Two Years of ESO PvP - Rylana's comments for ZOS

JaJaLuka

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Just noting that the thread has been read and there are things in here we're working on. Rich's thing is /lurk...I don't have one of those yet.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler /stalk?
/lurk sounds just as creepy, maybe try to out creep Rich...

FENGRUSH

Starshadw wrote: »

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

You know, the AOE caps may have nothing to do with it. The lag could be purely a result of the lighting changes. If I were them, I'd test just removing that first, and see what happens.

AOE caps is not just for performance - its more a matter of balance. AOE caps keeps big groups alive forever as well through artificial mitigation which just stresses servers beyond what it should handle.

With that said, lighting/client side changes is likely what has caused the lag moreso - but they wont change this. They will try to fix other things that they didnt need to touch before. Long story short, the magical fix is not out there, it would have been found by now. The best alternative is to take away incentives to zerg that everyone is doing which creates 1) dull mass pvp and 2) poor performance.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

You know, the AOE caps may have nothing to do with it. The lag could be purely a result of the lighting changes. If I were them, I'd test just removing that first, and see what happens.

AOE caps is not just for performance - its more a matter of balance. AOE caps keeps big groups alive forever as well through artificial mitigation which just stresses servers beyond what it should handle.

With that said, lighting/client side changes is likely what has caused the lag moreso - but they wont change this. They will try to fix other things that they didnt need to touch before. Long story short, the magical fix is not out there, it would have been found by now. The best alternative is to take away incentives to zerg that everyone is doing which creates 1) dull mass pvp and 2) poor performance.

Let's try and encourage a positive change rather than a negative one.. its clear that so far their investigations haven't worked because otherwise the fixes that are going in would have more impact.
Let the players help track the problem down by giving them a test environment - we are really good at producing lag you don't need to use bots.
Just give us an older version to test and I'm 99% sure there will be less lag in this environment without having to condemn playstyles.

JaJaLuka

JaJaLuka wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Just noting that the thread has been read and there are things in here we're working on. Rich's thing is /lurk...I don't have one of those yet.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler /stalk?
/lurk sounds just as creepy, maybe try to out creep Rich...

Or if you don't want to be creepy; /skulk or prowl ?

Starshadw

FENGRUSH wrote: »

AOE caps is not just for performance - its more a matter of balance. AOE caps keeps big groups alive forever as well through artificial mitigation which just stresses servers beyond what it should handle.

With that said, lighting/client side changes is likely what has caused the lag moreso - but they wont change this. They will try to fix other things that they didnt need to touch before. Long story short, the magical fix is not out there, it would have been found by now. The best alternative is to take away incentives to zerg that everyone is doing which creates 1) dull mass pvp and 2) poor performance.

It's too bad that they can't simply develop a toggle for the lighting, so that folks in Cyro could choose to turn them off to improve performance. That, or just eliminate it from Cyro altogether. Very few folks go out there to enjoy the scenery (I think I'm in the very small minority that still likes to wander around out there purely to look around).

I've said this before, but PvP right now is a Hot Mess. Performance issues aside, there's skill/class imbalances, exploits and cheats - it's very disheartening. Though it will never happen, what they really should have done was have all skills work slightly differently in PvP than they do in PvE - this would allow them to exert greater control over what's happening in PvP in terms of balance without utterly screwing PvE.

That, and there should be some sort of downside to stat-stacking builds, which there currently isn't since most skills have morphs to either stat. There's not nearly enough give and take built into their systems at the moment - there isn't with stats, nor with the Champion Point system. There should be something you have to give up for something you get. You shouldn't be able to have it all.

Insofar as AOE caps - unless I'm misremembering, one of the reasons they implemented them was in the hopes of discouraging zergs (with Purge spamming, etc). The sad thing is that NONE of the things they've put into the game to try and discourage zergs has worked and has, in fact, often made it easier for the zergs to just keep on running. Proxy det was supposed to be "THE zergbuster." What do you see? Zergs running 6+ proxy dets nonstop, and rolling over smaller groups because of it.

Nothing so far has done anything to discourage the blobs/zergs.

frozywozy

Starshadw wrote: »

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

You know, the AOE caps may have nothing to do with it. The lag could be purely a result of the lighting changes. If I were them, I'd test just removing that first, and see what happens.

If a 25men group spam aoes on top of nothing in front of another 25men group doing the same, there is no latency issues.
If a 25men group spam aoes on top of another group spamming aoes, there are latency issues.

