Siege Disabler Change

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

Lol at all the replies. I can make bad faith arguments too:

If you cant defend an objective without disablers then you dont deserve to keep it.

If your team cant respond in time with mounts or EWP then you are basically afk.

If your team cant scout a blob that is running straight towards one of your keeps/towers then you arent even trying to defend.

If you cant even time a disabler between proj defence or have 1 person stealth up and use it point blank then you probably are going to lose whatever fight comes next anyways.

If you cant defend with siege protected behind walls then you dont deserve to hold objectives.

Disablers just carry pvd players who dont know how to fight. Just go hit the siege with like 2 other people or from range and its permanently destroyed.

 

[CutesySylveon.8290]

1 hour ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

Lol at all the replies. I can make bad faith arguments too:

If you cant defend an objective without disablers then you dont deserve to keep it.

If your team cant respond in time with mounts or EWP then you are basically afk.

If your team cant scout a blob that is running straight towards one of your keeps/towers then you arent even trying to defend.

If you cant even time a disabler between proj defence or have 1 person stealth up and use it point blank then you probably are going to lose whatever fight comes next anyways.

If you cant defend with siege protected behind walls then you dont deserve to hold objectives.

Disablers just carry pvd players who dont know how to fight. Just go hit the siege with like 2 other people or from range and its permanently destroyed.

 

I gave you a good faith argument. 

Bubbles from Shield Gens stop all ranged attacks, including Arrow Carts.  What do we do in that situation?

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

1 hour ago, CutesySylveon.8290 said:

I gave you a good faith argument. 

Bubbles from Shield Gens stop all ranged attacks, including Arrow Carts.  What do we do in that situation?

If you need a disabler to deal with shield gens then thats a skill issue.

[XenesisII.1540]

🙄

It's usually a numbers issue. 😒

[ArchonWing.9480]

5 hours ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

Lol at all the replies. I can make bad faith arguments too:

If you cant defend an objective without disablers then you dont deserve to keep it.

If your team cant respond in time with mounts or EWP then you are basically afk.

If your team cant scout a blob that is running straight towards one of your keeps/towers then you arent even trying to defend.

If you cant even time a disabler between proj defence or have 1 person stealth up and use it point blank then you probably are going to lose whatever fight comes next anyways.

If you cant defend with siege protected behind walls then you dont deserve to hold objectives.

Disablers just carry pvd players who dont know how to fight. Just go hit the siege with like 2 other people or from range and its permanently destroyed.

 

All these except for the last are correct to some degree though. It's just bad faith because you have no intention of backing any of them up and just rapid  firing them in the hopes something looks right. And like most rangers, you're doing a poor job of hitting your mark.

Though I think map wide strategical failures are a bit more complex than a few simple tactical errors of a few keypresses but hey who cares about nuance here?

The last one is factually incorrect. We've already established players that do know how to fight don't have a problem with disablers because they have proper knowledge of skills. Also why would players that only pvd need disablers? Without ennemy players, siege doesn't fire itself. At least fact check your strawmans. 🤣

It seems like you think "git gud" is a bad faith argument. In that case I'd rather have not any faith because I prefer games that require interaction and require people to accept the consequences of their decisions.

Edited March 28 by ArchonWing.9480

[TheGrimm.5624]

14 hours ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

Lol at all the replies. I can make bad faith arguments too:

Oh hai! 

Bad faith arguments? So what was your best attempt to defend with less than more if we might ask?

14 hours ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

If you cant defend an objective without disablers then you dont deserve to keep it.

Where did anyone say that it was an option to defend? It's been said as a delay, these are not the same.

14 hours ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

If your team cant respond in time with mounts or EWP then you are basically afk.

How do expect T0 or T1 objective's to have a EWP?

14 hours ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

If your team cant scout a blob that is running straight towards one of your keeps/towers then you arent even trying to defend.

So you are blaming the scouts here? How is this a factor in the difference in disabler versus disruptor?

14 hours ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

If you cant even time a disabler between proj defence or have 1 person stealth up and use it point blank then you probably are going to lose whatever fight comes next anyways.

If you cant defend with siege protected behind walls then you dont deserve to hold objectives.

Disablers just carry pvd players who dont know how to fight. Just go hit the siege with like 2 other people or from range and its permanently destroyed.

 

Disruptors don't care if you land them or not for attackers, what are you talking about here? There are no disablers. 

