[Sugg.] A Week With No Superior or Guild Siege

[Mysteriax.6049]

It has been a long long time since there was just one tier of siege, but in the spirit of events like Golem Rush, Siege Repair Hammers and portable cannons, I'd like to try a week of just the regular tier of siege, temporarily locking out superior siege and guild siege.

I see the following potential effects:

• More siege will be placed. A zerg will need more rams or catapults to take down a gate.
• Supply will become more of a factor. Currently a zerg has more than enough supply in most cases. Having to build more siege will require more supply, thus making resupplying, camp control and supply lines more important.
• Siege will be easier to destroy by players.
• Siege versus players will be less effective. Oil and Cannons will retain their effectiveness, but throwing down arrowcarts and ballistae for player fighting purposes will not be as effective.
• Players will be motivated to battle each other directly rather than use siege.

Please let me know what you think below! Thanks everyone.

[Dawdler.8521]

You do realize that the game will grind to a complete halt once all objectives is T3?

GLHF trying to take T3 using normal siege. Defenders will repair faster than you can do damage and if they get a single ele in position for a meteorstorm, that siege is dead. With tierbased PPT, that weeks match is won on saturday morning. Just bunker in T3 and watch the enemy run around outside while you win.

Its an absolutely ridiculous idea unless unless you stipulate that all objectives are locked at T0 as well.

[Sovereign.1093]

would be ok if all is up to t2 only

[Blodeuyn.2751]

Regular ballistas still hurt like a bitch. ;)

[Offair.2563]

French and german servers would stop playing for that period of time.

[Mysteriax.6049]

@Dawdler.8521 said:You do realize that the game will grind to a complete halt once all objectives is T3?

GLHF trying to take T3 using normal siege. Defenders will repair faster than you can do damage and if they get a single ele in position for a meteorstorm, that siege is dead. With tierbased PPT, that weeks match is won on saturday morning. Just bunker in T3 and watch the enemy run around outside while you win.

Its an absolutely ridiculous idea unless unless you stipulate that all objectives are locked at T0 as well.

What do you think about @Sovereign.1093 's suggestion? Objectives would cap at T2 for the duration of the week.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Mysteriax.6049 said:It has been a long long time since there was just one tier of siege, but in the spirit of events like Golem Rush, Siege Repair Hammers and portable cannons, I'd like to try a week of just the regular tier of siege, temporarily locking out superior siege and guild siege.

I see the following potential effects:

• More siege will be placed. A zerg will need more rams or catapults to take down a gate.
• Supply will become more of a factor. Currently a zerg has more than enough supply in most cases. Having to build more siege will require more supply, thus making resupplying, camp control and supply lines more important.
• Siege will be easier to destroy by players.
• Siege versus players will be less effective. Oil and Cannons will retain their effectiveness, but throwing down arrowcarts and ballistae for player fighting purposes will not be as effective.
• Players will be motivated to battle each other directly rather than use siege.

Please let me know what you think below! Thanks everyone.

I theorize the effect is that siege game play will slow down, assuming nothing else you state changes. Which is something I cannot recommend doing as it would deter people from playing or have a negative experience like with Golem Rushes or Portable Cannons.

@Mysteriax.6049 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:You do realize that the game will grind to a complete halt once all objectives is T3?

GLHF trying to take T3 using normal siege. Defenders will repair faster than you can do damage and if they get a single ele in position for a meteorstorm, that siege is dead. With tierbased PPT, that weeks match is won on saturday morning. Just bunker in T3 and watch the enemy run around outside while you win.

Its an absolutely ridiculous idea unless unless you stipulate that all objectives are locked at T0 as well.

What do you think about @Sovereign.1093 's suggestion? Objectives would cap at T2 for the duration of the week.

