Guild Wars 2

Bump for TVDD

No doubt spirits are good but if the other zerg is 25+ they die instantly end of story after that your a sponge that offers 0 group support and there are class that do that better /guardian

Lololololol a ranger more useful then a nerco in a zerg hahahaha spirits are useless in a zerg that’s like say MM nerco is good for anything but PvD xD

TBT <3 Cid <3

Hey, Im Monowrath, one of the three leaders of [TV] Third Vanguard

We are a hardcore WvW guild on Anvil Rock

We currently run with 15-20 players during our guild raids which we have 3 nights a week

At most we are hoping for 25 players for raids we are a skilled group focusing on fighting zergs larger then us. We will not run with groups over 25 people this is too zergy we are skilled players not a map blob guild.

We are also working our way onto the GvG scene hoping to make a name for ourselves.

Raid nights are Mon Wed and Fri NA primetime.

The only requirement is that you are willing to work your build around the group and show up for raids/GvGs. Other then that you will find plenty of skilled players inside the guild to Roam and tPvP with.

Guild Website: http://thirdvanguard.guildlaunch.com/

Most of the players are around 18-25 years old our TS can be Vulgar and sometimes Trolly. These make our raids extremely fun.

If your interested Mail “Monowrath.5743” in game or on mail me on the forums

Thanks for reading GL looking for a server.

beyonder.9735:

Think Miley Cyrus would be proud the way we came through AR bl tonight. cheers!

GL luck doing tonight it hope to see you soon don’t think it will be you twerking our keeps this time if you know what I mean

…We will be waiting

AR golem kill count this week…

Feel like im fighting GoM all over again

Do I love AR yes, Is AR ready to keep moving up no, Our major issue is that the PuGs only follow certain Commanders >_> Those 4ish Commanders cant do it all Im hoping AR gets a rough matchup next week and comes away with 2nd it will give us a good idea of who is in it to stay and who are the fair-weathers Ultimately we have grown as guilds are starting to Pop up and run organized events that alone is major growth from when we first started

Where having a gif war without me

To whoever built the Smiley face of rams in SF hills GG and lmfaoo =)

On another note was lots of fun the four weeks I was in Bronze league in my opinion was definitely a good decision to get out of silver and come down here gl to all the servers in the RNG the next couple of weeks hope you guys with come fight the might of AR!

I’m going to put this in persepective the reason IoJ fell apart and why they were not in bronze if because up until the week before leagues started matchups like this were occurring

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/32/99
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/32/101
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/32/105
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/32/109

4/6 weeks IoJ Rofl stomped servers (other matchups had SBI in them) Then BP got a decent SEA transfer and with that IoJ fairweather Oceanics didnt want to play cuz they werent just rofl stomping at Oceanic time any more which lead too

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/32/111
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/32/113

Around this time SIC left the server as the community decided they disliked there attitude and once the last week rolled around b4 leagues [SE] had about 15 of its core members xfer off IoJ without premission from the guild leader or a group decision for the guild leaving [SE] leader with no choice but to move the guild. With SE gone one of IoJ’s biggest guilds and another guild lining up to leave [CORE] spent the entire week decussing weather or not to go and the final decision was to leave.

Basically if IoJ had no chance of being in bronze league at that point we were still doubling HoD’s scores due to last second xfers is why IoJ is at the bottom of silver if the guilds hadnt left we would have been mid silver fighting servers like Ebay and CD with close match ups Even now IoJ can beat NSP/Bronze league servers not by nearly as much as b4 but its because of there great oceanics so basically coverage wins

Dangermouse.7950:

I have a question what is the difference between a mezzer inside, dead or alive and 3 thieves a warrior invise?

Reason why I am asking is we have had on numerios occasions thieves invise and rez the bodies of there friends that will not despawn because they know they have thieves cloaked.
If this is a exploit with a dead mezzer then why not with hidden thieves????

solution when keep is taken and flips to other color kick all the dead out?
You can not point the finger at just one guild for doing this because both sides do this.