[Thea Cherry.6327]

On 3/20/2024 at 2:42 PM, CutesySylveon.8290 said:

Please, for the love of all that is holy, revert this change. It was already near impossible to get a disable off on groups chaining bubbles, but now it's not even an option anymore? Now I have to just sit and watch the shield generators keep bubbles on their siege forever with enemies not even bothering to protect the Gens? Doing extra damage to siege doesn't matter if they're being protected by bubbles that give stability and block everything including Arrow Carts.

You already got rid of structure invuln, now without disables, how am I supposed to give my server a chance to respond to a blob showing up to anything that doesn't have 2 walls to get through? Please, revert this change; nobody asked for it. 

That happens if you put a fight player in a dev position. Nerfing everything that was stopping them to cap something is a clear sign of the dev team who don't know what they are doing.

[XenesisII.1540]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:42 AM, CutesySylveon.8290 said:

how am I supposed to give my server a chance to respond to a blob showing up to anything that doesn't have 2 walls to get through?

You're expected to use ewp to make sure the defenders are on time and waiting for that "fite" guild when they break in, nothing else matters anymore. 🤭

Go ahead anet, take the gates out since you only want lord fights, your gvg devs have done enough damage to the game mode, go for the deathblow.

[Knighthonor.4061]

Lord Joko going to get you.  Yall better pray 🙏 🤲 

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

All you need to do is looks through the lens of an Anet wvw participant.  They blob on structures.  All changes are made to make that task easier.   

 

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

You're expected to use ewp to make sure the defenders are on time and waiting for that "fite" guild when they break in, nothing else matters anymore. 🤭

Go ahead anet, take the gates out since you only want lord fights, your gvg devs have done enough damage to the game mode, go for the deathblow.

I thought you were supposed to time the EWP to kill as many of your server mates as possible.

Whoops, that's not what they trying to do?

Edited March 29 by ArchonWing.9480

[XenesisII.1540]

5 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I thought you were supposed to time the EWP to kill as many of your server mates as possible.

Whoops, that's not what they trying to do?

I'm just stating what's suppose to happen in theory, not what the actual dark reality is. 🤭

[ArchonWing.9480]

6 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

I'm just stating what's suppose to happen in theory, not what the actual dark reality is. 🤭

Oh sorry, we've been discussing too many caricatures of WvW lately.

What with keeps taken by unstoppable boon golems led by 50 squad no-firebrand no vindicator squads with like only 100 supply.

Edited March 29 by ArchonWing.9480

[CutesySylveon.8290]

On 3/28/2024 at 2:38 PM, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

If you need a disabler to deal with shield gens then thats a skill issue.

Now who's being bad faith? Shield Gens pulse stability and are often protected by Ventari bubbles, and by trying to deal with them, the main siege is still busting through the walls. They're a huge problem that nobody wants to talk about, and disables at least helped against them.

[Gehenna.3625]

On 3/28/2024 at 4:36 PM, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

Lol at all the replies. I can make bad faith arguments too:

If you cant defend an objective without disablers then you dont deserve to keep it.

If your team cant respond in time with mounts or EWP then you are basically afk.

If your team cant scout a blob that is running straight towards one of your keeps/towers then you arent even trying to defend.

If you cant even time a disabler between proj defence or have 1 person stealth up and use it point blank then you probably are going to lose whatever fight comes next anyways.

If you cant defend with siege protected behind walls then you dont deserve to hold objectives.

Disablers just carry pvd players who dont know how to fight. Just go hit the siege with like 2 other people or from range and its permanently destroyed.

 

Sure, both sides can argue their points but Anet always seems to decide in favor of the attackers. So why is that? Do they really need all the help they can get because people who attack objectives are speshiul? I don't get it.

Recently they gave rams a ridiculous amount of health, then they nerfed the tactivator Invulnerable Fortifications to Siege Dampener and now they changed Siege Disabler to Siege Disruptor. Oh and Anet made sure that objectives hold fewer supplies so defenders can't repair as much as before so after 1 attack the keeps/towers are drained. I mean, what's next? Let attackers take down walls and gates with one siege hit? I mean how much more help do the attackers need in order for them to take down these walls? 

Do people who attack objectives suck that much that they need all of this?

[Lucy.3728]

I like the new disabler. In defence as in offence.
I didn't like the old one, it was just a sitting around and waiting thing before.

As defender I like that I can use the siege (e.g. oil) even when "disabled". Had my fun with said oil. I also "disabled" golems and they actually left the gate, either they didn't know yet they can still attack or they don't want the dmg increase from the arrow carts.

As attacker I like that I can still use the siege even when it does about that same dmg as any warclaw (on a gate). Better than sitting around and waiting or building another siege. Other skills like iron thingy and shield bubble still work normally.