Lightning has nothing to do with latency performance issues, aoe and los calculations do.

danno8

Starshadw wrote: »

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

You know, the AOE caps may have nothing to do with it. The lag could be purely a result of the lighting changes. If I were them, I'd test just removing that first, and see what happens.

The lighting changes COULD affect fps, but I do not see how it can affect lag. The ESO server is not sitting there doing real-time light-source calculations. That is all done on the client computer.

Turn off all your fancy graphics, lighting, AA, everything, and you will still lag on cue when you get big groups spamming AoE against other big groups.

The anti-cheat code implemented with the same patch as the lighting changes - that can certainly cause lag.

Starshadw

frozywozy wrote: »

If a 25men group spam aoes on top of nothing in front of another 25men group doing the same, there is no latency issues.
If a 25men group spam aoes on top of another group spamming aoes, there are latency issues.
Lightning has nothing to do with latency performance issues, aoe and los calculations do.

Oh, I dunno about that - but again, it's really hard to tell without testing each one separately. If you yank them both, there's no way to tell for certain how much of the problem is cause by which one. Meaning, if the lighting was yanked, it's possible that it would improve things enough that the extra calculations necessary because of the AOE cap wouldn't cause as much lag. It could be the other way around as well - removing AOE caps could make it so the lightning doesn't cause as much of an issue. No way to know that, though, unless you properly test it out.

But yes, the extra calculation required is going to slow things down. That said, I certainly don't want to return to the days of Jesus Beams that go all the way across the map and through multiple walls to kill you. Hell, the system still isn't perfect - I still find myself getting hit with things I shouldn't. But I'll take some effort at preventing it, over no effort at all.

This just gets back to my belief that skills should work differently inside Cyro, full stop.

Psilent

FENGRUSH wrote: »

danno8 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

For some strange reason the flag flips faster the more people are on the flag. This has never made sense to me. +1 for zerg tactics again.

It should take 30 seconds (at least) to flip once the process begins, no matter one person or 30 people.

Every mechanic in cyro revolves around zerging in ball fashion. At this point, and given the lack of responses to help negate zergs - we can only expect zenimax really wanted to a model a ball group gameplay style in GW2 rather than develop and continue a more unique style it had when it first started with a larger population.

Why were AoE Caps put in the game to begin with? What are the pros and cons of removing them?

Why does Elemental Ring have a 6 meter radius while Steel Tornado has a 12.5 meter radius?

Why is a Keep/Castle/Fort able to be captured while all the resources are not flipped to your factions color?

Why are players allowed to select any Keep/Castle/Fort to resurrect, but Forward Camps will have a radius?

Are there any plans to change how players obtain Emperor? Also, why is there not more ways to dethrone an Emperor?

Why can we not resurrect at an Outpost?

Why don't the developers dethrone Emperors on campaigns that will be closed to prevent permenant Emperor titles?

With the nerf to Bolt Escape, why can I not use it when running a scroll?

Edit: Sorry FENGRUSH did not mean to quote you and my phone will not let me delete the quoted text.

Lava_Croft

frozywozy wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

You know, the AOE caps may have nothing to do with it. The lag could be purely a result of the lighting changes. If I were them, I'd test just removing that first, and see what happens.

If a 25men group spam aoes on top of nothing in front of another 25men group doing the same, there is no latency issues.
If a 25men group spam aoes on top of another group spamming aoes, there are latency issues.

Lightning has nothing to do with latency performance issues, aoe and los calculations do.

QFT and please stop whining about the lighting causing problems. My bottom spec potato of a PC clearly shows it's not the lighting.

danno8

Starshadw wrote: »

Insofar as AOE caps - unless I'm misremembering, one of the reasons they implemented them was in the hopes of discouraging zergs (with Purge spamming, etc). The sad thing is that NONE of the things they've put into the game to try and discourage zergs has worked and has, in fact, often made it easier for the zergs to just keep on running. Proxy det was supposed to be "THE zergbuster." What do you see? Zergs running 6+ proxy dets nonstop, and rolling over smaller groups because of it.

Nothing so far has done anything to discourage the blobs/zergs.

Only that Purge has no limit, but people in ball groups larger 6 targets get 50% less damage and over 25 targets get 75% less damage for those targets.

It should be the opposite, if anything, lol.

Greater numbers have inherent superiority without additional mechanics helping them further. I don't want big groups to have any help aside from greater numbers. I also don't want them to have any additional disadvantages like some have suggested (like some crazy 100% damage bonus on Proxy for any more than 6 targets - yah how about "no").

