Siege Turtle: Yes or No? (As a new siege weapon not mount).

[Caedmon.6798]

Youre gonna have 50 ppl defending it,no ty.

[SweetPotato.7456]

No only do I want Siege Turtles,  I think everyone of the Luxon Clan's Animals need to be a Siege Mount, the Serpent and the Crab.

[Gorani.7205]

My 2-supply on Siege Turtle mounts (as we have nothing on them right now)

• - It will be a 2-person mount, usable in PvE (confirmed), probably with Person 1 initiating the mount as a pilot and Person 2 being able to join to be the gunner.
• - Therefore, there is no stationary "shooting" turtle. (?)
• - The wording of information suggests it will be usable in WvW, too.
• - Movement and "siege options" of the turtle in PvE and WvW will be the same (but can vary in numbers)
• - Siege use in PvE will have a cool down to limit spamming / infinite, repetitive use or could use some sort of external resource (e.g. the Ammo property from skills or items you have to collect and hand over (press "F" to load etc.)
• - WvW siege options will be fuelled by Supply (similar to the chain pull on the Warclaw)
• - WvW siege options will be sub par to stationary siege in terms of efficiency of supply spent (like the chain pull is worse then building a ram)
• - WvW siege options will be sub par to stationary siege in terms of range / damage dealt.
• - WvW siege options could be limited to one type (e.g. anti-wall use like a cata OR anti-person use, like an AC)
• - Warclaw vs. Turtle could be an option to implement (e.g. the chain pull could cripple the turtle when moving and cause stun on the gunner and interrupt a shot.
• - WvW mastery could be used for extra abilities (like it was implemented with the Warclaw)
• - The turtle could be re-supplied by allies, like they would "repair a wall", so the pilot/gunner do not have to break up the turtle and go resupply, once they are out of ammo.

 

A wall damaging siege turtle would make small roamer teams a lot more dangerous to fortifications, because they can damage a wall by e.g. 20% and leave (to come back later), without leaving a stationary siege behind that would give away the attacker's position. This would force defenders to check fortifications under attack a lot more. It would also be a chance to work on the stale "supply and denial" gameplay that pretty much vanished after auto upgrades. There is a lot more reason and chance to spend supply in small (personal) chunks by using the turtle siege or supply to repair damaged walls. 

•  

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Gorani.7205 said:

A wall damaging siege turtle would make small roamer teams a lot more dangerous to fortifications, because they can damage a wall by e.g. 20% and leave (to come back later), without leaving a stationary siege behind that would give away the attacker's position. This would force defenders to check fortifications under attack a lot more. It would also be a chance to work on the stale "supply and denial" gameplay that pretty much vanished after auto upgrades. There is a lot more reason and chance to spend supply in small (personal) chunks by using the turtle siege or supply to repair damaged walls. 

And that which make your 1 roamer stronger make the zerg 50x stronger. Hence why I said do you want it to be useless or do you want it to be OP? 

 

If its a siege engine eqvivalent an omega golem... well then it wouldnt be a mount and since Anet still hasnt brought in additional golem models that exist in PvE and could have easily done different kind of siege, they could have done something similar years ago (not to mention the tried and failed cannons). The odds of it suddenly happening with something built to be a mount and not siege I give close to 0% likelyhood.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Gorani.7205]

37 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

And that which make your 1 roamer stronger make the zerg 50x stronger. Hence why I said do you want it to be useless or do you want it to be OP? 

 

If its a siege engine eqvivalent an omega golem... well then it wouldnt be a mount and since Anet still hasnt brought in additional golem models that exist in PvE and could have easily done different kind of siege, they could have done something similar years ago (not to mention the tried and failed cannons). The odds of it suddenly happening with something built to be a mount and not siege I give close to 0% likelyhood.

 

Mate, you are confusing me, because I have no clue whether we talk about the same concept Anet showed to us the past week? I'll try to address your reply anyway:

 

==> The "one" roamer will not have access to the siege ability of the turtle.

Quote

Siege Turtle can bear two riders: one to handle the turtle, and another to operate the weapons strapped to its shell. Raise your own walking war machine and take a friend out for combat adventures!

1st person mounts up, 2nd person operates weapons. At least that seems to be clear from the official site.

 

==> zerg = 50x stronger: I don't see 50 Warclaws pulling a gate, I have never seen the chain pull used over a ram, because it was designed to be worse than the blueprints (you can help a bit by contributing of unused supply, but again ... building a second ram probably is better, too). Those Devourers from EotM I would consider to be too strong through, but mostly because you can kind of equip a whole zerg with and they do not use supply to shoot and use skills.

 

==> equivalent to an Omega golem: I did not say that at all. We know the turtle will be a mount.

 

Giving the "gunner" anti-personal skills only, would put the turtle in the same place as the usual "transformations" I have to suffer through in PvE: They break by rotations, are usually only a few skills, with you normal skills & traits being better than anything the transformation gives you. And if they are better, they are usually absolutely OP (like Sohothin #4 & #5 in PoF), which we don't want to have in WvW.

[Dawdler.8521]

Alright then, I stand corrected - the zerg would be 25x stronger than 2 peeps. Sorry I forgot. Well maybe 40x stronger if it's a zoneblob. You dont see 50 warclaw pulling gates because they are useless. That's how it's "balanced". I'm perfectly with you wanting a useless turtle too. As I stated in my first reply, it's pretty much a two choice option.

The concept Anet showed us was a mount. That's it. A mount. And the way they talk about it was for PvE. Clearly not for WvW. But as this thread added, the discussion turned to a new siege engine instead, not a mount... so it would have to be roughly the eqvivalent of an omega golem. If it's got way more range and is mobile, ho boy... 300 supply siege? "For roamers".

Edited August 2, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[Gorani.7205]

25 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The concept Anet showed us was a mount. That's it. A mount. And the way they talk about it was for PvE. Clearly not for WvW.

 

An here is the problem. Anet's wording considering whether the Siege Turtle mount can be used in WvW was very much up to interpretation (e.g. around the 57 min mark on the stream re-release on YT).

I guess that's where the hype around the "siege" abilities of the turtle comes from (and so far has not been denied or confirmed by Anet ... which they could have done from a CR perspective).

 

There is both tech in game to make the turtle work: There is the ability to give different skins to siege (which for whatever reasons Anet has not monetized in years) and the ability to give a mount a siege ability (chain pull, as bad as it is).

Making the Siege Turtle PvE mount work in WvW would at least something they add to WvW with EoD, because Alliances will not be part of the package (as they said in the stream), because it will roll out in small chunks (with beta testing, public or closed we do not know).

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/29/2021 at 6:22 PM, DeanBB.4268 said:

Well...it's already a mount. Shouldn't the question be, will it be used in WvW and how?

I thought they said in the presentation it would be for WvW as well as PvE. So agree the question is how and the devil is in the details.