Contesting Capture Points — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Contesting Capture Points

TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

So it was determined that mounted players should not be able to contest or capture while mounted. Under that same thought should people in siege be able to? Should a golem be able to block a capture or contest a point? Curious what direction the forum takes currently.

Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

Contesting Capture Points 88 votes

Yes, they should be able to cap and contest.
31% 28 votes
No, they shouldn't be able to cap or contest.
63% 56 votes
No opinion.
4% 4 votes
<1

Comments

  • Doug.4930Doug.4930 Member ✭✭✭

    Personally no they shouldn't. The tactic of building 5 omega's in a single camp to prevent capture is a little silly. Players should need to fight and actively defend their camp. Not sit in golems screaming in map chat for the cavalry to arrive.

  • waste of a golem, unless theres a couple of em that go in one by one and there is actually some good back up coming to protect your keep. doesn't seem like that would be a common occurrence tho.

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

  • Doug.4930Doug.4930 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 1, 2019

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    doesn't seem like that would be a common occurrence tho.

    A certain T1 server that shall remain nameless would like a word with you about that "rare occurrence"

  • @Doug.4930 said:
    snips

    if they're going to waste all that supply to defend a single camp then that's a total waste.

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

  • Iozeph.5617Iozeph.5617 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd say yes, if only for the money/badges etc involved in making them. Once the golem's destroyed all of that investment goes poof. The argument about calling in the cavalry goes both ways too. The way this mode has degenerated it's just as easy for a scout to eye the camp, and if it's desired enough to strip it from the enemy they stay at a remove and call their own realm over to blitz the camp. Golem's aren't that strong and with the amount of damage floating around today they go down in a matter of seconds to a zerg- even a moderately- to small sized blob. Bigger fish to fry when it comes to improving this mode, but that's just my opinion.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 1, 2019

    Tbh its not that often a camp is golemed. Zergs usually have themselves to blaim for a T3 feeding a contested keep, since commanders will go "BuT yOu OnLy nEEd aOnE RoAmEr!" When its a camp with 3+ golems, ballistas, 10 defending it and 5 on every dolly then they complain when the keep upgrades.

    But granted its always been a little odd that Anet decided it is ok.

    Add it to the pile of things Anet could fix in minutes with a few lines of code if they wanted to together with things like changing mount hp.

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

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 1, 2019

    @Doug.4930 said:
    Personally no they shouldn't. The tactic of building 5 omega's in a single camp to prevent capture is a little silly. Players should need to fight and actively defend their camp. Not sit in golems screaming in map chat for the cavalry to arrive.

    What you are asking for is players to sit in a camp and wait for someone to attack. That's terrible when they could be elsewhere fighting instead. Yes, the cavalry should be given time to try and defend. Attackers already get a 30 second head start before swords appear. And if you want actual fights, then the delay is crucial so that attackers can't simply cap and leave fast.

  • Doug.4930Doug.4930 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Doug.4930 said:
    Personally no they shouldn't. The tactic of building 5 omega's in a single camp to prevent capture is a little silly. Players should need to fight and actively defend their camp. Not sit in golems screaming in map chat for the cavalry to arrive.

    What you are asking for is players to sit in a camp and wait for someone to attack. That's terrible when they could be elsewhere fighting instead. Yes, the cavalry should be given time to try and defend. Attackers already get a 30 second head start before swords appear. And if you want actual fights, then the delay is crucial so that attackers can't simply cap and leave fast.

    I'm not saying that players need to wait in camps for people to attack, what I'm saying is IF players DO decide to sit in a camp and wait for people to attack, they shouldn't be able to sit in a golem and contest the point once all the mobs are dead.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Doug.4930 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Doug.4930 said:
    Personally no they shouldn't. The tactic of building 5 omega's in a single camp to prevent capture is a little silly. Players should need to fight and actively defend their camp. Not sit in golems screaming in map chat for the cavalry to arrive.

    What you are asking for is players to sit in a camp and wait for someone to attack. That's terrible when they could be elsewhere fighting instead. Yes, the cavalry should be given time to try and defend. Attackers already get a 30 second head start before swords appear. And if you want actual fights, then the delay is crucial so that attackers can't simply cap and leave fast.

    I'm not saying that players need to wait in camps for people to attack, what I'm saying is IF players DO decide to sit in a camp and wait for people to attack, they shouldn't be able to sit in a golem and contest the point once all the mobs are dead.