Well to start stealth and rezing are game functions that are intended to work they way they do in this situation meaning Anet intend people to be able to stealth res by not making the revive ability unstealth you so it is working as intended

Why this isnt viewed as an exploit is because it take some not tons but some skill to permastealth res a dead mesmer also you can see the dead persons health bar rise when there being res’d also to permastealth you need to blast/leap through smoke fields which are visible red circles on the ground weather they are stealthed or not so you can find permastealth thiefs trying to hide.

Stoping this is simple if you see a mesmer not porting out of a keep/tower/SMC keep 2 or 3 people there with CC and if the life bar moves drop your CC near it with AoE circles as well if you sucessfully CC the thief chances are his stealth will drop for a second or 2 plenty of time to CC him again and smash his face

Crunk n monkey.3749:

HeNnAz.8913:

superior tactics? I don’t know about that but this 600PPT is really beginning to confuse me? Maybe we do indeed have some superior tactics!

Or we just gave the hell up. Getting kicked so many times tends to send the PvE’ers back to the Living Story.

Basically what we have banked on since reset…Our superior tactic is reveled…but its to late! Step one: Keep the lead within a surmountable distance while continuously wiping the winning server zergs over and over until there numbers overall decrease. On reset night I think you guys sent 5~ golem rushs at OL keep and wiped everytime.
Step 2: Create the illusion of superior coverage only can be done by a bunch of NA with a rough sleeping schedule…Nothing is more demoralizing then waking up to paper keeps and a lead being closed Step 3: Create an Iron Wall in your BL (kinda the entire matchup) without the exception of hills a couple of times our WP are there and strong Step 4: Take the lead as the leading servers numbers dwindle due to wipe after wipe paper keeps are easy to take especially when the zerg doesn’t leave EB. Once you take the lead the demoralization is complete I have rarely seen servers recover from losing a lead like that with a completely paper bl…in the end thats what leads to our 600PPT even though the WvW guilds ASH/RH are fighting hard Bronze WvW is all about keeping the PuGs happy and playing we successfully sent your PvEers looking to karma train all week back to PvE and then kept your bl as paper as possible really not an amazing tactic but a successful one.

With all that said this is quite possible the most fun I could have had in WvW T_T so much school keeps me stalking from Millenium and the Forums. Was an amazing matchup so far and maybe GoM can pull it out in the end for a close ending!

Im just gonna sit over here on AR…fighting GoM and DR…in first place…first time since March 24th…

Indeed this matchup has been amazing lots of fun I feel like ever since I got here all I’ve wanted to do is WvW been lots of fun in all these close matchups how GoM and DR keep fighting hard its going to come down to the wire. I just wish I wouldnt havve to sit and watch from the forums and millenium school is over in 2 weeks! Respect to both servers keep up the good fights

but…if anyone would like to have a gif war…

Cant wait to fight IoJ!

GoM you cant win Morgan Freeman is on our side!

G-kick or No respect!

Our Keep lord is quite ready to fight!

Morpheus chiming in again!

11,000 to go! its about to go down

Hey IoM Monowrath from AR here gotta say we have lots of respect for you guys your 30 man groups are feared even back on IoJ I can remember those groups tearing apart our BL. Lots of fun playing against you guys last two weeks again. I will say check out AR if you get the chance we have one guild looking at transferring and Zero is working its way back. And from personal experience I’d say mid tier isn’t very fun its stomp or be stomped bronze has the most competition then any of the leagues tbh hope you guys will give us a look

GL wherever you end up much respect for you guys!

Shademehr.1397:

Dovgan.8605:

If current trends continue this looks like it will be Season One Bronze League at wrap up. Congratulations to all the winners, I think.

1st Henge of Denravi
2nd Sorrow’s Furnace
3nd Darkhaven
4th Gate of Madness
5th Ferguson’s Crossing
6th Anvil Rock
7th Kaineng
8th Devona’s Rest
9th Eredon Terrace

Last place gets the #1 first round draft pick, right? RIGHT?

ET, what guild do we want from NA?

