salty forums who “boasted” about voting yes and honestly, idc…. I actually voted No, but I guess I’ll change my vote now.

Why, just cause I brought it up?