Siege Revisions

[Chaba.5410]

@"Israel.7056" said:The 5v25 hypothetical is a useful red herring because it only tacitly concedes the larger arguments around siege being too strong while simultaneously attempting to refocus the discussion around a quasi impossible scenario which is supposed to make us feel sympathy for the defenders. Why don't we talk about 25v25? Or 40v40? Those are more realistic scenarios. We don't talk about those scenarios because everyone knows those outcomes from experience if the defenders decide to build a ton of defensive siege. You get a "long siege" and very few people actually enjoy those.

Yes, you are correct. The random hypothetical scenarios can be distracting. Offense/defense of structures needs to be balanced around the idea there are X number of defenders and Y number of attackers held in some ratio, like 2:1, where defense has an advantage that diminishes over some amount of time. So we should be talking about hypothetical scenarios asking what the amount of time and the ratio should be to have good balance. From there we can say, 'attackers should be able to take that objective in less time because their ratio is higher' and 'defenders should be able to hold off those attackers even longer because they have more'.

I've been critical of the time involved because of 1) player boredom as identified by Kiroshima above and 2) it doesn't align with a lot of guild 2-hour rally times. Tactivators have added a sort of 'reset' timer on the diminishing advantage which draws sieges out longer.

The other useful red herring is always something to the effect of "well have you tried attacking more than one place at once?" or "if you build enough rams really fast defensive siege isn't an issue and you can get to lords room without a serious fight." Both again tacitly concede the larger issue of defensive siege being too strong because the fundamental assertions are something like "the best way to deal with siege is to not deal with siege" but they attempt to redirect the conversation towards criticizing the attackers tactics as if attacking a structure head on with a zerg looking to fight something is just for morons who don't understand the game.

Hitting other locations on a map really is a population balance discussion, not the offense/defense balance of single structures. Yes, it is distracting.

But if the two best ways of taking stuff involve tactics that are designed to circumvent enemy defenses and avoid a fight then defensive siege is clearly too strong.

Thumbs up.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@"Israel.7056" said:The 5v25 hypothetical is a useful red herring because it only tacitly concedes the larger arguments around siege being too strong while simultaneously attempting to refocus the discussion around a quasi impossible scenario which is supposed to make us feel sympathy for the defenders. Why don't we talk about 25v25? Or 40v40? Those are more realistic scenarios. We don't talk about those scenarios because everyone knows those outcomes from experience if the defenders decide to build a ton of defensive siege. You get a "long siege" and very few people actually enjoy those.

The other useful red herring is always something to the effect of "well have you tried attacking more than one place at once?" or "if you build enough rams really fast defensive siege isn't an issue and you can get to lords room without a serious fight." Both again tacitly concede the larger issue of defensive siege being too strong because the fundamental assertions are something like "the best way to deal with siege is to not deal with siege" but they attempt to redirect the conversation towards criticizing the attackers tactics as if attacking a structure head on with a zerg looking to fight something is just for morons who don't understand the game. But if the two best ways of taking stuff involve tactics that are designed to circumvent enemy defenses and avoid a fight then defensive siege is clearly too strong.

I don't think anyone is sympathizing anyone. A dishonest argument is dishonest and that 5v25 is that kind of argument, trying to make false impression that siege is so overpowering that 5 can stop 25. A false impression is fallacy. A fallacy convince none, it doesn't help one's cause. I don't think spreading fuds is something welcomed anywhere.

If one want something to be reviewed, then one should present their issues not with some ridiculous claims but in clear concise manner. If one has issue with similar numbers hugging siege against similar numbers, then say so. Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

Changes to the sieges can affect the game mode greatly thus changes base on falsehood can be extremely damaging to teh game mode on long run.If I were to identify clear unfair advantage that defenders has, I would say is the claim buff since both attackers and defenders can build sieges while attackers cannot reproduce those stats boost, especially keep has double stats. Siege wise, again, I disagree, it is fine as it is.

[Chaba.5410]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"Israel.7056" said:The 5v25 hypothetical is a useful red herring because it only tacitly concedes the larger arguments around siege being too strong while simultaneously attempting to refocus the discussion around a quasi impossible scenario which is supposed to make us feel sympathy for the defenders. Why don't we talk about 25v25? Or 40v40? Those are more realistic scenarios. We don't talk about those scenarios because everyone knows those outcomes from experience if the defenders decide to build a ton of defensive siege. You get a "long siege" and very few people actually enjoy those.

