Siege Revisions — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Siege Revisions

Hey everyone!

We're currently looking to make some siege revisions. We'd like your feedback! I know several posts have been made in the past, but we'd like to get the feedback in one thread for review.
One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.

So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently!

Ben Phongluangtham
Game Designer
Reddit: ANET_BenP
Twitch: AnetBenP

Tagged:
<13456711

Comments

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Siege has been so since first year, not sure what is the issue with siege.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Endelon.1042Endelon.1042 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Hey everyone!

    We're currently looking to make some siege revisions. We'd like your feedback! I know several posts have been made in the past, but we'd like to get the feedback in one thread for review.
    One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.

    So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently!

    Yeah, what do you guys have in mind? It would help to have some context of what your objectives are with a siege revamp because the vast majority of the responses will be "remove all ACs" or "make ACs do 75% less damage" despite you saying "Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless."

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Hey everyone!

    We're currently looking to make some siege revisions. We'd like your feedback! I know several posts have been made in the past, but we'd like to get the feedback in one thread for review.
    One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.

    So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently!

    This was one of those discussions from the past, that I took part in - > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/32362/anet-siege-changes-i-think-we-strongly-need-for-the-alliance-change/p1

    I've said all that I wanted to say in there. Talking about... "5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius."

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    First define siege... If it's about the siege weapons, revise how they are aimed, maybe. Give better options to them, for example:

    • shield generators should be directional, not bubbles.
    • Catapults and such should probably be aimed more like arrow carts to make it more appealing, at least gravel shot.
    • Treb is fine

    If you mean the whole activity... Then there's more to it:

    • Revise the hit box on walls so defenders don't have to stand at the very edge to target someone that can hit them with AoEs all across the wall.

    • Give PPT for successful defences (scaling down with tier, and up with outnumbered, also a local outnumbered algorithm might be nice, instead of map-wide), this would also require a better detection for actual attacks, to prevent a small group of spies tagging and dying on purpose.

    • Scale drop rewards to attacking players with the tier of defences (capturing higher tier keeps should have better rewards).

    • Add randomized "sortie gate" locations (can be an upgrade) that allow defenders to come out without having all the enemies waiting at the gates.

    • This one might not be great, but: have a "respite" timer between outer and inner walls where Siege can be built and destroyed, players can portal in, but not out, and you can't attack players within the walls (except if they attack your siege).

    • This would work as a way to allow both groups to fight at their "prime" on larger objectives. Maybe guilds can use a new "Tactic" to disable this so they can capture stuff stealthily. Also if the attacking group is less than a certain threshold, they should be allowed to accept or decline Respite (to still allow small groups using stealth and guile to claim big objectives).

    • Revise tactivators, not only to prevent spies (although this will be less likely in the future), but also in terms of balance.

    For the new guild/alliance-centric version of worlds coming up (but still applicable now):

    • Add "rush" options to objective upgrades that spend Aetherium and Favour.
    • Add a Aetherium and/or Favour rewards for holding claimed objectives either per tick or per skirmish.
    • Add a "guild reward track" that either rewards items out of a "wishlist" of required items for guild upgrades directly to the guild storage, or one that gives Commendations (or other rewards) to players actively in WvW. All these tied to holding claimed objectives.

    All these will make guilds care more about the stuff they claim, and about holding them.

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

    @Crazy.6029 said:
    If you are going to make siege less effective you might as well remove it. 1 siege doesn't do much damage, its the quantity of the siege that makes it effective. Rather than reduce the siege cap, which would just be a way of reducing overall effectiveness of it, use a standard siege duration that way it increases the value of supply and it sources and promoting player combat at the sources of supply. 1.5 hour siege duration max, no more refreshing.

    Then might as well just add a hard-cap of siege at a location (like guild decorations), enforce that for both ends, and improve its effectiveness overall.
    Because while 10 arrow carts might be a great deterrant (if you have them on the right spots, don't forget that a lot of keeps can be attacked from all sides), nothing prevents the attackers from doing the same, and - like all aoes - it's easier for attackers to aim and hit defenders than vice-versa.