With the fist choice in the WvW Season 2 guild draft Eredon Terrace chooses ______!

kitten man they flipped bay! #BlameVis

Bump. Have had an awesome time lots of fun especially those late nights trying to hold our small lead over ET two weeks ago sooo much fun looking forward to battling GoM again and trying to over throw the 4th/5th place server in bronze

How I feel after reading all the of the predictions about AR not beating anyone

Jeknar.6184:

Jesse.4631:

clint.5681:

I’m a roamer

Sf has non of those! Why you lie! You can’t lie on internet!

SF have roamers… They roam in small packs of 20+ and usually have a bunch of [CoSA] with they.

I may be new to bronze League but I found this after reading this post and thought it was perfect

“When SF strays from the zerg”

Suffering from lack of sleep last night was crazy ET had some crazy numbers haven’t had that much fun in weeks

Already enjoying bronze league!

Hey I look forward to facing some of my old bronze league buddies

good guy Anet helping students

KarlusDavius.1024:

Then you supply trap the camps. You supply trap everything. 60 man zergs loosing 50% of supply is a big deal. Those numbers are hard to get back up without towers full of supply.

Coverage is an obvious issue but changing siege isn’t the answer. Having two trebs behind doors would double the poison supply removal. Trebs also hit golems very, very hard. They would only survive 5-7 hits from a sup treb.

Currently if you where to siege up a tower like this the enemy would simply avoid it and hit other tower and while your trying swap they will kill you in the open field with there numbers being that much more then your due to how little supply it costs to build ram you can feint every tower in EB with 2 rams and still come out with more supply then when you started

Now if you supply trap stuff thats awesome it cuts there supply even more but setting up supply traps when ever the enemy leave is just impossible you will have to tower hop over and over there will be no time to retrap tower/camps and when they go back its just two more superior rams they can put up eventually they will kill a good amount of the defensive force and then they will get the tower which will make people not want to play with means less and less people to defend

If they commit tons of supply to take a tower they will be less likely to pull off it and will be more likely to wipe because they just dont have the supply to attack other towers

Cymric.7368:

Just want to post some numbers to help the discussion here.

A paper gate has 375k hp. A normal ram with no mastery deal 1600dps on the gate. So it takes ~234s to take down a gate if ignoring player dps.

A normal arrow cart with rank 2 mastery deal 1155 dps to rams and rams has ~100k hp. So it take less than 100s to kill a ram.

A normal treb with rank 3 mastery deal nearly twice more damage to rams than arrow carts.

All siege deal 15% less damage to golems compare to rams. All superior siege deal 50% more damage. Rank 3 mastery increase ram dps by ~50%.

dps test of siege vs rams and golems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQsp5_xBR4

It is certainly possible to defend against normal rams, but against superior rams and rank 3 ram mastery, you will need a lot of pre build siege to destroy them in time.

Thank you for posting these stats I will add this to the OP and give you credit this is very helpful in understanding Rams vs. ACs

Victory.2879:

I think the OP needs to move around a few servers and see how small some of the numbers are on a lot of servers outside of prime time. 15 people to build a ram? Not going to happen for a lot of servers.

Thinking that people are going to supply run to what will now be permanently drained camps to build defensive siege at 150 a pop when you get people throwing down siege randomly is dreaming- everyone will assume someone else is doing it, and no one will get it done.

If you try and run your zerg back and forth just to build siege see how long it takes before people stop following you- defence doesn’t get you anything, so most people won’t bother.

Upping the supply used to create siege isn’t the problem- it’s getting people to the tower to defend it in time that is. You might have spend all that supply building a couple defensive ac, but if no one is prepared to sit on them or refresh them (almost all siege despawns at some point due to not being refreshed) then it’s just wasted.

The problem is that gates melt way too fast as there is no cap on the amount of rams that can be built at a gate- 6 superior and the gate just melts in seconds. If you think of sieges, there would be one or a maximum of two rams, so maybe the solution is to cap the number of rams at a gate to two. This would give defenders a little time to organise a defence and reach the tower to defend it before it’s flipped.

