Siege... finally a zerg buster

Grim13

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea.

Moderator note: Edited per our rules on baiting.

Tintinabula

I have got so many different sets of gear it's no joke..got this gear..they nerf it in a month..got this gear..they increase fire damage..got this gear..light armor sucks now..got new gear today..wonder how long til Ill have to closet this gear as well..Its just stupid.

Galalin

Tintinabula wrote: »

I have got so many different sets of gear it's no joke..got this gear..they nerf it in a month..got this gear..they increase fire damage..got this gear..light armor sucks now..got new gear today..wonder how long til Ill have to closet this gear as well..Its just stupid.

I kinda of agree with the gear stuff... but that seema to be only of the only ways they can change PvP atm other than finally getting the siege right. I have some actual hope about the forward camps now... i was totally against it before but if they can get it right... it just might be ok after all

DK SCRUB OUT

Hypertionb14_ESO

Rylana wrote: »

Galalin wrote: »

I play only on Haderus. .. i fight 2+ bars of AD everyday with 6-16 ppl... and we are almost always alone.... any AD there can verify this. Maybe you need to roll EP and come see for yourself what a zerg is.

DK SCRUB OUT

I am the zerg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2qUrib8zEM

Warrhammer

I've been 1 shotted a few times and what do I think about it? LOVE IT, theres some danger and you need some situational awareness than just sit back and shoot pot shots....Awesome move ZOS

Huntler

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again?

Moderator note: Edited per our rules on flaming.

NukeAllTheThings

What is a "real zerg"? How does it differ from a regular zerg? Is a group considered a zerg? Is a zerg a full raid party? I thought I had a pretty good idea what a zerg was but in the last week I have seen it applied selectively to back up varying viewpoints

Huntler

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

What is a "real zerg"? How does it differ from a regular zerg? Is a group considered a zerg? Is a zerg a full raid party? I thought I had a pretty good idea what a zerg was but in the last week I have seen it applied selectively to back up varying viewpoints

Allow me to clarify what I meant before and you'll prolly know what I mean. Sure there are zergs everywhere, big raid groups, whatever. But I consider really a real zerg, the one that has a mind of its own in which usually there is a big raid group or two, then like... randoms that follow it around like this massive wrecking ball of mindlessness. It kind of just goes from 1 thing to another, super predictable, without really being able to stop it. There might have been organization once, but it just becomes a whole nother monster. Its at these levels where it starts to get so big and in a way disorganized that trying to wipe it is actually extremely difficult because its so big, and never quite together. As you push to the biggest clump, there are just randoms all around rezzing or whatnot. Its very difficult for an organized group to really every truly wipe it at that point. Everywhere you go, they die, but there are so many and spread out that you can never kill them fast enough before everyone is rezzed.


It is extremely difficult to wipe this group, you put forward camps back in, it will never be doable. Except if they all hold hands on the back flag in oil or something.

frozywozy

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Huntler

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

frozywozy

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

What I was trying to explain there is that it actually gives a chance to the lower numbers of defenders against larger numbers of attackers to do something useful for their faction. It also demotivates people from pvedooring unless they are organized (speced, geared and with some positioning and coordinating experience).

Before this change, no one could do anything against any inexperienced group of 20+ attackers. Now it actually matters and I think it should.

Huntler

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

What I was trying to explain there is that it actually gives a chance to the lower numbers of defenders against larger numbers of attackers to do something useful for their faction. It also demotivates people from pvedooring unless they are organized (speced, geared and with some positioning and coordinating experience).

Before this change, no one could do anything against any inexperienced group of 20+ attackers. Now it actually matters and I think it should.

