WvW Arrow Cart Nerfing

[Victory.2879]

@Evolute.6239 said:You might have a point if the keeps and towers were manually upgraded instead of T3 over night and during EU hours.

As it is, defenders had way too much advantage. Two hours is an eternity. You can’t expect people to cut off yaks for two hours, reclear siege and walls, sneak a million mesmers in, and burn 1000 supply. All within a raid.

For no reward.

You say it’s a simple mind but siege defending was mindlessly simple. If a Zerg didn’t have 700 supply it wasn’t getting in. And even with that supply, it could be drained or defend against.. for two hours of time essentially player vs dooring under arrow carts and mortars and treb shots.

The answer to this WAS to map hop and ktrain

Quite simple if the comm/raid isn't brain dead. Split objectives. Rotate objectives. Build the odd catapult attacking something else to weaken walls elsewhere. It's called strategy. It's also a lot more satisfying to those with half a brain. Most most raids just want bags and shinies in their two hour window and don't really care how they leave the map afterwards.

I bet most raids just stand there moaning that they can't flip a t3 in a few minutes and then go off en mass to attack something else ALL TOGETHER.

wvw isn't supposed to be all 'about the fights' it's a mixture of several different play styles including strategy and planning- but most of those sort of players have left by now and you're left with 'bags and shinies' and 'it's too hard dumb it down pls'.

And if ur zerg didn't arrive with 700 supply who failed to plan? Too much bother gathering some up before headbutting a wall?

[Ceistebi.4023]

After reading this thread I'm convinced no one knows how to counter defensive siege. I'm a veteran defender and while AC's do too much damage to players, the nerf to ac damage on siege was not necessary. Learn some strategy and patience. You shouldn't be able to take an objective simply because you outnumber the defenders, that only feeds into omniblob issues. You should have to use some actual strategy and take some time. If I want to sit on an AC and hit you, maybe back up out of my range and build another cata. Maybe hit another wall (swiss cheese method). There are so many tactics that us plebs down in the lower tiers have to use because we don't have the advantage of 40+ people blobs.

[shiri.4257]

The primary issues with prolonged T3 sieges were 1) supply lines 2) T3 fortified 3) Siege that can't be cleared (ie: 3rd floor smc mortar) Shield gens and ac's were working fine. Perhaps increase the max supply in a camp to 200 supplies? A 2hr siege for a T3 isn't bad if there's enough supplies to keep going at it. More fights inside inner bay or smc than OS usually.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

@Tammuz.7361 said:A long overdue change to encourage more pvp and less hiding in towers.

Had some of the best fights weve had in a long time today.

There is no such thing as a zerg and pvp I have done both

[LetoII.3782]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@coro.3176 said:If you build catapults out of AC range, they'll get deleted by a ballista (except on a few objectives with weird terrain). If you build them on the wall, they're generally safe from that, or any defensive ballista can be attacked from below.

Generally, the game should be encouraging fights over objectives rather than siege wars. This is a positive step toward that.

Then you are still building them too close. The only things that should take out a Cata is another cata, a treb, or a mortar. All of which have counterable options with catas.

Oh, and players too but that means they have to... oh yeah... come out and fight.

If a ballista or AC takes out your cata, then you are doing it wrong.

The funny part is they actually buffed the cats damage as it's charged completely negating any benefit of being close.. but nuuuuu..

[Strider Pj.2193]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@coro.3176 said:If you build catapults out of AC range, they'll get deleted by a ballista (except on a few objectives with weird terrain). If you build them on the wall, they're generally safe from that, or any defensive ballista can be attacked from below.

Generally, the game should be encouraging fights over objectives rather than siege wars. This is a positive step toward that.

Then you are still building them too close. The only things that should take out a Cata is another cata, a treb, or a mortar. All of which have counterable options with catas.

Oh, and players too but that means they have to... oh yeah... come out and fight.

If a ballista or AC takes out your cata, then you are doing it wrong.

The funny part is they actually buffed the cats damage as it's charged completely negating any benefit of being close.. but nuuuuu..

