Siege Revisions

[Chaba.5410]

Delete please.

[shiri.4257]

Also, coming from pvp mmorpgs, I find it hard to relate to what seems like casual mentality here. it isn't uncommon to spend 6 hours defending against persistent invaders. Likewise, the bandwagoning and stacking, I look down on them.

Gonna need more chicken rice for Chaba vs Skyshroud. This dude don't even raid 6 minutes much less 6 hours.

[Exatherion.3075]

The issue about siege combat are the items we can use. I don't wanna talk about numbers. You've your opinion what a siege engine should mathmatically do and I respect that.

A ram for example can be placed too far from that gate - although most of those items got wheels there is no way to actually move them.

Another great issue is that the Zerks are dominating the game. With a few people your the siege engines work perfectly. But a large zerk using 5 catapults cannot be countered by a few people with arrow carts and so on(or at least slowed down).

I'd like the mechanics to work more in the way of the Total War games. In GW2 the attacker(with the higher numbers) has always the advantage - the wall will go down if the people inside the structure won't counter attack by coming out. On the other side a full squad inside can only be countered by another full squad outside. These situations could use more dynamic.

The attacks often focus on "one point" in my opinion. This leads to the fact the history repeats itself daily. There are seldom surprises. We need to be able to surpise other and attack with more speed - so the game gets a whole new dynamic like PvE with the mounts(they're awesome!) We need a revolution like that in WvW. Lets say WvW mounts :P (Charr Motorcycle please!) ^^

All the golems siege engines etc. we have are awesome. But I'd like them to be more effective. By that I doesn't mean more damage. Make them in general more usefull. A golem for example for everyone could serve a purpose like more speed etc.

• We should be able to counter a 50 man squad with catapults. > Effective Area fields that deny the attacker the area on long range, so in return the attacker has to spread his assault and cannot attack one point only. If a large zerk would have to spread around a structure to prevent everyone from dying due to a single catapult or such inside it would be great fun.
• We need a situation where not only the number of people decides how effective a group can be in getting stuff. Games in the morning are fun - small groups make a difference. The best way to prevent spiral where a world has not enough players and loses is the following: Prevent large groups from getting big advantages, so people play in smaller groups. A 50 people Zerk running around following the Commander as one of the main selling points of the gamemode is not for everyone appealing. People like to socialize and play in smaller groups. If a smaller group is loosing the game has to give them a advantage(i.e. Charr Tanks if you want a idea :P ). The situation that a team cannot win because of the number of players is only frustrating. If a team is outnumbered buff them. They won't leave angrily but take the chance and play on the double.
• Give it yourself a try and ask yourself is it really fun for a casual player to be overrun be in a 20 player group by a group of 50 players. It's one of the main reasons most "PvE" players don't like WvW. You new server system is a step forward. But it cannot guarantee success in the terms of fixing unbalanced fights. As a Warhammer player I've to tell you the following: Think of it as points system - youve 20 players worth 20 points. Each player is worth one point. Then a group with 50 crushes you. Why not giving the smaller group access to equipment that makes them worth 50? The best should win, not only the largest group.
• Differentiate the ways how a structure can be accessed by the enemy. Why not ladders for example? You've to protect the ones climbing up and the players have to cover the whole area of the defenses on top a wall.
• Make your siege engine moveable if they have wheel ;) I use to joke about one of our WvW playing members in the guild, that he's playing with stuff that has wheels and can't move :P
• And last: Mounts, Bikes or simply anything you've in mind - it's certainly no fun running on foot though the whole map to regroup with your team and the commander jumps 1 minute before you arrive to another map. ^^ It's discouraging and sometimes ruins the day.

I hope that you think about my input. I view the problem from a different angle as strategy game player. For me it's unfair that a attack with 50ppl stacks and get's away with it. Imagine a full force assault spreading around the building instead of focussing on one point.(For example using ladders or trying to attack with 5 catapults from different angles.

n.b. those are my first thoughts on the topic. There are thousand of ways me and other people could make suggestions for you. Just ask us more questions in the Forum. I'm sure everyone will be happy to answer them. It shows that you care for our(the players) opinion. And I really appreciate that you ask for input.

Regards

[SkyShroud.2865]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph.

