@Anet - Siege changes I think we strongly need for the alliance change. — Guild Wars 2 Forums

@Anet - Siege changes I think we strongly need for the alliance change.

Tatori.7938Tatori.7938 Member ✭✭
edited March 18, 2018 in WvW

I think most agree that siege right now is incredibly powerful, especially with tactivators added on top of them. The difference with tactivators though is that they have a 30 minute cooldown that can be worked around when trying to capture a Tier 3 Objective. With well placed siege inside and a few defenders, taking an objective is almost impossible (with some locations not being flipped for the entire week). I have a few different suggestions on how we could rectify that problem. Implementing even one of them would make the world of difference in my opinion, and I'd like to hear all your thoughts on the topic.

Option 1- Lower the siege cap in all objectives. As an example, only allow 2 of each siege per tower, and 8 of each siege per keep?
Option 2- Make siege only able to damage other siege. If this makes PvD too strong, make it so only siege can damage gates?
Option 3- Drastically reduce how much damage we take from all siege.

This thread was created because I am worried that once alliances come out, the tactical siege warfare will spread to all tiers. As it stands, only some tiers and servers use a lot of siege, but spreading these players and guilds across all the newer tiers might make a lot of objectives impossible. I'm not asking for easy captures, but I also wouldn't find it fun to never be able to take any fortified locations.

EDIT: I get it - siege isn't a problem for large zergs. I've tried to change my playing and commanding style, and I just wanted to voice some suggestions I've noticed with my size group (usually 20). If you dislike the ideas, you can say so without bashing them or my commanding. If siege isn't a problem for you, that's cool, but they have been difficult for me. I'm always willing to learn, but "git gud" comments don't help.

Also - If you get the chance, read Whiteouts siege radius cap suggestion on Page 2. I think it's way better than all three of mine.

<1

Comments

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2018

    first option is problematic as people will disagree were to put that limited siege.
    second option is interesting if siege can only take damage from siege and while in it you cant take damage from other players. else while you try to damage the siege you will get bombed on siege without putting preassure aswell on the ones casting on you.
    option 3 is pretty much same as option 2 - drastically lower damage means pretty much no damage considering the support inside a group.
    also ACs and some abilities on other siege weapons would get redundant with option 2 and 3, therefor need to be changed.

    i am not entirely sure what exactly your current issue with siege is, is it that you dont want to do siege war or is it that you really think defensive siege is too strong? because the most powerfull in terms of siege out there are offensive shield gens, used right there is no siege counter to them, you can just suicide bomb or if you are enough kill all opponents in a normal fight.

    my wish for siege is that traps are made dodgeable , supply and anti stealth trap currently cannot be evaded like player casted traps.

  • DeceiverX.8361DeceiverX.8361 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2018

    Seems to favor ktraining a little too much to be honest.
    I'd rather just see superior siege removed and the watchtower bonus have a shared intermittent period of downtime to let smaller groups function/spread out. This makes siege have plenty of value still in the case of outnumbered defenses (especially since as far as skill usage goes, attackers are generally favored attacking up vs down), but doesn't favor ktraining too heavily by slowing the attack pace down (which still allows long-lasting sieges to work). More people are going to need to man more siege to topple a zerg, but that's okay because it at least demands more defenders.

    Sieges traditionally were never really about massive raids and quickly toppling defenses. They were meant to starve the kingdom of resources and win by attrition. I think generally, that's captured pretty well right now, just it's a little bit too difficult for the sake of fun gameplay. Attackers should only really have a big edge by committing to a siege for a while, but the current iteration just favors pretty much trying to take things which aren't contested.

    You sure that Sniper idea is as good as you thought it was gonna be?
    Because I think my original idea is better.
    Quit/Inactive. No, you can't have my stuff.

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

    u.u how then will the few defend against the many?

    how will the few break the t3 of a larger group or reclaim their own if taken?

    how much do we spend?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Kiroshima.8497Kiroshima.8497 Member ✭✭✭

    Easiest change is to make siege cost supply to Re-Arm. Battering Rams and Golems become the most budget, despite their weaknesses, because they would cost nothing to use. Then reduce the supply cost of building everything (except rams/golems) and up repair cost on structures.

    Catapults would cost 3 for Standard, 2 for gravel.
    Trebs 5 for Standard, 5 for cow, 0 for Water Field.
    Cannon 3 for standard, 4 for Grapeshot, 5 for Ice Shot.
    Ballista 2 for all.
    Arrow Carts 2 for all.
    Shield Gens 1 for the bouncing ball, 3 for the wall, and 10 for the dome.
    Mortar would cost 3 for both shots, 5 for the raining shot.
    Boiling Oil costs 0 to use all abilities.

    This makes holding camps extra important as both offense and defense need them. It also means that if you hold more camps, you can support more siege. Walk/Slap those yaks.

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

    Just make all siege cost supply per use. We're not talking about trebs, cata's, bali's, and flame rams here; they aren't the problem. We're talking about shield gens and arrow-carts, they are the bane that turns many commanders away from even attempting to take a T3 keep.. aka, they don't want to bang their head against the wall for 2 hours.

    So the solution:

    • Make arrowcarts 10 supply per shot
    • Make shield gens 50 supply per bubble

    Doesn't matter whether it's offensive or defensive use. Obviously it would be next to impossible for shield gens to be used offensively with this. You'd get less than 4 bubbles before they were rendered useless. Defensively used, they've have to be selectively and strategically used buying time until the defending group comes out to fight Again with arrow carts, one could simply not sit on them and spam them until the player's finger's bled, the supply would vanish allowing it for an easy capture.

