Guild Wars 2

Jet.4795:

Well I mean noone has left JQ, incase you havent noticed we have lost a chunk of WvW population. And you wanting to doubt that JQ is not healthy is your choice. But alot of people act like JQ has never been in this situation.Being #2 and the fun of being blue in EB.

I see where the confusion is coming from. You’re making a distinction between people transferring off the JQ server and people staying on the server, but giving up in WvW. Since I’m not on your server and can’t see what’s going on in PvE land, all I’m talking about is the WvW presence. Either way, I’m not suggesting you’ve never been in this situation before, I’m simply saying that pretending you’re not currently in the situation you most certainly are in isn’t doing anyone any favors.

The objective fact of that matter is that JQ’s WvW numbers and, as a result, performance, have been severely lacking lately. I hope this changes soon, but turning a blind eye and pretending everything is hunky-dory isn’t helping out.

Ascii.9726:

Oh floating loot bag, why do you hate me so?…

lol

Jet.4795:

Who says anyone has quit? if you mean the people who left JQ? They are not part of the community now so whats it matter?

See, when I first replied I was pointing out that you implying JQ wasn’t bored or giving up contradicts what several other JQians have said in this very thread. But now even you’re suggesting that there are people who’ve left JQ in response to their recent defeats, so you’re also contradicting yourself.

Believe me, the fights we’ve had in t1, including those against JQ have been the best I’ve had since I started playing, and I’d love nothing more than for you to keep it up and challenge our current position. I’m just pointing out that when several of your server’s players are here blaming JQ’s recent poor performance on a general feeling of boredom and people moving on to different games, I can’t help but doubt your claims that JQ is as healthy and willing to compete as it’s ever been.

Jet.4795:

Silas.8630:

Jet.4795:

Regarding JQ we are not dying, we have lost some people yes its not the same. However JQ will always be togethor on a community level win or lose.

JQ is together on a community level? This thread tells a very different story. Seems to me like they can’t even decide if they’re bored and giving up, or reinvigorated and continuing the fight.

So I am guessing you just assume because we don’t agree on one thing that we arnt a community? Brother and Sister don’t agree on one thing does that mean they are not close? Come on now lol

If half of your close-knit community decides to quit the game then they are, by definition, neither close-knit nor a community. Blood relations have nothing to do with it.

Obelith.1365:

sostronk.8167:

Vash.9183:

sostronk.8167:

Hammerguard.9834:

I go to WvW to have fun and I have to see this depressing kitten. Stuck in spawn, getting double teamed. You guys are brilliant…

Don’t worry, as soon as Blackgates sister server drops out of Tier 1 things will be much more fun.

Really? Like, really?? Do you NOT remember how Blackgate was made fun of for so long because we were claiming that JQ and SoR were doing a 2v1 on them? This went on for a very long time. SoR and BG are not close and whatever makes you think that is ridiculous. I can hardly believe I just saw someone from JQ post this.

I thought those complaints were literally a joke tbh. As in, they were watching JQ get double teamed and complaining that it was them getting double teamed. This kind of fit in with alot of other comments (from the same people) at the time that were completely the opposite of what was happening.

I’m honestly not sure of how to take this. A Few weeks ago there was almost this wonderful rotation of one day SoR would spawncamp while JQ took points and the next day it would be JQ’s turn to spawncamp while SoR took points. This typically went on with a couple of guilds (which will remain unnamed for keeping the dramallama in check). I’ll even admit I felt like we (BG) were being double teamed, rather relentlessly. We still pulled through, however.

I never was one to openly voice my personal or tactical opinions of other servers on the forums and really this feigning responsibility, blame, etc is very disappointing from all parties involved. I expected better from the T1 community as a whole to either complain or make excuses. I had really hoped there to be more professionalism and competitive play than this rampant name calling.

tl;dr – Most of you make me a sad panda.

This right here is what’s so entertaining about 3-faction combat. At any given time, all three sides can claim they’re being double teamed, and they’re all right.

Jet.4795:

Regarding JQ we are not dying, we have lost some people yes its not the same. However JQ will always be togethor on a community level win or lose.