  • freecarl.1320freecarl.1320 Member ✭✭

    Reduce range of catas. I think they should still be able to hit walls from out of range of ac's and w/e. What I don't think they should be able to do is be fired from the third floor of smc to hit whatever's at one of the inner gates. Their splash damage can take out shield gens even though the gens can be covered by their bubble.

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    I think siege needs to be better defined in it's roles.

    Catapults - are often are placed close to structures while being a mid range anti-wall tool. It also has anti-personnel tools built in for some reason (Gravelshot should probably be removed)

    Ballista - serve almost no purpose despite their purpose of being good at anti-seige, this is limited due to LoS and Height restricting targeting. My concern is that any change to fix this would ultimately make them far more potent against players and fortifications so i'd probably remove them entirely.

    Arrow Carts do their job and one might argue a bit too well. I think these need to be moved into their own build cap so as to not make taking objectives a game of clearing out 100's of AC. Otherwise i'd like to see it changed that these are only able to be built in/around fortifications and not camps.

    Trebs - I don't see much a problem with them or how they function.

    Cannon - These could arguably be buffed, they are a fair bit weak for the effort needed to get them. Perhaps increase their HP a bit.

    Golems - Fine as is

    Burning Oil - Fine as is

    Mortars - Fine as is

  • Crazy.6029Crazy.6029 Member ✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Crazy.6029 said:
    If you are going to make siege less effective you might as well remove it. 1 siege doesn't do much damage, its the quantity of the siege that makes it effective. Rather than reduce the siege cap, which would just be a way of reducing overall effectiveness of it, use a standard siege duration that way it increases the value of supply and it sources and promoting player combat at the sources of supply. 1.5 hour siege duration max, no more refreshing.

    Then might as well just add a hard-cap of siege at a location (like guild decorations), enforce that for both ends, and improve its effectiveness overall.
    Because while 10 arrow carts might be a great deterrant (if you have them on the right spots, don't forget that a lot of keeps can be attacked from all sides), nothing prevents the attackers from doing the same, and - like all aoes - it's easier for attackers to aim and hit defenders than vice-versa.

    If you add a hard cap at locations then you make it easy to be trolled. Let's say the location has a hard cap of 10. Then it will end up being 10 flame rams inside the walls endlessly being refreshed. The only way I can see to end the huge amounts of endless siege without breaking the integrity of the sieges purpose is to make siege duration limited, it could vary from siege to siege but it shouldn't last longer than 1.5 hours max. This way if you want to have lots of siege you have to fight to keep it.

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    Fundamentally, siege should encourage player vs player combat. Siege vs player and seige vs siege combat is not fun for the people involved.

    Example: Trebbing East Keep (hills) from Northeast Camp on Alpine Borderlands.

    • Attacking group sets up trebs on camp hill and starts firing at the keep in the hopes of opening the outer wall
    • Defending group sets up counter-trebs and starts firing back
    • Attacking group sets up shield generators to defend the trebs
    • Defending group sets up shield generators to defend the wall

    Eventually, stalemate is reached as both groups are just trebbing into shield generators. No progress is made, attackers get bored and leave. 30 minutes may have passed, and no player attacked another player in that entire time. This is boring.

    Suggestion: Shield generators do not prevent siege damage to walls + gates, but do prevent damage to players and siege. In this situation, the defenders should have to run outside the keep and engage the attackers at the camp in order to prevent the wall from going down.

    I propose that for all objectives, trebbing ought to be a guaranteed (although slow) way of taking the wall down from range. It ought to force the defenders to engage in combat or else lose the wall.

    Edit: but overall, siege is all right. Would MUCH prefer alliances / restructuring happen as soon as possible

  • nativity.3057nativity.3057 Member ✭✭✭

    Arrow carts (ACs) are a hard to balance because they're supposed to be anti-infantry siege, but people hate ACs in general. Decreasing AC damage would make ACs useless.