I cannot really recommend capping the tiers in order to justify this event. If you are going to lower offensive capabilities (your event) along side the defensive capabilities (Locking Upgrade Tier) then why even do it in the first place? It would be as if little has changed. I suppose you could pvd better at the lower tiers.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

I would like to see ANet try a different experiment, perhaps as often as every week. At first, people will throw fits: no matter how bad everyone says WvW is, people always criticize any change. But after a while, I think we'd start to see some interesting trends:

• People would get some new perspective on things we take for granted: easy access to cheaper/stronger siege (in this case) or highly-defensible fortifications (in @Sovereign.1093's suggestion) and so on.
• It would shake things up: instead of running on autopilot, we'd have to start rethinking our default approach to strategies and tactics.
• We get used to the mechanics and so obsess about the things that do change more often (e.g. skill/trait balance). This would give us some new things to consider.
• This would feel like ANet is actively considering different ways to improve the core WvW experience.

Obviously, this isn't as important as figuring out ways to deal with population and evening out match ups. It's not as interesting as new maps (or improvements to the old ones). But it would make things feel a lot different.

And it might turn out that we end up preferring some of the tweaks once we see them in action.

In other words, the OP's idea is crazy enough that it just might work.(At least, if it's done in the context of lots and lots of temporary tweaks to mechanics.)

[Mysteriax.6049]

Perhaps if I explain what the goals of the event are, people can offer tweaks or suggestions to achieve that (rather than me just spitting out concepts).

I would like to make players attacking one another more important than using siege. As it stands, building superior arrowcarts and other siege is the go-to defense for both towers and large-scale open field fights (like SM). If siege in general has less health and less damage, attacking siege and assaulters directly will be more effective for defenders than using siege. But I understand that T3 is too strong for regular siege, which is why I suggest that gates on T3 objectives would remain reinforced rather than fortified for the duration of this event. (walls would still be fortified) This still gives players a chance to assault a T3 objective by attacking it head on.

[Bangan.5912]

@Blodeuyn.2751 said:Regular ballistas still hurt like a kitten. ;)

That's because superior/guild ballista's do the same damage but they just shoot faster.

[Artemis Thuras.8795]

It couldn't hurt to try it for a week.@Illconceived Was Na.9781has an interesting idea. Different experiments on a frequent basis. Perhaps some of the "experiments" could make it into a permanent rotation.

I wouldn't mind seeing some buffs/debuffs affecting players and/or lords too.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

@Dawdler.8521 said:You do realize that the game will grind to a complete halt once all objectives is T3?

GLHF trying to take T3 using normal siege. Defenders will repair faster than you can do damage and if they get a single ele in position for a meteorstorm, that siege is dead. With tierbased PPT, that weeks match is won on saturday morning. Just bunker in T3 and watch the enemy run around outside while you win.

Its an absolutely ridiculous idea unless unless you stipulate that all objectives are locked at T0 as well.

Treb from afar, pull them out of the tower, and they are finished. This is actually a great idea.

Or we could do it this way, structures are only allowed to have regular siege, but anything placed outside the structure does 10x the amount of damage to gates and walls. This is to ensure the structure is taken quickly.

[Dawdler.8521]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:

@"Dawdler.8521" said:You do realize that the game will grind to a complete halt once all objectives is T3?

GLHF trying to take T3 using normal siege. Defenders will repair faster than you can do damage and if they get a single ele in position for a meteorstorm, that siege is dead. With tierbased PPT, that weeks match is won on saturday morning. Just bunker in T3 and watch the enemy run around outside while you win.

Its an absolutely ridiculous idea unless unless you stipulate that all objectives are locked at T0 as well.

Treb from afar, pull them out of the tower, and they are finished. This is actually a great idea.

Or we could do it this way, structures are only allowed to have regular siege, but anything placed outside the structure does 10x the amount of damage to gates and walls. This is to ensure the structure is taken quickly.Treb? A normal treb against T3? Hahahahaha... seriously do people even siege outside of following zerg commanders that dump down 5+ sup rams/catas? It cost 100 supply to build one (ie an entire camp or at least 5 peeps) and you literally have to treb a keep wall continously for at least 30 minutes to get it down and that assumes zero defence. With say a single shield gen in defense, we're looking at maybe an hour of continous, non stop trebbing with perfect timing and/or luck. Heaven forbid you actually have to build

two

of those bastards because unless you are backed by your own full T3 keeps, you just drained half your camps while their keep supply will barely be affected by defense siege.

