Offensive shield generators neutralizes most defense counterplay — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Offensive shield generators neutralizes most defense counterplay

Esprit Dumort.3109Esprit Dumort.3109 Member ✭✭
edited December 27, 2017 in WvW

I see this more and more, that a 60+ player zerg that wants to take down a t2 or t3 tower/keep will layer their rams / catapults / trebuchets with shields and attack without worry from any defensive siege. Only a zerg can counter this type of play style now, which is frustrating for small groups trying to defend.

Defensive siege is essentially useless. Catapults, arrow carts, ballista, trebs, and siege disablers are all blocked by shield gens. That's assuming that the attacking zerg has not aoe'd your wall defenses down to nothing.

Even with Inulnvurable Fortifications, it's often not enough for a counter zerg from another map to save a tower against the multiple shield + 5-6 superior ram combos, especially with a keep waypoint contested.

The current method of using overwhelming siege makes defense very limited without a sufficient counter zerg to come to the rescue. You might as well just turn each tower into a PvP point that can be captured... the Lord ring, without a defensive barriers.

<1

Comments

  • Agree 100%.
    Siege weapons are and should be a double-edged sword insofar as they do not completely take out the possibility of counteractions. Defensive shield generators still meet that criterion because there are very rarely 2 or 3 defenders using 2-3 SGs to completely shield a particular wall.
    It's ok when the enemy has the sups and people to build 100 rams at your gate and you cannot stop them - but offensive SGs are simply OP. No matter how good you are at defending or how much siege you have, the enemy just needs to spam offensive SGs (and as mentioned, zergs do it most of the time when the objective has siege and is defended) and you can go home.

  • If they also remove siege disablers, sure delete shield gen

    Power > Condition

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I don't think its broken. Enemies still get damage through, especially if the attackers are using rams (as one must on inner SMC).
    Pro stealth disables between bubbles is also hilarious, even if I'm on the receiving end of those far more often than the giving end.

    Personally I think unreachable defensive siege behind tier 3 walls is more of an issue than catas/rams & shield gens. Can't disable or AOE that kitten.

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger main before it was viable.
    Fort Aspenwood.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 27, 2017

    sorry guys. numbers is king in this game.

    consider burn guards. it's been balanced but your ac is dead.

    while soft counter to rams. you can f1 5 4 111.the gate too. firebrand

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • I see OP's point, but disagree here. I don't think a small number of people should be able to turtle in a tower indefinitely. And even with shield gens, I still think there are sufficient options for defenders to cause significant or discourage attackers entirely.

    Attacking groups will usually take out an objective's cannons, mortars etc in advance of an attack. If you know a big group is on map and preparing for this, take steps to prepare yourself. Booby trap or drain your camps of supply. Drop supply traps everywhere you can. Siege the hell out of your defending objective.

    When the enemy do arrive, siege disablers are your friend. If you can disable the shield gens, then rams will drop fast. Invulnerable fortifications can buy you more time. Have roamers pick off stragglers or anyone respawning who might be returning to the attacking commander with more supply.

    If you can muster 10-15 heavies around a tag, fight under your siege and focus on bombing around the shield gens.

    Regardless of that, defensive shield gens do make it so that an organized force (and if you're doing the above, they will need to be organized), committing large amounts of people and supply, can eventually break into your objective if you're not willing to come out and fight, which IMO is a good thing.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    a possible solution i see. is reset objectives every 4 to 24 hours.

    this way small groups can take objectives and not face a superblob defending t3 all the time.

    or change the game mechanice like auto siege razer. stand and get an npc to attack an objective. players fight to def or attack that npc like the old pvp mode. that was fun.

    you summon gw2 heros to siege the keep.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @Sovereign.1093 said:
    a possible solution i see. is reset objectives every 4 to 24 hours.

    this way small groups can take objectives and not face a superblob defending t3 all the time.

    or change the game mechanice like auto siege razer. stand and get an npc to attack an objective. players fight to def or attack that npc like the old pvp mode. that was fun.

    you summon gw2 heros to siege the keep.

    Not sure if troll, but if not..

    No. Even less incentive for bl roamers to care about upgrading towers. We already lost a lot of it to auto upgrades. No more.

    Power > Condition

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    a possible solution i see. is reset objectives every 4 to 24 hours.

    this way small groups can take objectives and not face a superblob defending t3 all the +time.

    or change the game mechanice like auto siege razer. stand and get an npc to attack an objective. players fight to def or attack that npc like the old pvp mode. that was fun.

    you summon gw2 heros to siege the keep.

    Not sure if troll, but if not..