JQ is together on a community level? This thread tells a very different story. Seems to me like they can’t even decide if they’re bored and giving up, or reinvigorated and continuing the fight.

Score update for anyone stuck working late.

UnrepentantProcrastinator.7420:

Dramen Maidria.1034:

Those of you spitting out this “oh well we were on top a long time we’re done with the game now, its boring” maybe Jade Quarry is better off without you if you’re going to find an excuse to do something else when your server faces a real challenge for its dominance.

That’s actually kind of useful advice, considering the “Full” status of their server. I expect everyone who said they’re “done” with WvW to transfer so JQ can get people who do want to WvW.

So LethalxKiller and Kryyg, I’m sure they’re expecting you somewhere in the lower tiers.

I hear EU t9 is always looking for fresh baddies bodies.

LetoII.3782:

Hammerguard.9834:

I go to WvW to have fun and I have to see this depressing kitten. Stuck in spawn, getting double teamed. You guys are brilliant…

Were you so upset when it was BG’s day in the barrel?

Of course not, he goes to WvW to have fun, and double teaming the other guy is tons of fun.

Zen.8497:

Silas.8630:

wish.1027:

Silas.8630:

wish.1027:

Silas.8630:

Hoots.9564:

Ouch, 60 ppt during NA primetime. R.I.P. BG
-May 6th, 2013 03:24

I’ll just leave this here:

JQ at 110 towards the end of EU, when JQ never really had an EU presence… whats your point?

The point…you have completely and utterly missed it.

Thats why I ask what it was… because its obviously to cleaver for me to get it.

There, I edited my earlier post to make it a little clearer.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Now it’s my turn to miss the point. Are you calling us communists? Because yes, when it came time to transfer servers, I definitely spread my vast wealth around to help my fellow guildies.

Kalla.4290:

What size actually constitutes a zerg? Also, is it purely based on size or does the number of member guilds come into play? Another point, what about cohesion, I mean does use of more complex group tactics to separate role and enable flanking maneuvers still constitute zerg’ing as in one massive flood that just washes over the enemy?

I’ve heard so many uses of the term zerg for any size, composition and behavior of groups that I have no idea what is being referred to when something is called a zerg anymore.

At this point in the game, it’s lost all traces of its original definition, and is now used to describe any large group of players, regardless of skill, composition, or behavior.

wish.1027:

Silas.8630:

wish.1027:

Silas.8630:

Hoots.9564:

Ouch, 60 ppt during NA primetime. R.I.P. BG
-May 6th, 2013 03:24

I’ll just leave this here:

JQ at 110 towards the end of EU, when JQ never really had an EU presence… whats your point?

The point…you have completely and utterly missed it.

Thats why I ask what it was… because its obviously to cleaver for me to get it.

There, I edited my earlier post to make it a little clearer.

wish.1027:

Silas.8630:

Hoots.9564:

Ouch, 60 ppt during NA primetime. R.I.P. BG
-May 6th, 2013 03:24

I’ll just leave this here:

JQ at 110 towards the end of EU, when JQ never really had an EU presence… whats your point?

Not sure how you so completely missed it when I literally spelled it out in my post.

the point wasn’t really the ppt, it was the 9,654 point lead just 2 days after being declared “dead” and “the server where guilds transfer to die.”

Zen.8497:

Silas.8630:

Pvp.2758:

Silas.8630:

Hoots.9564:

Ouch, 60 ppt during NA primetime. R.I.P. BG
-May 6th, 2013 03:24

I’ll just leave this here:

That EU prime…..when no one else is on. lmfao

The full-sized JQ zerg getting wiped at BGBL Bay when I took the screenshot would beg to differ.

Edit: Also, the point wasn’t really the ppt, it was the 9,654 point lead just 2 days after being declared “dead” and “the server where guilds transfer to die.”

110ppt and a full sized zerg?
Like I said, all comedy is based on exaggeration, big or small, whatever you can get away with.

They had a full-sized zerg on 1 of the 4 maps, I said nothing about what they were or were not doing on the other 3.