    One can not even begin to describe how boring and pointless it is trying to siege a keep with trebs, only to have both the attackers and defenders repeatedly bubbling their siege/walls. It's ridiculous, and it needs to go.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    These proposals are insane.

    I don't think any of those are necessary. If you don't have a group with any eles to clear arrow carts off of walls it's a tough life, but you can always stay outside their range, force an enemy out or spam the hell out of shield gens. Blocks and damage migitation also exist.

    Bite me.

  • Tatori.7938Tatori.7938 Member ✭✭
    edited March 15, 2018

    @MUDse.7623 said:
    is it that you dont want to do siege war or is it that you really think defensive siege is too strong?
    my wish for siege is that traps are made dodgeable , supply and anti stealth trap currently cannot be evaded like player casted traps.

    I find defensive siege really strong when placed in the right place, and with a couple people manning them. I do agree that the traps should be dodgeable though.

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:
    Seems to favor ktraining a little too much to be honest.
    I'd rather just see superior siege removed and the watchtower bonus have a shared intermittent period of downtime to let smaller groups function/spread out.

    I definitely did not intend for it to create a K-train. As I stated initially, my concern is once all the servers have better coverage and more population, everywhere will be decked out with siege and it'll take hours to capture anything. I would be happy with superior and guild siege being removed. I like that suggestion. Ty for mentioning it.

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    u.u how then will the few defend against the many?

    Quite truthfully, the few really shouldn't be able to defend against the many. That might be an unpopular opinion, but just like how regardless of skill, a 50 man zerg will always beat a 10 man zerg. don't hate me :(

    You both have the same suggestion, but with two different implementations. I like any ideas for slightly powering down siege, and that would work if you had to pay supply in order to use siege. It might be abused though by someone who dumps an AC near the supply and just wastes it all.

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    If you don't have a group with any eles to clear arrow carts off of walls it's a tough life, but you can always stay outside their range, force an enemy out or spam the hell out of shield gens. Blocks and damage migitation also exist.

    It is a tough life indeed. Especially if you're not running a huge group. Perhaps I'm worried about nothing, and all will be well when the alliances are released. I still wanted to voice my thoughts.

    Phew. That was a lot replying. Thanks for the responses so far.

  • Celsith.2753Celsith.2753 Member ✭✭✭

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    These proposals are insane.

    I don't think any of those are necessary. If you don't have a group with any eles to clear arrow carts off of walls it's a tough life, but you can always stay outside their range, force an enemy out or spam the hell out of shield gens. Blocks and damage migitation also exist.

    Groups less than a zerg also exist. Groups simply trying to walk past something without getting hit by mortars, catas, trebs, also exist. I don't care how hard a keep is to take. I'm just really really tired of siege no matter what I'm doing or where I'm going.

    950k+ WvW kills
    Diamond No Life
    [HUNT] Predatory Instinct

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Celsith.2753 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    These proposals are insane.

    I don't think any of those are necessary. If you don't have a group with any eles to clear arrow carts off of walls it's a tough life, but you can always stay outside their range, force an enemy out or spam the hell out of shield gens. Blocks and damage migitation also exist.

    Groups less than a zerg also exist. Groups simply trying to walk past something without getting hit by mortars, catas, trebs, also exist. I don't care how hard a keep is to take. I'm just really really tired of siege no matter what I'm doing or where I'm going.

    Well, if you are a roamer or just have a small group, taking towers and even low tiered keeps should never be an issue. You can stay out of AC range and cata a wall down. They shouldn't be brimming with siege either and if they are, the group manning them should be able to wipe you anyway. Using siege yourself to take a wall/gate down shouldn't be an issue. The only issue with siege would arise from groups crashing into keeps and dying to their arrow carts or having to counterplay an enemy siege attacking from far away.

    I don't really see the issue?

    Bite me.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tatori.7938 said:
    I think most agree that siege right now is incredibly powerful, especially with tactivators added on top of them. The difference with tactivators though is that they have a 30 minute cooldown that can be worked around when trying to capture a Tier 3 Objective. With well placed siege inside and a few defenders, taking an objective is almost impossible (with some locations not being flipped for the entire week). I have a few different suggestions on how we could rectify that problem. Implementing even one of them would make the world of difference in my opinion, and I'd like to hear all your thoughts on the topic.

    Option 1- Lower the siege cap in all objectives. As an example, only allow 2 of each siege per tower, and 4 of each siege per keep? (Perhaps 4 for outer, and 4 for inner?)
    Option 2- Make siege only able to damage other siege. If this makes PvD too strong, make it so only siege can damage gates?
    Option 3- Drastically reduce how much damage we take from all siege.

    This thread was created because I am worried that once alliances come out, the tactical siege warfare will spread to all tiers. As it stands, only some tiers and servers use a lot of siege, but spreading these players and guilds across all the newer tiers might make a lot of objectives impossible. I'm not asking for easy captures, but I also wouldn't find it fun to never be able to take any fortified locations.

    No. Taking a defended structure is not supposed to be easy. Use counter siege and different tactics if you are struggling to take an objective. Grow and evolve your commanding skills, don’t expect the devs to make your 80 person zerg train mow everything down easier.

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2018

    Have to agree with all the idea will not help anything, some will even backfires. No tower or keep is impenetrable, it's only the matter of time depending on how well it's sieged & number of sieges inside. Is this from the mid/lower tiers matchup? Cause it sounded as if there's imbalance/lack of forces to siege in as a invader against the defenders. Or no disrespect, lack of strategy.