    No. Even less incentive for bl roamers to care about upgrading towers. We already lost a lot of it to auto upgrades. No more.

    not troll. roamers can do their thing. this is for the general pugs.

    we lost some, we gained some.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Trajan.4953Trajan.4953 Member ✭✭✭

    Shield Gens were brought into being by the Anet Gods in all their infinite wisdom. Embrace or be cast down heathens.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    why shield gens?

    Because no one can easily take a blob defended t3 with so many acs trebs supply traps disables.

    So, gens were introduced. Now it's a bit balanced. If you got the siege and jumbers, you will win. else gg.

    You can split your group into 10 per group and ppt fights to focus on other objectives to split the enemy zerg.

    This game is pro attacker pptwise. But it's very fun to defend because thats where the fights are.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @adammantium.8031 said:

    When the enemy do arrive, siege disablers are your friend. If you can disable the shield gens, then rams will drop fast. Invulnerable fortifications can buy you more time. Have roamers pick off stragglers or anyone respawning who might be returning to the attacking commander with more supply.

    If you can muster 10-15 heavies around a tag, fight under your siege and focus on bombing around the shield gens.

    Regardless of that, defensive shield gens do make it so that an organized force (and if you're doing the above, they will need to be organized), committing large amounts of people and supply, can eventually break into your objective if you're not willing to come out and fight, which IMO is a good thing.

    Any smart commander will space shield gens apart, have scouts further up harassing any disable attempts, and have enough redundancy to make sure one or two shield gens down is not a big deal. With rams, sure, disables are helpful, but as most groups do long range catas or trebs, disables are not really helpful if you cannot get there before dying or being interrupted. A small percentage of professions have stealth, so that's not really a counter argument here.

    An attacking zerg can essentially choke out wall defenders from trying to build AC's and other siege already, shield gens provide the last bit of defense needed to make taking towers relatively effortless against a small group of defenders.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    My similar post got lots of replies. Obviously, it's still an issue after the changes the discussion spurred... Oh that's right - there were no changes!

    Here is my post:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/2163/how-to-counter-siege-shield-generators#latest

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • DeadlySynz.3471DeadlySynz.3471 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The offensive use of shield generators is a bit ridiculous, but so is trying to take a well sieged T3 objective. Remember it wasn't long about that people were moaning and groaning about T3's rarely ever being attacked or taken because no commander wants to bang their head against the wall for an indefinite amount of time trying to take it. Then came the "remove all the tactivators" & "Reduce the amount of siege allowed".

    I'd much rather them remove shield gens from the game completely. Then remove the tactivators, or at the very least remove the structural invulnerability and emergency wp ones. Consideration should also be given to remove the amount of defensive siege placed in any tower/keep. As much as some people like sitting on arrowcarts, I guarantee those same people would hate sitting under arrowcart fire if the shoe was on the other foot.

    If they are unwilling to pull a drastic measure, then Anet should just change the Anti-Air bolt skill from the Ballista (because it really is next to useless), to a bubble shatter skill instead. Shattering the bubble damages siege and damages all players within the bubble making them bleed

  • Most siege in towers can be nuked by ballistas or player AoE, so the statements about a tower staying bunkered is not necessarily true. Sure there are some unreachable spots, but for the most part those are limited. A large zerg can already control tower/keep walls, preventing most siege retaliation. A t3 should not drop in <2min because overwhelming siege that cannot be countered.

  • Jerry CCH.9816Jerry CCH.9816 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 27, 2017

    open field plz
    no ac
    no treb B)
    Anet should remove Arrow Cart from gw2

  • Napo.1230Napo.1230 Member ✭✭✭

    With out shield generators servers like BB would never cap a thing.
    If that's what keeps players on maps then so be it.

  • Rezzet.3614Rezzet.3614 Member ✭✭✭

    The solution is simple, make siege disablers unblockable

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Can't we just delete siege and remove all the doors from towers?

    Atleast that way if a 60 man group wants to zerg a tower, the other team could have 4 small groups flip 4 towers

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    06210311 251521 121512

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It may be difficult, and next to impossible sometimes for a small group to defend against a large zerg BUT that does not mean it will always be a small group. What happens if its an entire map blob sitting on siege in a keep, why shouldn't the attacking force use shield gens to protect themselves? You cant simply put in conditions on siege where they can only be used in certain situations.

    The best way to defend is to use scouts and proper communications with groups and commanders. You wont save everything everytime, but at least you give yourself the best chance this way.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DeadlySynz.3471 said:

    I'd much rather them remove shield gens from the game completely. Then remove the tactivators, or at the very least remove the structural invulnerability and emergency wp ones.

    What's good about the invulnerable and waypoint is their temporary nature. Shield generators don't have those.