    Catas are weird because the most optimal use of catas is to stack them right next to the walls (highest wall DPS), but that seems counter-intuitive to the actual role catapults should play (medium range siege).

    Trebs are probably the best balanced siege weapon right now. It takes some skill to correctly land trebuchets, but once a treb gets going, it's hard to counter if it's correctly placed.

    Rams have a definitive role, however gate buffs/ram nerfs make it the least used siege.

    Ballistas are good anti-siege weapons, but more often than not, ballistas are used for high single target DPS against players.

    Shield generators were a welcomed new siege item, but currently the power of shield generators is imbalanced. For attackers, a well placed (outside of enemy fire) shield generator has no counters besides a stealthed player running in for a disabler or a large zerg running them down. For defenders, shield bubbles are practically useless except for the rare case of absorbing trebuchet shots.

    Burning oil has the same issues as flame rams.

    Stealth disrupter traps are hardly used. Same goes for supply traps. They have the potential to be devastating to infantry (zergs), but are too hard to place, waste too many resources, and can often be avoided.

    Cannons are the best defensive siege in the game. However, their potency is best against lower numbers, and practically useless against zergs.

    Mortars are budget trebuchets. What role does mortar actually fill?

    Change how siege is placed. ACs and trebs should only be placed on walls. Make shield generators have decreased effective range. Ballistas should only damage siege weapons (if you are on the cata, ballistas should hurt you as well). Increase cata damage based on how much it charges (while decreasing the base damage). Decrease the range of cannons, while increasing its scaling HP based on nearby enemies.

    Delete mortars. It doesn't play any role in defense or offense.

    Flame rams should take down gates at the same rate as catas take down walls. Increase burning oil damage on players, but give flame ram users some resistance against it (increase condition damage that can be mitigated with flame ram mastery?)

    Either increase the number of supply/stealth traps you can place, or decrease the required supply to deploy those traps.
    Using traps should put a revealed buff on the player, so no more stealth -> siege disabler. Tankier builds can deploy siege disablers, but at the cost of dying.

  • Huli.9740Huli.9740 Member ✭✭

    What about a minimum placement distance between siege pieces, it could be varied by type so as not to interfere with the purpose ( thinking mostly rams here with limited gate space). While limiting excess spam ( ac's and triple stacking trebs come to mind) that way you wouldn't have to hard cap the number per objective, but meant that the dimensions of the objectives ( probably not the camps granted) would limit the number of "useful" siege you could deploy.

  • Clownmug.8357Clownmug.8357 Member ✭✭✭

    @Gorani.7205 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently!

    Burning Oil
    This is still a death trap nobody uses. You have to make it more effective to use an the user to survive the AoE attack from below:

    • increase the basic radius of the splash from 240 to 320 (and from 300 to 360 with the mastery)
    • apply Stability and Restistance for 2 seconds everytime the user uses a skill (recharge is 3 sec, so you can't perma the effect without a build with boon duration extensions; also, the boons can still be stripped or corrupted)
    • reduce the recharge or Burning Shell to 20 sec (from now 40 sec)

    Trebuchet
    I am a supporter of the current mechanic (and not the PvP ground target one), but I still want improvements

    • replace the charge up bar/channel with a percentile value, so you can give more consistent follow up shots

    Ballistae
    The worst thing about the ballista is it hitting the rim of the tower walls when it has to shoot down at a slight angle

    • can you please raise the point of origin of the bolt a bit, so you start shooting from a "tripod" kind of perspective

    Catapults
    Catas could get a similar treatment to Trebs + Gravel improvements

    • replace the charge up bar/channel with a percentile value, so you can give more consistent follow up shots
    • Increase the raw damage of Gravel shots by 100% and add 2 seconds of Cripple on top of the bleeding effect

    I like your idea of showing percentage values. That's a good QoL change, though I think the charge bar could still be useful. They could change it to a range meter with tick marks for every 5% or 500 units and breakpoints at 25%/2500, 50%/5000, and 75%/7500.