Pvp.2758:

Silas.8630:

Hoots.9564:

Ouch, 60 ppt during NA primetime. R.I.P. BG
-May 6th, 2013 03:24

I’ll just leave this here:

That EU prime…..when no one else is on. lmfao

The full-sized JQ zerg getting wiped at BGBL Bay when I took the screenshot would beg to differ.

Edit: Also, the point wasn’t really the ppt, it was the 9,654 point lead just 2 days after being declared “dead” and “the server where guilds transfer to die.”

Hoots.9564:

Ouch, 60 ppt during NA primetime. R.I.P. BG
-May 6th, 2013 03:24

I’ll just leave this here:

Kryyg.8576:

LethalxKiller.3571:

If you guy’s truly wanna know why JQ gave up a 17k lead here it is. JQ as a whole has gotten bored of the repetitive wvw match up that we have now since the match up hasn’t changed much in a long time. (Guest in JQ la and ask this is the answer that you will get) Overall JQ is tired of wvw after weekend hype and a large lead and says lets go do something else that we havn’t been doing for months on end. JQ will continue to slack off until something new is added to wvw but until then have fun bg with first then maybe you guys will feel the same after a bit too.

This x 100.

Quite frankly, the game is boring. JQ is the #1 server in the history of the game. You can’t blame us that we want to take it easy and just relax on our luarrels and play other games. There’s no challenge left in GW2 for JQ as a server, we’ve fought the best and been the best.

If these posts had been made 2 weeks ago, it would have been a convincing excuse. But seeing as they’re just showing up now…

Rimu.7105:

@Pod. True combat healer was a bit much, but it was inside the realm of possibility

Wait, people actually had trouble getting Combat Healer? And here I thought that was the title all the noobs used because it’s the only one you unlock without even trying…

Nakoor.1980:

Akio.1749:

So, SOR, how did you use THIS arrowcart to take down all of our siege inside hills? HOW?

Please, stay classy T1… Jesus Christ.

That ac can actually clear the acs on hills…So not sure what you are on about.

He meant siege on inner hills, not ACs on the outer walls. It was very obviously a zoom hack.

Sightblinder.4273:

If balance was the issue, why not just static buff the arrowcarts along with the outmanned buff instead?

It’s kinda ridiculous, giving us the siege bunker ability (5% siege defense) and perma-buff arrowcarts with +80% damage.

Back to the ‘balance’ issue – i suggest that you reduce the base damage to like 25% and possibly increase another 15-20% along with the ‘outmanned buff’.

Makes sense no?

I suggested about 25 pages ago that if small forces holding objectives against huge invading armies was the goal, the 80% buff should be tied to the outmanned buff. I think it’s high time for the outmanned buff to provide actual advantages that lead to better fights instead of useless kittene like 33% magic find.

Thyophelis.8035:

I have read about 80% of the posts in this thread and find most of them have truth in it but are formulated in a very agressiv way. I think there is a golden middle ground here that can satisife most of the player base:

good arguments I found in this posts:

-Normal arrowcarts had little impact and needed a buff.
-Leg specialist had to go
-defending / delaying a siege was to difficult
-Superior arrowcarts were allready strong in numbers and would have been fine just by the added wxp skills dmg boost, a slight buff of around 8% dmg would achieve a similar effect to increase the pressure on enemy grps and siege equip without tipping the scale completely over
-Range increase is abit to much
-the new wxp skills give a player a big advantage over a new player
-Towers can still be taken but the gameplay has suffered

I think the meta can be changed in a positiv way by slight adjustments. Changes like 50% dmg nerfs and buffs are over the top and do not speak for a developing team. Double nerfs and buffs should not be done, because the impact is to drastic. People will find it harsh to adjust will either quit the game or completely change their specc:
examples :
- Haste
- Stealth and culling
- arrowcart dmg buff + wxp skils to boost dmg
- ride the lightning, cooldown and range

I am sure the comunity can think of alot other changes that had a big impact in the gameplay that had to be compensated for months after.

a public open testserver would certainly help with this issues and prevent the mess we are in.

and pls do some work on the glicko calculation. People have been stuck for way to long in the same match ups

This. Absolutely this.