Frozy, we both agree. Siege needed a big increase in damage. But there should be a gray area, right now they overdid it. You can have siege be dangerous and give an extremely large defensive advantage, while also not making it the primary go to in every situation, every fight, whatsoever. Because as of now thats what fire ballista and other siege are used for. They are used everywhere, even if to kill 3 people. THAT is the sign that it has gone too far. You cut siege damage to 80% of it was now and we are good to go. Siege will still be doing massive damage, but it won't 1 hit anyone, it won't be the go to in all scenarios, and it will still wreck people in sieging situations/give a defenders advantage. As of now, a couple oils and fire ballistas used by competent players can hold off infinity (I know because I've been doing it.).

frozywozy

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

What I was trying to explain there is that it actually gives a chance to the lower numbers of defenders against larger numbers of attackers to do something useful for their faction. It also demotivates people from pvedooring unless they are organized (speced, geared and with some positioning and coordinating experience).

Before this change, no one could do anything against any inexperienced group of 20+ attackers. Now it actually matters and I think it should.

Frozy, we both agree. Siege needed a big increase in damage. But there should be a gray area, right now they overdid it. You can have siege be dangerous and give an extremely large defensive advantage, while also not making it the primary go to in every situation, every fight, whatsoever. Because as of now thats what fire ballista and other siege are used for. They are used everywhere, even if to kill 3 people. THAT is the sign that it has gone too far. You cut siege damage to 80% of it was now and we are good to go. Siege will still be doing massive damage, but it won't 1 hit anyone, it won't be the go to in all scenarios, and it will still wreck people in sieging situations/give a defenders advantage. As of now, a couple oils and fire ballistas used by competent players can hold off infinity (I know because I've been doing it.).

90%

Arki

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

What I was trying to explain there is that it actually gives a chance to the lower numbers of defenders against larger numbers of attackers to do something useful for their faction. It also demotivates people from pvedooring unless they are organized (speced, geared and with some positioning and coordinating experience).

Before this change, no one could do anything against any inexperienced group of 20+ attackers. Now it actually matters and I think it should.

Frozy, we both agree. Siege needed a big increase in damage. But there should be a gray area, right now they overdid it. You can have siege be dangerous and give an extremely large defensive advantage, while also not making it the primary go to in every situation, every fight, whatsoever. Because as of now thats what fire ballista and other siege are used for. They are used everywhere, even if to kill 3 people. THAT is the sign that it has gone too far. You cut siege damage to 80% of it was now and we are good to go. Siege will still be doing massive damage, but it won't 1 hit anyone, it won't be the go to in all scenarios, and it will still wreck people in sieging situations/give a defenders advantage. As of now, a couple oils and fire ballistas used by competent players can hold off infinity (I know because I've been doing it.).

What do you think about the suggestion myself and others have proposed where you keep the current dmg but increase deployment time by a factor of "alot", so that it actually puts you at risk?

Huntler

Arki wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

What I was trying to explain there is that it actually gives a chance to the lower numbers of defenders against larger numbers of attackers to do something useful for their faction. It also demotivates people from pvedooring unless they are organized (speced, geared and with some positioning and coordinating experience).

Before this change, no one could do anything against any inexperienced group of 20+ attackers. Now it actually matters and I think it should.

Frozy, we both agree. Siege needed a big increase in damage. But there should be a gray area, right now they overdid it. You can have siege be dangerous and give an extremely large defensive advantage, while also not making it the primary go to in every situation, every fight, whatsoever. Because as of now thats what fire ballista and other siege are used for. They are used everywhere, even if to kill 3 people. THAT is the sign that it has gone too far. You cut siege damage to 80% of it was now and we are good to go. Siege will still be doing massive damage, but it won't 1 hit anyone, it won't be the go to in all scenarios, and it will still wreck people in sieging situations/give a defenders advantage. As of now, a couple oils and fire ballistas used by competent players can hold off infinity (I know because I've been doing it.).

What do you think about the suggestion myself and others have proposed where you keep the current dmg but increase deployment time by a factor of "alot", so that it actually puts you at risk?

That is an option, but frankly you need to be careful about how much "alot" is because some of the most dire times to use siege is when you are under fire. You really lower the skill ceiling of players being aware and bashing the players putting up siege if you drastically increase the time to deploy.