  • OriOri.8724OriOri.8724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I would really like to see per objective siege limits. Towers can only have X amount of siege inside/on their walls, keeps can only have Y amount of siege, and SM can only have Z amount of siege. Considering that the attack range on arrow carts is more than double the radius that is used to limit local siege, you can still stack pretty high numbers of arrow carts at each entrance to keeps/SM without ever worrying about the local siege limit. A per objective cap would mean that if you wanted to stack huge amounts of AC at one entrance, you wouldn't be able to do the same at the other entrances to the objective.

    Eyyyy I unlocked signatures

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭

    Siege revisions are not terribly important right now. Unless you significantly increase or decrease siege power it will have little to no meaningful impact on WvW.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • foxof.8752foxof.8752 Member ✭✭

    show a mini sieges icon on the corner (options placement) when you near a stacked of sieges, or tactivators, so you could click on the mini icon to choose which to handle/press F. If a sieges (e.g cata is manned, it should different color). Also different level color mini icon to show building completion, so players can "easily" choose which to finish building.

    Allow to use supply to repair damaged tower/keep stationary sieges, like the repair hammer, some group can hit the sieges till 5% hp and leave it for next round attack...

    not sieges related: move NPC away from supply hub, or prioritise supply hub for 1st target for pressing F. example the red keep one...

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

    @Crazy.6029 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Crazy.6029 said:
    If you are going to make siege less effective you might as well remove it. 1 siege doesn't do much damage, its the quantity of the siege that makes it effective. Rather than reduce the siege cap, which would just be a way of reducing overall effectiveness of it, use a standard siege duration that way it increases the value of supply and it sources and promoting player combat at the sources of supply. 1.5 hour siege duration max, no more refreshing.

    Then might as well just add a hard-cap of siege at a location (like guild decorations), enforce that for both ends, and improve its effectiveness overall.
    Because while 10 arrow carts might be a great deterrant (if you have them on the right spots, don't forget that a lot of keeps can be attacked from all sides), nothing prevents the attackers from doing the same, and - like all aoes - it's easier for attackers to aim and hit defenders than vice-versa.

    If you add a hard cap at locations then you make it easy to be trolled. Let's say the location has a hard cap of 10. Then it will end up being 10 flame rams inside the walls endlessly being refreshed. The only way I can see to end the huge amounts of endless siege without breaking the integrity of the sieges purpose is to make siege duration limited, it could vary from siege to siege but it shouldn't last longer than 1.5 hours max. This way if you want to have lots of siege you have to fight to keep it.

    I meant each one has his own cap. Not that you have a shared cap for both. Also depending on the area that is capped, defender's cap might need to be higher. (So if the cap is fore the whole inner keep, defender should have 4/5 times higher cap than attacker, because it might need to spread it out, if the cap is per wall segment, then both should have the same).
    Also this would be in addition to the limit, not an alternative.

  • Optimator.3589Optimator.3589 Member ✭✭✭

    Reduce AC damage to players by 25%, increase damage of flame rams and catapults against T2/T3 defenses by 10%.

    Either that, or buff Siege Bunker and Siege Might accordingly.

    REDUCE NA TO 3 TIERS

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    AC's are stupid OP right now and have needed to be nerfed for quite some time. It's also way too hard to get into T3 structures without a kitten blob.

    If you need to see how bad siege is just try taking a T3 SMC during primetime hours..... That's all the examples you'll need.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • DanAlcedo.3281DanAlcedo.3281 Member ✭✭✭✭

    As long as Arrowcarts gets a dmg nerf im happy.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Hey everyone!

    We're currently looking to make some siege revisions. We'd like your feedback! I know several posts have been made in the past, but we'd like to get the feedback in one thread for review.
    One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.

    So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently!

    Overall I think seige works just fine.

    If you are looking to add anything, then an underwater ram would be cool. There are a couple of spots where they could be used currently. And maybe someday they would come in really useful if new maps were made with more underwater areas, underwater objectives, and underwater passages into land objectives...

  • @TexZero.7910 said:

    Trebs - I don't see much a problem with them or how they function.