To be completely honest, I think a lot of the anger posted here about arrow carts was actually just frustration with the apparent incompetence of the development team that was being vented inappropriately at the wrong target. The straw that broke the camel’s back and made it freak the kitten out, as it were. Buffs and nerfs are things that need to be undertaken with care, discretion, and moderation, but this dev team has repeatedly shown that they have no problem doubling/halving things in one fell swoop with little to no consideration given to the potential consequences.

Yes, the arrow carts needed a buff, and if it was done with consideration and subtlety, a few % points at a time, people would not have panicked like they did, but Anet nearly doubled their damage all at once with admittedly zero testing as to how that might actually affect gameplay. And I think that was why there was so much knee-jerk hostility here.

FractalChaos.6539:

Silas.8630:

FractalChaos.6539:

I’m pretty confident ArenaNet will leave in the damage buff (maybe tone it down to 50%) against players, but make ACs useless against other siege weapons.

They admitted something was wrong with a flat 80% buff, and they’re doing something to fix it. Kinda makes it seem like our complaining was not without merit wouldn’t you say?

Hmmm….

Nope. Re-read the whole thing; I see not a single word stating that there is something wrong with a flat 80% buff in damage. Could you highlight the relevant portion for me please? Specifically the part where he states they buffed arrow cart damage too much and are rolling it back?

Honestly? To me, Devon’s post reads pretty much like "We’re going to make it so Arrow Carts don’t hammer other siege weaponry so hard (and I personally would be fine with ACs not harming other siege weapons at all) but as for their ability to hurt you far more seriously than before…that’s what was originally intended. You have to learn to work around that."

_Firstly, when siege weapons were originally created, they had the intent of being really good at some things and not so good at others. The arrow cart is intended to be the anti-personal siege weapon. It is intended that arrow carts are all about controlling an area through damage. If you remain in the area that is being hit by the arrow cart, you will die. You can however, move out of the space and/or find a new way to attack the intended target. That being said, they are not intended to be so good against other siege weapons and we are in the process of addressing that right now. We are also addressing their range when upgraded to be more in line with the range of ballistas.

Secondly, this change is going to require new tactics and those tactics include things like using ballista and catapults to destroy arrow carts. With that in mind, we’ve been looking more closely at the numbers of all the siege weapons and there are definitely some changes that need to be made to bring them in line with their intent. We are going to take a holistic pass at siege weapons in the coming months and drop a rebalance of all of them to get them to more closely align with what they should be doing.

Finally, the feedback you all provide is a very useful part of this whole process. WvW is a living, breathing game type and any changes we make have numerous consequences that don’t become fully visible until everyone starts interacting with them and devising new strategies. Our goal is to provide a complex combat space that rewards skill, tactics, and ingenuity and while we haven’t fully achieved that goal yet, I like to think we are getting there._

I’m going to be perfectly honest with you here, I only read as far as the bold portion. If they admitted that ACs shouldn’t do as much damage to siege weapons, that is, by extension, an admission that a flat 80% buff was not the right course of action. If you honestly haven’t figured that how by now, nothing I can possibly say will improve your reading comprehension. I don’t need to find you anything because you found and quoted it yourself, you just didn’t read or understand what you quoted. No point trying to spoon feed you logic and certainly no point reading the rest of your drivel.

FractalChaos.6539:

Aberrant.6749:

MiLkZz.4789:

thiagoperne.7340:

Maybe AC changes aren’t that OP, maybe skilled players are lacking.

As far as I can see, it are the most skilled and hardcore players that are complaining the most about these changes.

Tell me what is skilled about pressing 1/2/3 on an arrowcard.

Indeed… why put together complex multi-person defenses when you can just build an ac, push 1,2,3 and have it destroy all siege/players with the power of an orbital cannon regardless of your weapon/build/gear choices.

sigh Hopeless.

A mass of squirming bodies, thousands and thousands of blind dredge all packed together tight in a cave, unable to move in any direction, stuck where they are, nattering at each other.