I will admit I have never moved servers and prolly never will but in my view you shouldnt be able to take a tower with less then 15 without some serious commitment to running supply I have been on the bottom and the middle of NA never had an issue getting 30~ prime time and 15-20 off hours. Also this help hurt coverage destryoing everything while the mass of the server sleep because 5 people will be able to hold a tower vs 30 no problem

As for defense being rewards less this is completely true Anet needs to fix this there is nothing we can do about that atm. All I can say is with this build an AC is considerably easier then a ram

Also I thought about capping the amount Rams its not a terrible this could still be open for discussion

KarlusDavius.1024:

Apologies, but you need to learn what to use to defend a keep more. Supply is a key factor, so use your brain. They can’t build if you strip supply. 3 ram do not melt a fully upgraded door at all. Here are a few things you can do.

Trebuchet – this does HUGE damage to all siege behind that door and also causes a knock back. Yes, even to golems. If you have mastery then cows drain supply causing issues for inner gates and what siege they can use.

Supply traps – ALWAYS put a supply trap at the door or stairs at both inner and outer gates. Stripping 15 people of 5 supply is massive.

Clever placement – spread your arrow carts out. High range AoE has a long cooldown. Take advantage of that fact. Yes they will focus arrow carts down, however whilst killing one siege, you should have 3 others hitting them applying pressure.

The second they go away to reapply is when you do the same and resiege. Traps and grabs are key as it can stop a Zerg in its tracks. Get creative. The new ranks for siege have allowed a range of siege to be used to devastating effect as a defensive tool.

I agree that defending current isnt completely useless Im not here QQing about Zerging to stronk nerf Katrina she op

There are lots of creative ways to currently hold towers a lot of the things you explained work, but still even with all that holding golem rushs from 50 + man zergs with full supply with a miser force is very difficult which in the end mean that the numbers win regardless of what you do this plan is to makek defending easier for small er numbers and too also make attacking less viable. To give an example of the current issue my server is currently facing SBI this is a fun match up but very one sided SBI has 60 man zergs on almost every map nightly (NA prime) they tick near 400+ during NA prime while we can get 20-30 for our BL and EB with these changes SBI would not be able to walk there 60 man zergs which = 600 supply up to gates and drop 3-4 superior rams for a paper gate and still walk away with only a 200 supply hit plus what ever they lose in supply traps only to go take a camp and get 100 more

The creative ways to defend you suggested are awesome and great especially if you are there previous to the attack starting but with such low numbers that isn’t always the case, this would make those creative means of defending even better make it even harder for them to flip towers makes match ups even closer.

This idea is to create closer match ups regardless of numbers it favors skilled players through smaller numbers being able to defend keeps/towers instead of getting rolled over by golems and seemingly infinite supply

denimdan.8642:

CAPT wheat roll.5743:

denimdan.8642:

remember this to though, many ppl in WvW only there to karma train, and alot of commanders are the same, they dont like to place defensive seidge so you cant plan on relying on the fact that a commander will bring a zerg to build the acs, cause most of the time this isnt so

The way WvW would be changed there really couldn’t be nearly as much Karma Training as there is now and servers, who do not build defensively would not do as well unless they could stop the other servers from attacking the towers properly with numbers advantage.

Then again server who are karma training have numbers advantage already this is why they can karma train so they wouldn’t have to play very defensively that would have to not mindless run there zerg into the gate to actually take a tower places trebs and siege it

server tha karma train still will, because takeing the towers will still give more of a bonus than defending sadly, unless this changes, karma training wont die…no matter what changes like this we make.

If the karma training zerg continues to push it will be much easier to wipe them with the defensive scheme which intern = loot again I agree there isnt much incentive to defending but the ability to defend easier would mean more loot bags, but still not a concrete answer

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

CAPT wheat roll.5743:

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

No thanks.

Would prefer to see the map cap for siege go up to 200. Sometimes to properly siege up a structure, I need a lot of siege. I like a good siege.