    Get rid of the 3rd floor SMC trebs that are not able to be countered.

    Also, add a tactivator that does a 1 minute reveal.

  • fewfield.7802fewfield.7802 Member ✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    I have no problem with offensive sieges such as ram and cata but i have some trouble with the situation that you have to flip t3 keep of PPT server which is with 10millions ACs inside. The point is fighting with sieges is not fun even you have full squad and the only way to take it is attacking it on late night. What a good solution.

    And one more thing, Most of new people those who dont have enough fighting experience prefer sitting with ACs/Mortars/Canons instead of regrouping with a commander and learn to fight properly. Btw I think the fun part of WvW is Zerg vs Zerg , Blob vs Blob , Guild vs Guild or even Roamer with Roamer not Players vs Sieges

  • szshou.2193szshou.2193 Member ✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    Structural siege weapons such as cannons and mortars should be unusable when the objective is uncontested (no white swords). People abuse them to interrupt open field fights (one of the only things keeping the health of WvW as a game mode above water) rather than using them as intended, to defend the objective from siege and groups actively trying to take the objective.

  • Given the semi-recent nerfs to Firebrand healing, AC damage needs to be decreased. Under only one or two AC's, a full-minstrel Firebrand should at least be able to keep their party healthy.

  • Shadowcat.2680Shadowcat.2680 Member ✭✭✭

    @szshou.2193 said:
    Structural siege weapons such as cannons and mortars should be unusable when the objective is uncontested (no white swords). People abuse them to interrupt open field fights (one of the only things keeping the health of WvW as a game mode above water) rather than using them as intended, to defend the objective from siege and groups actively trying to take the objective.

    The cannons absolutely should be usable regardless of whether or not the keep is contested. Defenders shouldn't have to wait until the keep contests to start firing on that incoming golem rush.

    If cannon-fire affecting player vs player combat is something Anet wants to address, then it seems like lowering the damage done to players while keeping the damage done to siege would be the better route.

  • wanya.1697wanya.1697 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Fire_Gravel is pretty weak maybe add daze to it
    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_Decay_Timer could need a rework, the 1 hour timer really needs a visual effekt like maybe https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bomb_Timer above the siege without it being target when siege is 5 to 10 minutes away from despawning
    maybe even with ping on minimap https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Ping (sorry found no gw2 wiki entry for this) so you don´t need to be in same room as siege

  • Lahmia.2193Lahmia.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Apply cata/mortar/treb mechanics to arrowcarts

    Slow to turn, charge to fire. Would allow us to outmanouver arrowcarts. I would even settle for actually increasing damage with this change as it would make them fire alot slower as result (since it take time to charge for longer distance firing). Making them actual projectiles that are blocked if you try to fire from behind walls would be great too.

    OH GODS YES PLEASE. With all this hate towards shield gens, I can't understand why there isn't an equal amount towards arrow carts. They are far worse for the health of the game mode and nerfing shield gens without doing the same to ACs will make the mode a whole lot worse.

    "Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death."

  • Shadowcat.2680Shadowcat.2680 Member ✭✭✭

    It'd also be nice if siege disablers worked on shield gens when thrown from inside the shield gen's bubble. The bubble blocking a disabler thrown from outside its radius is all well and good but currently the bubble will deny all disablers, even if one's thrown by a defender that managed to get inside the bubble's radius.

  • Darlgon.9273Darlgon.9273 Member ✭✭✭

    Weird suggestion. How about requiring a level of participation to use tactivators to prevent trolling?

    Tower/Keep siege on some walls is totally useless, as the walls are too low and cant be used due to every class and their brother being able to cover the entire top of the wall with AoE condis. (Looks at the east wall of Bay and the upper walls on Alpine Garris.

    Oil pots? Is anyone EVER able to use them, or are they just free points for the attackers?

    Would it be possible for the trebbers / catapulters who took down the walls of a tower PLEASE get credit for the tower/keep take that they enabled the 30 allies to go into the Lords room, but cant get into it themselves before the ring fills?