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 28, 2017

    :o defense?? cant u defend on the wall???? ohhh wait!...

    its a game to carry players against structures, when soemthing gets atacked players should leave and atack what is not being defending (thi si swhat Anet liked, no fight, no lag, every one ktrains...)

    its a game for bad players.

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭✭

    i'd venture to say there are more small scale roaming/havoc type fights for t1/2 structures vs t3. t3 with 5-10 man is almost impossible unless it's dead zone. periodic structure resets every 4-8hrs could be practical.

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Michelin rated WvW guild since 2015. The gold standard. Never transferred, never reformed, adapting and reloading with or without Anet.

  • @Rezzet.3614 said:
    The solution is simple, make siege disablers unblockable

    no thanks

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

    "Advantages"... I'm sorry but without doing the exact same thing (overwhelming siege inside the forts/keeps, etc) as the attacker, defenders are at a huge disadvantage.
    Without siege walls are useless for the players. While a couple eles, necros, etc can easily kill a arrow cart on top of a wall, a player on top of the wall has to shimmy to the very edge and risk getting pulled out of the wall in order to be able to not get obstructed when fighting people below. This has been the main issue i have with WvW, in that defenders are ALWAYS at a disadvantage.

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 28, 2017

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

    "Advantages"... I'm sorry but without doing the exact same thing (overwhelming siege inside the forts/keeps, etc) as the attacker, defenders are at a huge disadvantage.
    Without siege walls are useless for the players. While a couple eles, necros, etc can easily kill a arrow cart on top of a wall, a player on top of the wall has to shimmy to the very edge and risk getting pulled out of the wall in order to be able to not get obstructed when fighting people below. This has been the main issue i have with WvW, in that defenders are ALWAYS at a disadvantage.

    Because players putting siege out of LoS or in areas that normal AoEs and player Skills can’t reach and respond to is never a thing, no one ever does that. Defenders are always at a disadvantage they can’t use siege at all or have upgraded structures to allow for more time to defend or walls to defend them and their placed siege out of reach of any players.. smh

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

    "Advantages"... I'm sorry but without doing the exact same thing (overwhelming siege inside the forts/keeps, etc) as the attacker, defenders are at a huge disadvantage.
    Without siege walls are useless for the players. While a couple eles, necros, etc can easily kill a arrow cart on top of a wall, a player on top of the wall has to shimmy to the very edge and risk getting pulled out of the wall in order to be able to not get obstructed when fighting people below. This has been the main issue i have with WvW, in that defenders are ALWAYS at a disadvantage.

    Because players putting siege out of LoS or in areas that normal AoEs and player Skills can’t reach and respond to is never a thing, no one ever does that. Defenders are always at a disadvantage they can’t use siege at all or have upgraded structures to allow for more time to defend or walls to defend them and their placed siege out of reach of any players.. smh

    They have to do that in response to that disadvantage. Where anywhere in the real world if you're on top of a wall, it's quite easy for you to rain down death on your enemies, in GW2 it's the opposite. Even with LoS there's a ton of AoEs that can be placed on the edge of a wall to get arrow carts up top. I've had ACs placed on the very edge of a wall, floating on air, that still got destroyed with AoEs.
    Defenders don't have infinite supplies at their disposal, unlike attackers.
    Attackers can use player skills easily on defenders, while the reverse isn't true.
    Attackers pick the place and the time.
    If you think there's any advantage to defenders in GW2 i can't begin to fathom how you can reach that conclusion.
    Sure, in an actual well made physics without the reverse advantage of walls (where walls actually benefit the attacker more), that would be true, but that is also the nature of sieges and fortifications, they're supposed to be advantageous, or else there would be no reason for them.

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

    "Advantages"... I'm sorry but without doing the exact same thing (overwhelming siege inside the forts/keeps, etc) as the attacker, defenders are at a huge disadvantage.
    Without siege walls are useless for the players. While a couple eles, necros, etc can easily kill a arrow cart on top of a wall, a player on top of the wall has to shimmy to the very edge and risk getting pulled out of the wall in order to be able to not get obstructed when fighting people below. This has been the main issue i have with WvW, in that defenders are ALWAYS at a disadvantage.