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tatori.7938 said:
    I definitely did not intend for it to create a K-train. As I stated initially, my concern is once all the servers have better coverage and more population, everywhere will be decked out with siege and it'll take hours to capture anything. I would be happy with superior and guild siege being removed. I like that suggestion. Ty for mentioning it.

    uneven numbers leads to t3 structures full of siege but easy to take at some point of the day, while the closer the numbers , the lower the chance you will see such a structure and if you do it is your own fault and should therefor take time to capture it back.
    alliances might bring overall even coverage but you want have even numbers all the time. so i dont think much will change, in our current matchup everything gets flipped at least twice a day but no side is strong enough during every hour of the day to defend.

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Towers and keeps are way to hard to take and it seems like Anet has listened to too many siege humpers when buffing all this stuff. I don't even know why anyone cares to defend when everything upgrades automatically and PPT means nothing, People act like they built the structures themselves or something. Only reason anyone would want to take a tower or keep is to get at all the people hiding in them.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2018

    @Kiroshima.8497 said:
    Easiest change is to make siege cost supply to Re-Arm. Battering Rams and Golems become the most budget, despite their weaknesses, because they would cost nothing to use. Then reduce the supply cost of building everything (except rams/golems) and up repair cost on structures.

    Catapults would cost 3 for Standard, 2 for gravel.
    Trebs 5 for Standard, 5 for cow, 0 for Water Field.
    Cannon 3 for standard, 4 for Grapeshot, 5 for Ice Shot.
    Ballista 2 for all.
    Arrow Carts 2 for all.
    Shield Gens 1 for the bouncing ball, 3 for the wall, and 10 for the dome.
    Mortar would cost 3 for both shots, 5 for the raining shot.
    Boiling Oil costs 0 to use all abilities.

    This makes holding camps extra important as both offense and defense need them. It also means that if you hold more camps, you can support more siege. Walk/Slap those yaks.

    This is way, way overcomplicated when you can make do with just the simple first parts of the idea of rebalancing supply costs. Such as:

    Current hp wall/door repair per supply at T0/T1, T2 and T3 is all the same 1750 -> Wall/door repair at T1 is 2000, T2 is 1500 and T3 is 1000.
    Result? Walls/doors at T2 and T3 will be considerably more expensive to maintain but T0/T1 is somewhat cheaper.

    Current arrowcart cost 40/50 supply -> Arrowcarts costing 60/70 supply.
    Result? Less kitten arrowcarts.

    Current shield generators cost 40/50 supply -> Sheild gens costing 70/80 supply
    Result? Less static defense.

    Current trebuchet cost 100/120 supplies -> Trebuchet costing 60/80 supplies
    Current trebuchet does pitiful damage on T2/T3 -> Make a multiplier that boost treb damage on T2 by 25% and T3 by 50%
    Result? Trebs now become viable to construct for long range sieging of reinforced/fortified structures.

    (reduction in golem cost I am still out on, mobile siege is pretty powerful)

    And that's pretty much it. Just the trebuchet change will change the entire battlefield because suddenly 3-5 man parties can siege reinforced/fortified structures and force a response from defenders. No more "meh it's not worth the effort" and walking around.

    Does this mean defenders can build more trebs too? Sure! But you know what? Nothing is more impressive than seeing flaming balls of fire fly across the battlefield while fighting over an objective.

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

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2018

    Most of the servers already use an excessive amount of siege as it is. While alliances may spread those users around more, the flip side is the alliance system will provide a more even population coverage, it should help with taking structures more often before they get to t3. Placing a cap on the amount of siege that can be placed in a structure is good in theory, but terrible when you look at some of the structures in the game, particularly something like garrison which has eight gates and multiple breakable walls, while some of that can be doubled up, the keeps on desert borderland are even bigger and more spaced out.

    Siege do need some tweaks.

    • Reduce arrow cart range from 2500 to 2000 or 1500, I've seen ac hitting places they probably shouldn't from where they were placed.
    • Increase minimum placement range between siege in general with the exception of rams. This may help with stacking of shield generators which can be a real problem on offensive uses. While most siege is usually spaced on walls, there some instances when you can find people building like 4 acs lined up a wall in a very short space.
    • Increase arrow cart supply cost to 100, and shield generator supply cost to 120.

    Another derailing post ^ - Anet
    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" - "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon." - "Woo!"
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WaH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • TheWolf.1602TheWolf.1602 Member ✭✭✭

    make catas hit allies and alied siege to force them away from walls

  • The fix to siege in my opinion is pretty simple:
    Make siege consume supply per skill use (ammo)
    And with that, remove the siege disablers.

  • Kiroshima.8497Kiroshima.8497 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    This is way, way overcomplicated when you can make do with just the simple first parts of the idea of rebalancing supply costs. Such as:

    Current hp wall/door repair per supply at T0/T1, T2 and T3 is all the same 1750 -> Wall/door repair at T1 is 2000, T2 is 1500 and T3 is 1000.
    Result? Walls/doors at T2 and T3 will be considerably more expensive to maintain but T0/T1 is somewhat cheaper.

    Current arrowcart cost 40/50 supply -> Arrowcarts costing 60/70 supply.
    Result? Less kitten arrowcarts.

    Current shield generators cost 40/50 supply -> Sheild gens costing 70/80 supply
    Result? Less static defense.

