Siege Revisions

[cobbah.3102]

@Israel.7056 said:Here is what I would like to see:

1.) Remove all siege except rams and catas and arrow carts. Make catas only do damage to walls. Make ACs only do damage to siege. Game instantly becomes more fighting oriented instead of sit on a wall and build siege oriented.

2.) Let players do normal damage to gates and walls so it's possible for a large group to plow through without having to build a bunch of siege.

3.) No more auto upgrades, go back to making people pay for them if they really want them.

These three changes by themselves would speed up the game so much and force these siege monkeys to actually get off a wall and fight if they really want to protect their objectives. They will lose a lot because most of them have spent way way too much time afking on trebs but over time they will remember the glory of combat.

Hmmm sounds like a blob server request go figure

[Norbe.7630]

@"i dunno what i'm talking about guy" said: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.

:#

[morrolan.9608]

My reaction is please finish alliances as a priority before making other changes.

Having said that in answer to the query, nerf ACs. Siege should primarily be about be obtaining access to objectives not killing other players. Someone else has suggested restricting the number of players an AC hits like most aoes in the game this is a good suggestion..

[Buy Some Apples.6390]

Reduce AC power!

Even since the +80% buff you gave them, many servers went from fighting to building a dozen or more AC in a tower to protect it!There it no skill or fun in that, same issue with the condi cancer, you need to get rid of that as well asap!

If not, then I would change the range of ACs, make them long range only say 1000-2000 range, this way they cannot hit anything from 0-1000 range; for that some other siege can be used.

Canons and Oil need looking at, you couldnt use them for more than a single shot before, and now with the condi cancer you are lucky to get one shot off before you die to the cancer of shades and aoe!

Hmm sound to me like getting rid of the condi cancer should be a bigger priority than looking at siege..... :/

[aspirine.6852]

@morrolan.9608 said:My reaction is please finish alliances as a priority before making other changes.

Having said that in answer to the query, nerf ACs. Siege should primarily be about be obtaining access to objectives not killing other players. Someone else has suggested restricting the number of players an AC hits like most aoes in the game this is a good suggestion..

Nope, siege is also there for defence and slowing the blob a bit for reinforcements to arrive. If they are not strong enough you can literally take any keep on the map without problems if your blob is big enough. I assume that this is the case on your server.

[muerte.3842]

So my changes revolve around countering shield bubbles as at present if rotated correctly shield bubbles can prevent the attackers from damaging structures giving time to the enemy to get there and defend

I propose that some skills on siege can stil damage shield gens and siege even when bubbles are present.

Siege Mastery Rank IndicatorAll siege now comes with a siege mastery rank indicator that allows you to siege what mastery rank the person on the siege has. If you have a higher level than the person that is on the siege, by pressing "F" you can take over it.

TrebsSkill 5 - Replaces the current healing skill with a new skill that causes 10% damage to Shield Gens and siege (even when bubble is covering it)Treb range reduced to 8000? from 10,000 to prevent teams from sitting in keeps and towers and hitting places such as SM

Arrow CartsTarget cap is now 10 and not 50Skill 1 - "Fire Arrow" - Recharge time now 5 secondsSkill 5 - "Burning Arrows" - This causes damage to "Penthouse" (see Flame Rams) - 5% damage per hit with 15 second cooldown, deals less damage to people

Flame RamsSkill 5 - "Penthouse" - This is a bubble that covers a small area over the ram and to players that reduces AC damage to 0 until broken from the new Arrow Cart skill 5 "Burning Arrows"

Ballista

Skill 5 - "Penetrate Bubble" - This new skill causes 10% damage to shield gens or siege even if covered by a bubble - 15 seconds cooldown

Catapult

Skill 4 - Replaced with "Load Flame Boulders" - Less damage to siege but causes 20% damage to "Penthouse" (see Flame Rams)

Alpha Siege Golem

"Whirling Assault" is replaced with a new skill which gives 5 seconds of Swiftness (10 seconds CD)

Shield Gen

Can now take damage from balistas new skill "Penetrate Bubble"