    Because players putting siege out of LoS or in areas that normal AoEs and player Skills can’t reach and respond to is never a thing, no one ever does that. Defenders are always at a disadvantage they can’t use siege at all or have upgraded structures to allow for more time to defend or walls to defend them and their placed siege out of reach of any players.. smh

    They have to do that in response to that disadvantage. Where anywhere in the real world if you're on top of a wall, it's quite easy for you to rain down death on your enemies, in GW2 it's the opposite. Even with LoS there's a ton of AoEs that can be placed on the edge of a wall to get arrow carts up top. I've had ACs placed on the very edge of a wall, floating on air, that still got destroyed with AoEs.
    Defenders don't have infinite supplies at their disposal, unlike attackers.
    Attackers can use player skills easily on defenders, while the reverse isn't true.
    Attackers pick the place and the time.
    If you think there's any advantage to defenders in GW2 i can't begin to fathom how you can reach that conclusion.
    Sure, in an actual well made physics without the reverse advantage of walls (where walls actually benefit the attacker more), that would be true, but that is also the nature of sieges and fortifications, they're supposed to be advantageous, or else there would be no reason for them.

    Yea ok buddy, can tell the real problem here quite easily. Smh

  • Rezzet.3614Rezzet.3614 Member ✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

    "Advantages"... I'm sorry but without doing the exact same thing (overwhelming siege inside the forts/keeps, etc) as the attacker, defenders are at a huge disadvantage.
    Without siege walls are useless for the players. While a couple eles, necros, etc can easily kill a arrow cart on top of a wall, a player on top of the wall has to shimmy to the very edge and risk getting pulled out of the wall in order to be able to not get obstructed when fighting people below. This has been the main issue i have with WvW, in that defenders are ALWAYS at a disadvantage.

    Because players putting siege out of LoS or in areas that normal AoEs and player Skills can’t reach and respond to is never a thing, no one ever does that. Defenders are always at a disadvantage they can’t use siege at all or have upgraded structures to allow for more time to defend or walls to defend them and their placed siege out of reach of any players.. smh

    They have to do that in response to that disadvantage. Where anywhere in the real world if you're on top of a wall, it's quite easy for you to rain down death on your enemies, in GW2 it's the opposite. Even with LoS there's a ton of AoEs that can be placed on the edge of a wall to get arrow carts up top. I've had ACs placed on the very edge of a wall, floating on air, that still got destroyed with AoEs.
    Defenders don't have infinite supplies at their disposal, unlike attackers.
    Attackers can use player skills easily on defenders, while the reverse isn't true.
    Attackers pick the place and the time.
    If you think there's any advantage to defenders in GW2 i can't begin to fathom how you can reach that conclusion.
    Sure, in an actual well made physics without the reverse advantage of walls (where walls actually benefit the attacker more), that would be true, but that is also the nature of sieges and fortifications, they're supposed to be advantageous, or else there would be no reason for them.

    This is pretty true

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 28, 2017

    @Rezzet.3614 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

    "Advantages"... I'm sorry but without doing the exact same thing (overwhelming siege inside the forts/keeps, etc) as the attacker, defenders are at a huge disadvantage.
    Without siege walls are useless for the players. While a couple eles, necros, etc can easily kill a arrow cart on top of a wall, a player on top of the wall has to shimmy to the very edge and risk getting pulled out of the wall in order to be able to not get obstructed when fighting people below. This has been the main issue i have with WvW, in that defenders are ALWAYS at a disadvantage.

    Because players putting siege out of LoS or in areas that normal AoEs and player Skills can’t reach and respond to is never a thing, no one ever does that. Defenders are always at a disadvantage they can’t use siege at all or have upgraded structures to allow for more time to defend or walls to defend them and their placed siege out of reach of any players.. smh

    They have to do that in response to that disadvantage. Where anywhere in the real world if you're on top of a wall, it's quite easy for you to rain down death on your enemies, in GW2 it's the opposite. Even with LoS there's a ton of AoEs that can be placed on the edge of a wall to get arrow carts up top. I've had ACs placed on the very edge of a wall, floating on air, that still got destroyed with AoEs.
    Defenders don't have infinite supplies at their disposal, unlike attackers.
    Attackers can use player skills easily on defenders, while the reverse isn't true.
    Attackers pick the place and the time.
    If you think there's any advantage to defenders in GW2 i can't begin to fathom how you can reach that conclusion.
    Sure, in an actual well made physics without the reverse advantage of walls (where walls actually benefit the attacker more), that would be true, but that is also the nature of sieges and fortifications, they're supposed to be advantageous, or else there would be no reason for them.

    This is pretty true

    its a game to carry the offense team, players on defense should move to cap other empty structure, Anet never wanted players to be able to defend on wall, reason why is so easy to farm the structure, and destroy any siege there, if u guys notive, zerglets, noobs, ktrainers and many others complain where theres 1 or 2 ac's that requires a slightly bit of positioning to destroy it.
    Now add the structures design not only the wall traps for the defenders be farmed, but the many ways keeps and some other strucutres can be gimmickly taken, when in this game besides a few servers most are ktrains vs empty/dead time zones on other servers.