As with what frozy said above, he wants 90% I want 80% somewhere there I think siege will still be devastating, but just dialed back enough so it isn't so silly. I want siege to be devastating, but not the GO TO in every situation no matter where you are. Right now it feels like the damage output is so high that I am literally placing one everywhere I go in a fight and getting a ridiculous amount of kills because of it (yes avoid red circles, but there are ways to force people to get hit by siege or else they have to disengage).

frozywozy

Arki wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

What I was trying to explain there is that it actually gives a chance to the lower numbers of defenders against larger numbers of attackers to do something useful for their faction. It also demotivates people from pvedooring unless they are organized (speced, geared and with some positioning and coordinating experience).

Before this change, no one could do anything against any inexperienced group of 20+ attackers. Now it actually matters and I think it should.

Frozy, we both agree. Siege needed a big increase in damage. But there should be a gray area, right now they overdid it. You can have siege be dangerous and give an extremely large defensive advantage, while also not making it the primary go to in every situation, every fight, whatsoever. Because as of now thats what fire ballista and other siege are used for. They are used everywhere, even if to kill 3 people. THAT is the sign that it has gone too far. You cut siege damage to 80% of it was now and we are good to go. Siege will still be doing massive damage, but it won't 1 hit anyone, it won't be the go to in all scenarios, and it will still wreck people in sieging situations/give a defenders advantage. As of now, a couple oils and fire ballistas used by competent players can hold off infinity (I know because I've been doing it.).

What do you think about the suggestion myself and others have proposed where you keep the current dmg but increase deployment time by a factor of "alot", so that it actually puts you at risk?

This also what I've proposed here.

NukeAllTheThings

Huntler wrote: »

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

What is a "real zerg"? How does it differ from a regular zerg? Is a group considered a zerg? Is a zerg a full raid party? I thought I had a pretty good idea what a zerg was but in the last week I have seen it applied selectively to back up varying viewpoints

Allow me to clarify what I meant before and you'll prolly know what I mean. Sure there are zergs everywhere, big raid groups, whatever. But I consider really a real zerg, the one that has a mind of its own in which usually there is a big raid group or two, then like... randoms that follow it around like this massive wrecking ball of mindlessness. It kind of just goes from 1 thing to another, super predictable, without really being able to stop it. There might have been organization once, but it just becomes a whole nother monster. Its at these levels where it starts to get so big and in a way disorganized that trying to wipe it is actually extremely difficult because its so big, and never quite together. As you push to the biggest clump, there are just randoms all around rezzing or whatnot. Its very difficult for an organized group to really every truly wipe it at that point. Everywhere you go, they die, but there are so many and spread out that you can never kill them fast enough before everyone is rezzed.


It is extremely difficult to wipe this group, you put forward camps back in, it will never be doable. Except if they all hold hands on the back flag in oil or something.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree those are near impossible to wipe because there is no rhyme or reason to their movement and they usually just scatter. But their behavior is the same today as it was before the siege buff. Of course now we have to be aware of the siege in the field but that is taken out rather quickly with coordinated group movement. The group leaders are usually pretty good at prioritizing targets and leading to eliminate it. I have not seen any difference in the size of the zergs today than I did before 2.0.2. There will always be a swarm in certain places on the front lines but now defenders have a reasonable chance to actually fall back to a keep or outpost and defend from there. Previously falling back w/ 20 vs. 50 lead to a lost objective.

I would have no problem with a reduction in damage on the DOTs and a delayed tick but reducing damage from immediate impact would seem to eliminate any worry about siege again.

Huntler

Camps can be placed anywhere, its very naive to think you're ever going to be able to fully stop them in most situations. Its like trying to stop water leaking with your bare hands.

Moderator note: Removed quote content as it was previously moderated.

Grim13

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Maybe I'm such a "super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player" that I have faith in my ability to burn those camps down... lol

..And, no, I don't think I am... nor do I believe my posts suggest that. Your attitude, however... well, that's another story.

