Siege weapon theft Good or bad?

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

So last night I was patiently waiting to put up a oil pot and no one else was there(siege limit was reached) and out of no where some guy came over as soon as the number of sieges went down and stole my spot. Well this guy was maybe new at the game or something and he accidentally got off his oil which allowed me to acquire my revenge and steal his oil pot. Now of course he got angry about it, but it my mind it was justice, so what do you guys think about siege weapon stealing or even spot stealing like this guy attempted and poorly failed at doing?

Should it be fixed where you can claim spots while the siege limit is reached or should they make it possible to kick people off your sieges? Another problem is when you already have a siege weapon down and as soon as your time runs out someone else jacks your spot. Mildly annoying that they cant find their own location, so they steal yours. I would personally like to claim spots and be able to kick people off your siege, that way I could have claimed my spot last night and that brute(he spewed much profanities at me after his defeat) and me would have never came into conflict. Of course spot claiming would only work if you stayed close to the spot and it would have a time limit that would last about as long as the average siege.

Samadhi

"Spot stealing" lol...

Dleatherus

actually i think you were the one in the 'wrong' - not that it's a biggie either way

what if he had put up a pot somewhere else? - once siege limit is reached there's plenty of folks waiting to place something

i'd not be upset if somebody beat me to it - though i'd be peeved if somebody jumped on one i placed and was using because i answered a 'tell' in chat while it was reloading

in the end it's a team effort and as long as somebody is using the weapon correctly it's all good

though if you jump on an emperor's siege weapons and deny him his double siege weapon damage bonus, be prepared for an earful

D.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

Hey man you would be surprised at how angry people get over siege equipment. I should have taken a picture and blured out the guys name. He was fuming! There is bigger issues in the game, but once those get sorted out I think it would be a nice edition.

Dleatherus wrote: »

actually i think you were the one in the 'wrong' - not that it's a biggie either way

what if he had put up a pot somewhere else? - once siege limit is reached there's plenty of folks waiting to place something

i'd not be upset if somebody beat me to it - though i'd be peeved if somebody jumped on one i placed and was using because i answered a 'tell' in chat while it was reloading

D.

Maybe I was wrong, but I was waiting there for a good two minutes before he showed up. During massive battles on wabbajack siege space is very hard to get and it forces us to wait or duke it out over space. I think its a bad thing in games where you see other players as a bad thing instead of helpful and siege space is definitely one of those things where the more people there are the harder it is to enjoy the game. Could we leave the walls and do other things? Yeah, but some people don't build their characters to be front line fighters so staying on the walls and using sieges is our best way to contribute to the fight. If your off sword'n boarding on the front lines you might not see the chaos that is siege space, but trust me its there!

Avidus

Well the deal is..

You are a team. You are both in the wrong.
If there is an oil pot there use it, on less popular servers ive placed down 5 pots and allowed my team to use them, or allowed a single person to use all of them.

If two people are squabbling over equipment then there is one less person actually helping the effort and one less person performing at their best.

Nooblet

The way I see it:
Once you abandon a piece of siege, it is no longer yours and belongs to your alliance, free for anyone to use against your foes.

I would say no to claiming spots.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

Avidus wrote: »

Well the deal is..

You are a team. You are both in the wrong.
If there is an oil pot there use it, on less popular servers ive placed down 5 pots and allowed my team to use them, or allowed a single person to use all of them.

If two people are squabbling over equipment then there is one less person actually helping the effort and one less person performing at their best.

Good point! I like teamwork, I really do, but let me have some space! With some fixes he would have seen I laid claim to that spot and he would have moved on. We couldn't fight over a spot if there was a legit way to claim temporary ownership of a spot. Maybe even guild members who own the keep would have priority over the spots. That wouldn't work in my favor because I am guild less, but it would put some value in having your guild own a keep. Right now I am not sure it even matters.

Samadhi

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

... We couldn't fight over a spot if there was a legit way to claim temporary ownership of a spot. ...

I would consider putting a siege down to qualify as "temporary ownership of a spot" since no other siege can be set up on top of an existing one.

Fortunately for me, I don't bother with siege engines; I'd rather be in combat cutting off reinforcements than running a siege weapon.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

Samadhi wrote: »

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

... We couldn't fight over a spot if there was a legit way to claim temporary ownership of a spot. ...

I would consider putting a siege down to qualify as "temporary ownership of a spot" since no other siege can be set up on top of an existing one.

Fortunately for me, I don't bother with siege engines; I'd rather be in combat cutting off reinforcements than running a siege weapon.

Oh but they can just steal your siege if you get off it, so its not really ownership of the location.

Yeah I would prefer to go out and fight on the front lines, but idk if its practical to attempt of my nightblade. I have had moderate success recently by using sparks to render bash spammers useless, but as soon as I get focused by the zerg I cant just sit there and take it like a dk can. All i can do is hope cloak works and go back up on the walls/ behind the tanks.

Glurin

If you're not using a siege weapon, then it is available to anyone and they have every right to use it. That's the way the game was designed and if you get pissed that someone else hopped onto a siege weapon you put down, you're just being a greedy prick. Team or no team. Particularly if you're one of those people getting mad at someone who decided to use one of "your" three trebuchet or oil pots. You can't just claim the entire defense of the door or something. It's inefficient, rude and self centered.

Getting mad because someone "stole your spot" is just adding childishness to it.

That said, I can definitely see the problem where you're forced to leave the siege engine in order to use chat or the map or anything like that. Not cool for someone to take it out from under you because you needed to say something to your team.

Samadhi

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

...
Oh but they can just steal your siege if you get off it, so its not really ownership of the location.
...

I'd also like to see it set up so that if someone sets up a siege machine they get a portion of all the alliance points it generates even if used by someone else.