The other useful red herring is always something to the effect of "well have you tried attacking more than one place at once?" or "if you build enough rams really fast defensive siege isn't an issue and you can get to lords room without a serious fight." Both again tacitly concede the larger issue of defensive siege being too strong because the fundamental assertions are something like "the best way to deal with siege is to not deal with siege" but they attempt to redirect the conversation towards criticizing the attackers tactics as if attacking a structure head on with a zerg looking to fight something is just for morons who don't understand the game. But if the two best ways of taking stuff involve tactics that are designed to

circumvent enemy defenses and avoid a fight

then defensive siege is clearly too strong.

I don't think anyone is sympathizing anyone. A dishonest argument is dishonest and that 5v25 is that kind of argument, trying to make false impression that siege is so overpowering that 5 can stop 25. A false impression is fallacy. A fallacy convince none, it doesn't help one's cause. I don't think spreading fuds is something welcomed anywhere.

@"Israel.7056" What he is saying is he needs video proof of 5 holding off stopping 25 otherwise it is "fud" and "hidden agendas". To that I answer that we need video proof of his claim that the 25 attackers are unskilled. He is just spreading "fud" about why a zerg of 25 didn't take a tower.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Oh joy, back and fourth bickering worth a few pages. I have never seen that appear on an ANET thread before! Promise...

[SkyShroud.2865]

And this is why it took so long for anet to finally start blowing up servers. It will take as long for people to realize other things.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

I would be for what someone else in another thread said that when you man siege you become one with siege (like golems) and you personally only take damage once the siege is dead or disabled. I think this would be a nice way to also lock the screen view to the siege, because with say ballistas you can make your toon closer to where you target something that you cannot target if you were directly where the siege is.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Israel.7056 said:The 5v25 hypothetical is a useful red herring because it only tacitly concedes the larger arguments around siege being too strong while simultaneously attempting to refocus the discussion around a quasi impossible scenario which is supposed to make us feel sympathy for the defenders. Why don't we talk about 25v25? Or 40v40? Those are more realistic scenarios. We don't talk about those scenarios because everyone knows those outcomes from experience if the defenders decide to build a ton of defensive siege. You get a "long siege" and very few people actually enjoy those.

Yes, you are correct. The random hypothetical scenarios can be distracting. Offense/defense of structures needs to be balanced around the idea there are X number of defenders and Y number of attackers held in some ratio, like 2:1, where defense has an advantage that diminishes over some amount of time. So we should be talking about hypothetical scenarios asking what the amount of time and the ratio should be to have good balance. From there we can say, 'attackers should be able to take that objective in less time because their ratio is higher' and 'defenders should be able to hold off those attackers even longer because they have more'.

I've been critical of the time involved because of 1) player boredom as identified by Kiroshima above and 2) it doesn't align with a lot of guild 2-hour rally times. Tactivators have added a sort of 'reset' timer on the diminishing advantage which draws sieges out longer.

The other useful red herring is always something to the effect of "well have you tried attacking more than one place at once?" or "if you build enough rams really fast defensive siege isn't an issue and you can get to lords room without a serious fight." Both again tacitly concede the larger issue of defensive siege being too strong because the fundamental assertions are something like "the best way to deal with siege is to not deal with siege" but they attempt to redirect the conversation towards criticizing the attackers tactics as if attacking a structure head on with a zerg looking to fight something is just for morons who don't understand the game.

Hitting other locations on a map really is a population balance discussion, not the offense/defense balance of single structures. Yes, it is distracting.

But if the two best ways of taking stuff involve tactics that are designed to

circumvent enemy defenses and avoid a fight

then defensive siege is clearly too strong.

Thumbs up.

@Chaba.5410 and @Israel.7056 we don't always agree and I am not certain seige needs to be changed a lot, but you both brought up good points that definately need addressing, which, as much as I don't like to admit it, means maybe seige needs some tweaks.

Where I feel some are being disingenuous is saying it's all about the fights.

When 40 are hiding in a tower or keep vs 40, then sure, the walls should be able to be dropped within 2-3 ticks (unless the attackers are incompetent and are PvDing but again, that's the irrational scenario.)

If 5 are defending a small area, then no more 2 ticks.

Large area: 5 defending vs a large force 1 tick or less.