[ArchonWing.9480]

20 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Sure, both sides can argue their points but Anet always seems to decide in favor of the attackers. So why is that? Do they really need all the help they can get because people who attack objectives are speshiul? I don't get it.

I do get it. The devs practically never defend themselves and do not understand how the early stages of defense work. They may be present when the big group arrives in the last part.

Actually I did remember one. In fact they were in my guild.  Coincidentally it was the one involved in the "GvG violation"* incident; they were acutally pretty helpful and showed me how to run around the enemy zerg back when I was new and didn't know better.

The real truth, contrary to popular belief, is that the above incident happened because of a misunderstanding rather than actual malice though it was probably true that they should have understood the nature of GvGs. What people do forget is that the O sanctum Arena was created as a response to them, but I suppose it's more popular to meme Anet bad.

There was also another Anet employee I interacted with that played the game that also actively played the game mode. They were in a decent fight guild which is a far cry from the typical ones today and noted pretty much they have to pay for everything themselves, including guild siege which was pretty funny to talk about. They were not a dev though.

Of course these tend to be exceptions to the rule. And of course, just because they do have a tag does not mean they are a dev. They may just work here.

Edited March 30 by ArchonWing.9480

[Gehenna.3625]

12 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I do get it. The devs practically never defend themselves and do not understand how the early stages of defense work. They may be present when the big group arrives in the last part.

That actually makes sense. If they never defend objectives themselves and only participate in zergs/boonballs that means they are only concerned with attacking and zergs/boonballs. That's really disheartening for me to hear.

For me, as a scout, I really enjoy scouting around, recapping supply camps and building siege and figuring out the best places to put siege etc. That part has been completely destroyed now that they just nerfed the defensive options into the ground recently.

It's a good thing I decided to take a break. It's become more frustrating than fun for me because defending is my main interest in WvW. It might end up being a much longer break than I anticipated.

[Lucy.3728]

A suggestion for an adjustment: The cost for the "disabler" should be halved (from 10 to 5 supps) and the outgoing dmg penalty should be reduced.

Right now it's 66% less dmg, 33% should be fine too.
The other side still has the bonus of doing 66% more damage to the siege (and halved costs).

Edited March 31 by Lucy.3728

[SweetPotato.7456]

I thought they wanted the objective to be open up faster when they change invulnerable to dampener , "dampener always makes me laugh, I don't know why, but it reminds me of that episode where Ross's colleague keep stealing his sandwiches, and than he talks about that moist layer of bread, yes dampener makes me thinks of that moist bread layer" Anyway, 

 

siege disruptor makes me feel like we are back to SQUARE ONE. ... why go thru all the trouble ?? doesn't this just makes thing back to how they were before dampener? LOL DAMPENER lol

[CutesySylveon.8290]

16 hours ago, Lucy.3728 said:

As defender I like that I can use the siege (e.g. oil) even when "disabled". Had my fun with said oil.

Nice story, bro. I'm sure that totally happened. 

Oil doesn't get disabled because you just die when using it until it gets destroyed, and you can't even disable defensive siege unless it was placed outside or so close to a ledge that it gets destroyed by ranged attacks anyway. 

[Lucy.3728]

16 minutes ago, CutesySylveon.8290 said:

Nice story, bro. I'm sure that totally happened. 

Oil doesn't get disabled because you just die when using it until it gets destroyed, and you can't even disable defensive siege unless it was placed outside or so close to a ledge that it gets destroyed by ranged attacks anyway. 

I'm safe in the oil, while in the oil. Once the oil gets destroying I just pop from the dmg.

Oil does get disabled plenty.

You can disable any siege and ofc it does have to be in throwing range. You can disable rams from inside, through the closed gate if they placed them close to the gate.
You could disable canons too if you wanted (now that's really uncommon, unlike disabling oil)

[ArchonWing.9480]

8 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

That actually makes sense. If they never defend objectives themselves and only participate in zergs/boonballs that means they are only concerned with attacking and zergs/boonballs. That's really disheartening for me to hear.

For me, as a scout, I really enjoy scouting around, recapping supply camps and building siege and figuring out the best places to put siege etc. That part has been completely destroyed now that they just nerfed the defensive options into the ground recently.

It's a good thing I decided to take a break. It's become more frustrating than fun for me because defending is my main interest in WvW. It might end up being a much longer break than I anticipated.

Well to clarify, the changes seem to assume you have your own group to deal damage to the siege, and that's why I brought up the devs being in  a zerg that would come do that.