    OK you didn't say that, but that's the effect. How about swords go up right away when an objective gets attacked instead of 30s later? If you want there to be actual fights, that's the way for there to be actual fights.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm fine with siege golems being able to hold a camp for as long as they can stay alive. To prevent them being chained I'd just make it impossible to enter a new one while in combat.

  • Korgov.7645Korgov.7645 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    I'm fine with siege golems being able to hold a camp for as long as they can stay alive. To prevent them being chained I'd just make it impossible to enter a new one while in combat.

    The commander is wondering why nobody uses the siege he just built. :P

  • Gorani.7205Gorani.7205 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    This is a good argument I can support, too. (also, what others said about "re-enforcement" from both sides)

  • Caedmon.6798Caedmon.6798 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

  • Caedmon.6798Caedmon.6798 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

    Right. We're talking about balance with regards to contesting points. There's no real counters to skills and mechanics that do not contest points because that would be unbalanced if they could contest. The things that do contest points have counters and golems are one of them.

    And it's great that points can be contested with golems since it helps delay the cap for a fight, especially since attackers have a 30 second head start before the point shows it is contested. I suppose what you should be asking for if you don't like that golems can contest is to have the 30 seconds removed so that defenders have that time to respond.

  • Caedmon.6798Caedmon.6798 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

    Right. We're talking about balance with regards to contesting points. There's no real counters to skills and mechanics that do not contest points because that would be unbalanced if they could contest. The things that do contest points have counters and golems are one of them.

    And it's great that points can be contested with golems since it helps delay the cap for a fight, especially since attackers have a 30 second head start before the point shows it is contested.

    The thing is that siege disabling is no counter to them because they still contest.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

    Right. We're talking about balance with regards to contesting points. There's no real counters to skills and mechanics that do not contest points because that would be unbalanced if they could contest. The things that do contest points have counters and golems are one of them.

    And it's great that points can be contested with golems since it helps delay the cap for a fight, especially since attackers have a 30 second head start before the point shows it is contested.

    The thing is that siege disabling is no counter to them because they still contest.

    As they should. They're no different from someone contesting the point with a tanky, heal build. You can counter those builds too, btw.

  • Caedmon.6798Caedmon.6798 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

    Right. We're talking about balance with regards to contesting points. There's no real counters to skills and mechanics that do not contest points because that would be unbalanced if they could contest. The things that do contest points have counters and golems are one of them.

    And it's great that points can be contested with golems since it helps delay the cap for a fight, especially since attackers have a 30 second head start before the point shows it is contested.

    The thing is that siege disabling is no counter to them because they still contest.

    As they should. They're no different from someone contesting the point with a tanky, heal build. You can counter those builds too, btw.

    Because having 20k hp equals to having 300khp + around 4.5k armor and other added stats+,Righto.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

    Right. We're talking about balance with regards to contesting points. There's no real counters to skills and mechanics that do not contest points because that would be unbalanced if they could contest. The things that do contest points have counters and golems are one of them.

    And it's great that points can be contested with golems since it helps delay the cap for a fight, especially since attackers have a 30 second head start before the point shows it is contested.

    The thing is that siege disabling is no counter to them because they still contest.

    As they should. They're no different from someone contesting the point with a tanky, heal build. You can counter those builds too, btw.

    Because having 20k hp equals to having 300khp + around 4.5k armor and other added stats+,Righto.

    Yea, only if you ignore skill usage and mobility on the tanky build and the fact that a golem that has been disabled can't use skills nor is very mobile.

  • Caedmon.6798Caedmon.6798 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

    Right. We're talking about balance with regards to contesting points. There's no real counters to skills and mechanics that do not contest points because that would be unbalanced if they could contest. The things that do contest points have counters and golems are one of them.

    And it's great that points can be contested with golems since it helps delay the cap for a fight, especially since attackers have a 30 second head start before the point shows it is contested.

    The thing is that siege disabling is no counter to them because they still contest.

    As they should. They're no different from someone contesting the point with a tanky, heal build. You can counter those builds too, btw.

    Because having 20k hp equals to having 300khp + around 4.5k armor and other added stats+,Righto.

    Yea, only if you ignore skill usage and mobility on the tanky build and the fact that a golem that has been disabled can't use skills nor is very mobile.