Exactly... :smile:

Now ACs wereToo strong and needed to be toned down but when people aren't aware enough of their surroundings to know there is no tower that cannot be cata'd safely.

Of course I'm gonna be called a seige monkey, but they either fight on my seige, on the lord, or they run. Either way, we get a response.

And when you hear ALL the complaints from people about ACs, it's mostly coming from those people stating they 'just want the people inside to get off their seige and come out'.

[LetoII.3782]

My personal peeve about arrowcarts is the horrible wail my asura makes when he's crippled... It's traumatic :'(

[Strider Pj.2193]

But there is nothing better than a Charr death scream....

[Shagaliscious.6281]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@coro.3176 said:If you build catapults out of AC range, they'll get deleted by a ballista (except on a few objectives with weird terrain). If you build them on the wall, they're generally safe from that, or any defensive ballista can be attacked from below.

Generally, the game should be encouraging fights over objectives rather than siege wars. This is a positive step toward that.

Then you are still building them too close. The only things that should take out a Cata is another cata, a treb, or a mortar. All of which have counterable options with catas.

Oh, and players too but that means they have to... oh yeah... come out and fight.

If a ballista or AC takes out your cata, then you are doing it wrong.

The funny part is they actually buffed the cats damage as it's charged completely negating any benefit of being close.. but nuuuuu..

Actually someone tested it out, and the tap of the cata results in more shots in the same amount of time. So you are doing less damage, but you get 2 shots in the time you would get 1 charged shot. It pretty much equals out in the end.

[Riba.3271]

Well it was near impossible pushing in SM lord room against certain servers due to spellbreaker bubbles and other defenders advantages.

This massive AC nerf will make it slightly easier. as sometimes theres 5-6 acs inside also

[LetoII.3782]

@Shagaliscious.6281 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@coro.3176 said:If you build catapults out of AC range, they'll get deleted by a ballista (except on a few objectives with weird terrain). If you build them on the wall, they're generally safe from that, or any defensive ballista can be attacked from below.

Generally, the game should be encouraging fights over objectives rather than siege wars. This is a positive step toward that.

Then you are still building them too close. The only things that should take out a Cata is another cata, a treb, or a mortar. All of which have counterable options with catas.

Oh, and players too but that means they have to... oh yeah... come out and fight.

If a ballista or AC takes out your cata, then you are doing it wrong.

The funny part is they actually buffed the cats damage as it's charged completely negating any benefit of being close.. but nuuuuu..

Actually someone tested it out, and the tap of the cata results in more shots in the same amount of time. So you are doing less damage, but you get 2 shots in the time you would get 1 charged shot. It pretty much equals out in the end.

Around 50% is optimal

But still

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Shagaliscious.6281 said:

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@coro.3176 said:If you build catapults out of AC range, they'll get deleted by a ballista (except on a few objectives with weird terrain). If you build them on the wall, they're generally safe from that, or any defensive ballista can be attacked from below.

Generally, the game should be encouraging fights over objectives rather than siege wars. This is a positive step toward that.

Then you are still building them too close. The only things that should take out a Cata is another cata, a treb, or a mortar. All of which have counterable options with catas.

Oh, and players too but that means they have to... oh yeah... come out and fight.

If a ballista or AC takes out your cata, then you are doing it wrong.

The funny part is they actually buffed the cats damage as it's charged completely negating any benefit of being close.. but nuuuuu..

Actually someone tested it out, and the tap of the cata results in more shots in the same amount of time. So you are doing less damage, but you get 2 shots in the time you would get 1 charged shot. It pretty much equals out in the end.

The buff he is referring to came as prior: cat shots did the same regardless of range. Yes there was also an interim buff/nerf that briefly made full charges give more DPS but the last change leveled it out mostly.

Point being? Being close offers no true strategic advantage. Yet people still do it.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Threather.9354 said:Well it was near impossible pushing in SM lord room against certain servers due to spellbreaker bubbles and other defenders advantages.

This massive AC nerf will make it slightly easier. as sometimes theres 5-6 acs inside also

I'll give you that.

Again, the nerf for players was good. To seige? Really only rewards bad play.