The problem is, how do we find that 'balance'? @XenesisII.1540 noted that we shouldn't make seige impotent. (Not his words, but greatly paraphrased)

I think looking at seige damage to walls and gates should either be increased, OR the HPs of walls and gates decreased.

Shield gens have created challenges to being able to either hit poorly placed seige in defense, or negating wall/gate damage in attack. Not sure how to fix that.. Id like to see them removed, or make it so their cooldowns are longer and range is shorter.

A/Cs vs seige should be current damage, but vs players should be less,ORincrease ballista dmg vs seige and improve its line of sight options. Also, increase seige mastery to include unblockable shots on skill 1. Catas could still be placed out of range, but would be punished for being really close.

Min range on catas sounds great for the desert, but as was described visually by @XenesisII.1540 and @Chaba.5410 that doesn't work in a couple of specific examples.

Trebs? I think most people find them strategically useless. Up their damage. Like double. Each treb shot should hurt more that 3 cata shots. With the long charge time and all.

[Israel.7056]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

How much of a numbers advantage should attackers need?

How much of a crutch should siege be able to provide defenders?

[TheGrimm.5624]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:Would leave siege alone until after alliances are released since the alliance logic itself might change how people play and therefore how they use siege.

I get people want alliances to come

soon

, but how exactly is it going to change siege behavior? The only way I see it happening is changing the map or changing the siege. I can't make the connection with population changes (e.g. Alliances).

So enlighten me.

I could see population scrambling impacting how people deploy siege as different styles might get mixed together, for those outside of alliances, which could then alter how people deploy counter siege. Alliances won't impact siege use the same as a new map would, but have seen different servers use different tactics in regards to siege placement and who places it. I could see more specialized alliances being created and different siege tactics might be needed to counter their tactics. I like changes, but have seen the player base not react well to change and if both of these land at the same time could see one thing being blamed when in reality adjustments were needed to the other. Now on the other hand if we are that far out from alliances then that might change things up.

[Rezzet.3614]

can we get Portable siege Mortars , like the ones Engineer had before mortar kit ?

[Vardy.3592]

Arrow carts need their range and damage reducing. They are too powerful and can be placed in very safe places on most objectives. A player shouldn't be able to use the arrow cart from a position of high elevation outside the reach of player skills to counter it.

Whilst not siege, the invulnerable tactivator needs a revision. It lasts too long. Reduce it's duration to 30/45 seconds. Maybe even split it into two tactics for walls or doors, not both. This directly affects a push onto an objective and mostly causes it to fail.

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

@Rezzet.3614 said:can we get Portable siege Mortars , like the ones Engineer had before mortar kit ?

What for? 150 stacks of burning inside garri lord room?

People speak without thinking of consequences.

[SANCTUS.9604]

Please could it be possible for you to make the arrow carts with twice as much damage and with the whistling flame arrows that fear and burn, danke.

[Rezzet.3614]

@LINKAZZATORE.8135 said:

@Rezzet.3614 said:can we get Portable siege Mortars , like the ones Engineer had before mortar kit ?

What for? 150 stacks of burning inside garri lord room?

People speak without thinking of consequences.

eh note how i said like engi pre mortar kit

basically would be non pulsing damage arrow carts , could borrow engi's own mortar skills except 300 radius , weaker damage , bonus to siege , 5s field duration, 5th skill lobs an AoE knockback 40s cd instead of regular mortar's 5 knockdown bombs , so yeah basically low supply ACs hence portable

but yeah its stupid as ACs already do the job better , and cheap bought like 400 today :v

[vincentx.3180]

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:Hey everyone!

We're currently looking to make some siege revisions. We'd like your feedback! I know several posts have been made in the past, but we'd like to get the feedback in one thread for review.One note on our part: Siege should continue to be an important part of World vs. World. We don't want to make a change that would make siege useless.

So let us know your thoughts on the current state of siege and what you'd like to see differently!

I have only one major suggestion - Shield Gens need to be removed from the game.