    Current trebuchet cost 100/120 supplies -> Trebuchet costing 60/80 supplies
    Current trebuchet does pitiful damage on T2/T3 -> Make a multiplier that boost treb damage on T2 by 25% and T3 by 50%
    Result? Trebs now become viable to construct for long range sieging of reinforced/fortified structures.

    (reduction in golem cost I am still out on, mobile siege is pretty powerful)

    And that's pretty much it. Just the trebuchet change will change the entire battlefield because suddenly 3-5 man parties can siege reinforced/fortified structures and force a response from defenders. No more "meh it's not worth the effort" and walking around.

    Does this mean defenders can build more trebs too? Sure! But you know what? Nothing is more impressive than seeing flaming balls of fire fly across the battlefield while fighting over an objective.

    That doesn't actually change the game dynamics though. Sure, you can build more trebs, but it rewards stockpiling them as once they're up, they're there until you clear them. Same with the arrow carts and acs. This makes the T3 structures, which have huge amounts of supply, incredibly annoying (not difficult if you want to be REALLY patient) to break.

    In order to break up zergs and promote healthier siege play, you need to prevent stockpiles of supply from occuring and promote Camp/Supply focused gameplay. Defenders are forced to go out to hold their structures since they would ACTUALLY be starved out, guaranteed. Any siege they use would eventually burn through their supply, forcing them into melee combat.

    Readjusting base supply costs doesn't do that.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TheWolf.1602 said:
    make catas hit allies and alied siege to force them away from walls

    Having them against the walls benefits defenders. They can fire outside of ballista and AC range on most towers (as well as outside of watchtower range on several)

    Putting them on the walls actually no longer has any strategic advantage since charging Catas has been a thing.

    Like most problems noted on here, people have not adjusted their gameplay.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    Siege do need some tweaks.

    • Reduce arrow cart range from 2500 to 2000 or 1500, I've seen ac hitting places they probably shouldn't from where they were placed.

    I might disagree with this but it's worth trying.

    • Increase minimum placement range between siege in general with the exception of rams. This may help with stacking of shield generators which can be a real problem on offensive uses. While most siege is usually spaced on walls, there some instances when you can find people building like 4 acs lined up a wall in a very short space.

    Really good idea. It never made sense why items could be stacked on top of each other.

    • Increase arrow cart supply cost to 100, and shield generator supply cost to 120.

    For superior correct? Maybe 75/100 for guild versions. Still more...

    The only problem with that is it further hurts the small groups, but I guess small groups probably aren't using those like the large Zergs.

    If we don't want to overly punish the attackers though, we would need to decrease the max supply at each tier of each structure, with the exception of camps.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Warlord.9074Warlord.9074 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tatori.7938 said:
    I think most agree that siege right now is incredibly powerful, especially with tactivators added on top of them. The difference with tactivators though is that they have a 30 minute cooldown that can be worked around when trying to capture a Tier 3 Objective. With well placed siege inside and a few defenders, taking an objective is almost impossible (with some locations not being flipped for the entire week). I have a few different suggestions on how we could rectify that problem. Implementing even one of them would make the world of difference in my opinion, and I'd like to hear all your thoughts on the topic.

    Option 1- Lower the siege cap in all objectives. As an example, only allow 2 of each siege per tower, and 4 of each siege per keep? (Perhaps 4 for outer, and 4 for inner?)
    Option 2- Make siege only able to damage other siege. If this makes PvD too strong, make it so only siege can damage gates?
    Option 3- Drastically reduce how much damage we take from all siege.

    This thread was created because I am worried that once alliances come out, the tactical siege warfare will spread to all tiers. As it stands, only some tiers and servers use a lot of siege, but spreading these players and guilds across all the newer tiers might make a lot of objectives impossible. I'm not asking for easy captures, but I also wouldn't find it fun to never be able to take any fortified locations.

    Anet, the OP is right. This is the correct way of thinking. You should seriously consider listening to this person as opposed to the voices in your heads.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2018

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    u.u how then will the few defend against the many?

    how will the few break the t3 of a larger group or reclaim their own if taken?

    how much do we spend?

    u dont... u will still get ppt farmed and see the whole map burn :D

    I would not mind heavy armored classes have extra damage reducing from certain siege like AC'S, still with some much barrier and spambrand heals... superios ac0s need to damage players...

    Or every one wants to ignore the damage? maybe the issue is that is possible to pile up tons of ac's on each one proximity, and the stack is the problem not the damage.

  • Superior AC's are the biggest culprit, but if you lower the siege cap, what about the team trying to take a keep or tower? Only allow them to drop a couple rams at the gate? That would take too long, and probably push a new meta of golem rush. You could build golems at different camps/towers, and ferry them to the objective you want to take, suddenly that siege cap of, let's say 4 rams, means nothing when 8 golems show up at the gate.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Siege do need some tweaks.

    • Reduce arrow cart range from 2500 to 2000 or 1500, I've seen ac hitting places they probably shouldn't from where they were placed.

    I might disagree with this but it's worth trying.

    Check out places like NET where you can place an ac in front of the supply hut area but it can hit just over the wall on the west cata wall, same goes for Mendons, an ac on the wall near the hut can hit just over the cata wall side, I believe the acs can even hit from the stairs area of that tower to the hill across from it where the ballista is usually setup.

    • Increase arrow cart supply cost to 100, and shield generator supply cost to 120.

    For superior correct? Maybe 75/100 for guild versions. Still more...

    The only problem with that is it further hurts the small groups, but I guess small groups probably aren't using those like the large Zergs.

