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:
<13456714

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."

    Guild Pride > Server Pride
    WvW: "We are all Hamsters running on a wheel. After we are done running on our wheels. Our treat so to speak is ANOTHER WHEEL (Server to fight). If not the same very wheel we just got done running on... excuse me while I go look around for a real treat."

  • 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.

    But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.

  • 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.

    Maguuma

    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...

    "It's that sorta mentality that prevents progress from actually being made and the game from being fun for everyone and not the minority." -TexZero

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9804/idea-wvw-only-movement-skills

  • @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.

<13456714
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.