No, its not a great idea. Its the most boring idea I've ever heard of.

If you start to argue... well any other change than in OP... then its an entirerly different idea. Sure you could change damage. Or lock tiers as mentioned. Or nerf just doors. But its still a pointless idea. Its not whats needed. Aside from superior arrowcarts, siege is not strong compared to the early days of WvW because objective defenses has been buffed far more than what siege has been able to keep up with and thats even after Anet was forced to make it cheaper.

The key to battle and fights isnt to "draw people out" of objectives. Its to wreck them and fight inside. Thats WvW.

[Rayya.2591]

what about a week with no upgrades? claiming objectiveswould probably make me play gw2 again

[Titan.3472]

A week with no walls nor gates would be even better. ^^

[Decado.9304]

A week with condi's maxed out at 3 stacks

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Decado.9304 said:A week with condi's maxed out at 3 stacks

And no ferocity. :bleep_bloop:

[Offair.2563]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Decado.9304 said:A week with condi's maxed out at 3 stacks

And no ferocity. :bleep_bloop:

Condi builds don't use that anyway.

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

@Mysteriax.6049 said:It has been a long long time since there was just one tier of siege, but in the spirit of events like Golem Rush, Siege Repair Hammers and portable cannons, I'd like to try a week of just the regular tier of siege, temporarily locking out superior siege and guild siege.

I see the following potential effects:

• More siege will be placed. A zerg will need more rams or catapults to take down a gate.
• Supply will become more of a factor. Currently a zerg has more than enough supply in most cases. Having to build more siege will require more supply, thus making resupplying, camp control and supply lines more important.
• Siege will be easier to destroy by players.
• Siege versus players will be less effective. Oil and Cannons will retain their effectiveness, but throwing down arrowcarts and ballistae for player fighting purposes will not be as effective.
• Players will be motivated to battle each other directly rather than use siege.

Please let me know what you think below! Thanks everyone.

Sorry but imo that won't motivate anyone to do anything but leave. Superior and Guild siege is already all but useless against a huge zerg unless you have a LOT of it flying at once. Regular siege is already a total waste of time and yet people still seem to want to use it, either because they don't understand or don't care, not sure which.

A zerg can already put down a big amount of siege along with shields and negate almost all incoming counter siege fire. Making defensive siege even weaker would just destroy what little defense there is against the blobs. When you're one of a very few people trying to save a Keep or Tower from a zerg/blob then doing what you are suggesting is just telling us to go out and die to the blob or leave the structure and let them have it. Nope that's truly not a good idea imo.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Offair.2563 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Decado.9304 said:A week with condi's maxed out at 3 stacks

And no ferocity. :bleep_bloop:

Condi builds don't use that anyway.

I know. That was the point. I play power, (and thus would miss my ferocity) but if we are going a week with condis down to three stacks, then drop ferocity as well.

See how both perform.

[Malerian.8435]

I have seen some really stupid suggestions before. This one ranks among the worst I have seen for a bit. You do realize this would be really bad for WvW. Not sure what you are smoking or drinking.

[dzeRnumbrd.6129]

@Mysteriax.6049 said:It has been a long long time since there was just one tier of siege, but in the spirit of events like Golem Rush, Siege Repair Hammers and portable cannons, I'd like to try a week of just the regular tier of siege, temporarily locking out superior siege and guild siege.

That's a terrible idea.

WvW is about fights, not about taking objectives.

The reason we attack T3 objectives is to make groups that want to turtle inside their keep have to come out and fight us.

Making turtling even more OP is going to make WvW less fun, not more.

I think we should have a week where Siege Disablers are removed from the game.