    If we don't want to overly punish the attackers though, we would need to decrease the max supply at each tier of each structure, with the exception of camps.

    Yes superiors.
    Small groups don't typically need acs or gens unless they're using it for defense, in which case it can be pre-built in structures. Don't really need this option if it can be worked out to have more restrictive distance of placements between siege in the above option. I still do think generators should have the same cost of a treb though.

    Another derailing post ^ - Anet
    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" - "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon." - "Woo!"
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WaH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Siege do need some tweaks.

    • Reduce arrow cart range from 2500 to 2000 or 1500, I've seen ac hitting places they probably shouldn't from where they were placed.

    I might disagree with this but it's worth trying.

    Check out places like NET where you can place an ac in front of the supply hut area but it can hit just over the wall on the west cata wall, same goes for Mendons, an ac on the wall near the hut can hit just over the cata wall side, I believe the acs can even hit from the stairs area of that tower to the hill across from it where the ballista is usually setup.

    Will do. Hadn't thought of that.

    • Increase arrow cart supply cost to 100, and shield generator supply cost to 120.

    For superior correct? Maybe 75/100 for guild versions. Still more...

    The only problem with that is it further hurts the small groups, but I guess small groups probably aren't using those like the large Zergs.

    If we don't want to overly punish the attackers though, we would need to decrease the max supply at each tier of each structure, with the exception of camps.

    Yes superiors.
    Small groups don't typically need acs or gens unless they're using it for defense, in which case it can be pre-built in structures. Don't really need this option if it can be worked out to have more restrictive distance of placements between siege in the above option. I still do think generators should have the same cost of a treb though.

    You are absolutely correct about the ACs and small groups. Didn't think of that, and if I am running 5 I am not building a shield gen either.

    Cost increase? For what you put earlier? Yep. That's a workable solution without being game breaking to me.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Optimator.3589Optimator.3589 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Smaller target cap on ACs would be a simple start, or maybe a diminishing return effect on siege damage against players. First hit does full damage, and then the player gains x% siege damage reduction per hit after that, with said damage reduction having a reasonably short duration not affected by concentration.

    I'd also suggest lowering the health of T3 walls and gates by maybe 20% and T2 by 7-10%.

    The amount of time that you have to spend standing in siege fire while breaking into a structure is as big a problem as the amount of damage done by siege.

    REDUCE NA TO 3 TIERS

  • I think ACs should have a damage increase of another 160%
    I feel that as with the condi zerg meta which anet have enjoyed and helped fuel into the EU servers
    that they are neglecting the next most cherished thing amongst those type of players, Arrow Carts.

    We already see 15 ACs per wall, per tower.
    Doesnt that show, neigh, prove that ACs are way underpowered for their use?
    Why else does a server need 30 ACs on a wall to defend, unless the ACs are simply not good enough?!
    So why build 45 ACs per wall, when an buff of 160% would make the lives of such players so much easier?
    With a 160% buff, they would no longer have to build 60 ACs per wall when they can now just build 15.
    It saves on blueprints, it saves on supplies, it saves time, it allows other players to be free to join the zerg rather than man 75 ACs per wall!

    I think that it what the true WvW players want in this game!

  • Mira.4906Mira.4906 Member ✭✭

    I don't think there needs to be any work done on siege, posted below is my opinions for some of the ideas posted in this thread.

    Adding supply to siege use.
    This would make zergs the only option for the game mode and we have been asking for zergs to be reduced for years. This suggestion would kill small man guilds or groups. Only way to make with would be to take away the ability to repair walls. A lot of people would not like that.

    Increasing AC damage
    Not needed, superior siege does enough damage to players already. I think we could have a skill to unlock that weakenes barriers to prevent barrier spam on doors making AC's do no damage. But any semi skilled group will out heal the damage done. Regular Arrow Carts are mostly worthless in any defense of an objective, they could use a slight damage increase but that's about it.

    Increasing the costs of shield gens,
    I could go for this one maybe not the 100 supply that was posted earlier but maybe 50 for regular and 75 for superior, that would make them good targets for disable and destruction.

    Increasing the costs of other siege
    Not needed, been mostly the same for years, adding more costs add more incentive to zerg objectives.

  • Sviel.7493Sviel.7493 Member ✭✭✭

    I agree that an 80-man group should always beat a 10-man group in a siege, but the real question is how quickly do they win and what can the 10-man group do to stretch out the siege in hopes of reinforcement or other relief.

    Currently, the state of siege is pretty abominable, but Anet doesn't seem to want to talk about it. When they added Shield Generators, I had to pretty much give up on them taking a serious whack at solving the problem. They make for unconditional, uninteresting and extremely effective defensive stalling and simultaneously make for unconditional, uninteresting and extremely effective offensives. There's also the issue of walls being a defensive boon for the offensive team since the only way to deal with siege on a wall is to sit in range of the zerg's attacks. They may have tried to alleviate this by buffing siege damage when charged (and inadvertently buffing all siege damage because math is hard?), but the damage was never the main reason for proxy catas. There's also the issue of them giving all siege engines 2x health when they made them susceptible to crits and conditions, but not buffing siege-versus-siege damage. That made siege take twice as long to kill for defensive purposes but much faster to kill for a zerg. After I cried about that for a while, they buffed Ballistae to do 2x damage to return them to normal values, but apparently didn't realize that Ballistae are impossible to use since you have to sit on them in full view of the enemy zerg and have to time shots between bubbles, more bubbles, shield gen bubbles, reflects, rev bubbles and any other BS. To their credit, they did normalize catapult costs and then reduce them slightly...for better or worse. In short, Anet hasn't ignored siege, but they tend to either make things worse or completely fail to solve the problem they're looking at (as far as I can tell since they've never spoken about the intent behind their changes). But good on you for having hope.