    If Anet made walls places for defenders to be, how much easy and broken they had to nerf t3 walls to t1 walls so the ofense team needs to be carried with tons of siege spamming hitting a wall... and t1 walls its a take arorund 30seconds sometimes less....

    And we already have plenty of bad players and newbs into the game mode that want t3 nerfed so they can blob the structure with less effort...
    Everything in this game is wrong, starting from to be a game for low effort hight reward...players.

  • This doesn't have much to do with siege, but everything to do with why so many large zergs are formed I think. The cost of the commander tags is pretty steep. I would like there to be different grades for commander tags. 100g for a yellow called havoc/roamer/lieutenant ( groups only add 5-6 ppl limited group options), then you can add to it with another 100g for a red tag called general (medium groups 6-12 ppl, more options) and then upgrade again with another 100g for all tag colors and all options would be full commander.
    The reason for this is so smaller groups can get semi-organized and maybe draw a few other ppl trying to do the same thing. It would allow for more tags and more options. if you see yellow tag you may want to join that group versus a red tag which probably is a 30-40 person zerg. just might help define play style.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 29, 2017

    No existing system ever gets any changes. GW2 has had systemic accretion since it's inception. It's a problem that is willfully ignored as policy by Arenanet and although it's always been the elephant in the room, it has been ignored to such a degree that there is nothing in the room except elephant now.

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    Where anywhere in the real world if you're on top of a wall, it's quite easy for you to rain down death on your enemies, in GW2 it's the opposite.

    In the real world sieges lasted for years until the defender either gave up or the attacker got bored and left. Do you want more of that? We'd have to limit other parts of the game too in that case. I dont want to spend 2 months building my superior trebuchet only to have someone toss a magical grenade on it that somehow makes it not fire despite the fact it's clearly working fine mechanically, you only need to tension it.

    Either way, this is exactly why walls is just about delaying the attack. They're not meant to be an "advantage" in the sense that a defender have the upper ground over an attacker and thus should automatically win. It's a wall, it's meant to stop people just walking in. You want an advantage to defending a keep? That's the tower or towers. The defense of garrison isnt so much it's doors and walls - it's dawns and sunny. Siege in there is a massive threat, not to mention the safety of dollys walking past. Same thing with bay and the SW tower. That's what's defending the south wall, that's your advantage. Dont hold it? Well you got no advantage, just walls delaying the inevitable.

    It's what feeds WvW activity and forces attacks in both directions. It's the core principle that makes WvW work as a game mode. Standing on top of a wall has exactly nothing to do with any of it.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • All of this comes down to is:
    how difficult should it be for a huge zerg to take a well fortified tower/keep from a handful of people?

    The answer for me is "not very", especially if they all drop 20 supply to build siege and shield gens.

    It sucks for small groups defending, but really if 10 times your numbers are against you, it's unrealistic to expect to do more than delay either the inevitable, or until your own force comes along.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 29, 2017

    Reality i see.

    Party A and B fight. a overwhelms B. b goes bunker. B wins, A bunkers.

    Not all know how to fight. or will try.

    i have not.seen.any server not hide if overwhelmed.

    either com a.gives up or com b or c

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    In the real world sieges lasted for years until the defender either gave up or the attacker got bored and left. Do you want more of that? We'd have to limit other parts of the game too in that case.

    I dunno about months.
    Cut off the hotpocket supply, toss some roadkill in the room, that siege is over in a few minutes.

    Might be a good thing O.o

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Sabre.8251Sabre.8251 Member ✭✭
    edited December 30, 2017

    Short answer: No.
    Long answer: When attackers aren't able to use shield generators, then keeps especially will like to not get attacked anymore at all. Who has fun to die instantly on 10 s-ac's because you can't overheal it and just run off? Attacking a keep isn't attractive anymore in most cases, especially t3 keeps. Too expensive to attack a t3 keep. Takes too long, noone has fun to afk/heal for a hour around, when you could fight someone instead. Shall we just fight for camps? Since keeps can turn into heavily sieged places. When defenders weren't able to spam every inch of a keep with 5+ s-ac's, catas and even trebs then the attackers wouldn't have to abuse the shield generator for the offense. That's just the fate you caused yourself with siegespamming all over the place.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2017

    @Sabre.8251 said:
    Short answer: No.
    Long answer: When attackers aren't able to use shield generators, then keeps especially will like to not get attacked anymore at all. Who has fun to die instantly on 10 s-ac's because you can't overheal it and just run off? Attacking a keep isn't attractive anymore in most cases, especially t3 keeps. Too expensive to attack a t3 keep. Takes too long, noone has fun to afk/heal for a hour around, when you could fight someone instead. Shall we just fight for camps? Since keeps can turn into heavily sieged places. When defenders weren't able to spam every inch of a keep with 5+ s-ac's, catas and even trebs then the attackers wouldn't have to abuse the shield generator for the offense. That's just the fate you caused yourself with siegespamming all over the place.