They wont up the cap due to lag issues sadly, also that wouldnt solve not being able to hold with low pop

Also you would be able to build other siege in the towers like a said cap is open for discussion

I still like the superior and omegas. Don’t care to give that up. I don’t think lag is the issue with siege numbers. If I could dump more than 100 pieces of siege on the map, a dominating server that can take all three keeps in a boarderland would have 50 pieces of siege at minimum in each. I think I can cram a lot more in there. While I don’t mind going into that, I don’t think that many are like me.

lols indeed sir but I do appreciate the criticism thxs :P

denimdan.8642:

remember this to though, many ppl in WvW only there to karma train, and alot of commanders are the same, they dont like to place defensive seidge so you cant plan on relying on the fact that a commander will bring a zerg to build the acs, cause most of the time this isnt so

The way WvW would be changed there really couldn’t be nearly as much Karma Training as there is now and servers, who do not build defensively would not do as well unless they could stop the other servers from attacking the towers properly with numbers advantage.

Then again server who are karma training have numbers advantage already this is why they can karma train so they wouldn’t have to play very defensively they would have to not mindless run there zerg into the gate to actually take a tower places trebs and siege it

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

No thanks.

Would prefer to see the map cap for siege go up to 200. Sometimes to properly siege up a structure, I need a lot of siege. I like a good siege.

They wont up the cap due to lag issues sadly, also that wouldnt solve not being able to hold with low pop

Also you would be able to build other siege in the towers like a said cap is open for discussion

ArkAngel.7940:

I run around with my guild group with about 5-8 people usually. We cause major havoc behind enemy lines. Cutting off supply, papering towers. Increasing supply required for siege would just make it way harder for my small group. It will also just promote zerging because more people would be required to build siege.

Also, defending towers against enemy zergs is not that difficult. Smart siege placement and priority targeting can stop entire zergs. Players are useless if they don’t have any siege or supply to take a tower, they will leave. Which is what you want them to do. If it is a prolonged siege then that gives you time to gain reinforcements. There have been many times where I was able to fend off zergs solo because I was smart about what to hit, or what to build.

The only thing that makes defending “boring” as it is now is because you can’t leave the tower empty unless you want to risk a zerg just rolling right on through.

And hell no I don’t want a limited amount of siege I can put in a tower. There is already the 1k radius 5 siege limit. There is nothing more satisfying to me then getting more siege in the tower then you can put in stonemist.

Also, getting siege up in supply camps is very important to me as evident in this picture.

I agree that this will hinder small group play when it comes to taking tower I also run with 5 man group in the northern halfs of BLs flipping camps yak slapping and occasionally taking towers but for WvW you can not hold a tower currently again a fully supplied 50+ man zerg with a commander who understands siege placement they can flash build 2 rams before the AC has any effect and destroy a gate with only 100 supply

As for promoting zerging my post isnt a end all for Zerging in my believe zerg can never but killed just by the way the game type is set up. My idea is to make it less about zerging objectives and more about fighting opponents like it says in the OP 1 warscore per spike (which would prolly make more sense if it was per kill in general) in closer match ups matter a lot more

understand that with this Tower wont flip constantly and the PPT scores will be a lot closer then they are currently. In this environment Skilled groups that zerg bust or roam have a better chance to contribute racking up points per spike (should be kill) roamers can make a lot more points killing enemies and spiking them with 1 bloodlust stack then they can capping a tower and waiting for it to tick.

denimdan.8642:

CAPT wheat roll.5743:

denimdan.8642:

first off, its 10 supply every 30 sec not 10 sec

second, regular acs do kitten dmg and any one that has even a little bit of regen can out heal them. atm it takes about 3 acs to out pace 1 ram on a paper gate if the rammers swap out so it keeps hitting. So with out sup acs it now will take more ppl and more acs to defend a tower aginst just 1 ram.

third, your destroying small groups and promoteing zerging, with 150 supply to build a ram it will now take min 15 guys to drop 1 ram. and you need 30 ppl to just build the 3 acs needed to stop said ram, so this in no way helps defence. So, just no there

fourth, one a 2 ac limit in towers, means you cant stop any attack on the tower without a zerg there to stop them

your original purpose of this post was to aid small groups defending towers and keep. in reality your entire post crushes any hopes of small groups defending any thing or taking something for that matter and promotes mindless zerging

First, I apologize for being misinformed about the supply camps

Second, Originally I typed out to buff regular AC to superior and took it out because I felt it would be too strong and I forgot to increase the amount of AC that could be placed in a tower now that it was just regular