    As for your suggestions, I think they're a bit premature.

    Lowering the siege cap will only mean that defenders can only hold one wall. If the enemy then moves to another wall, they can't destroy the old siege and rebuild or move the siege. A mechanic similar to the one you want is already in the game, though. The defenders have limited supply and their siege can often be destroyed from outside the walls with Ballistae or Arrow Carts. Unfortunately, zergs are too flitty to bother with that sort of thing. That's not Anet's fault.

    If siege could only damage siege and PvD wasn't a thing, I wouldn't complain too much. However, that would require a functional siege-vs-siege warfare system and such a thing does not exist. If you mean that siege and players could damage siege but siege itself could not damage players, then that might work. However, since Anet stated in a tutorial video made several years ago that Arrow Carts were meant to be used against large groups, I don't think this is something they will adopt. It would probably be better to review siege damage and tune it directly.

    Your third suggestion is just a step down from the second. However, I think the real issue is when the defenders build a ton of siege in a place that is practically inaccessible. In Garrison on Alpine borderland, for instance, Arrow Carts built on the roof of the Lord room can be used in defense. This issue is largely solved on DBL since you can ballista any Lord room siege instead of fighting in it or through it, but zergs generally don't attempt anything like that either.

  • Kiroshima.8497Kiroshima.8497 Member ✭✭✭

    @Mira.4906 said:
    Adding supply to siege use.
    This would make zergs the only option for the game mode and we have been asking for zergs to be reduced for years. This suggestion would kill small man guilds or groups.

    This is easily solved:
    1) Buff camp supply regeneration, it should be able to support 1 treb per rank. A treb shoots 1 time per 8.5 seconds, so lets just pretend it's once per 10 for easy maths. This means the Camp would just need to generate one treb shots of supply every 10 seconds, per rank of the camp. Also, because supply camps are buffed, you should nerf yak supply to 10 per camp rank (10/20/30), promoting camps as the true supply source. If camps are the focus of sieging, smaller guilds have a better chance since there a LOT of camps forcing zergs to split up.

    2) Rams and Golems are free to use once built. These are your choices for small man guilds, or if zergs really want to budget their supply. Since all defensive siege costs supply to use, small groups can really drain structures with these weapons, especially with smart omega use (since they can't be contested by oil, which would be the only free defensive siege).

    If smaller groups want to use "safer/faster" siege, then they have to cycle supply from the camps to their aggressive catapult spots. Likewise, if defenders want to camp their structures and spam defensive siege, they will eventually be forced to run to camps for supply, especially with a yak nerf.

  • Threather.9354Threather.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 16, 2018

    Increase cata health by 50%. Reduce shield gen bubble duration and radius by 30%. Reduce wall/gate health by 30%. Reduce claim buff by 50%, reduce duration of EWP to 20 seconds. Reduce arrow cart damage by 20%.

    Balance done.

    Ri Ba - WvW Commander, scout, loudmouth, tryhard
    Making Desolation great again/Alt somewhere
    Diamond Legend

  • diamondgirl.6315diamondgirl.6315 Member ✭✭✭

    "the tactical siege warfare"

    You mean... part of the actual process of defending objectives, so teams can't just blob down a tower in seconds?

    No. Siege is awesome. Get better at countering it.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 16, 2018

    I don't think siege damage needs to be decreased, they do enough damage to keep zerk stat type people on their toes as it is. The range however is a bit much, ac's should be used to keep people away from near the walls or gates while being able to hit siege placed there. Siege placed further away should be countered with ballista trebs cannons or mortars. If you want keep people off a certain wall, the ac should at least be on that same wall.

    I also don't agree with supply use for siege, or any type of ammo limiter as that would just set up for further supply abuse other than repairing walls you shouldn't when it's being damaged still type of scenario.

    Another derailing post ^ - Anet
    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" - "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon." - "Woo!"
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WaH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭

    One small change would give attackers some options:

    • Shield Generators no longer prevent damage to walls and gates (projectile passes through shield bubble - damages walls/gates but not siege)

    Now attackers can set up a treb or cata outside ballista range and force the defenders to come out and fight rather than turtle in their keep and defend it with shield generators. It's slower, yes, but it guarantees that the wall/gate will go down if the defenders sit in their keep.

  • Kaiser.9873Kaiser.9873 Member ✭✭✭

    Slightly lower siege caps.
    Make siege have an exclusion zone where no other siege can be placed.(keep 4 ACs from defending one gate for instance)
    These two options would make siege less of an issue, while still keeping it strong enough to make a difference.

  • Crazy.6029Crazy.6029 Member ✭✭✭

    I have a 4th option. How about all siege expires 2 hours after building. No more refreshing. Gotta come out of the keeps and towers and get more supply. Would make roamers and havoc players more relevant and also no more sitting in T3 towers for days. Everyone gets to come out and fight if they wann keep the objective. I really like this option :)

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

    @Crazy.6029 said:
    I have a 4th option. How about all siege expires 2 hours after building. No more refreshing. Gotta come out of the keeps and towers and get more supply. Would make roamers and havoc players more relevant and also no more sitting in T3 towers for days. Everyone gets to come out and fight if they wann keep the objective. I really like this option :)

    Its not a bad idea but IMO this still requires siege to be much cheaper so you can purpose build it. Also 2h would be incredibly generous, considering the amount of supplies that can go into an objective over 2h.