Cannons

Skill 3 - "Fire Burning Shot" - This new skill can cause damage to "Penthouse" - 5% damage per hit - 10 seconds cooldownSkill 4 - "Fire Penetrating Shot" - This new skill causes damage to shield gens or siege even if bubble is covering it - 20% damage per hit - 15 seconds cooldownSkill 5 - This skill now provides 3 seconds on stability and 3 seconds of resistence (uncorruptable) to users of the Cannon (10 second cooldown)

Mortar

As well as being a static siege weapon in towers etc, this is now also a blueprint as this could open up a whole new way of using them on the battlefieldTarget cap is reduced from 50 to 10Range redcued from 9400 to 5000

Burning Oil

Skill 3 now gives stability and resistance (uncorruptable) for 3 seconds with 10 seconds cooldown

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Shining One.1635 said:

@"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:Prolly would help to start with a goal in mind then. Example: "We want to increase player engagement. After noticing 50% of the players don't get to interact while sieging/being under siege. This is our priority."How about giving defenders on walls pulsing stability. Defenders can then stand on the edge and fight back against the besiegers. The besiegers in turn can fight against the defenders.

That would substantially skew the fights in favor of defense. All balance should be done under balanced situations. Furthermore, it has already been suggested that players on defensive siege be given stab/defiance bar, which is a far more fair change.

In a 25v25 situation, would we really want one group to stay on a wall all day for easy stab? There are skills that provide such a boon already so the tools are there already. It is imperative balance not be driven too much by 5v25, or else we risk ruining many more engagements. Even the stab/defiance bar on defensive siege can be over come by enough numbers, and coordination of CC. Should we punish a group for actually organizing multiple pulls at the same time? I would think not.

[Ryudnard.2587]

Make it so that it cost honors of the badge (or w/e it's called, the loot we get from killing players) to build sieges. I think this will encourage players to make more actions in the field to kill each other.

[Israel.7056]

@cobbah.3102 said:

@Israel.7056 said:Here is what I would like to see:

1.) Remove all siege except rams and catas and arrow carts. Make catas only do damage to walls. Make ACs only do damage to siege. Game instantly becomes more fighting oriented instead of sit on a wall and build siege oriented.

2.) Let players do normal damage to gates and walls so it's possible for a large group to plow through without having to build a bunch of siege.

3.) No more auto upgrades, go back to making people pay for them if they really want them.

These three changes by themselves would speed up the game so much and force these siege monkeys to actually get off a wall and fight if they really want to protect their objectives. They will lose a lot because most of them have spent way way too much time afking on trebs but over time they will remember the glory of combat.

Hmmm sounds like a blob server request go figure

Every server is a blob server what game are you playing?

[Israel.7056]

@aspirine.6852 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:My reaction is please finish alliances as a priority before making other changes.

Having said that in answer to the query, nerf ACs. Siege should primarily be about be obtaining access to objectives not killing other players. Someone else has suggested restricting the number of players an AC hits like most aoes in the game this is a good suggestion..

Nope, siege is also there for defence and slowing the blob a bit for reinforcements to arrive. If they are not strong enough you can literally take any keep on the map without problems if your blob is big enough. I assume that this is the case on your server.

Are you implying that people only sit on siege when they don't have an equal sized force?

[silmarilen.3218]

Increase the minimum range of shield gens. Right now a shield gen can cover itself which makes it hard to disable it.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@penguin.9271 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:On second note, note sure what's everyone's problem with ac. It is anti personnel siege, it has been so since first year, before shield generator even come to existence. Now, we got sg, yet it isn't enough as a counter?

I do think the ballista need some fixing. Technically, ballista range is 3000 and with mastery it is 3500. Canon is 3750. Therefore it is weird that ballista can hit cannon at 4000 range due to ballista projectile not disappearing beyond 3500. This is unreasonable solely because there are other forms of range attacks and usually they simply disappear once go beyond their allowed range. Even if there are proejctiles that dosn't disappear, the fact that it can fire a shot beyond 3500 range without the system saying it is out of range means the skill is in essence broken and not working as described.

Of course you won't have a problem with arrow carts. You and your guild abuses it everyday, you guys can't play without it. It's part of your culture just like the rest of the siege humpers who are defending or even asking arrow carts to be buffed.

But I don't think we ever run wvw everyday, good try though, person who come out from nowhere.