    Why do ballistas feel pretty much useless, as most players have seige damage reduction, while shooters are fully into them, so they hit for like 10 percent of health?

    BTW, like the idea of seige auto repair, but.. frankly, I would rather when attackers destroy them, they dont disappear, but they can be rebuilt. They are supposed to be how you defend the tower/keep, right?

  • Vladimort.9178Vladimort.9178 Member
    edited May 18, 2018

    Dear Anet Santa:

    Introduce a 4th Borderland. Establish one or more of the following on said map:

    1. Disable siege placement
    2. Purge all gates from every structure
    3. Remove the ability to gain PPT
    4. Make it so every keep npc is neutral and attacks everyone, then buff them.
    5. Cannons and mortars control could work as mini point captures like pvp

    Bonus
    6. Keep trebs and Introduce asura as ammunition

  • Siege should have ammo, and you refill that ammo with supply. Makes siege far more strategic and less spammable. Makes supply camps far more valuable. Forces better decision making when attacking, forces tower huggers to stretch their legs, and prevents afk seige spammers.

    Tactivators should only be usable by members of the guild who've claimed the objective, prevents trolls from being happy. Also again makes WvW a little more strategic.

    Remove Shield Generators.... almost as bad as an underwater WvW map, no.

  • Drinks.2361Drinks.2361 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 19, 2018

    You should be looking at siege together with structures that are protecting it. The changes that came with HoT increased the effectiveness of walls with very little to counter it offensively which has moved the fights that we used to have inside a tower to one group standing on a wall with more than half the players involved more or less doing nothing while they wait for the breach. The overall goal for structures should be to slow down an attacking force down long enough for a group to respond & defend using player skills rather than arrow carts.

    Flame Rams

    • should be immune to arrow cart damage, because attackers carry less supply then there is in a depot they can chain build ACs until attackers have exhausted their supply

    Shield Generators

    • increase the effective hp of a wall when used defensively, we've already got structures that upgrade & tactics that do the same
    • very difficult to counter when built inside a structure, not bad when open field
    • maybe only allow shield gens to be used in enemy controlled territory, if you can glide you can't use shield gens

    Arrow Carts

    • way too easy to build defensively, too easy to use, range is too long
    • Ballista is rarely used because ACs are more effective

    Supply

    • defenders just need to go to a depot inside a structure which is mostly full with no effort or risk
    • pre-HoT structure supply was used to upgrade, players had to make a choice how they wanted to use the supply upgrading a bad time could leave you at a disadvantage
    • not enough reason to get supply at camps vs an upgraded structure, camps are flipped & left idle not an attraction for fights

    Trebs, Catas, & Ballista aren't really in a terrible place, I'd like to see them used more often defensively but that is more of an issue arrow carts being too strong.

    Ideally I'd like to see more of the old ktrains brought back into WvW, it was always a good place for new players to start out & let them meet others on their server. Those ktrains would in turn motivate groups to become more organized to fight them or other similar groups, but those ktrains where like the plankton in the ocean sustaining the activity in WvW. Right now it's very difficult for a new player to survive an attack on a defended T3 structure & even if they do with how long it takes to breach they might not want to commit the amount of time it takes to breach.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    What bothers me about siege is how easy it is to get around the siege cap. The siege cap needs to have its radius increased by at least 500 units, maybe more. You can simply put down 5 catas next to each other, walk 1000 units which is not far and throw down 5 more catas and melt a t3 wall. This also allows people to stack keeps and towers with arrow carts seemingly ever 5 feet, this is just so annoying and frustrating to have to deal with.

    Also, damage against siege should be buffed a little. After the change that doubled the hp on siege, it takes longer to take down enemy siege. Lower arrow cart damage against players by 10%, and increase damage against siege by 10%.

    Add a percentage icon when charging catapult, trebuchet, and mortar shots to make it easier to ensure accurate shots.

    Add to burning oil mastery- Reduce damage by 50%, and pulsing stability.

    BG

This discussion has been closed.
©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.