    Dont use proxy catas like a newb there are several other options, built siege far away from structure and most strucure can be siegeg from above, walls are easy to clear.
    Some structures can be trebbed fro far away and u will hit outter and inner with same trebs, defense is actually a pain compared with offense,structures were designed to be lost not maintained due the avaliable gimmicks and ways to cheap take them.
    Issue is offense side wanting a low effort and easy take....players dont want to fight just ktrain mostly, and t3 wall to become "harder" when another same sized group is on the structure still quite not harder but a delayed cap, securing that objective is still impossible if the offense group wants, it might become harder to impossible since players left since it is not a easy andlow effort cap, wich is what most so called WvW want.

    Still this game is full of lamers that want low effort gameplay... i expect that kind of vision.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2017

    @Aeolus.3615 said:

    @Rezzet.3614 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Oh no someone uses a proper strategy that doesn’t rely on glitches or unfair gameplay to even the playing field of the advantages defenders have. Must nerf that immediately /s

    "Advantages"... I'm sorry but without doing the exact same thing (overwhelming siege inside the forts/keeps, etc) as the attacker, defenders are at a huge disadvantage.
    Without siege walls are useless for the players. While a couple eles, necros, etc can easily kill a arrow cart on top of a wall, a player on top of the wall has to shimmy to the very edge and risk getting pulled out of the wall in order to be able to not get obstructed when fighting people below. This has been the main issue i have with WvW, in that defenders are ALWAYS at a disadvantage.

    Because players putting siege out of LoS or in areas that normal AoEs and player Skills can’t reach and respond to is never a thing, no one ever does that. Defenders are always at a disadvantage they can’t use siege at all or have upgraded structures to allow for more time to defend or walls to defend them and their placed siege out of reach of any players.. smh

    They have to do that in response to that disadvantage. Where anywhere in the real world if you're on top of a wall, it's quite easy for you to rain down death on your enemies, in GW2 it's the opposite. Even with LoS there's a ton of AoEs that can be placed on the edge of a wall to get arrow carts up top. I've had ACs placed on the very edge of a wall, floating on air, that still got destroyed with AoEs.
    Defenders don't have infinite supplies at their disposal, unlike attackers.
    Attackers can use player skills easily on defenders, while the reverse isn't true.
    Attackers pick the place and the time.
    If you think there's any advantage to defenders in GW2 i can't begin to fathom how you can reach that conclusion.
    Sure, in an actual well made physics without the reverse advantage of walls (where walls actually benefit the attacker more), that would be true, but that is also the nature of sieges and fortifications, they're supposed to be advantageous, or else there would be no reason for them.

    This is pretty true

    its a game to carry the offense team, players on defense should move to cap other empty structure, Anet never wanted players to be able to defend on wall, reason why is so easy to farm the structure, and destroy any siege there, if u guys notive, zerglets, noobs, ktrainers and many others complain where theres 1 or 2 ac's that requires a slightly bit of positioning to destroy it.
    Now add the structures design not only the wall traps for the defenders be farmed, but the many ways keeps and some other strucutres can be gimmickly taken, when in this game besides a few servers most are ktrains vs empty/dead time zones on other servers.

    If Anet made walls places for defenders to be, how much easy and broken they had to nerf t3 walls to t1 walls so the ofense team needs to be carried with tons of siege spamming hitting a wall... and t1 walls its a take arorund 30seconds sometimes less....

    And we already have plenty of bad players and newbs into the game mode that want t3 nerfed so they can blob the structure with less effort...
    Everything in this game is wrong, starting from to be a game for low effort hight reward...players.

    I love how people infer on what Arena Net wants, despite evidence in the contrary, based on their opinion.
    Just look at the dev comments on Points of Interest/Guild Chat, when they were talking about Desert Borderlands, and look at their comments that evidence EXACTLY the opposite, that they actually wanted people to hold on to objectives, that's why they scale with time now.
    If it was only about rotating caps, that would invalidate walls, and make it overal a crappy 500 man version of Spvp Conquest.
    This perception is simply because they were unable to make it work properly since day one.

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    Where anywhere in the real world if you're on top of a wall, it's quite easy for you to rain down death on your enemies, in GW2 it's the opposite.