Of course the major offensive servers and groups will complain but ... I think the whole point of shield generators has been abused. I believe originally as defenders we complained a lot about balance -- what do you do to counter a large offense from building 6 trebs or cats and decimating a wall in seconds - so defensively they were sort of an interesting idea. But I don't think the original point was to make them an offensive weapon which they have become - and rendered ALL other siege useless!!! And they do really only benefit the larger group - because they have the extra supply to build two or three Shield Gens and then build their trebs, cats, or rams and be totally protected since they can maintain a continuous bubble. Before they were introduced a few defenders could effectively keep a larger group at bay for critical minutes while forces gather, but now walls and gates melt with little recourse. Snarky players will say "just use disablers" -- well unless you have stealth that's easier said than done especially with all the condition rings players now throw up on the wall AND around the Shield Gens. IMO its really ruined defense to the point I don't even want to build siege anymore. So unless you get rid of them I don't see a point of discussing other siege changes.

Now there are a couple options that might work that I and other defenders have talked about other than total removal. One option would be making it so they can only be placed in your own control zone (BL and EB zone, also including Stonemist). That would preclude Shield Gens from being used offensively outside of your zone. The other option, which may be more palatable to die-hard Sheild Gens lovers, would require more work and that is a siege weapon that disables Shield Gens through their bubble. Since option 5 on treb is rarely used, maybe the good engineers at the Iron Citadel will come with an EMP device that on contact with a shield bubble -- disables that Shield generator for a period of time. Or it could be in the area around where the treb bomb lands within a certain radius. At least that would give the defenders a fighting chance. What do you think?

[Meerkat.7612]

Siege damage should be based on a servers war score to reduce population advantage. The winning server would have significantly reduced siege damage, second place would have moderately reduced siege damage, and the server with the lowest score would have no siege damage reduction. At least for defensive siege.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Israel.7056 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers.

How much of a numbers advantage should attackers need?

How much of a crutch should siege be able to provide defenders?

One need to look at entirety than one single perspective. AC for example has not been buffed since 2013, elsewhere team sustain has improved since than Furthermore, shield generator was introduced with capability to negate it. Plainly put, ac has become less effective over the years.

From classes balance perspective. Compare to past, it is not that easy to fight 1:2 ratio anymore, let alone say 1:3.

In this circumstance, it is quite easy to point finger at siege since it become decisive factor that affect the outcome for whoever holding it. However, again, one should not forget that siege damage (other than cata now scale with power) has not been buffed since 2013 while team sustains have improved since than. Thus, it is correct to say that siege itself is fairly balanced.

Again, as mentioned previously, if one really want to pinpoint a clear unfair advantage that defender has, that will be the stats boost from claim buff. These stats simply can means harder to kill while doing more damage. Siege itself is fairly balance and contradicting to many wishes, I believe treb need to be adjusted to scaled increasingly with power as well.

[TheBandit.7031]

The only thing that needs to be done to arrow carts is have them limited in an area. Like only a few in a certain radius or they have to be a certain distance from each other. The problem is having 10 arrow carts raining down on you, one or two is not really overpowered. I'd agree with nerfing the damage on the superiors too though.

[XenesisII.1540]

One need to look at entirety than one single perspective. AC for example has not been buffed since 2013, elsewhere team sustain has improved since than Furthermore, shield generator was introduced with capability to negate it. Plainly put, ac has become less effective over the years.

Shield generators are part of the problem that needs to be looked at, not increasing power of siege to counter that, that's the same dumb method they employ for balancing boons vs condition combat, always trying to one up the other side of the equation. That's why I suggested ballistas at least be able to penetrate those shields with mastery.

In this circumstance, it is quite easy to point finger at siege since it become decisive factor that affect the outcome for whoever holding it. However, again, one should not forget that siege damage (other than cata now scale with power) has not been buffed since 2013 while team sustains have improved since than. Thus, it is correct to say that siege itself is fairly balanced.

Again, as mentioned previously, if one really want to pinpoint a clear unfair advantage that defender has, that will be the stats boost from claim buff. These stats simply can means harder to kill while doing more damage. Siege itself is fairly balance and contradicting to many wishes, I believe treb need to be adjusted to scaled increasingly with power as well.

You say they haven't been buffed since 2013 and yet they did with stats boost you also pointed out, from HoT in presence of the keep, and guild auras, and bloodlust. Stat boosts which have highly benefited AC's since they use player stats to boost their power. I don't believe any siege should be using player stats but rather fixed stats like golems have, especially the ones that server the main purpose of knocking down walls/gates/counter siege.

