Siege weapons should require supply to operate

[DoomNexus.5324]

Probably a very unpopular opinion (I'm expecting a lot of "Confused"-reactions, don't disappoint me) but I think it would be more balanced and make much more sense if siege weapons (maybe with the exception of golems) would require additional supply for ammo/uses. I'm sure this idea has come up in the past but my search for related keywords is drowned with posts of this topic: Defend Achievements - Difficult Progression by current design and change

This could best be implemented with a charge system for example, so if you are operating a catapult you have to spend 1 supply to add 5 or 10 shots or whatever (it should also be possible to load the weapon for someone else).
Obviously it should not be too restrictive but enough to prevent attackers from being able to endlessly spam damage to walls until a bigger enemy zerg arrives and crushes them.
It would require zergs (on both sides) to either be more strategic with their use of resources and/or secure a steady stream of supplies to a keep/sm. And it would also make repairing walls much more effective again (something discussed in the topic linked above), as the attacker then have a somewhat fixed damage output for a certain period of time.

Supply spawns etc then needs to be adjusted obviously, as a lot more supply is being used but I'm sure this can be figured out.

It could potentially get a bit more difficult for attackers, but maybe not. Since, on the other hand, defenders would also be required to think more about whether to repair walls/gates or using arrow carts, cannons, etc. In general, both sides would need to be more thoughtful about their resources, which I think makes for more interesting gameplay.

[Ashen.2907]

Only if siege were made indestructible and/or cost no supply to create.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Ashen.2907

[Kalavier.1097]

It sounds great for those who already have leveled up a lot and have all those "supply cap increased" WvW level up rewards.

But for most players who don't? That's a huge drain. My supply cap is 22 with the t3 claimed keep for example. It costs at least 40 supply to build a catapult. So that's already two trips to a nearby friendly location if I'm alone. Then I'd need a third trip just to use it?

[blp.3489]

I agree that siege weapons like catapults and trebuchets should not have infinite ammunition, but you would need to really think through how that should be implemented so that it would only affect extreme cases.  Without doing that really hard thinking, the first thing that comes to mind is that using siege weapons would reduce their health by a small amount, small enough that it wouldn't interfere with normal operation but still couldn't be used indefinitely.  There would need to be a corresponding mechanism that allowed additional supply to be used to actively bring it back up to full health.  Perhaps siege could revert to build site status when its health got below a given threshold.  As you say, it would give repairing walls new value if repairs could result in siege weapons needing rebuilding.

In the big scheme of things, I think there are many many things that need addressing more urgently.

[misterman.1530]

Nah. This would be excrutiating.

My idea, ages ago, would be to make siege salvagable. So, once you are done with it, you can "salvage" it for some supply (depending on the siege's health bar).

Also, any server can use any crafted siege that has been left un-salvaged. So, if you get through an outer wall of SMC, and the defenders have left Trebs, ballis, ACs, etc. in the outer section of SMC, then the attacking force can use it. Once they take possession of the siege, it becomes theirs - that means now the defending force can damage what was once their siege or the attacking force can salvage that siege.

That would make siege maintenance critical: if you are about to have a wall breach, you had better salvage your siege :)

I think this deserves some beta testing at least.

[Kalavier.1097]

47 minutes ago, misterman.1530 said:

Nah. This would be excrutiating.

My idea, ages ago, would be to make siege salvagable. So, once you are done with it, you can "salvage" it for some supply (depending on the siege's health bar).

Also, any server can use any crafted siege that has been left un-salvaged. So, if you get through an outer wall of SMC, and the defenders have left Trebs, ballis, ACs, etc. in the outer section of SMC, then the attacking force can use it. Once they take possession of the siege, it becomes theirs - that means now the defending force can damage what was once their siege or the attacking force can salvage that siege.

That would make siege maintenance critical: if you are about to have a wall breach, you had better salvage your siege 🙂

I think this deserves some beta testing at least.

A channel to claim siege as your own (interrupts on hit).

Would also encourage people to not leave siege in certain areas like that one corner of the alpine keep/tower. Could do it where you get some supply and maybe the item back so you can redeploy it.

[misterman.1530]

17 minutes ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

A channel to claim siege as your own (interrupts on hit).

That's a great idea! Never even occurred to me.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, misterman.1530 said:

Nah. This would be excrutiating.

My idea, ages ago, would be to make siege salvagable. So, once you are done with it, you can "salvage" it for some supply (depending on the siege's health bar).

Also, any server can use any crafted siege that has been left un-salvaged. So, if you get through an outer wall of SMC, and the defenders have left Trebs, ballis, ACs, etc. in the outer section of SMC, then the attacking force can use it. Once they take possession of the siege, it becomes theirs - that means now the defending force can damage what was once their siege or the attacking force can salvage that siege.

That would make siege maintenance critical: if you are about to have a wall breach, you had better salvage your siege 🙂

I think this deserves some beta testing at least.

Add HP deterioration over time instead of the fixed 60m timer and you get "ammo" by proxy on top of that idea with no effort.

It would just mean that after siege have been built, it has a finite life ("ammo") and it would be more effective to manage siege ie salvage it and then only rebuild when needed, rather than dumping up infinity siege if people spend half a second getting in and out.

[TheGrimm.5624]

In the past you could rely on people refreshing siege, now a days building siege means as soon as log off or switch maps you can expect it to be gone before you get back to check on it. No if anything I might suggest changes to the decay timers that the lower end siege expires faster, superior is baseline and guild last longer since it requires more to craft.