    In the real world sieges lasted for years until the defender either gave up or the attacker got bored and left. Do you want more of that? We'd have to limit other parts of the game too in that case. I dont want to spend 2 months building my superior trebuchet only to have someone toss a magical grenade on it that somehow makes it not fire despite the fact it's clearly working fine mechanically, you only need to tension it.

    Either way, this is exactly why walls is just about delaying the attack. They're not meant to be an "advantage" in the sense that a defender have the upper ground over an attacker and thus should automatically win. It's a wall, it's meant to stop people just walking in. You want an advantage to defending a keep? That's the tower or towers. The defense of garrison isnt so much it's doors and walls - it's dawns and sunny. Siege in there is a massive threat, not to mention the safety of dollys walking past. Same thing with bay and the SW tower. That's what's defending the south wall, that's your advantage. Dont hold it? Well you got no advantage, just walls delaying the inevitable.

    It's what feeds WvW activity and forces attacks in both directions. It's the core principle that makes WvW work as a game mode. Standing on top of a wall has exactly nothing to do with any of it.

    Years lol... Weeks, months, maybe, years? Nope. And they lasted for years exactly because you'd either have to oppose a keep with an excessive amount of force to break it, or hold it in siege and wait for capitulation.
    On an actual real siege people couldn't build siege out of the air, and there were more than what we have.

    You're right about towers and keeps, sadly we don't have any of those things in our walls. In fact people have to build siege weapons on top of roofs inside keeps, or attack their own gates with catapults to defend them. That's such utter nonsense that it makes me cringe everytime i play WvW.

    Again, you're comenting on how WvW is played with the broken systems it has, not how it should be designed to work. Because as it is, it's just a supersized conquest match, and that, my friend is why WvW is bleeding players, because at some point, people realize it's not what you make it out to be.

  • Loading.4503Loading.4503 Member ✭✭✭

    Since we’re talking about siege imma just throw in ....
    Human slingshots

    I wanna launch some warriors into a tower with the death from above trait

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    Again, you're comenting on how WvW is played with the broken systems it has, not how it should be designed to work. Because as it is, it's just a supersized conquest match, and that, my friend is why WvW is bleeding players, because at some point, people realize it's not what you make it out to be.

    No, I'm commenting on how WvW has worked for years, not how someone think it should be designed to work. If people realize that WvW isnt what they thought it would be after 5 years, well more power to them I guess, dont know what to say to that :/

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Loading.4503 said:
    Since we’re talking about siege imma just throw in ....
    Human slingshots

    I wanna launch some warriors into a tower with the death from above trait

    lul, asuran mortar.... if u kow what i ment :P

  • @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    Years lol... Weeks, months, maybe, years? Nope. And they lasted for years exactly because you'd either have to oppose a keep with an excessive amount of force to break it, or hold it in siege and wait for capitulation.

    While real-world references more often than not aren't very helpful when discussing mmo design issues, I can't resist to point out that historically there were a few sieges which actually did last a couple of years. ;)

  • Rampage.7145Rampage.7145 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 31, 2017

    This is a brilliant topic arenanet should listen to the OP he clearly knows about the game, people should have no way to capture obejectives, everything should be T3 all the time, 5 people should be able to get on siege and defend vs 20 or 30 or even 40, why not 5 vs 50?? i mean this is how the game should be, everybody just sitting on a random tower or keep waiting for the enemy to be completely bored so they can capture a lonelly objective, ARENANET please listen to this guy pls, make it happen nerf all offensive siege please and make sure you buff all possible defenses while u doing so, more OIL, AC, Mortar damage would be awasome, also just throwing this idea on the air why don't u guys make the AC fire corrupt boons, you know like that awasome new class u introdced to the game recently "scourge", make a new atack named "scourge arrow" "corrupt all boons on targets hit and imobilizes them for 5 seconds, max targets 50". I wonder why u never put that awesome "portable cannon" into the game, it was such and awesome idea, u should bring it back, Arenanet guys doing such awesome job as always for WvW, KEEP IT UP GUYS! and happy new year game is such a finacial success in 2018 so many people playing it!!!!

    VR Driver
    Salty beavers top guild 2 years in a row back to back, the double champs
    https://saltybeavers.com/

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 31, 2017

    @Lemoncurry.2345 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    Years lol... Weeks, months, maybe, years? Nope. And they lasted for years exactly because you'd either have to oppose a keep with an excessive amount of force to break it, or hold it in siege and wait for capitulation.