“Arrow carts are overpowered! Have you heard?”
“Overpowered? Really?”
“Yes, now you can use a single arrow cart to kill 5 people, easily!”
“Really?”
“YES!!! I’ve been hearing about it all day!!”
“Hearing about what?”
“Arrow carts are overpowered now!!!”
“They are???”
“Yes, one arrow cart can kill ten people, easily!!”
“ARROW CARTS ARE OVERPOWERED!! Stay away from arrow carts!!!”
“What?”
“Arrow carts are overpowered, you can kill 30 people with just 2 arrow carts in a tower.”
“Well that’s ridiculous, 10 of us just captured a tower- some repo job for Lord Dredgula- and it wasn’t anything like-”
“ARROW CARTS ARE OVERPOWERED!!! EVERYONE SAYS SO!!!!”
“WHAT WILL WE DO????”
timid voice in the background “Has anyone noticed that the enemy is still taking our stuff even if we defend it with arrow carts?”
“Everyone ignore that Dredge, he’s a troll.”
“Why am I a troll?”
“ARROW CARTS SHOOT TROLLS AT YOU NOW!!!”

Yeah. That’s this debate now.

No, it’s much more like:

Player: Arrow carts are OP now.
FractalChaos: Arrow carts are fine, here’s a video showing how bad my server is.
Player: That video just shows how bad your server is, arrow carts are OP.
Dev: Yeah, arrow carts are a little OP, we’re looking into it.
Player: Thanks for looking into it Dev.
FractalChaos: I guess they were a little OP against siege, but I was still right though.
Player: …?

FractalChaos.6539:

I’m pretty confident ArenaNet will leave in the damage buff (maybe tone it down to 50%) against players, but make ACs useless against other siege weapons.

They admitted something was wrong with a flat 80% buff, and they’re doing something to fix it. Kinda makes it seem like our complaining was not without merit wouldn’t you say?

Johje Holan.4607:

Unless of course the defenders know they are outnumbered or that you are an organized guild that is superior in the open field.

It sounds like you cannot find the competition that you crave so you have to “force the open field engagment”. Resulting in an open field slaughter.

This seems to be the case, but I don’t really see what it has to do with the issue at hand. Just because my guild is better in open field combat doesn’t mean anything (we’re winning because we’re better at siege and defense as well, we just don’t find those aspects of the game as entertaining.) The point is that now we have to wade through 2 hours of boring siege to get a fair fight, while the other side doesn’t have to wade through 2 hours of fair fighting to hide in a tower with an arrow cart, which I guess is what they find fun. Personally I think they’re just as bored, but they’d rather be bored than get off the AC, wipe, and sacrifice the ppt.

VOLKON.1290:

Silas.8630:

You clearly lack the ability to extrapolate an argument. The reason people think the AC buff has ruined open field combat, is largely because it makes objective sieges take far too long due to the inability to use siege within range of the wall. This leads to sieges consisting of hours of standing around while trebs fire without any actual player-on-player combat. In short, the damage ACs are doing to siege is what led to protracted sieges without open field fighting.

So… if I’m reading this right… open field combat is ruined because sieges to structures takes too long now. I always thought open field combat took place in, oh I don’t know… open fields? I think the biggest part of the arguments being tossed about is a battle over semantics.

You’re reading it correctly, you’re just not thinking it all the way through.
It’s impossible to have an open field fight with an opponent who refuses to get off their AC and leave their tower. In order to force the open field engagement, the objective must be taken to force them into the open field. This process is now excruciatingly time consuming and frankly quite boring for both sides.

VOLKON.1290:

Silas.8630:

VOLKON.1290:

Silas.8630:

VOLKON.1290:

Are you completely sure about that?

The arrow cart is intended to be the anti-personal siege weapon. It is intended that arrow carts are all about controlling an area through damage. If you remain in the area that is being hit by the arrow cart, you will die.

Yes, I’m completely 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt proof positive that my opinion is that AC dmg to siege is too high, and Anet agrees.

DevonCarver.5370:
That being said, they are not intended to be so good against other siege weapons and we are in the process of addressing that right now.