Third, I have no intention of wanting smaller groups to be taking towers its built on smaller groups being able to defend what they own against bigger zergs I also wanted the amount of ACs to be put in a tower to be discussed I dont want to make taking an objective impossible just a lot harder then it currently is

Lastly, If your running in a group under 15 people flipping camps stopping yaks and spiking enemys is a lot more effective then trying to ninja a tower for 5 mins with 5 people you can also find and kill will amount to more points then the 10 you would get for the tower for that one tick

Attacking shouldnt be as easy as it is. On low pop servers WvW has no stability
I will edit the AC numbers and reconsider making them Superior Thx for the insight

second point….with the current pvt armor meta and ram buffs any thing short of 2 sup acs cant stop 1 ram. i dont believe there should be an ac cap for towers of less than 5 if there is one at all.

third point…by increasing the amount of supply for both rams and acs you make it so a small group will have a vry difficult time siedgeing up a place, takes long enough as is to get 3 sup acs up in a tower at 40 supply each, when you have to run the supply from a camp.

i agree that takeing a tower or keep shouldn’t be as easy as it is, but your changes are still drastically hindering defensive capability as it will take 10 runs of supply to build 1 ac, and thats alot of time wasted that most defenders dont have time to waste

Well I believe that once you take back a tower you should siege it up as a commander taking the zerg on two supply runs to get two ACs up to hold a tower. Also remember that these are Regular Rams they will die before they can get the gate down if there is 2 constant ACs on them and of course there would have to be a lot of testing to be done with this, but I dont believe it would be fair to just bump up the cost of Rams 110 supply and not move ACs at all, like I said I want it to be a lot harder to take a tower but not impossible

A 50 man zerg in theory could get 3 rams up on a gate for 450 supply while in ACs for 500 you could have 5 ACs dealing damage to the rams and the zerg so even if the reinforced tower had zero supply if it was sieged up by a commander prior to the assault (good defensive practice for a commander) your chances of holding a tower are much much higher then they are currently. Then again on the flip side if you ignore siegeing the tower prior you may get into supply trouble trying to put up ACs and hopefully will learn to siege before you push your zerg out.

If this was implemented Reset night would be more focused on holding and siegeing everything in your corner before rushing other teams corners/keep

Also this will make a lot less Ram play and a lot more strategic cataing and trebing

Again thx for the posts it makes me think of factors initially that I may have missed I enjoy the criticism

denimdan.8642:

first off, its 10 supply every 30 sec not 10 sec

second, regular acs do kitten dmg and any one that has even a little bit of regen can out heal them. atm it takes about 3 acs to out pace 1 ram on a paper gate if the rammers swap out so it keeps hitting. So with out sup acs it now will take more ppl and more acs to defend a tower aginst just 1 ram.

third, your destroying small groups and promoteing zerging, with 150 supply to build a ram it will now take min 15 guys to drop 1 ram. and you need 30 ppl to just build the 3 acs needed to stop said ram, so this in no way helps defence. So, just no there

fourth, one a 2 ac limit in towers, means you cant stop any attack on the tower without a zerg there to stop them

your original purpose of this post was to aid small groups defending towers and keep. in reality your entire post crushes any hopes of small groups defending any thing or taking something for that matter and promotes mindless zerging

First, I apologize for being misinformed about the supply camps

Second, Originally I typed out to buff regular AC to superior and took it out because I felt it would be too strong and I forgot to increase the amount of AC that could be placed in a tower now that it was just regular

Third, I have no intention of wanting smaller groups to be taking towers its built on smaller groups being able to defend what they own against bigger zergs I also wanted the amount of ACs to be put in a tower to be discussed I dont want to make taking an objective impossible just a lot harder then it currently is

Lastly, If your running in a group under 15 people flipping camps stopping yaks and spiking enemys is a lot more effective then trying to ninja a tower for 5 mins with 5 people you can also find and kill will amount to more points then the 10 you would get for the tower for that one tick

Attacking shouldnt be as easy as it is. On low pop servers WvW has no stability
I will edit the AC numbers and reconsider making them Superior Thx for the insight