Of course the concept of stalling has much to do with the PPT system, where delaying caps for a tick had some point to it, but we know this kind of stuff is heavily depreciated in the current version of how things are played.

In the current narrative that they seem to have the ear of, only large fight groups matter. Now, in your typical matchups, undefended maps are actually pretty unfun to play in because of no waypoints and little time to respond to enemies attacking things because everything is paper. Unless someone only plays on stacked servers.

So honestly this all reeks of laziness. And of all the words to describe the problems with balance in this game, that's probably the best word. They always balance the game in a manner to make it easier for themselves, and of course kick the can later down the road. It's only players that suffer, so who really cares?

Part of me suspects that GW3 will probably not have WvW or any competiitve mode at all; but then again competitve modes in MMO were kind of difficult to push in the first place.

But then again, I don't really think GW3 will be anything worth talking about, if things go on as they are, even if it comes to pve.

Edited March 31 by ArchonWing.9480

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Well to clarify, the changes seem to assume you have your own group to deal damage to the siege, and that's why I brought up the devs being in  a zerg that would come do that.

Of course the concept of stalling has much to do with the PPT system, where delaying caps for a tick had some point to it, but we know this kind of stuff is heavily depreciated in the current version of how things are played.

I think that WvW started with a concept that now has been abandoned instead of repairing it. Maybe it was right to go with the flow, I dunno, but all I can say is that making it near impossible to defend an objective successfully makes it not fun for people like me. In a sense objectives are merely reasons to have a fight and they themselves are no longer important. I see many groups/guilds talk about not caring about the war score and such as it is. 

1 hour ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

In the current narrative that they seem to have the ear of, only large fight groups matter. Now, in your typical matchups, undefended maps are actually pretty unfun to play in because of no waypoints and little time to respond to enemies attacking things because everything is paper. Unless someone only plays on stacked servers.

This is the issue and it's why some servers or groups actually take pity on the defenders and cap everything except the garri so at least defenders stay on the map. All in all, some of us starting leaving the maps or WvW when a boonball was rampaging around the home map and us as defenders can't really put up any sort of defence. And now even more because of the nerfs on defensive play. 

1 hour ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

So honestly this all reeks of laziness. And of all the words to describe the problems with balance in this game, that's probably the best word. They always balance the game in a manner to make it easier for themselves, and of course kick the can later down the road. It's only players that suffer, so who really cares?

I guess it's a matter of laziness indeed. [Edit: Not sure if laziness is the correct term. I think it's "easier = cost-effective = more stuff gets done" that's in play here] They'd rather just spend time on what the majority wants and ignore the rest because it's easier than actually taking other player groups into account. It's also why the map exploits are around for ages because the boonball/zergs don't actually care whether or not they are there. Stuff is starting to make sense to me now.

1 hour ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Part of me suspects that GW3 will probably not have WvW or any competiitve mode at all; but then again competitve modes in MMO were kind of difficult to push in the first place.

But then again, I don't really think GW3 will be anything worth talking about, if things go on as they are, even if it comes to pve.

Hard to say. GW3 has just been put on our radar and I think that competitive modes are part of MMOs a lot because otherwise they won't attract the players who like that. They might have some ideas about how to do things differently though. Mind you, I never understood why they didn't copy more of GW1 in that respect. Competitive modes were many and most of them were popular and the GvG (with spectator mode) was exciting.

Maybe they'll do a form of WvW in GW3 that is about individual matches. So let's say that a skirmish is 2 hours at most (unless the enemy is utterly destroyed) and so you can join a match in progress but once the skirmish is done then that's it. Then you can start a new match-up. Kinda like a sign-up system and if a minimum amount of players is achieved on both sides it begins. Just thinking out loud here.

I think that implementing this in GW2 would not make sense, so it would have to be in GW3. This is all assuming that GW3 will come out eventually.

 

Edited March 31 by Gehenna.3625
Added notes

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 3/31/2024 at 6:00 AM, Lucy.3728 said:

A suggestion for an adjustment: The cost for the "disabler" should be halved (from 10 to 5 supps) and the outgoing dmg penalty should be reduced.

Right now it's 66% less dmg, 33% should be fine too.
The other side still has the bonus of doing 66% more damage to the siege (and halved costs).

I wouldn't do this. Think instead just remove it and replace it with something else. Reducing the cost might encourage more players to waste supply on it that might be better used else where if you aren't attacking an objective. Its quite useful when attacking to use it on oil and cannon to burn them down faster so the cost is fine as is.