[Coronit.9432]

I would rather look into the guild/keep stats buffs.Giving a total of 400 stats in such a waste area isn´t healthy for smaller groups/solo player to run around. The keep buff tactic goes into a better direction in only being active within the keep.Maybe reduce the influenced area of the guild buff in a similar way but let it reach a bit outside the walls to give defending people a chance for a sortie.And reducing the amount of stats they give by 50% wouldn´t hurt as well I guess (a player with booth buffs having 800 more stats than the attacking one is insane).Another possibility would be to rework at least the tactic to be temporary (except stuff like +5 Supply).

To the topic: People claim that defending is to easy/hard. A zerg can get into any object as necro torch 5/meteor shower/engi mortar reach even well placed defensive siege. AC´s are rather useless when the attackers have any healers aka minstrel ele/firebrand etc and very strong if they don´t have them. The problem here is more the unbalance of many stat-combinations/class speccs than Siege. Range classes/builds have to much damage while melee doesn´t cut it anymore, making them the unquestioned perfect pick for zergs. They provide heavy AOE damage making them strong even in clearing siege. Futhermore all that ranged big AOEs change walls into deathtraps for defenders.

The proposal of catas needing a certain distance to do damage is actually quite nice.

[Panicbutton.9426]

TL:DR summary at the bottom of the post.

WvW is at its best when players get to fight players, when player agency and player decisions make the difference between success and failure on the battlefield. When large numbers of players have to sit around doing nothing watching small numbers of players operating siege engines for long periods of time the game slows down too much and becomes boring. When those same players also have no way of effectively defending themselves from the incoming siege damage then that also removes player agency and makes the game less fun.

The use of siege is almost universally seen as a necessary evil which doesn't actually add a lot of fun to the game. I can never remember anyone saying, "oh goody, I get to play with some siege!". We need walls and doors to slow down assaults so that players can come together and fight, therefore we need a mechanism to remove those walls and doors - so siege has to stay. We also need ways for outnumbered players to still have some chance at holding objectives that have had time and resources invested into them, so a degree of force multiplication is desirable. The issue is that the force multiplication is too high in some cases and player agency is too low.

My biggest issue with siege at the moment is related to multiple stacked arrow carts, it's just cancerous trying to attack defended objectives with multiple arrow carts all targeting the choke point, they're too big a force multiplier on defending player's own damage and on other static siege emplacements (mortars, oil and cannons). On their own one or two arrow carts aren't that bad to deal with, when stacked to higher numbers and in combination with the defender's damage and/or other static siege it makes it exceedingly difficult for relatively equal numbers of attackers to force the breach and actually get into direct combat with the defenders.

Rather than just eliminate siege or nerf arrow carts into oblivion I would like to see more options for players themselves to mitigate the damage of siege. As an example, a party covered by a Guardian's shield 5 skill should take literally zero damage from ACs, Cannons, Mortars and oil. So, I’d like to see a pass on player abilities to provide more options to mitigate siege damage.

These issues are massively exacerbated against T3 keeps where the time needed to create a breach using offensive siege is much higher and the defensive pressure is the same if not higher. I see issues all the time where by early in the week after reset and the weekend, most of the major objectives are T3 and commanders just don’t want to attack them. So, there’s less options of things to attack, less motivation to play and less activity as a result. When you’re out with a decent size squad and all the objectives are T3 the default response shouldn’t be “there’s nothing to attack” leading to “let’s call it early tonight folks” and people actually logging off rather than trying to take on a T3 keep. I think as part of any pass on siege balancing T3 objectives need to be looked at, unless you’re out with your server’s omni-blob they’re just too much like hard work to bother with and that’s a real problem in quieter times during the week or off-peak hours.

Lastly, from an attacking and defending objectives perspective there’s a problem with the way in which attackers and defenders are able to act against each other on the walls. If you’re attacking from down below you can just AOE the top of the wall and know you will hit anyone standing on them. If you’re defending and you want to fire back at the attackers below, you have to jump up on the lip of the wall to have a chance at hitting the attackers. So, defenders have a marked disadvantage in using their own abilities to engage attackers, the time taken to jump up on that lip (and not accidentally jump off into the rampaging horde’s below) puts you in harms way before you can threaten the attacker. I’d like to see a more equal opportunity for defenders to actually stand on the walls and fire down on attackers – again players interacting directly with other players is preferable to players interacting with siege which interacts with other players.