ANet agrees… that it’s too high against other siege equipment. I don’t seem to see anything referring to it being too high against people however… do you? Did I miss that part? Dang these old eyes… Dang them straight to heck!

Why don’t you take those old eyes and go back through my post to find the part where I said AC dmg was too high against other players. (Hint: it’s not there.)

Well then what are you going on about? Looks like were more in agreement than not.

What I’m going on about is the AC damage dealt to siege, not players.

You’re the one who quoted my post and made a snarky, contradictory reply apparently without bothering to pay attention to my actual position.

FractalChaos.6539:

Silas.8630:

FractalChaos.6539:

I agree there’s a problem; 3 or 4 times already in this thread I’ve stated that my vote goes to making siege weapons invulnerable to AC fire (no more killing rams, catas, or even Golems with ACs) and rolling back the damage from its current 80% to 50%.

So most of the complaining in this tread is centered around the AC dmg dealt to siege,

WHAT??? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

No it’s not. Most of the whining in this thread is about how ACs have ruined open field PvP and about how it’s now impossible to attack an objective without being slaughtered by overpowered arrow carts. I’ve seen some people kittening about how their rams and golems are being melted, but clearly not the majority.

You clearly lack the ability to extrapolate an argument. The reason people think the AC buff has ruined open field combat, is largely because it makes objective sieges take far too long due to the inability to use siege within range of the wall. This leads to sieges consisting of hours of standing around while trebs fire without any actual player-on-player combat. In short, the damage ACs are doing to siege is what led to protracted sieges without open field fighting.

VOLKON.1290:

Silas.8630:

VOLKON.1290:

Are you completely sure about that?

The arrow cart is intended to be the anti-personal siege weapon. It is intended that arrow carts are all about controlling an area through damage. If you remain in the area that is being hit by the arrow cart, you will die.

Yes, I’m completely 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt proof positive that my opinion is that AC dmg to siege is too high, and Anet agrees.

DevonCarver.5370:
That being said, they are not intended to be so good against other siege weapons and we are in the process of addressing that right now.

ANet agrees… that it’s too high against other siege equipment. I don’t seem to see anything referring to it being too high against people however… do you? Did I miss that part? Dang these old eyes… Dang them straight to heck!

Why don’t you take those old eyes and go back through my post to find the part where I said AC dmg was too high against other players. (Hint: it’s not there.)

VOLKON.1290:

Are you completely sure about that?

The arrow cart is intended to be the anti-personal siege weapon. It is intended that arrow carts are all about controlling an area through damage. If you remain in the area that is being hit by the arrow cart, you will die.

Yes, I’m completely, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof-positive that my opinion is that AC dmg to siege is too high, and Anet agrees.

DevonCarver.5370:
That being said, they are not intended to be so good against other siege weapons and we are in the process of addressing that right now.

FractalChaos.6539:

I agree there’s a problem; 3 or 4 times already in this thread I’ve stated that my vote goes to making siege weapons invulnerable to AC fire (no more killing rams, catas, or even Golems with ACs) and rolling back the damage from its current 80% to 50%.

So most of the complaining in this tread is centered around the AC dmg dealt to siege, and you yourself agree that the dmg to siege needs to be toned down. In order to prove your point you offer to post “30-40” videos of you, a player, standing in and surviving AC fire…because that makes sense.

Post 30-40 videos of a ram surviving AC fire and I might reverse my opinion about your intelligence.

FractalChaos.6539:

I’m actually trying to help you.

I oppose anyone whose position is based on hearsay and lack of evidence. I don’t care if I’m personally right or wrong. Really. If tomorrow Anet comes out and says “Arrow Carts are accounting for far too many victories in WvW; our recent change to arrow carts will be rolled back pending more data”, I’m not going to hide. I’ll be here, and my response will be “Hmm. Really? Oh well.”

Please see:

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d like to shed some light on our thinking with this AC change as well as tell you all what we are doing right now to balance it.