Why?

It is fair chance to get a keep, not absolute chance to get it. The larger numbers one have, the more tactics and strategies one can utilize while on the other hand, a static defense will still have the same limitation of building areas and supplies availability while tactics and strategies available being constrained with defending primary objective.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:I said the siege is fairly balance but you kept on ignoring that and trying to force a "number" answer out, perhaps to make me fall into a argument trap? If you want absolute numbers, maybe you need to make sure we have absolute same level of skill and numbers for either side as well which isn't the case for current wvw with all the stacking and badwagoning. If the great majority stop stacking and bandwagoning, maybe that will give me a better idea of this absolute numbers that you seek but for now, siege is fairly balanced.

What is an argument trap? You said that equal numbers defenders should win so I'm trying to figure out exactly how many more attackers than defenders there should be before the odds should go in the attacker's favor. 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1? How skewed in favor of defense do you think the game should be?

Let's assume for the sake of this hypothetical that both sides are equally skilled.

It won't be a linear graph like what people think it would be. It will be like a log graph. I would like to say from 13:25 gradually to 100:100. But, the game doesn't support 200 well or even 300 for three ways.

You seem to be forgetting time as a variable and focusing only on numbers of defenders and attackers.

Trying to put a bias factor on time is same as putting a unfair factor into formula. That is simply nothing more than someone acting like a god, decided the result before the battle even begin.

Also, coming from pvp mmorpgs, I find it hard to relate to what seems like casual mentality here. it isn't uncommon to spend 6 hours defending against persistent invaders. Likewise, the bandwagoning and stacking, I look down on them.

What is the long list of quotes? In the entertainment industry (comedy, movies, games, etc.)

Timing

is one of the universal elements that is shared. Idc if you're an animator,

Timing

is important. Idc if you're a game designer,

Timing

is important. It is also sometimes called

Pacing

. Choosing to ignore time only limits yourself. This is why I find it very hard to listen to player's "balance" suggestions. Usually the whole picture isn't view...

It really does go along with Garry Newman said oh so long ago. The

Link

.

"Players are useful at conveying a mood and a feeling," Newman said. "They're not game designers, their ideas generally involve making it so they can win at the game more.

! "Paying $20 for a game in early access gets you a copy of the game," Newman said, echoing the sentiment of another designer, The Long Dark's Raphael van Lierop from this year's GDC. "It doesn't buy you a chair at the head of the designers' table."!! "That said, players are awesome at finding and reporting bugs.​ Posting on Reddit asking for any bugs or annoyances fills your project management system up. Acting on those problems swiftly and decisively makes your game better and wins fans."!! But the long and the short of it, so to speak, is that Newman and his team are in charge of Rust. Players are encouraged to enjoy the ride.

That is a different context.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Trying to put a bias factor on time is same as putting a unfair factor into formula. That is simply nothing more than someone acting like a god, decided the result before the battle even begin.

What? There already is a time-factor involved. A long siege takes about 3 hours (roughly based on experience). Siege is an attrition game. You don't design attrition games without a time limit otherwise defenders would never win. You never seen the movie THX-1138 where 1138's pursuers eventually give up recapturing him because the time and effort (cost) involved in the pursuit exceeded their efficiency/worth calculation? This is why we are even having this discussion: has the time and effort to siege a T3 objective reached a point where the majority of the WvW playerbase has determined it exceeds their efficiency/worth calculation? Anecdotally the answer is yes due to the general sentiment on this forum. The actual evidence is in the number of upgraded objectives that get flipped and the activity levels between reset and the rest of the week, which proper data analysis would show.

Does it not occur to you that by wanting to reduce the so-called siege time, you are asking not for siege reductions or buff, but also nerfing to the defensive structure which means that a blob can likely break a defensive structure before anyone can respond? Do you want a siege warfare or simply cap it without effort?

A wall doesn't scale in HP according to how big you or enemy blob have, it don't make sense to do so anyway.

@Israel.7056 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:It is fair chance to get a keep, not absolute chance to get it. The larger numbers one have, the more tactics and strategies one can utilize while on the other hand, a static defense will still have the same limitation of building areas and supplies availability while tactics and strategies available being constrained with defending primary objective.