[Riba.3271]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Threather.9354 said:Well it was near impossible pushing in SM lord room against certain servers due to spellbreaker bubbles and other defenders advantages.

This massive AC nerf will make it slightly easier. as sometimes theres 5-6 acs inside also

I'll give you that.

Again, the nerf for players was good. To seige? Really only rewards bad play.

Yea they did make treb and cata shots passable thro shield gen bubbles tho, so you can still defend towers like veloka/langor with mortars, trebs etc.

They basically made acs, rams and shield gens nonexistant and make this game more about trebs and catas.

[morrolan.9608]

@cobbah.3102 said:

@coro.3176 said:Good.

If you want to defend an objective, you should put yourself at risk - preferably in combat with the attackers. The walls should just be there for stalling attackers until a defending force can arrive.

Hahahaha yes fight an omniblob you are rather funny what with everything that covers walls, pulls through walls ,pets through walls so generally 3 people maybe at objective and you want them to jump into a mob to delay them what realm of reality are you in?? As soon as you try to peep over wall you already at risk time to be real

Place siege in impossible to reach spots and you can still delay. Like others have said if you've badly outnumbered you shouldn't expect to successfully defend an objective merely delay the attackers in time for more defenders to get there.

[cobbah.3102]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:

@coro.3176 said:Good.

If you want to defend an objective, you should put yourself at risk - preferably in combat with the attackers. The walls should just be there for stalling attackers until a defending force can arrive.

Hahahaha yes fight an omniblob you are rather funny what with everything that covers walls, pulls through walls ,pets through walls so generally 3 people maybe at objective and you want them to jump into a mob to delay them what realm of reality are you in?? As soon as you try to peep over wall you already at risk time to be real

Place siege in impossible to reach spots and you can still delay. Like others have said if you've badly outnumbered you shouldn't expect to successfully defend an objective merely delay the attackers in time for more defenders to get there.

So you say no defending against the so called fight servers because they outnumber you ?? make it easy for them so they can be on thier way to the next one ,man so out of touch with the game.

[Shagaliscious.6281]

@cobbah.3102 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:

@coro.3176 said:Good.

If you want to defend an objective, you should put yourself at risk - preferably in combat with the attackers. The walls should just be there for stalling attackers until a defending force can arrive.

Hahahaha yes fight an omniblob you are rather funny what with everything that covers walls, pulls through walls ,pets through walls so generally 3 people maybe at objective and you want them to jump into a mob to delay them what realm of reality are you in?? As soon as you try to peep over wall you already at risk time to be real

Place siege in impossible to reach spots and you can still delay. Like others have said if you've badly outnumbered you shouldn't expect to successfully defend an objective merely delay the attackers in time for more defenders to get there.

So you say no defending against the so called fight servers because they outnumber you ?? make it easy for them so they can be on thier way to the next one ,man so out of touch with the game.

God forbid you have to put forth an actual effort to defend your stuff.

[morrolan.9608]

@cobbah.3102 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:

@coro.3176 said:Good.

If you want to defend an objective, you should put yourself at risk - preferably in combat with the attackers. The walls should just be there for stalling attackers until a defending force can arrive.

Hahahaha yes fight an omniblob you are rather funny what with everything that covers walls, pulls through walls ,pets through walls so generally 3 people maybe at objective and you want them to jump into a mob to delay them what realm of reality are you in?? As soon as you try to peep over wall you already at risk time to be real

Place siege in impossible to reach spots and you can still delay. Like others have said if you've badly outnumbered you shouldn't expect to successfully defend an objective merely delay the attackers in time for more defenders to get there.

So you say no defending against the so called fight servers because they outnumber you ?? make it easy for them so they can be on thier way to the next one ,man so out of touch with the game.

Thats a strawman you've got going there. Its about trying to find a better balance of offence and defence.