    I already responded on the exact same thing you said. I also think i already said it's not about being able to kill them,and assuming i run on a tanky build is irrelevant aswell,which im not doing btw. Golems contest,usually not even 1 but mostly 2 which equals to 600k hp while they ask for more support,youre one godlike dpser if you burn through both of those and when the golems are destroyed ( Which isnt gonna happen in the time more people show up ) they get ejected and having to kill them while reinforcement is on the way. Albeit you talk like you know you have a clue,i don't think you quite do.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I don't see how they're remotely the same thing.

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    If it did, though, I'd be fine with that too.

  • The problem with golems is the very large health pool, something that one or two people can take a long time to eat through and with mounts means having to deal with people responding 2-3 times before the golem is dead, assuming you win each fight. BUT, that is not the main issue, its that traited, when the golem is killed, the player is restored to full health and stealthed. So they keep 2, 3, 4, 5+ golems around the camp and each time one is killed, you just use all your burst skills, do as much DPS as you can, and then hop into a fresh golem and start it all over again.

    I will admit to doing this in keeps as well, I contested a circle for long enough in hills for my zerg to run back 3 times (5 golem deaths total). while it is a useful tactic, I think it is a broken one. Much worse on the small scale, and has been talked about long, LONG before the mount ever came out, however nothing was ever done about it even though most people talking about it back then, agreed it should not contest a cap point.

    "When you power creep the game and make it so that spam gameplay is nearly as effective as deep knowledge and nuance, the quality of players will decrease." -Exedore

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    Yea, and? I am talking about counters in the context of balance. There's a bunch of other skills that have no real counter that also can't contest points: Renewed Focus and Elixir S are quick to come to mind.

    And,this thread is about golems Contesting a point where if they are getting disabled they are still able to do so. The issue here is the contesting aspect,not about being unable or able to kill one.

    Right. We're talking about balance with regards to contesting points. There's no real counters to skills and mechanics that do not contest points because that would be unbalanced if they could contest. The things that do contest points have counters and golems are one of them.

    And it's great that points can be contested with golems since it helps delay the cap for a fight, especially since attackers have a 30 second head start before the point shows it is contested.

    The thing is that siege disabling is no counter to them because they still contest.

    As they should. They're no different from someone contesting the point with a tanky, heal build. You can counter those builds too, btw.

    Because having 20k hp equals to having 300khp + around 4.5k armor and other added stats+,Righto.

    Yea, only if you ignore skill usage and mobility on the tanky build and the fact that a golem that has been disabled can't use skills nor is very mobile.

    I already responded on the exact same thing you said. I also think i already said it's not about being able to kill them,and assuming i run on a tanky build is irrelevant aswell,which im not doing btw. Golems contest,usually not even 1 but mostly 2 which equals to 600k hp while they ask for more support,youre one godlike dpser if you burn through both of those and when the golems are destroyed ( Which isnt gonna happen in the time more people show up ) they get ejected and having to kill them while reinforcement is on the way. Albeit you talk like you know you have a clue,i don't think you quite do.

    And you have no clue about good balance for skills either. Especially if you have a godlike dpser, then why should mounts not also contest the point? The mount has way less HP than a golem. Surely it should contest the point then.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:
    I contested a circle for long enough in hills for my zerg to run back 3 times (5 golem deaths total).

    Sounds like people got more fighting in than otherwise because of that.

    As I wrote above: "Yes, the cavalry should be given time to try and defend. Attackers already get a 30 second head start before swords appear. And if you want actual fights, then the delay is crucial so that attackers can't simply cap and leave fast."

  • Tinnel.4369Tinnel.4369 Member ✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Doug.4930 said:
    snips

    if they're going to waste all that supply to defend a single camp then that's a total waste.

    Supply used to lengthen the time you can contest a camp that's slotted and feeding an objective you're trying to upgrade is not 'wasted'.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    :)

    This is why I am trying to understand from a forum perspective at least. When talking mounts there was already differences in range/condi and melee and taking down mounts. When you add in the health pool is that even more of the same? This conversation is just about Golems please, thx!

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • @Tinnel.4369 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Doug.4930 said:
    snips

    if they're going to waste all that supply to defend a single camp then that's a total waste.

    Supply used to lengthen the time you can contest a camp that's slotted and feeding an objective you're trying to upgrade is not 'wasted'.

    all it does is delay the inevitable.