Just an equal playing field for large/medium/small/solo size groups and players.

frozywozy

Psilent wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

danno8 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

For some strange reason the flag flips faster the more people are on the flag. This has never made sense to me. +1 for zerg tactics again.

It should take 30 seconds (at least) to flip once the process begins, no matter one person or 30 people.

Every mechanic in cyro revolves around zerging in ball fashion. At this point, and given the lack of responses to help negate zergs - we can only expect zenimax really wanted to a model a ball group gameplay style in GW2 rather than develop and continue a more unique style it had when it first started with a larger population.

Why were AoE Caps put in the game to begin with? What are the pros and cons of removing them?

I suppose it was implemented to favor smaller groups, which failed.

Why does Elemental Ring have a 6 meter radius while Steel Tornado has a 12.5 meter radius?

It is probably something they don't have time to deal with atm.

Why is a Keep/Castle/Fort able to be captured while all the resources are not flipped to your factions color?

I'm not sure about this one. I don't think I would like the feeling to be inside an enemy inner keep flipping both flags with all enemy and guards dead and suddenly, someone would solo a level 1 ressource around the keep and deny the capture. meh

Why are players allowed to select any Keep/Castle/Fort to resurrect, but Forward Camps will have a radius?

I agree that keeps which are not linked to the transit all the way to your faction gates should not allow people to spawn on them unless people died in its radius, just as new forward camps are intended to work.

Are there any plans to change how players obtain Emperor? Also, why is there not more ways to dethrone an Emperor?

Hopefuly, they change Emperorship to value people working on objectives rather than straight killing.

Why can we not resurrect at an Outpost?

Maybe because the outputs are too small to contain resurrecting shrines? :P

Why don't the developers dethrone Emperors on campaigns that will be closed to prevent permenant Emperor titles?

Good point *coughs The King Rich*

With the nerf to Bolt Escape, why can I not use it when running a scroll?

Because it would benefit your class compared to other classes.

reften

no to arena (would destroy Cyrodiil) and no to flags on resource towers (unless you remove the door and just have an archway)

Draxys

Psilent wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

danno8 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

For some strange reason the flag flips faster the more people are on the flag. This has never made sense to me. +1 for zerg tactics again.

It should take 30 seconds (at least) to flip once the process begins, no matter one person or 30 people.

Every mechanic in cyro revolves around zerging in ball fashion. At this point, and given the lack of responses to help negate zergs - we can only expect zenimax really wanted to a model a ball group gameplay style in GW2 rather than develop and continue a more unique style it had when it first started with a larger population.

With the nerf to Bolt Escape, why can I not use it when running a scroll?

................

































you're joking right?

Ezareth

danno8 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

For some strange reason the flag flips faster the more people are on the flag. This has never made sense to me. +1 for zerg tactics again.

It should take 30 seconds (at least) to flip once the process begins, no matter one person or 30 people.

That flag flip speed maxes out at 6 people on a flag. 30 can flip a flag no quicker than 6 can.

Starshadw

danno8 wrote: »

Greater numbers have inherent superiority without additional mechanics helping them further. I don't want big groups to have any help aside from greater numbers. I also don't want them to have any additional disadvantages like some have suggested (like some crazy 100% damage bonus on Proxy for any more than 6 targets - yah how about "no").

Just an equal playing field for large/medium/small/solo size groups and players.

The problem is, without some sort of disadvantage, there can't be an equal playing field between the small group of 6-12 and the massive zergs of 24+

danno8

Starshadw wrote: »

danno8 wrote: »

Greater numbers have inherent superiority without additional mechanics helping them further. I don't want big groups to have any help aside from greater numbers. I also don't want them to have any additional disadvantages like some have suggested (like some crazy 100% damage bonus on Proxy for any more than 6 targets - yah how about "no").

Just an equal playing field for large/medium/small/solo size groups and players.

The problem is, without some sort of disadvantage, there can't be an equal playing field between the small group of 6-12 and the massive zergs of 24+

If it were actually an equal playing field, that zerg of 24 might be better off in two groups of 12 attacking 2 different targets, rather than balling up.

But balling up is soooooo attractive due to the bonuses you get that right now it is better to just add more and more to the group, because if you get attacked you are waaaaaaaay harder to kill.

Groups of different sizes are going to happen. Constantly. Making smaller groups artificially stronger than larger groups, or larger groups artificially stronger than smaller groups (as it is currently) is a balancing act you will never win. Let the 3 factions manage their group numbers and decide if it is worth putting all their eggs in one basket. Don't make it the default best strategy.

