How is your enjoyment of WvW game play with Siege, and Destructible Objectives?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

This is specifically for the game mode's unique additions to Guild Wars 2, and not necessarily about PvP combat itself. Unless that combat is linked to advantages/disadvantages to WvW's game play elements. This is pretty broad, so feel free to explain.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

For my money WvW has always been primarily about organized forces taking and holding structures, often although not always by means of siege engines. The direct PvP element is important but should be subordinate to the territorial objectives although these days it's harder to make that case since competition between worlds is nearly meaningless.

The siege and structure element could certainly be improved. By and large I feel it was better before the auto-updates and all the bells and whistles that came with DBL but it's been the way it is so long it's hard to remember. It's not really the fault of the siege design and implementation, though, so much as the collapse of server pride through the compression of tiers, the one-up, one-down match results and the degradation of server pride through the link system.

I wouldn't say I was happy with how it is now but siege is the least of the problems. I'm far less happy with the way the neglect and mishandling of the game mode has driven out almost everyone other than pip farmers and people who just want to hug EBG and fight for the sake of fighting all day, although, as I say, who can really blame them when there's so little of meaning left to fight for?

[Titan.3472]

Well I miss portable canons blueprints... xD

[Klipso.8653]

we need a siege golem that shoots pre-built arrow carts

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Klipso.8653 said:we need a siege golem that shoots pre-built arrow carts

Un-built paper ballista (says this word is misspelled btw ANET) weren't the thing in WvW?

[Sovereign.1093]

i miss my port canons

[TwilightSoul.9048]

I love the larger objective strategic aspect of wvw and would actually like to see more focus on actually holding and supporting tower, keeps and the SMC. For example I'd love to see supply beeing used as a ressource that has an upkeep so that a higher tier tower will require more supply/time unit than a lower tier tower to maintain its current tier which would make not only make better organized zergs more important but also would make it more important for roamers to actually stop dolyaks and turn camps or defend camps. I personally love to roam in a small group with my guild but it doesn't really feel like we can achieve much even if we turn a tower or two because it just really isn't much effort and supply isn't as important as it should be.While at the same time I see many roamers just camping between camps to pick off other roamers that are more focused on taking objectives - which is fine of course but I think it would be healthier for WvW to promote objectives more, right now they do in a way defend objectives but they don't make much of a difference since those that are trying to get the small objectives will get them eventually since the roamers that are out for kills will usually not bother waiting in the same place for too long and will move on instead of defending a objective.

I'm sure many people will disagree with me though and I don't understand why those people play WvW and not sPvP.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

I'd rather they drastically reduce all siege in towers/keeps

T1 = Allowing only 1 piece of siege builtT2 = 2 pieces of siegeT3 = 3 pieces of siege

If the siege gets destroyed, too bad so sad, it can't be rebuilt, not unless you lose the structure and retake it. I can guarantee, NOBODY likes to fight under a rain of siege where the entire ground is littered in red circles, knockbacks from catapults, dead cows, and mortar fire. Even the biggest offenders themselves who turtle behind siege all day will not like to fight under such siege when they go take an objective.

We also can't use the argument "oh if we take away siege, the smaller group won't be able to defend". Newsflash, they won't be able to defend it regardless if they are up against a bigger group whom is bent on taking it. Even if a bigger group shows up to defend it, they'll lose the structure during the next assault.

This is why Anet needs a dramatic shift away from defensive siege all together. If anything, give the defenders inside the structure some sort of buff or tie the buffs to tactivators where if activated, the defenders receive some sort of temporary buff inside. Then remove banners, structural integrity, emergency WP, chilling fog, airship.. just remove all of it, turn it into temporary buffs.

WvW has shifted away from fights and taking objectives to more of turtling and avoiding conflict. I don't recall the last time anyone on my server even seriously attempted to take a T3 anything, not unless there was a golem rush involved. Of course when the idea of taking a T3 objective is brought up to the commander, it's met with "I have no interest in spending the next couple of hours bashing my head against a door under limitless siege fire".

[Klipso.8653]

@TwilightSoul.9048 said:For example I'd love to see supply beeing used as a ressource that has an upkeep so that a higher tier tower will require more supply/time unit than a lower tier tower to maintain its current tier which would make not only make better organized zergs more important but also would make it more important for roamers to actually stop dolyaks and turn camps or defend camps. I personally love to roam in a small group with my guild but it doesn't really feel like we can achieve much even if we turn a tower or two because it just really isn't much effort and supply isn't as important as it should be.

This is how supply used to work, they gutted that system in favor of the current passive upgrade system we have now. currently you can just take supply without consequence because its not used for anything. Beforehand you needed a specific amount of supply inside of the objective to buy upgrades (and once you purchased the upgrade, the supply would be consumed)

[ThunderPanda.1872]

@Klipso.8653 said:

@TwilightSoul.9048 said:For example I'd love to see supply beeing used as a ressource that has an upkeep so that a higher tier tower will require more supply/time unit than a lower tier tower to maintain its current tier which would make not only make better organized zergs more important but also would make it more important for roamers to actually stop dolyaks and turn camps or defend camps. I personally love to roam in a small group with my guild but it doesn't really feel like we can achieve much even if we turn a tower or two because it just really isn't much effort and supply isn't as important as it should be.

This is how supply used to work, they gutted that system in favor of the current passive upgrade system we have now. currently you can just take supply without consequence because its not used for anything. Beforehand you needed a specific amount of supply inside of the objective to buy upgrades (and once you purchased the upgrade, the supply would be consumed)

And this is the problem. Having many variety of sieges is not the problem, but having limitless supply is. Anet is taking features away from this game mode, and making the game easier..... but a lot more boring..

[Jinks.2057]

Where's the "I don't participate" option?

[ThomasC.1056]

I picked average as middle ground, because I feel it strongly depends on what you do with it...

For example, most defensive siege as very limited use because of walls = death traps. Attacking siege is a bit better.

Then, as lots of people pointed, beyond the siege question is the whole supply management issue, which would be a path to a far richer game mode. Though, as this path would lead away from "just fight", I bet lots of people would despise it...