Defenders should still have to be organised with providing stability and healing people standing on the wall shooting down but if anything, they should have an advantage against attackers not a disadvantage. I’d far rather see a horde of attackers firing up at a line of defenders on the wall, who are firing back at them, rather than 10% of players firing siege at each other whilst the other 90% stand about doing nothing until the breach is made.

In short:

1. Let more player abilities counter anti-personnel siege more effectively (ACs, cannons, mortars and oil)
2. Make a pass at T3 wall and door HP values so that T3 objectives are more readily attackable
3. Allow defending players to more easily fire down on attacking players (remove or alter the lip on the wall)

[God.2708]

Personally I've wanted mortars to see a field test like cannons got. They are a lot more useful in clearing siege, and not particularly effective as a PvP weapon. But things like their AoE knockback can do useful things like clear players off a portion of a wall or away from a choke, and they can hit a lot of 'problem' siege that can be really tough to take out when another blob is defending.

I guess that would be my 'broad' problem I'd like to see Anet develop a solution towards. Most siege is simply about dealing damage to either players, other siege, or structures. I'd like to see the damage to players toned down a bit (maybe 10-20%). Damage to structures increased. And them get some love on the utility side so that siege can become about creating options on a battle field rather than just 'let's make these to plow through the enemy'.

[derd.6413]

ac needs a nerf they can be placed anywhere (unlike oil, canon and mortar) has floor targeting (unlike catapult or treb) and do pulsing aoe damage (unlike balista) and (from looking at the numbers on the wiki) has the highest damage against players. building a shield generator or another ac to counter it is often difficult or not possible because of the constant barrage of arrows.

i would suggest something else: improve mobile siege options, maybe give it a downside. for example the person carrying a built ac can't use his skills or a golem can maintain a bubble shield but requires supplies as fuel to maintain it.

[TheHeretic.3529]

I'd like to see more mobile siege, like Dune Rollers and Golems, but I don't want them to be able to easily kill players and I wouldn't want them to be for targeting players.

Impose a one-time limit to the effects of Siege Disablers or enemy siege, such that they can only be disabled once and never again.

When Server X captures the EBG Keep or Garrison of Server Y, the amount of siege that can be built by Server X in that Keep should be heavily limited. Bay/Hills I don't mind.

I don't know if Banners count as siege, but -please- remove their interaction with player traits. A condi mesmer can drop 40 stacks of confusion with a Dragon Banner in large fights.

[aspirine.6852]

@Israel.7056 said:

@aspirine.6852 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:My reaction is please finish alliances as a priority before making other changes.

Having said that in answer to the query, nerf ACs. Siege should primarily be about be obtaining access to objectives not killing other players. Someone else has suggested restricting the number of players an AC hits like most aoes in the game this is a good suggestion..

Nope, siege is also there for defence and slowing the blob a bit for reinforcements to arrive. If they are not strong enough you can literally take any keep on the map without problems if your blob is big enough. I assume that this is the case on your server.

Are you implying that people only sit on siege when they don't have an equal sized force?

Not all of them of course. But picture a reset night on the alpine or even desert borderlands without siege. Your own map will be impossible to defend because your team cannot be in Bay, hills or garri at the same time. So all that will happen is it flipping over and over again.Doesnt sound right to me.

[SweetPotato.7456]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"SweetPotato.7456" said:Unfair advantages of attackers at borderland attacking Bay.The trebuchet fire coming from the south west camps (bluevale / redvale) are not block by invisible wall/ barrier.where as from the keep to the camp there is an invisible wall, therefore making it impossible to counter treb the attackers.

see picture

https://goo.gl/aPNLCw

The entire point is to call for reinforcement and go out and fight the enemy, if you cant counter-siege them. It happens. That's why its called a siege. Its not an issue, it's quite literally the purpose of the game. It should

never

be possible to siege bunker everywhere.

Right! What server are you on? cos i dont have players to go fight the cheater alone, am I suppose to jump into a zerg of 15-20 people alone?