 

[prototypedragon.1406]

I'd agree with it more if the old superior/ guild arrow carts damage was restored  from the old numbers coupled with the old utility of line of warding with sanctuary being actually useable coupled with knocking players off warclaws. 🤔

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Way to go, OP.  Your idea would put a third dagger into small group and roamer play.  ANet's rewards made WvW less friendly to those demographics for dagger one, and the elimination of repair as a means to get defend credit put dagger two.  Why not go for the Trifecta?

[DoomNexus.5324]

On 3/15/2023 at 10:03 AM, DoomNexus.5324 said:

Supply spawns etc then needs to be adjusted obviously, as a lot more supply is being used but I'm sure this can be figured out.

This statement was meant to cover everything supply related. It would make absolutely no sense implementing this change without also adjusting supply cap, siege supply costs, etc obviously - as many have pointed out.
 

16 hours ago, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

 the elimination of repair as a means to get defend credit put dagger two.

This change should of course be reverted then as its main motivation was (apparently) to avoid "wasting supply". If attackers are supply constrained too, any supply spent by defenders will automatically be more effective again.

 

On 3/15/2023 at 5:09 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Add HP deterioration over time instead of the fixed 60m timer and you get "ammo" by proxy on top of that idea with no effort.

That's actually a pretty good alternative. Especially when combined with some of the other ideas like salvaging and claiming ownership of sieges.

[ArchonWing.9480]

21 hours ago, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

Your idea would put a third dagger into small group and roamer play.

This is important because it's not enough to tell someone that an idea is bad. Why is it important? Because it doesn't seem that Anet takes small scale into account when it comes to attacking structures either. It would be absurd for small groups that have to have to run more supply constantly.

So you can't blame other people for not putting that into account too much; it's not really their fault as they probably only play in zergs.

This is the reason why many WvW suggestions are terrible.

Edited March 17, 2023 by ArchonWing.9480

[MedievalThings.5417]

This once again favors numbers and blobs.  Low population servers getting ktrained will basically never be able to use siege, even if they manage to build it.  Horrible idea.

[Saepio.7980]

Probably the worst idea I have ever heard. Nuff said.

 

[DoomNexus.5324]

On 3/17/2023 at 10:33 PM, ArchonWing.9480 said:

It would be absurd for small groups that have to have to run more supply constantly.

It's funny and sad because everybody immediately assumes that I would make this suggestion without any changes to anything else, which I very (but apparently not so..) clearly stated should not be the case.
Who said you'd have to run for more supplies? This change could every obviously only makes sense if the initial cost would stay the same. Siege weapons should require less to build and the rest of the supply should be sufficient for ammo to break down a wall/gate and then some to not immediately run out if there's one or two dudes repping with 20 supply.
It would however, make repairing in general much more effective again and Anet should also obviously revert the previous change which removed participation from repping. I think it only makes sense that if someone wastes the entire stock within a tower or keep you are not required to also put in a bit more effort as attacker.
 

On 3/17/2023 at 10:33 PM, ArchonWing.9480 said:

So you can't blame other people for not putting that into account too much; it's not really their fault as they probably only play in zergs.

Since PvP is practially unplayable now I probably spend 95% of my time in GW2 roaming in WvW, I'm a guildless thief so no zerg play for me..

[Riba.3271]

Zergs don't need to be strategic about supply since after HoT:

1) Siege weapons cost less supply

2) Players can carry more supply

3) Supply is more abundant

4) Siege weapons can take twice as much damage from other siege weapons

5) Shield gens exist blocking ALL other siege

6) Walls and gates have less hitpoints

 

Yes. All 6 things were changed with 1 expansion.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

I love spending 100g a week on Superior Catapults as a commander (you can go through 100+ a day easily). Siege isn't expensive enough already, let's make them useless to build if no one has supply leftover?

 

This would only work if basic siege were at least cheaper to build.

Edited March 31, 2023 by SoftFootpaws.9134

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Only if their damage increased to the point that they were an actual threat to a Zerg and cost no supply to build.

[aspirine.6852]

It's a good thing you dont work in the gaming industry OP. What a ludicrous idea.

[MedievalThings.5417]

The problem with siege is that it exists.  Anet wants people to fight (we know this isn't true, but they say this).

If Anet wants people to fight the solution is pretty simple.  Remove ALL siege except rams and oil.  Limit rams to 3 on a gate.  Make the only way into a structure the gate.  This prevents stacked servers from just trebbing everything from the safety of siege-capped SMC.  If you want to take something, walk your kitten to it and fight for it.

 

This just for starters.

[Xenesis.6389]

Sure, while we're at it let's make all bows in the game use arrow supply as well(ah memories of eq and wow), and considering ranger longbow already uses "reel phyzics" excuses for their long range and no line of sight, would actually make sense along with siege ammo supply.

 

6 hours ago, DoomNexus.5324 said:

It's funny and sad because everybody immediately assumes that I would make this suggestion without any changes to anything else, which I very (but apparently not so..) clearly stated should not be the case.

You stated additional supply for ammo/uses, supply spawn adjustments, but nothing about build cost adjustments. So for small groups it would be a greater burden on them to run additional supply to operate the siege after building it with normal cost.

In any case the whole process would just add more tediousness to the game mode, and big groups wouldn't need to manage much as usual, just bring more numbers if anything.