Absolutely Ridiculous

[RedShark.9548]

@displayname.8315 said:

@Arzurag.7506 said:

@RedShark.9548 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:

@RedShark.9548 said:As if warclaw wasnt good enough for defenders to roll in en masse.How long do you want to keep away a far bigger zerg?Right now you have more than enough tools to slow them down for your reinforcememts to arrive. You have no reinforcements? Well you should lose it to a much bigger group then.

Much bigger toxic group ftw as most servers use , zergling mentality rules. Pffft

Dude... Even in reallife you could take big castles with a much bigger army. All you want it to be is untakable structures to hide behind.Honestly at what point would it be acceptable to take an objective in your opinion? If no defender is there at all?

@Arzurag.7506 said:

@RedShark.9548 said:As if warclaw wasnt good enough for defenders to roll in en masse.How long do you want to keep away a far bigger zerg?Right now you have more than enough tools to slow them down for your reinforcememts to arrive. You have no reinforcements? Well you should lose it to a much bigger group then.

Well, you can´t defend if there´s no defender or rather it´s pointlessto delay the inevitable when there are no reinforcements.

As it should be... If you have no reinforcements and cant hold it against a much bigger blob, then you should lose it.Same question to you.When exactly is it acceptable to take a structure in your opinion? If there is no scout, not a single defender?

You all make it seem like it should be impossible to take a keep, as long as there is atleast 1 person inside...

The problem is the lack of population. Anet never implemented an actual scaling to siege damage so if you´re outnumbered by a lot, the enemy will dominate the map without you being able to do anything. These weeks with such linking were horrible, though the outnumbered buff was quite nice due to it being available almost permanently.

Anyway, the population-issue is nothing that can actually be fixed without new influx of new players and Anet putting an end to server-hopping

Tell me about it.. When people see 60+ group on one team, 10 on the other team and maybe a handful on the poor red servers they seem to think its proper somehow..

Like im going to play CoD or battlefront when I know everyone is on a single team and its locked to any balancing.. heh yeah right.

This has nothing to do with the objectives then.Population balance and objective benefits/balance are completely different things.

[displayname.8315]

@RedShark.9548 said:

@displayname.8315 said:

@Arzurag.7506 said:

@RedShark.9548 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:

@RedShark.9548 said:As if warclaw wasnt good enough for defenders to roll in en masse.How long do you want to keep away a far bigger zerg?Right now you have more than enough tools to slow them down for your reinforcememts to arrive. You have no reinforcements? Well you should lose it to a much bigger group then.

Much bigger toxic group ftw as most servers use , zergling mentality rules. Pffft

Dude... Even in reallife you could take big castles with a much bigger army. All you want it to be is untakable structures to hide behind.Honestly at what point would it be acceptable to take an objective in your opinion? If no defender is there at all?

@Arzurag.7506 said:

@RedShark.9548 said:As if warclaw wasnt good enough for defenders to roll in en masse.How long do you want to keep away a far bigger zerg?Right now you have more than enough tools to slow them down for your reinforcememts to arrive. You have no reinforcements? Well you should lose it to a much bigger group then.

Well, you can´t defend if there´s no defender or rather it´s pointlessto delay the inevitable when there are no reinforcements.

As it should be... If you have no reinforcements and cant hold it against a much bigger blob, then you should lose it.Same question to you.When exactly is it acceptable to take a structure in your opinion? If there is no scout, not a single defender?

You all make it seem like it should be impossible to take a keep, as long as there is atleast 1 person inside...

The problem is the lack of population. Anet never implemented an actual scaling to siege damage so if you´re outnumbered by a lot, the enemy will dominate the map without you being able to do anything. These weeks with such linking were horrible, though the outnumbered buff was quite nice due to it being available almost permanently.

Anyway, the population-issue is nothing that can actually be fixed without new influx of new players and Anet putting an end to server-hopping

Tell me about it.. When people see 60+ group on one team, 10 on the other team and maybe a handful on the poor red servers they seem to think its proper somehow..

Like im going to play CoD or battlefront when I know everyone is on a single team and its locked to any balancing.. heh yeah right.

This has nothing to do with the objectives then.Population balance and objective benefits/balance are completely different things.

When its well balanced objectives operate much differently. Chances of getting early callouts, ops teams, actual backup and roamers ect.. the whole game is/was different when all 3 servers could queue a map or two.

[ilMasa.2546]

Dejavu:

As of right now there is no siege war, its just a blatant spam:

• Spam Arrowcarts for defense
• Spam Catapults for offenseEven tho the game offers you different types of sieges with different types of range each, its been years since i saw a SINGLE commander set up 2 trebs at distance and actually SIEGE a tower.But to be honest sieges arent that huge problem and can be easily fixed:

Sieges shuld have a min distance,based on range, at which they could be placed from towers and Keeps:

• Close Range - RAMS
• Medium Range - CATAS
• Long Range - TREBSHere is your avarage WvW "siege war": blobs come in,stacks unders the wall,builds 5 catas and thats it.And the best part is when a Tag actually loses those catas : just move to an other "objective" instead of getting ,for istance, more distance and build 2 kitten trebs.

Here the problems:

• Attackers on the ground can clear a wall from any sieges in a matter of 15 seconds with AoEs
• Attackers on the ground can turn walls into a deathtrap with the same AoE spammage
• Attackers on the ground while AoE spamming,are behind those walls,being defacto Out of Sight,they just need to aim to the highest point of the wall to cover the whole catwalk.
• Defenders on the other hand,have to survive the catwalk first then they have to lean from the wall to siege disable,to AoE or use any kind of attack.
• Indistructible walls are often exploited and used as cover for siege placement: they just have to aim for those steps 8 meters away from doors or walls...the CRAZY splash dmg will reach anyways,so why be precise.
• You cant be extremely precise with your defensive sieges either,if the attackers are stacked behind your outer wall,there is noway to land a precise hit,unless u move to an other Tower.
• Most of the Time your shots will land on your wall,too far over your wall or just nullified by the bubbles of those 5+ catas right under your wall.If im defending a FORTIFIED TOWER and im INSIDE,i shuld have atleast a form of utilty from it,but its not the case: EVER.

Attackers shuld not be ABLE to cover the WHOLE catwalk with AoEs from the ground.Attackers shuld not be ABLE to clean defensive siege with 4 AoEs from the ground => build a balista and use THAT,maybe next a beautifull cata placed at some distance from the walls,atleast attackers HAVE to USE the power meter on sieges,instead of 1click at point blank as soon as the CD permit it (lol...wish i could do the same while defending)Catas Bubbles or Shield Gen: both are redundant. Replace the Cata Bubble with a temporary fire rate increase or something else.

been saying this for years2019 i got suspended several times for calling out "AMAZING" changes/fixes
2018 https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/536321#Comment_5363212017 https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/138707#Comment_138707

... but you know: bEtTeR iMpLEmENT MOUNTS and GLIDERS....if only TREBS had SKINS in the gemstore :)