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

  • Tinnel.4369Tinnel.4369 Member ✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Tinnel.4369 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Doug.4930 said:
    snips

    if they're going to waste all that supply to defend a single camp then that's a total waste.

    Supply used to lengthen the time you can contest a camp that's slotted and feeding an objective you're trying to upgrade is not 'wasted'.

    all it does is delay the inevitable.

    Inevitable what? Works for us all the time. I don't get the impression you've used the strategy, or at least not effectively.

    It's a resource that had to be invested in (the supply). It should be able to contest.

  • Duckota.4769Duckota.4769 Member ✭✭✭

    You should never be able to contest a capture point on anything. Not a mount or siege.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    This conversation is just about Golems please, thx!

    Your own poll references mounts and introduces golems "under that same thought". Besides, reducing the scope to only golems doesn't inform the conversation. These mechanics don't work in a vacuum so you can't simply reduce the conversation.

    I pointed out how mounts don't have a good counter currently. When the dismount skill is finally added, I think mounts should be able to contest again.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    This conversation is just about Golems please, thx!

    Your own poll references mounts and introduces golems "under that same thought". Besides, reducing the scope to only golems doesn't inform the conversation. These mechanics don't work in a vacuum so you can't simply reduce the conversation.

    I pointed out how mounts don't have a good counter currently. When the dismount skill is finally added, I think mounts should be able to contest again.

    Point valid I did mention mounts, and I am not saying your points aren't valid but to keep it clear we did ban mounts from cap/contesting, shouldn't that same rule apply to mobile siege? If you are talking skills that is a bigger discussion that would be of interest, take inconsistencies in stealth to mist-form to engi abilities. But here was looking for differences in mounts and siege.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's not really something I could ever see myself doing but I'm fine with ppl being able to do it if they want. I was fine with mounts contesting too though, so I'm maybe the wrong person to ask . . .

    That's one of the reason I am curious. Seems that we have a double rule in place here, which is why I was curious from at least the forum goers perspective. If you block one, shouldn't we block the other? HP differences were already account for in the differences in cost so,,,why block one and not the other.

    The mount is not only highly mobile, but also has three dodges. The only way to counter it is with damage. A golem does not have the dodges nor is very mobile and also has a very good counter: siege disablers.

    Disabling a golem does not make it stop from contesting a point.

    True only if someone was there in the golem waiting for you. But a player can not enter a disabled golem. Many times I have taken a camp with an empty golem because no one arrived. It also has made for some of my best fights if 4 or 5 of us go and some dudes in a golem and he map calls 4 to golanta and we get to fight off reinforcements. Sometimes we get 12-15 kills and get the camp other times we eventually die.

  • Jugglemonkey.8741Jugglemonkey.8741 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm kinda indifferent to this. I've ignored bunker players and killed guards around them before because they've refused to fight outside of the camp, and I've had players build golems to avoid being one shot. The golem is harder to kill so contests longer but is also much less able to kill me or support the NPC's with boons and healing that would otherwise prevent me from whittling them down. Golems are at least very slow and easy to hit, and represent an investment of supply that would have been better used in almost anything besides trolling one thief.

    Critical Kit, Deadeye.
    “If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” - John Steinbeck

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    This conversation is just about Golems please, thx!

    Your own poll references mounts and introduces golems "under that same thought". Besides, reducing the scope to only golems doesn't inform the conversation. These mechanics don't work in a vacuum so you can't simply reduce the conversation.

    I pointed out how mounts don't have a good counter currently. When the dismount skill is finally added, I think mounts should be able to contest again.

    Point valid I did mention mounts, and I am not saying your points aren't valid but to keep it clear we did ban mounts from cap/contesting, shouldn't that same rule apply to mobile siege? If you are talking skills that is a bigger discussion that would be of interest, take inconsistencies in stealth to mist-form to engi abilities. But here was looking for differences in mounts and siege.

    If we don't take the time to understand why mounts were banned from contesting, then the answers to whether the same rule should apply to mobile siege won't be very well thought out.

  • There are costs associated with having golems in the camp: currency, supply, and a player. While the supply will eventually replenish, the currency does not. There is no use to having a golem in a camp if no one is there to monitor it; they lose participation while standing there (unless they have that special slot in the squad).

    As someone who likes taking a lot of camps, it's a huge deterrent; works very well. One counter to the golem strategy is to kill all dolyaks leaving the camp. This ruins the main point of defending a camp; upgrading and supplying objectives. Even though the invulnerable dolyaks tactic saves a few, it won't always be on.