2) if you look at the picture attached, the attackers are trebbing 2 walls simultaneously, where the left arrow is, the outer and the inner. Which wall would you going to defend? kill all the attacker on the right wall under 3 seconds and then kill all a small group of 6 -8 players lurking outside the south gate, then go into the camp and kill the treb?

[firefox.5614]

reduce number of ac can be place and their damage by 5/10 % can be good

[Hanakocz.5697]

1) I don't like catapults used just right besides the wall. It destroys their purpose. Similarly that you cannot put ACs on walls because enemies can shoot there....

2) The walls are more a trap for defenders than defensive tool. There needs to be more of cremelations (the high parts covering defenders) and MACHICULATIONS (holes so you can safely shoot at people right below the wall). Nowadays it is safer to be outside the wall and shoot at wall than opposite and it is really stupid.

3) What about adding one-time use landmines, maybe as a defensive perks of T2-3 structures? (so rangers get a purpose for looking for them)

4) Trebuchets should have "firing camera mode" that will elevate your eyes similarly as it is in PvP, while keeping the mechanics. Similar for ACs....just for the sake of knowing where you are shooting, and because the camera usually is stuck behind structures you have around you.

[Israel.7056]

@aspirine.6852 said:Not all of them of course. But picture a reset night on the alpine or even desert borderlands without siege. Your own map will be impossible to defend because your team cannot be in Bay, hills or garri at the same time. So all that will happen is it flipping over and over again.Doesnt sound right to me.

Everything already does flip constantly on reset nights and it's glorious. I personally think that's when the game is the most fun because I get to spend hours just running around doing fight after fight not having to worry about siege too much. Siege isn't as much of an issue when the map is fresh and nothing is upgraded. It's still annoying but there's not enough supply accumulated within the first few hours of reset to allow anyone to do any serious turtling. The really soulcrushingly tedious turtleplay stuff comes usually a day or two into a matchup when a large force has had hours of uninterrupted time to upgrade and siege everything up so their blob can sit behind a wall and build siege against attackers for several hours at every major objective. The game slows to a crawl and it's mostly time spent dealing with siege instead of fighting players which isn't fun for anyone except siege monkeys.

The real question I think everyone has to ask themselves seriously is: WHY DOES ANYONE FIGHT TO DEFEND AT ALL ANYMORE? Why doesn't everyone just build siege and never fight anyone even when they've got a 50 man squad? Wouldn't it be a totally viable strategy to only ever defend with siege regardless of numbers??? There's nothing in this game that actually treats fighting to defend preferentially over turtling objectives with siege.

Siege requires relatively little practice or experience, no time invested in learning a class or refining a build or playing with a team. Even the worst players can understand that you just aim the circle over as many people as possible and press the buttons. It's pathetically easy to be effective on an arrow cart or a ballista or a cannon and that's why so many terrible players defend it whenever this conversation comes up and they use the canard of '5v25' to justify it. But if it can be used to help 5 defend against 25 it can also be used by 50 to defend against another 50.

Siege is the ultimate crutch for bad players and it kills the pacing and fun of this gamemode for everyone except people who lack the skills and organization necessary to kill other players in an actual fight. These devs have consistently catered to the lowest common denominator player and that's why we've lost so many good guilds and players over time to other games that actually reward fighting to one degree or another even if they're not MMOs.

Siege needs to be drastically tuned down. If a defending force, regardless of numbers, cannot defend an objective by actually fighting for it then they should lose it 100 percent of the time.

[Drinks.2361]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:It is imperative balance not be driven too much by 5v25, or else we risk ruining many more engagements.

^ This guy gets it

[LINKAZZATORE.8135]

reduce acs damage since you can place 10 for 1 single gate defense.

if you need 10 acs to defend something you deserve to lose it. get a group and kill them instead of camping on sieges.

[Fizzee.1762]

My only real issue with any of the siege is ACs... they need a huge nerf to damage or number of people hit.5 people on ACs should never be able to hold off 50-80 people from entering a choke (wall or gate).

I agree that once upon a time having a method to slow down attackers was required, but now with hardened gates, structural integrity, chilling fog and watchtower upgrades, there is no reason to have ACs be such a force to be reckoned with. The above upgrades give defenders huge amounts of time to gather a force to defend.

If they can't get enough defenders then they shouldn't be able to defend it.