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

[Strider Pj.2193]

@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.

[Optimator.3589]

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.

[Buy Some Apples.6390]

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 serversthat 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.4906]

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 damageNot 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 siegeNot needed, been mostly the same for years, adding more costs add more incentive to zerg objectives.

[Sviel.7493]

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.8497]

@"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.

[Riba.3271]

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.

[Jonesy.9728]

"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.1540]

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.

[coro.3176]

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.9873]

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.

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

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.8521]

@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).

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

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 :)

[mindcircus.1506]

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.

[Sovereign.1093]

^give the tyrian a cigar

[Whiteout.1975]

I feel the answer lies somewhere here -> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weaponMore 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.

[Tatori.7938]

@"Whiteout.1975" said:I feel the answer lies somewhere here -> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Siege_weaponMore 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.1975]

@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.

[XenesisII.1540]

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

[Whiteout.1975]

@"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. :)

[XenesisII.1540]

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....

[Whiteout.1975]

@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).

[XenesisII.1540]

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.

[Whiteout.1975]

@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.