    Hell with that idea I would go to such an extreme and say siege last 30m, then the following 30m it will deteriorate in hp until dead (if already damaged, shorter than 30m).

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

  • Crazy.6029Crazy.6029 Member ✭✭✭

    Originally I was thinking 30 mins for T1 , 1hr for T2 and 1.5 for T3. I just went with 2 hrs to keep it simple :)

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

    ^
    give the tyrian a cigar

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 17, 2018

    I feel the answer lies somewhere here -> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weapon
    More directly, the section listed as "Siege weapon map limit" listed near the bottom of the page.
    And within that section we can find this "5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius".

    That being said... I feel if you limit the sites to their specific type rather than just 5 of any kind. You will find less issues with that specific type in a given area or at least the area's they may be able to reach.
    - Example: Only 3 arrow cart "sites" can be placed within the radius of 1000 units", Only 3 Treb sites, Only 3 cata sites etc. You can even give each type of seige it's own value unique to its kind if need be.

    • This could and would help against griefing; maybe some trolling that can and does happen.
    • Just give the player a similar message to currently. When you try to place siege over the limit of 5. Within the radius of 1000 units. Except it will be unique to the siege limit of it's own kind. Not just 5 within any 1000 unit radius. To be clear, still have "5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius", but also include a limit unique to siege type.
    • Siege Blocked Message's could include "I think I have enough of those", "The Guards wouln't like that", "It will get in the way", "The Lords need it elsewhere" etc. The list goes on.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Tatori.7938Tatori.7938 Member ✭✭
    edited March 18, 2018

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    I feel the answer lies somewhere here -> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weapon
    More directly, the section listed as "Siege weapon map limit" listed near the bottom of the page.
    And within that section we can find this "5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius".

    That being said... I feel if you limit the sites to their specific type rather than just 5 of any kind. You will find less issues with that specific type in a given area or at least the area's they may be able to reach.
    - Example: Only 3 arrow cart "sites" can be placed within the radius of 1000 units", Only 3 Treb sites, Only 3 cata sites etc. You can even give each type of seige it's own value unique to its kind if need be.

    • This could and would help against griefing; maybe some trolling that can and does happen.
    • Just give the player a similar message to currently. When you try to place siege over the limit of 5. Within the radius of 1000 units. Except it will be unique to the siege limit of it's own kind. Not just 5 within any 1000 unit radius. To be clear, still have "5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius", but also include a limit unique to siege type.
    • Siege Blocked Message's could include "I think I have enough of those", "The Guards wouln't like that", "It will get in the way", "The Lords need it elsewhere" etc. The list goes on.

    Thank you for taking the time out to look through my suggestions and offer your own. I really think you're onto something with the radius of siege placement. That would definitely eradicate stacks of siege, while still keeping its primary use.

    @Crazy.6029 said:
    I have a 4th option. How about all siege expires 2 hours after building. No more refreshing. Gotta come out of the keeps and towers and get more supply. Would make roamers and havoc players more relevant and also no more sitting in T3 towers for days. Everyone gets to come out and fight if they wann keep the objective. I really like this option :)

    I like this suggestion as well. It puts more use to supply other than repairing and building even more siege.

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    Groups less than a zerg also exist. Groups simply trying to walk past something without getting hit by mortars, catas, trebs, also exist. I don't care how hard a keep is to take. I'm just really really tired of siege no matter what I'm doing or where I'm going.

    I'm glad I'm not the only one really tired of siege. If you're in a small group, you're hoping the location is empty or not too defended otherwise RIP.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:
    The number of people manning, creating and using seige so effectively that it can stop a 5-10 person group is incredibly small. These people are super dedicated to the playstyle you think should be marginalized with your suggestion.

    The number of people who understand good siege placement in the first place isn't as large as you think. Then you have to narrow those people down to those who are willing to run supply to a freshly flipped camp, are competent enough to handle a roamer or two , are willing to give up any reasonable level of reward from the game mode, and are good enough with the siege.
    Every server has a limited number of these people. there are maybe...10 per server? Some servers have less, some have more. There are a few others that do it without being able to deal with the roamers that tend to feast off them. I haven't seen a sever yet that has enough of these people to cover their EBG home presence and entire home BL at the same time.

    Odds are recently you've been playing against a server with a few of these people. I know my server has this past week. Crystal Desert plays a weak ground game, but they play a hell of a siege on their turf. But you want to take Hills on Maguuma's home BL? 7 people, no problems. Repeatedly. Crystal Desert sieges up better than Blackgate.

    Some servers play siege well. Some do not. It's a result of the people playing a hell of a hard game, that nets them very little reward.They aren't getting the ktrain wxp or karma. They aren't getting the champ bags from tower lords. They aren't getting the kills in the field that the zergs are. They are barely getting pips. They are doing it for the team. They are super talented and the only reward in their playstyle is stopping you.
    Frustrating to play against? Yep.
    But instead of worrying about this playstyle spreading, you should hope it does. There aren't many of these players out there and every winning team will need a few of them.
    If I were worried about being successful when the worlds system is destroyed, go recruit a few of these people for your alliance now. Because the devs aren't going to make any rule changes until after this. They will make "the big change", see how it shakes out and adjust accordingly.
    I promise you this time will be better spent recruiting and training talent, than it will looking for a rule change.