[Optimator.3589]

@LetoII.3782 said:My personal peeve about arrowcarts is the horrible wail my asura makes when he's crippled... It's traumatic :'(

Well, if you and Cels would play something other than asurans, ACs wouldn't need the nerf....oh wait, nm, they still needed it.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@"Ubi.4136" said:They listened to the blob ktrain that "only wanted fights". It was taking the "only wanted fights" blob more than 3 minutes to take T3 structures, according to about every forum post about it, claimed that planning, strategy and actually SIEGING structures was boring, cause "no one wants to stand under arrow carts".Now, all those bandwagon, blob, "only wanting fights" servers can continue their ktrain domination.

apparently most people don't want to face 6 acs when they attack a gate with 20 ppl, which forces them to build trebs, and then the defenders start counter trebbing. so fun.

[cobbah.3102]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:

@coro.3176 said:Good.

If you want to defend an objective, you should put yourself at risk - preferably in combat with the attackers. The walls should just be there for stalling attackers until a defending force can arrive.

Hahahaha yes fight an omniblob you are rather funny what with everything that covers walls, pulls through walls ,pets through walls so generally 3 people maybe at objective and you want them to jump into a mob to delay them what realm of reality are you in?? As soon as you try to peep over wall you already at risk time to be real

Place siege in impossible to reach spots and you can still delay. Like others have said if you've badly outnumbered you shouldn't expect to successfully defend an objective merely delay the attackers in time for more defenders to get there.

So you say no defending against the so called fight servers because they outnumber you ?? make it easy for them so they can be on thier way to the next one ,man so out of touch with the game.

Thats a strawman you've got going there. Its about trying to find a better balance of offence and defence.

ok better balance no ACs and no PVD no rings of death on walls as quoted somewhere just rams and oil I'm up for that. Lets hear from the T1's oh wait we already have nerf all siege hue hue

[Gorani.7205]

The "we only want to fight ktrain faction" of players got all they wanted. A very bad decision IMO. Anet has swung the nerf bat way too hard, by introducing all possible ways to nerf the ACs (both against the players and against siege). Wouldn't it have been a problem to go for the anti-player nerfs (which are kind of recognized by the majority of players) first and then check if the anti siege nerfs are really needed?My predictions:Towers will be flipped a lot faster on all tiers of match-ups. Low population servers on lower tiers and the underdog servers in match ups will not bother to defend towers any more. Less towers will reach T2 or T3 status. Players who have spend years caring for e.g. borderland defence will lose interest in WvW and leave, because they don't want to join zerg trains (which only large population servers can raise). Anet has started a EOTM transformation of our classical maps. :(

[Timelord.8190]

Defenders advantage is still to high thoug. With keep auras that gives stat bonuses and hardened gates and such. AC's have been way to strong since they added the wvw masteries, and takes not much skill to use. And to those who complaing about fightin a blob with less people, i don't believe you at all. You got alot of people, you just choose to build acs instead of fighting. Almost always the people who defend got a zerg around the corner, and if they don't they belong in a lower tier. So this hopefully changes that.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Gorani.7205 said:My predictions:Towers will be flipped a lot faster on all tiers of match-ups. Low population servers on lower tiers and the underdog servers in match ups will not bother to defend towers any more. Less towers will reach T2 or T3 status. Players who have spend years caring for e.g. borderland defence will lose interest in WvW and leave, because they don't want to join zerg trains (which only large population servers can raise). Anet has started a EOTM transformation of our classical maps. :(

And thats... bad? People caring for borderland defence on towers had no chance regardless of T3 or T0 being attacked by trains, because zergs generally only respond to keeps. At best, sunny and dawn simply due to convenience. And then T3 only lead to attacks happening at primetime, against at least 30+. The rest of the time its dead, people ignore objectives. Which isnt fun to defend against with a small party, since there is no defence taking place. T0-T1 towers have always been more fun to defend for small parties fighting against small parties. If the train comes in with 50+, at least you can backcap and try to get some offensive fights while they try to defend. Thats impossible with T3... because you dont attack it. Its pointless.

So I dont really see how more action for small parties is bad for WvW.

[Timelord.8190]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Threather.9354 said:Well it was near impossible pushing in SM lord room against certain servers due to spellbreaker bubbles and other defenders advantages.

This massive AC nerf will make it slightly easier. as sometimes theres 5-6 acs inside also

I'll give you that.

Again, the nerf for players was good. To seige? Really only rewards bad play.

Good play is spamming 1-4, am i right?