Camps can be placed anywhere, its very naive to think you're ever going to be able to fully stop them in most situations. Its like trying to stop water leaking with your bare hands.

There are some simple tweaks that could be made to FCs to keep them from getting out of control:

1) Have them so that they can only be placed so far from the last keep/outpost occupied by that faction. This would make them an extension of the "supply line".
2) Or, Make them so that they can only be placed at the resources of the keep being sieged... again, only so far from the last keep/outpost occupied.
3) Limit the number of FCs that can be placed during any given time at a single keep/outpost. Perhaps on a timer.
4) Only allow rezzing for those who died inside it's area of operation.

Moderator note: Edited comment per our rules on flaming.

ZOS_TristanK

We're closing this thread so that we can evaluate it and remove items that violate our Code of Conduct. We'll be sure to post an update soon but in the mean time encourage everyone to review the rules. Thank you.

ZOS_TristanK

Thanks for your patience. We've cleaned up this thread and removing many comments for flaming. We know that discussions can be heated, but please refrain from posting personal attacks. We encourage you to either report posts you find inappropriate or to place users on your ignore list instead of replying in-thread.

Since there's a lot of good discussion about siege damage and general balance in PvP, we are reopening this thread with the hope that the conversation will take a more constructive turn.

ToRelax

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

Know what would make this change even better!?

Reintroduce Forward Camps into the game! Have them operate like they should have operated from the start... so that you can only respawn at them if you were killed in their radius...

The game would get even better! ..and the siege damage wouldn't seem quite so terrible to the people bothered by it.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more tools that bolsters a zerg. Seeing you guys think of ideas is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Oh god... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Lets give a few more actual reasons why that was a bad idea. Seeing you refusing to be constructive is terrifying. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Real zergs are already insanely difficult to wipe these days due to how rezzing works. It is basically impossible after a certain size to wipe the zerg in anywhere, but them all sitting in a corner holding hands. Once it reaches that size no smaller group can wipe the zerg fast enough before they slide around you and rez up the dead. How do you think thats going to go when you allow forward camps again? Why do I even have to explain this to you? You're supposed to be this super, awesome, skilled, tactical, dynamic player by the way you talk about yourself in your posts.

Doesn't really matter if they resurrect each other to be honest. All you're doing is buying time until the reinforcements arrive. Best example I can give you is yesterday at Farragut. There was a whole raid of AD who front-doored it, it was only me and a couple of EP defending. We used siege and kitting as best as we could to destroy stragglers here and there. Even tho they would all rez each other multiple times, we bought enough time for IR and Havoc to come and kill the remaining ones.

Some of us don't want to play the game as delayers for others to come and rescue us. What you just described is one of the prime problems with siege right now, the solution to your problem was to get more people.

What I was trying to explain there is that it actually gives a chance to the lower numbers of defenders against larger numbers of attackers to do something useful for their faction. It also demotivates people from pvedooring unless they are organized (speced, geared and with some positioning and coordinating experience).

Before this change, no one could do anything against any inexperienced group of 20+ attackers. Now it actually matters and I think it should.

Frozy, we both agree. Siege needed a big increase in damage. But there should be a gray area, right now they overdid it. You can have siege be dangerous and give an extremely large defensive advantage, while also not making it the primary go to in every situation, every fight, whatsoever. Because as of now thats what fire ballista and other siege are used for. They are used everywhere, even if to kill 3 people. THAT is the sign that it has gone too far. You cut siege damage to 80% of it was now and we are good to go. Siege will still be doing massive damage, but it won't 1 hit anyone, it won't be the go to in all scenarios, and it will still wreck people in sieging situations/give a defenders advantage. As of now, a couple oils and fire ballistas used by competent players can hold off infinity (I know because I've been doing it.).

You can not hold off larger numbers of competent players though. And the game shouldnt be balanced around bad players, obviously.