    Thank you for the long reply - this is actually super helpful advice, so thank you for all of this. I definitely agree that different servers have different strengths, and I am on a fighting server that hardly use siege. Maybe that's why I'm having issues with it. If it does spread, at least I'll learn it quick :)

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 18, 2018

    @Tatori.7938 said:

    @Whiteout.1975 said:
    I feel the answer lies somewhere here -> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weapon
    More directly, the section listed as "Siege weapon map limit" listed near the bottom of the page.
    And within that section we can find this "5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius".

    That being said... I feel if you limit the sites to their specific type rather than just 5 of any kind. You will find less issues with that specific type in a given area or at least the area's they may be able to reach.
    - Example: Only 3 arrow cart "sites" can be placed within the radius of 1000 units", Only 3 Treb sites, Only 3 cata sites etc. You can even give each type of seige it's own value unique to its kind if need be.

    • This could and would help against griefing; maybe some trolling that can and does happen.
    • Just give the player a similar message to currently. When you try to place siege over the limit of 5. Within the radius of 1000 units. Except it will be unique to the siege limit of it's own kind. Not just 5 within any 1000 unit radius. To be clear, still have "5 weapons (sites or completed weapons) can be set within any 1000 unit radius", but also include a limit unique to siege type.
    • Siege Blocked Message's could include "I think I have enough of those", "The Guards wouln't like that", "It will get in the way", "The Lords need it elsewhere" etc. The list goes on.

    Thank you for taking the time out to look through my suggestions and offer your own. I really think you're onto something with the radius of siege placement. That would definitely eradicate stacks of siege, while still keeping its primary use.

    Happy to try to help, my friend. Good forum post btw.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    How to defend tier 3 structures, lesson from the number one server.
    Please take note and pass it along the tiers.

    Another derailing post ^ - Anet
    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" - "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon." - "Woo!"
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WaH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    How to defend tier 3 structures, lesson from the number one server.
    Please take note and pass it along the tiers.

    Lol this is funny at first glance... (I was unaware of the class being held for this lesson :'( ). But then I notice the placement of orange swords, the number of BG players in the pic's vs what appears to be the Zerg if not Blob you are apart of. Then I ask myself... Maybe they were called somewhere else? Perhaps that day or time is where they aren't as active? I'm not sure... It's hard to say with what's given. But after making such observations in the pic's. I then see the true lesson... Don't sit on siege when a Zerg or Blob is next to it. Mind Blown to say the least. Who would have guessed? Sure, I will pass it along. :)

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Nah they were around, the bg zerg/blob was defending smc all day, we had to eventually break in the south gate after pretending for 20 mins not to be interested in smc. Mag has learned the lesson though, sieged filled smc... hooray....

    Another derailing post ^ - Anet
    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" - "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon." - "Woo!"
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WaH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Nah they were around, the bg zerg/blob was defending smc all day, we had to eventually break in the south gate after pretending for 20 mins not to be interested in smc. Mag has learned the lesson though, sieged filled smc... hooray....

    OK lol. I'll say it's definitely possible if it helps. But I agree the Siege can be extremely filling there and elsewhere. It's not just BG though. It's many servers, that will do it if they can. I used to be on FC before server merging was a thing and it was tier 8. Then moved to CD. Then ended up on BG. Long story short. I met many servers who do it (Mag included). Those I fight and have fought that do it. Point is, it's very apparent and has been across all tiers throughout time. Judging by your annoyance with it; believe me the feeling is mutual. Which is why I offered a solution that is honestly an extremely good starting point to say the least (at the top of this page).

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yeah every server does it, some more frequently than others, like took QL from SoS, leave for 6 mins come back and they had recapped and already had a few siege up. Another time went on that hill to kill catas to QL, by the time we were down around QL they had already rebuilt them. Like some people just have siege on the mind, some just sit on trebs all day shooting shots everywhere, I don't know how's that fun for anyone sitting up on some hill randomly shooting a cow. But yeah having just come back from tier three it's terrible in every tier, just looks bad to me though when servers with bigger populations rely so much on them.

    I really think ac's need a range reduction at the very least, sitting in smc inner and hitting outer walls with it is kinda dumb, very difficult getting counters up.

    Another derailing post ^ - Anet
    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" - "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon." - "Woo!"
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WaH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Yeah every server does it, some more frequently than others, like took QL from SoS, leave for 6 mins come back and they had recapped and already had a few siege up. Another time went on that hill to kill catas to QL, by the time we were down around QL they had already rebuilt them. Like some people just have siege on the mind, some just sit on trebs all day shooting shots everywhere, I don't know how's that fun for anyone sitting up on some hill randomly shooting a cow. But yeah having just come back from tier three it's terrible in every tier, just looks bad to me though when servers with bigger populations rely so much on them.

    I really think ac's need a range reduction at the very least, sitting in smc inner and hitting outer walls with it is kinda dumb, very difficult getting counters up.

    Yea I agree. I would also say especially since tactics and updates to siege itself have happened throughout time. It has just made it even more apparent then the past. Granted some updates were nice. There is just so much extra that can go on now a days in a tower and so forth.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • Sieges are fine as they are,90% of it doesnt matter because of the existing constant senarios.
    A:The assault commander has a spy pinpointing all siege locations,and with mesmers and ele spikes the walls are useless.
    B:The assault commander has the number advantage and the knowledge of when exactly the defenders have no one on.
    C:Attackers usually come in blobs,that hide under a gen till the walls go down.
    D:Its always a guild blob pushing big objectives,against randoms with no organisation because there is no opposition.

©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.