Continued:
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
My theory for this idea is that looking at the overall theme of WvW its far too easy to flip things and way to hard for small amounts of people to defend making Zerging extremely effective when your numbers are much higher. By increasing the cost of Siege by extreme amounts, it slows down there ability to melt gates, and gives the defenders a chance to set up or man previously created siege and have an actual chance of pushing back massive zergs. Kill the idea that taking a tower is a 2 min thing and actually introduce work in taking a tower make it a 15-30 min SIEGE of a tower. When you finally take the tower the feeling will be good and rewarding and will make people want to stay and defend rather then to move onto the next 2 min tower capture. With these small numbers you can defend really well, helping keep your towers/keeps holds your PPT which in turn creates closer match ups less steamrolls. Coordination is key and the 1 Warscore from stomping an enemy seems a lot more now that the match ups are closer and things aren’t flipping back and fourth every tick. Stability is given to low pop servers and there defensive skills can shine.
Thanks for reading I apologize for grammar/spelling error’s and hope this sparks some discussion.

Disclaimer: This is not an end all for zerging! It only makes wiping mindless karma zergs much easier defensively .

Stats information on Rams vs. ACs and ACs vs Golems:
Credit to Cymric.7368 for this info

Just want to post some numbers to help the discussion here.
A paper gate has 375k hp. A normal ram with no mastery deal 1600dps on the gate. So it takes ~234s to take down a gate if ignoring player dps.
A normal arrow cart with rank 2 mastery deal 1155 dps to rams and rams has ~100k hp. So it take less than 100s to kill a ram.
A normal treb with rank 3 mastery deal nearly twice more damage to rams than arrow carts.
All siege deal 15% less damage to golems compare to rams. All superior siege deal 50% more damage. Rank 3 mastery increase ram dps by ~50%.
dps test of siege vs rams and golems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQsp5_xBR4
It is certainly possible to defend against normal rams, but against superior rams and rank 3 ram mastery, you will need a lot of pre build siege to destroy them in time.

This is just an idea I had for making defending easier and makes playing offense much harder. Not 100% percent sure how it would play out but want to throw the idea out to the community. Hope this sparks some interest.

First I’d like to start off by saying get rid of Superior Siege/Omega Golems they are way to strong offensively 3 superior rams melt a reinforced gate even more so with the mastery this is a complete disadvantage to lower pop servers the duration the gate stays up isnt nearly enough time for 20~ Defenders to kill 50+ man zerg not to mention Iron Will + Waterfields can make killing the guys manning the rams nearly impossible and with the zerg that size and siege at only the cost of 50 supply theoretically they can build 10 superior rams. Now the solution to this defensively is to have 4-5 superior arrow carts and sometimes yes with a reinforced tower can be held against a zerg like this when you are there and ready to hold the tower. If you get there even 30 seconds after the Rams have gone up the hold is nearly impossible AC’s can be destroyed as well before your small zerg is able to get there and defend the tower you are just purely overwhelmed by lack of time and their numbers.

While there are advantages to superior defense siege as well like AC’s and Bali’s the purely offense siege Rams, Cata’s, Omega’s, Trebs, are just to strong for smaller numbers to hold off.

(I understand Treb’s and Cata’s can be used very well in defensive situations as well, but they are mostly used offensively so I will refer to them as Offensive Siege vise versa for AC’s and Bali’s)

I purpose completely removing Superior Siege from the game and buffing AC’kitten cap to 10 and giving them a damage buff as regular AC are a lot weaker then superior.

Now that I have discussed removing Superior Siege its time to talk about limiting siege

Having a Bigger Zerg = More Supply
More Supply = More Siege
More Siege = Things Dying Faster

The amount of supply a zerg of 50 people can hold 500
That equates to 12 rams -10 Cata’s – 5 Treb’s – 5 Alpha Golems

Not to mention the fact that every supply camp has 100 supply in it to begin with which regenerates 10 every 30 seconds!

