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!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.
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.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.
xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »... We couldn't fight over a spot if there was a legit way to claim temporary ownership of a spot. ...
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 wrote: »...
Oh but they can just steal your siege if you get off it, so its not really ownership of the location.
...
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?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.
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.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 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?
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.
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.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.
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.