Team sustain has been improved because combat has changed to vastly rely on boons and conditions since HoT and new 4 stat gear, but base health pools have not. AC damage to players should only be increased in order to match any increase in health pools, if that ever happens, and not because someone is running the shiny new 4 stat healing gear.

AC's are suppose to deny areas of players, not have you sit there killing an entire zerg with it which is what a ramp up in power to siege will begin to do on top of what stacking an area with them already accomplishes. Mara/zerk type stats can barely stand in ac fire as it is, if you start increasing the minimum level up to counter like minstrel tank type stats as an example, you're going to have a lot of dead players who won't even bother going in the damage fields anymore and just setup boring long range siege instead, which is usually the last option for many to use but will become the first option in breaking t3 structures. Not to mention if AC's become even more effective against players, more will start to use it in open fields, because why wouldn't you use that advantage? then even more open field engagements will become delayed/boring.

I don't think people still understand, you're not suppose to hold structures with just siege, it's a tool to delay until your side responds. Of course that has been difficult with players leaving the mode over the years and imbalances to population and coverage, maybe things will change with that with alliances which is why some are saying to hold off till then and see how that affects game play. The other problem has become less players are willing to jump maps to defend anything unless it's t2 or 3.

But in any case 5 people are not suppose to hold off 25 indefinitely, they are given many tools to help delay bigger groups, disablers, supply traps, fortified walls/gates, various tactics, siege. Smart placement and use also buys you time to counter first or second attacks. But the bigger group will eventually break your siege, drain your supplies, break in and take your structure, unless you have a force to counter them, if you can't muster up a counter force then you really can't expect to hold everything. It just shouldn't take 3 hours to do so, not when that's the entire play time for a lot of players.

• Reduce Arrow cart range, not damage.
• Give ballista shield penetration with mastery on reinforced shot.
• Increase shield generator supply cost, increase force dome duration and cooldown and reduce radius.
• Make cannons, oil, mortars more effective, add a shield like oil has, much shorter cooldown, these are still the easiest siege to destroy.
• Optional: Add an aura to siege to reduce power of siege around it so that players need to spread siege or they get less effective in damage when stacked in a close area. If they feel that's too effective then add a tier 3 tactic to null that effect, put it in the presence of the keep/watch tower passive slot.

Edit: One more thing, I think they should reduce the minimum range of mortar shots.

[dobbeh.7382]

Just buff all siege and kill this game mode already

[hunkamania.7561]

@High House Dobby.5316 said:Just buff all siege and kill this game mode already

Isn't that what they've been doing for years now?

[Salt Mode.3780]

Seige isnt even the main problem in WvW i dont understand why they are trying to address that....

[Aeolus.3615]

@"PH Law.4063" said:Seige isnt even the main problem in WvW i dont understand why they are trying to address that....

That's why they want to change it :astonished: :astonished: :astonished: :astonished: :astonished:

Work with siege to try to hide the things they cant fix/change. KEK!

Joking asside siege needs to better mechanics issue is that Anet want to add dumb and worse mechanics, like AOE target ground and power and turn will be automatically done, and that for start of changes it is a issue cause take the difficulty from using siege wich is fine how it works.Structures and map's design are more a issue in bad design then siege is.... wich i doubt Anet understand it why...

gw2 2018-2019.. do everything with a 1click.. soooon.

[blackgamma.1809]

i would change how splash damage works on siege. atm it promote weird gameplay that is aesthetically unpleasing. for example, using your own cata to hit the your own gate from the inside to do splash dmg to catas. or just doing . this problem also makes it confusing for new players

my suggestionreduce the size of the aoe of catas and trebs to the size of the projectile. (so vastly smaller) and if it hits something with that small aoe. like a wall/siege/player change the aoe splash damage back to its normal size

[Strider Pj.2193]

@blackgamma.1809 said:i would change how splash damage works on siege. atm it promote weird gameplay that is aesthetically unpleasing. for example, using your own cata to hit the your own gate from the inside to do splash dmg to catas. or just doing . this problem also makes it confusing for new players

my suggestionreduce the size of the aoe of catas and trebs to the size of the projectile. (so vastly smaller) and if it hits something with that small aoe. like a wall/siege/player change the aoe splash damage back to its normal size

Which, taking away the splash damage, continues to make shield gens more of an advantage which isn't needed. Splash damage is fine. If you are using cata at max range, it encourages people to leave the tower or keep to try to disable or take them out.