This would be far better than some system that obstructs people from putting down a siege in a location because someone less prepared "claimed" the spot then failed to put a siege down.

I'm a Nightblade, so I can't relate to your sentiments about not wanting to fight. Perhaps try not to rush into where the zerg is -- as I said, I much prefer to pick off reinforcements than try and face the front of the army.

Nooblet

Samadhi wrote: »

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

...
Oh but they can just steal your siege if you get off it, so its not really ownership of the location.
...

I'd also like to see it set up so that if someone sets up a siege machine they get a portion of all the alliance points it generates even if used by someone else.

This would be far better than some system that obstructs people from putting down a siege in a location because someone less prepared "claimed" the spot then failed to put a siege down.

I'm a Nightblade, so I can't relate to your sentiments about not wanting to fight. Perhaps try not to rush into where the zerg is -- as I said, I much prefer to pick off reinforcements than try and face the front of the army.

Then you would have players rushing ahead and throwing down 20/20 siege weapons, and people complaining because they cant put up their own siege that they want to use.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

Samadhi wrote: »

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

...
Oh but they can just steal your siege if you get off it, so its not really ownership of the location.
...

I'd also like to see it set up so that if someone sets up a siege machine they get a portion of all the alliance points it generates even if used by someone else.

This would be far better than some system that obstructs people from putting down a siege in a location because someone less prepared "claimed" the spot then failed to put a siege down.

I'm a Nightblade, so I can't relate to your sentiments about not wanting to fight. Perhaps try not to rush into where the zerg is -- as I said, I much prefer to pick off reinforcements than try and face the front of the army.

Do sieges even give ap? I tried shooting a wall with it a couple times and I didnt earn a single ap. Does it have to be kills or what?

I was thinking it would claim the spot and as soon as the siege amount went down it would place your siege depending on your place in the siege queue. Guilds who owned the keep would have priority in this queue.

I do fight people, but im saying I cant take on people on the front lines because we just are too soft. I will chase down retreating enemies and support from the walls or from stealth, but direct fighting is pretty suicide. If its a 1v1 though ill attack because I like a good fair fight!

Then you would have players rushing ahead and throwing down 20/20 siege weapons, and people complaining because they cant put up their own siege that they want to use.

It would be first come first serve then. You really cant complain if a guy wants set up early and his sieges would break down eventually anyways. Plus its not practical to place sieges that early because you don't know where the enemies will strike.

Glurin

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

Do sieges even give ap? I tried shooting a wall with it a couple times and I didnt earn a single ap. Does it have to be kills or what?

They do give some AP for kills. Not for breaking walls and doors though.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

It would be first come first serve then. You really cant complain if a guy wants set up early and his sieges would break down eventually anyways. Plus its not practical to place sieges that early because you don't know where the enemies will strike.

Maybe not 20/20, but I can certainly see people placing half a dozen or more of their own siege hoping people will use them to generate AP. That could especially cause problems in a defensive situation, where he's gone and clogged the walls with his own siege, probably in bad positioning as well.

joshisanonymous

Your whole argument seems to be blown way out of proportion. Both people involved should just be happy enough that your side has the numbers to place and run so much siege in the first place. I seriously can't imagine getting even slightly annoyed if I were either of you.

If I don't have any siege to run, then I do something else. There's plenty to do during a large battle. Sitting around waiting for 2 minutes just to lay down siege is ridiculous. You could actually be helping during that time instead of "claiming a spot." Likewise, starting an argument because someone hops on "your siege" is like arguing that people shouldn't be making sure that everything is running efficiently in your battle against the actual enemy. I don't stay on siege when it's reloading because that's how you die, but if someone hopped on the siege I'm working during that moment, I would just let them keep running it and go find something else to do, maybe even hang around to protect them!

Maybe you both just need to stop looking at this as a battle for APs or something. I dunno what the problem is.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

joshisanonymous wrote: »

Your whole argument seems to be blown way out of proportion. Both people involved should just be happy enough that your side has the numbers to place and run so much siege in the first place. I seriously can't imagine getting even slightly annoyed if I were either of you.

If I don't have any siege to run, then I do something else. There's plenty to do during a large battle. Sitting around waiting for 2 minutes just to lay down siege is ridiculous. You could actually be helping during that time instead of "claiming a spot." Likewise, starting an argument because someone hops on "your siege" is like arguing that people shouldn't be making sure that everything is running efficiently in your battle against the actual enemy. I don't stay on siege when it's reloading because that's how you die, but if someone hopped on the siege I'm working during that moment, I would just let them keep running it and go find something else to do, maybe even hang around to protect them!

Maybe you both just need to stop looking at this as a battle for APs or something. I dunno what the problem is.

I actually never replied to his rant when he was chewing me out for taking his siege. It would have not only made me stoop to his level, but it would have kicked me off the oil pot. I just put him on ignore after I was done, no reason to ever have to hear that person talk again I assure you.

That is admirable that you let people share your sieges, but not everyone wants to especially if you don't get anything for it.

popatiberiuoneb18_ESO

Samadhi wrote: »

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

...
Oh but they can just steal your siege if you get off it, so its not really ownership of the location.
...

I'd also like to see it set up so that if someone sets up a siege machine they get a portion of all the alliance points it generates even if used by someone else.

This would be far better than some system that obstructs people from putting down a siege in a location because someone less prepared "claimed" the spot then failed to put a siege down.

I'm a Nightblade, so I can't relate to your sentiments about not wanting to fight. Perhaps try not to rush into where the zerg is -- as I said, I much prefer to pick off reinforcements than try and face the front of the army.

Just no earn our own APs.

Eylith

This is a really selfish behavior, for both of you (IMO). Seriously, who cares ? Weapon sieges are unexpensive, and no spot are "yours". End of the story.

All of that just sound childish to me.