Generally when I am commanding and I see a unmanned tower I drop 2-3 rams and if all goes well we have the tower in a matter of 1 min or 2. And if my zerg has 50 men (Keeping a generic number for a matter of example this is a pretty standard silver league zerg) it has spent about 80-120 supply out of 500 to take one of the four tower objectives and I can resupply this amount simply by going to a supply camp and grabbing 100 more. The amount of supply spent does not nearly cover the ground lost especially if this tower is reinforced and your zerg was stuck fighting off the third server.

To me those numbers don’t add up
I propose increasing the cost of each piece of siege by a much greater number mainly for offensive siege

Rams – 150 supply -Treb’s – 300 supply – Cata’s – 200 supply – Bali’s – 80 supply – AC’s – 100 supply – Alpha Golem – 300 supply

Now these costs may seem steep for one piece of siege, but with this assaulting large targets like keeps will have to extremely coordinated and planned to actually succeed instead of just building 10 + Omega golems and walking through entire borderlands because the home server can only get 20~ people to defend.

Also to keep it balanced there needs to be a siege limit inside towers and keeps.
Towers with a 5 AC’s 5 Bali limit
Keeps with a 15 AC 15 Bali limit

Also the Commander will need to have siege placement override what ever siege a commander throws will override others siege
(Yes there will be trolls but without a cap Assaulting would be literally impossible)

When your gf wakes you up to go shower before class and you tell her to let you sleep more becuase you will WP to your dorm (true story)

Glad to still have you guys!

I actually kinda like this idea with guesting added in seems like it would solve a lot of T1 queue issue with an extra 8 maps for them to spread on.

Would require people to work together and encourage good team play between servers and wouldnt over-power the gold servers because its due to how much each team wins by also with the guesting idea there cant really be stacking on one server because everyone is free to move around all 12 maps would make matchups closer and could add a new interesting aspect to WvW.

Could also help skill lag due to kitten -100 man zerg stacking

This would make 15-20 man zergs great to have on each map could get a lot more done

Guilds could find a lot more GvG’s due to them basically facing 6 servers instead of 2
(At least until Obi Sanc comes out)

Some issues there might be would be
1. Server/Guild drama might imped

2. Trolls might increase

3. Wouldnt be too fun for roamers on lower tier servers due to more Zerging (Although there is so many maps in general that it might not even matter also Obi Sanc will make finding fights a lot easier)

As for putting extra load on the high tier servers to carry there low tier to victory:
I think this is more of a good thing then a bad thing. Putting some extra stress on Overloaded T1 servers is good thing

This will cut down on Server transfers as well.

People will get that “Tier 1 experience” right on there own servers the tactics and the numbers.

Of course there are people who have resentment for other servers but hopefully with the thought of winning it will deter that hate.

Seeing something like this implemented will hopefully add to the WvW experience and breck apart T1 superpowers from steamrolling everything that isnt T1

Of course that means also there are only 3 total rewards for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place alliance’s

Will be based on which servers spread there troops correctly.

This will also help with coverage dominating PPT as well wont completely kill the idea of coverage = 1st but will help a bit.

Feel free to tear me apart im sure there are plenty of holes in this not to mention Grammar error’s I’m pretty bad at grammar bare with me please.

Also Anet would have to leagues even again either 8-8-8.
which would mean 12 maps

Server alliances according to http://mos.millenium.org/na predicted rankings at this time would be

1. JQ/NSP/AR
2. SoR/Kaing/GoM
3. Blackgate/ IoJ/ DR (lol)
4. TC/ YB / ET
5. SoS/ CD/ SF
6. SBI/BP/FC
7.Mag/ EB/ DH
8. FA/ DB/ HoD

Or if they made the leagues 2 again it would be 8 maps and the alliances would look like this

1. JQ/AR
2. SoR/GoM
3. BG/DR
4.TC/ET
5.SoS/SF
6 . SBI/ FC
7. Mag/ DH
8. FA/ HoD
9 NSP/DB
10 Kaing/EB
11 IoJ / BP (lol again)
12. YB / CD

Congrats on T1 guys! gonna take it to SoR this week!

Anet challenged IoJ to make up the lead that they took…Challenge accepted Anet…Challenge accepted…

FIRE Roaming ET and HoD mssg me for fights 5v5s preferably