Firstly, when siege weapons were originally created, they had the intent of being really good at some things and not so good at others. The arrow cart is intended to be the anti-personal siege weapon. It is intended that arrow carts are all about controlling an area through damage. If you remain in the area that is being hit by the arrow cart, you will die. You can however, move out of the space and/or find a new way to attack the intended target. That being said, they are not intended to be so good against other siege weapons and we are in the process of addressing that right now. We are also addressing their range when upgraded to be more in line with the range of ballistas.

Secondly, this change is going to require new tactics and those tactics include things like using ballista and catapults to destroy arrow carts. With that in mind, we’ve been looking more closely at the numbers of all the siege weapons and there are definitely some changes that need to be made to bring them in line with their intent. We are going to take a holistic pass at siege weapons in the coming months and drop a rebalance of all of them to get them to more closely align with what they should be doing.

Finally, the feedback you all provide is a very useful part of this whole process. WvW is a living, breathing game type and any changes we make have numerous consequences that don’t become fully visible until everyone starts interacting with them and devising new strategies. Our goal is to provide a complex combat space that rewards skill, tactics, and ingenuity and while we haven’t fully achieved that goal yet, I like to think we are getting there.

So in response to:

FractalChaos.6539:

If you think I’m wrong, if you think arrow carts are overpowered and ruining WvW, if you think ArenaNet has to roll back this change, if you’re really serious about that; prove it.

No need to prove it to you, apparently ANet already agrees with us.
Now would be an appropriate time for you to admit that our complaints were completely justified, and move along.

FractalChaos.6539:

blink

…

Really?

A) That’s me dancing in the video as arrow carts barely hurt me. I frapsed that fight.
B) I already mentioned the rams were dropped far too early. It was a bad move. Four people died and the other 20 or so stayed back and lived. 4 people died out of a possible 25. Not exactly a slaughter, is it?
C) The commanders did not “turn tail and run”; they needed supply to build catas and decided to go get some. It’s clearly visible in my chat window; “Ok, gonna resupply and try this again” That’s not a rout; that’s smart.

However, given that you didn’t read my earlier post about the video, given that you didn’t even know it was made by me, and given that you think the attack broke in a panic and ran when it’s quite obvious we didn’t…yeah, you’re kinda clueless.

A) No, I knew full well the video was made by you, that’s why I called you a kitten.
B) It should come as no surprise to anyone at all that if you stay outside the arrow cart range, they won’t do much damage to you. The arrow carts were obviously focusing the gate, and the people who approached the gate popped almost instantly. Just because 20 people stood outside the AC focus doesn’t mean they could have made it past the choke alive.
C) Call it smart if it helps you sleep at night, but 3 commanders showing up to a tower, dropping siege, seeing that siege destroyed, then breaking ranks and leaving the tower with an enormous tail is, by definition, a rout. If the video continued to show you returning with more supply and successfully taking the tower, that would be a different issue…but strangely you didn’t include that part.

Also, I didn’t say you broke in a panic, I said you fled, which you can deny if you’d like, but it’s clearly visible in the video.

The only thing your video showed was that your commanders started a siege woefully unprepared and undersupplied, and your players would rather dance around with 8 supply than build the siege their commander placed. To be honest, the arrow carts had very little to do with it.

FractalChaos.6539:

Once again, with feeling;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H55Vruof0EU

Arrow carts are easy to deal with. Period. Lurn too pley.

LOL, thank you for just accidentally proving the opposite point you meant to.

The video you posted consists of a ram plan getting thrown down and destroyed immediately after it’s built, with some kitten dancing in the AC fire while his teammates die. Two minutes after the siege began, three commanders and their zergs turn tail and flee without even having scratched the gate.

Dawdler.8521:

DeadlySynz.3471:

I think a solution though that could work to quell the complaining is to just have the arrow carts use 1 supply for every shot you take. Basically if somebody hops on with 10 supply, they get 10 shots until they have to hop off. This could be done with all siege equipment. Hell, maybe add a separate “ammunition” supply separate from the supplies we have now that you need to fire the siege equipment. Perhaps also make the ammunition supplies random drops from killing enemies as well.

You could actually simplify that ALOT by doing two things:

- Each shot of a siege equipment reduce its HP by a certain percent
- Siege can be repaired for supply

And there you have it. Constant fire by 12+ carts will drain your keeps supply (or destroy the ACs).