    While real-world references more often than not aren't very helpful when discussing mmo design issues, I can't resist to point out that historically there were a few sieges which actually did last a couple of years. ;)

    Aw mate, don't fuel my fire... Yes, some lasted years (usually in places that had open supply lines by sea, so it wasn't a complete siege, but, disregarding that, those sieges just justify what i've been saying... Look at the numbers, attackers have usually at least twice as many men. In GW2, that's not the case, a successful defence requires at least as many defenders than attackers, and the walls just delay entry and give no actual advantage.
    The fact that you need to lay siege weapons on rooftops and bug them for them not to be obliterated immediately also tells how imbalanced that is.

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    Again, you're comenting on how WvW is played with the broken systems it has, not how it should be designed to work. Because as it is, it's just a supersized conquest match, and that, my friend is why WvW is bleeding players, because at some point, people realize it's not what you make it out to be.

    No, I'm commenting on how WvW has worked for years, not how someone think it should be designed to work. If people realize that WvW isnt what they thought it would be after 5 years, well more power to them I guess, dont know what to say to that :/

    It doesn't mean its working as intended. Simply that this is how the game devolved after player interaction with it. Again if you look at dev comments when discussing the design of desert borderlands you'll see that they intended for people to hold on to objectives and defend them, not just rotate them.
    The fact that its working like that doesn't dismiss the fact that it's not working as intended, only that the devs never cared enough to make it work after HoT released.
    Here:

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 31, 2017

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    The fact that its working like that doesn't dismiss the fact that it's not working as intended, only that the devs never cared enough to make it work after HoT released.

    The fact that its working like that does not mean its not working as intended. Fact is that the walls on DBL are already higher making it considerably harder if not impossible to hit certain locations from below, plus the objectives have much more complicated design allowing for siege positioning. If that is all you see in "working as intended" then its doing just that.

    Is ABL the same? No, but fact is at least it has a map design thats working as intended, unlike DBL. The vast majority of players have already voted on what they like best by their actions.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    Is ABL the same? No, but fact is at least it has a map design thats working as intended, unlike DBL. The vast majority of players have already voted on what they like best by their actions.

    DBL was meant to be pretty, in that way it's working as intended.
    It looks great on videos like the one above, no doubt it looks good on a resume as well.
    Just as long as you don't actually try to WvW on it.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Esprit Dumort.3109 said:
    I see this more and more, that a 60+ player zerg that wants to take down a t2 or t3 tower/keep will layer their rams / catapults / trebuchets with shields and attack without worry from any defensive siege. Only a zerg can counter this type of play style now, which is frustrating for small groups trying to defend.

    Defensive siege is essentially useless. Catapults, arrow carts, ballista, trebs, and siege disablers are all blocked by shield gens. That's assuming that the attacking zerg has not aoe'd your wall defenses down to nothing.

    Even with Inulnvurable Fortifications, it's often not enough for a counter zerg from another map to save a tower against the multiple shield + 5-6 superior ram combos, especially with a keep waypoint contested.

    The current method of using overwhelming siege makes defense very limited without a sufficient counter zerg to come to the rescue. You might as well just turn each tower into a PvP point that can be captured... the Lord ring, without a defensive barriers.

    Why should the 60+ siege-ing a nearly empty (you didn't give numbers to defenders) tower not succeed? Shield gens aren't even a thing to consider at that point...

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 1, 2018

    Guess what OP? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen wall flowers stand in the tower or keep and moan that they can do nothing against bigger numbers...without putting down any siege, laying supply traps, or actually getting their precious pixels hurt by thinking of how to do some damage to those siege taking down the wall. Blobs don't usually turn up out of no where...

    There are usually several ways to approach their siege and if you are prepared to let your pixels get hurt whilst you rush the siege from above, or the side or behind whilst someone else approaches from another direction, then the odds are good that after a few rushes you will destroy the siege. Too many go outside, then engage a couple of enemies at range and then decide they can't do anything.

    Suicide at their siege and at least die with your boots on!

    You can also frustrate a big blob by attacking in small groups at multiple targets across the map- it only takes a couple of people to build a catapult but it takes a lot more supplies to fix that wall when they come to wipe you- and eventually they can't defend everything and you flip stuff.

    Too many stop thinking when they enter a map and become sheep, incapable of thinking or acting without a comm badge to follow and lay down siege- it's almost as if comms are the only ones who ever carry siege....or are allowed to use it.

  • Kamara.4187Kamara.4187 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 1, 2018

    @adammantium.8031 said:
    I see OP's point, but disagree here. I don't think a small number of people should be able to turtle in a tower indefinitely.

    Everyone feels that way till its their garri being taken out...because lets face it, there are very few that will babysit and refresh the siege in a tower or keep all day and night...

    "Love thy enemy, for without them there would be no WvW."

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.