What is a "fair" chance to get a keep? 50/50? 70/30 in favor of defense?

How many attackers vs how many defenders before you think the attackers have a 50/50 chance? And how long can they reasonably expect to have to attack before they can get in and get a fight for gods sake?

No one wants to play a game for 6 hours just to get one or two fights when they can play other games and hop in and fight people right away. Most people have jobs and other irl commitments that make even 4 hrs a day a serious investment.

50% chance.

When you hit a defensive structure, you are not starting a fight, you are starting a siege warfare, you are trying to win a matchup. A fight which what people wanted is always a population balance issue than a siege warfare issue.

@Chaba.5410 said:Casual mentality? Really? Again you offer bad faith reasons rather than talking about mechanics intrinsic to the game. Sad. Six hours is well beyond the length of a timezone's primetime. At six hours you're "winning" due to coverage (and if this is uncommon that's a good example of how overtuned defense is). How about we talk about what happens when the majority of players are online, not the smaller population of players who overtime?

The 6 hours example is taken base on experience off a regional server. Furthermore, it doesn't take 3 hours to enter inner in this game. Lastly, this conversation is base on hypothesis of equal skill level and if defenders stupidly decided to stay in keep, defensive structure will break within an hour.

[Chaba.5410]

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:Does it not occur to you that by wanting to reduce the so-called siege time, you are asking not for siege reductions or buff, but also nerfing to the defensive structure which means that a blob can likely break a defensive structure before anyone can respond? Do you want a siege warfare or simply cap it without effort?

A wall doesn't scale in HP according to how big you or enemy blob have, it don't make sense to do so anyway.

:notlikethis:

Siege reductions/buffs affect siege time. If you didn't understand this concept, ask for clarification rather than setting up strawman arguments.

Here's the link for you again on what I am asking for: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/525271/#Comment_525271

[Israel.7056]

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:50% chance.

When you hit a defensive structure, you are not starting a fight, you are starting a siege warfare, you are trying to win a matchup. A fight which what people wanted is always a population balance issue than a siege warfare issue.

Ok so how do you square that with "Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers."

And maybe when you hit a structure you're not trying to start a fight but I almost always am except when I'm trying to k train. I don't really care about winning matchups I just like fighting other players.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:50% chance.

When you hit a defensive structure, you are not starting a fight, you are starting a siege warfare, you are trying to win a matchup. A fight which what people wanted is always a population balance issue than a siege warfare issue.

Ok so how do you square that with "Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers."

And maybe when you hit a structure you're not trying to start a fight but I almost always am except when I'm trying to k train. I don't really care about winning matchups I just like fighting other players.

@Israel.7056 said:

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:50% chance.

When you hit a defensive structure, you are not starting a fight, you are starting a siege warfare, you are trying to win a matchup. A fight which what people wanted is always a population balance issue than a siege warfare issue.

Ok so how do you square that with "Still, I don't think anyone with common sense will tell you that attackers should be able to conquer on equal numbers."

And maybe when you hit a structure you're not trying to start a fight but I almost always am except when I'm trying to k train. I don't really care about winning matchups I just like fighting other players.

I gave a upper cap of 100 which simply not attainable for this game while that statement is meant for current numbers, you need to read carefully. All along I know you are trying to find flaws in the arguments, but that wouldn't work.

Also, it just means that you are not playing the game the way the game is designed to. That's why there are so many problems, most are simply players created issues.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"SkyShroud.2865" said:Does it not occur to you that by wanting to reduce the so-called siege time, you are asking not for siege reductions or buff, but also nerfing to the defensive structure which means that a blob can likely break a defensive structure before anyone can respond? Do you want a siege warfare or simply cap it without effort?

A wall doesn't scale in HP according to how big you or enemy blob have, it don't make sense to do so anyway.

:notlikethis:

Siege reductions/buffs affect siege time. If you didn't understand this concept, ask for clarification rather than setting up strawman arguments.

Here's the link for you again on what I am asking for:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/525271/#Comment_525271

I have done reiterating things, maybe years down the road, you will understand what are being said.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Hey folks!

Thanks for all the feedback on this subject. The devs are reviewing and collating the feedback at this time, so I'll close this for now.