I think this is a fantastic idea, but would probably necessitate the removal of the despawn timer. Losing placed siege to both a timer and lack of supply would get a bit irritating in my opinion, but then again I find the despawn timer a nuisance to begin with.

FractalChaos.6539:

Silas.8630:

FractalChaos.6539:

Silas.8630:

FractalChaos.6539:

Aneu.1748:

Or the defence was just exceptionally bad…

Some people’s constitutional inability to admit they’re wrong…it’s just baffling.

This word…I do not think it means what you think it means.

CONSTITUTIONAL (con·sti·tu·tion·al)

1- Of or pertaining to the constitution of a state, organization, etc.

2- Subject to the provisions of such a constitution: a constitutional monarchy.

3- Provided by, in accordance with, or not prohibited by, such a constitution: the constitutional powers of the president; a constitutional law.

4- belonging to or inherent in the character or makeup of a person’s body or mind: a constitutional weakness for sweets.

Nah you didn’t get it. Why would he admit that he’s wrong when he’s right?
A “constitutional inability” would imply that it’s some sort of character flaw and he’s unwilling to recognize an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of his opinion. Seems to apply more to those defending the change in this case…

You questioned my understanding of the word; I clarified and pointed out that my usage was correct. I do indeed believe that those complaining most loudly about this change are simply unwilling to accept that their doom-and-gloom predictions are wrong, or else they won’t admit they are wrong because that would somehow embarrass them (why I have no clue).

You say those in favor of it are the ones who are wrong. That’s a matter of perception only. The usage of the word is correct, and saying “Nuh uh, I’m not wrong YOU are so you used the word incorrectly in the context of this sentence” doesn’t change that.

For the record; I’m a gigantic fan of George Carlin and his obsession over the sanctity and elegance of the English language.

My point, which you have again missed, was that his opinion was based on a 24-hour period of observation and the resulting overwhelming body of evidence, not a flaw “inherent in the character or makeup of a person’s body or mind.” Therefore the word was used incorrectly. For such a huge fan of the elegance of the English language, you seem to miss some of the subtleties and finer points.

Kebab.4013:

So here, avoid the red areas if you don’t want to be faceraped by arrowcarts, bear in mind map doesn’t calculate for terrain elevation.

http://i.imgur.com/SDR3yB6.jpg

Have fun finding a good fight without arrowcarts.

Dahahah, well played.

FractalChaos.6539:

Silas.8630:

FractalChaos.6539:

Aneu.1748:

Or the defence was just exceptionally bad…

Some people’s constitutional inability to admit they’re wrong…it’s just baffling.

This word…I do not think it means what you think it means.

CONSTITUTIONAL (con·sti·tu·tion·al)

1- Of or pertaining to the constitution of a state, organization, etc.

2- Subject to the provisions of such a constitution: a constitutional monarchy.

3- Provided by, in accordance with, or not prohibited by, such a constitution: the constitutional powers of the president; a constitutional law.

4- belonging to or inherent in the character or makeup of a person’s body or mind: a constitutional weakness for sweets.

Nah you didn’t get it. Why would he admit that he’s wrong when he’s right?
A “constitutional inability” would imply that it’s some sort of character flaw and he’s unwilling to recognize an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of his opinion. Seems to apply more to those defending the change in this case…

Bllade.1029:

The way I look at it, they’re trying to give smaller numbers of people a chance to fight off large groups. With these new additions, it will force zergs to implement a little more strategy.

The damage increase and range on the arrow carts are going to force more strategy than just zerg balling. Its a fantastic addition, one that I welcome.

You’re right about it giving small groups the chance to defend against large groups. The issue is that it gives large groups the ability to defend against anything and everything their opponent could conceivably throw at them.

If all anet wanted to do was buff outmanned defenders, the 80% dmg increase should have been added to the outmanned buff.

FractalChaos.6539:

Aneu.1748:

Or the defence was just exceptionally bad…

Some people’s constitutional inability to admit they’re wrong…it’s just baffling.

This word…I do not think it means what you think it means.