    Another counter is to bring the zerg. Hopefully your commander will understand that such an action will likely draw a huge fight, which is what they probably want.

    The easiest counter is to wait until the defenders go to bed to take the sieged up but empty camp.

    Mounts contesting a point was way too easy to troll melee builds for a long time. Golems can't run circles around players.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    If we don't take the time to understand why mounts were banned from contesting, then the answers to whether the same rule should apply to mobile siege won't be very well thought out.

    I group these together considering they both provide extra health pools as was one of the points in the prior mount thread. When you address skills it's not something all builds and classes can do so it comes down to more individual skills being addressed, which would be of interest but is less related to the differences in siege and mounts and those extra health pools. Now I agree the differences in a 'cost' is something of interest since as others stated supply was required versus just a free summons. But I am not sure its enough here. I do agree all sides could opt for this tactic so from that viewpoint its valid, but so could people defending or capping from the back of a mount previously. Some of the same arguments about blocking counterplay could apply to both as well so that's a wash to me at least.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • @Tinnel.4369 said:
    Inevitable what? Works for us all the time. I don't get the impression you've used the strategy, or at least not effectively.

    It's a resource that had to be invested in (the supply). It should be able to contest.

    inevitable camp capture? if you've successfully used it multiple times then the enemy probably wouldn't have taken the camp even with out the golems. golems are easy to kill cuz they're so slow.

    lol I don't care either way so how about we agree to... something...

    Te lazla otstra.
    nerf list

  • Taobella.6597Taobella.6597 Member ✭✭✭

    i think golem are fine because they can not regenerate hp.

  • I don't see any need to change how golems are used in defending a camp. They're using it to buy time for more defenders to show up. Yay, more people for the fight.

  • KeyOrion.9506KeyOrion.9506 Member ✭✭✭

    If you had multiple players on mount, one would run in, take damage, run back out. At the same time a buddy of his could then do the same thing as you run out, he runs in....perpetual Contesting with a hard to hit moving fast target.....A siege golem Tanked yes, damage is "mehhhhh", and very very slow. It's not like it could run out of a circle and then run right back in, no matter how many you had. Solo wise, it'll slow the capture down, until either you destroyed the golem, got reinforcements, or more enemy showed up. The capture or defense is inevitable depending on who had the superior #'s or quality of troops.

  • Doug.4930Doug.4930 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 5, 2019

    Seems to happen to me whenever I start trying to flip camps. Players will just build multiple golems on the point. People claim its a waste of supply but why? Supply is being used for nothing, and by building these golems it ensures that no roamer could possibley take it before enemy reinforcements arrive, due to how fast response time is thanks to the overpowered game breaking mounts. Camp is full of supply in a matter of minutes again anyway.

  • @Doug.4930 said:

    Seems to happen to me whenever I start trying to flip camps. Players will just build multiple golems on the point. People claim its a waste of supply but why? Supply is being used for nothing, and by building these golems it ensures that no roamer could possibley take it before enemy reinforcements arrive, due to how fast response time is thanks to the overpowered game breaking mounts. Camp is full of supply in a matter of minutes again anyway.

    Sure you need the zerg to take that one. You showed up alone to a t3 camp. Even with no golems there you are 1 vs 2 and dead. the 20 other camps are all probably t1 t0 so choose better if you solo. And that op mount as you said also allowed you to leave that situation alive.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 5, 2019

    The real question is, how much of a handicap does defenders really need outside of scouting and rapidly responding to small player counts? Because small counts is really the thing that matters here - a 50 man zerg will have about as much problem killing a golem as killing a single warrior.

    Arguing that golems should contest camps because "it gives defenders time to respond" is like saying that you need 1100 supplies in a T3 keep to defend against 2 guys and a normal cata.

    No you dont.

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

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 5, 2019

    A camp can be flipped by small numbers in under 30 seconds before defenders even have a chance to scout and "rapidly respond" (made worse by the power creep in builds). There is your handicap right there.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 5, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    A camp can be flipped by small numbers in under 30 seconds before defenders even have a chance to scout and "rapidly respond" (made worse by the power creep in builds). There is your handicap right there.

    30 seconds? sounds like one is playing a non gimmick build xD
    Iv seen players soloing t3 camp in half time of that, maybe close to 20sec.

©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.