Let skilled play and group composition help the 6-12 man group take on the 24 man group. It already happens even now, it is just way harder at the moment due to the AoE caps.

danno8

Ezareth wrote: »

danno8 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

For some strange reason the flag flips faster the more people are on the flag. This has never made sense to me. +1 for zerg tactics again.

It should take 30 seconds (at least) to flip once the process begins, no matter one person or 30 people.

That flag flip speed maxes out at 6 people on a flag. 30 can flip a flag no quicker than 6 can.

Yes, but it is still a helpful mechanic to the zerg regardless. I've don't have tonnes of experience with capture the flag mechanics but I think most games require the flag to be held as a function of time, not time/#players.

I have a hard time thinking up a reason for the extra boost for a group > 1.

edit: Maybe ZoS figured it would help break groups up, so they can take resources quicker. But I think the "safety in numbers" that is provided to large groups through caps trumps that mechanic.

Galalin

Here is a question... how many of us are still even paying customers anymore? I know im not so i could go on and list all the crap i think is broken but im not going to bother because i have done that over and over to no avail... see where im going with this @ZOS_BrianWheeler

No results=no customers=no money to pay for sufficient amount of staff=no resources to fix this mess=end of the game

Elsonso

Galalin wrote: »

Here is a question... how many of us are still even paying customers anymore? I know im not so i could go on and list all the crap i think is broken but im not going to bother because i have done that over and over to no avail... see where im going with this @ZOS_BrianWheeler

No results=no customers=no money to pay for sufficient amount of staff=no resources to fix this mess=end of the game

Depends on who you consider to be "us" when you ask that question.

Right now, I would say that the majority of players (on PC/Mac) are paying customers right now and subscribe to ESO Plus. That may just be to get 3000 crowns for Orsinium, but they are currently paying customers.

Scyantific

Wrobel won't post because the moment he does he'll get torn apart for refusing to acknowledge the issues at hand.

Why? Because he refuses to acknowledge that his current systems are flawed.

Galalin

Scyantific wrote: »

Wrobel won't post because the moment he does he'll get torn apart for refusing to acknowledge the issues at hand.

Why? Because he refuses to acknowledge that his current systems are flawed.

I would tend to believe in his position he would not even look at these forums... and i don't thinkZoS would ever allow him to post here with the current condition of the game... nevermind him even wanting to

Galalin

lordrichter wrote: »

Galalin wrote: »

Here is a question... how many of us are still even paying customers anymore? I know im not so i could go on and list all the crap i think is broken but im not going to bother because i have done that over and over to no avail... see where im going with this @ZOS_BrianWheeler

No results=no customers=no money to pay for sufficient amount of staff=no resources to fix this mess=end of the game

Depends on who you consider to be "us" when you ask that question.

Right now, I would say that the majority of players (on PC/Mac) are paying customers right now and subscribe to ESO Plus. That may just be to get 3000 crowns for Orsinium, but they are currently paying customers.

By us i mean the long term PvP community... and yes i would agree ppl subscribe to eso plus for the new dlc (i did not as for PvE im just not interested) as a full time PvPer there is nothing for me to justify paying for. By no means am i suggesting everyone is like me but with the amount of ppl already lost and loaing more and more paying customers in my position. Then add new promising games that are getting close to release. In my opinion this game is at do or die stage.... again just my opinion

Wycks

You know what is funny?

DAOC was the predecessor for several ESO devs. It had 10000% better keep defense and anti-zerg tactics.

You could actually defend a keep vs large numbers because it had a choke point. A small group of 6-8 could take out a group of 40 with tactics and communication.

WTF

Elsonso

.

Galalin wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Galalin wrote: »

Here is a question... how many of us are still even paying customers anymore? I know im not so i could go on and list all the crap i think is broken but im not going to bother because i have done that over and over to no avail... see where im going with this @ZOS_BrianWheeler

No results=no customers=no money to pay for sufficient amount of staff=no resources to fix this mess=end of the game

Depends on who you consider to be "us" when you ask that question.

Right now, I would say that the majority of players (on PC/Mac) are paying customers right now and subscribe to ESO Plus. That may just be to get 3000 crowns for Orsinium, but they are currently paying customers.

By us i mean the long term PvP community... and yes i would agree ppl subscribe to eso plus for the new dlc (i did not as for PvE im just not interested) as a full time PvPer there is nothing for me to justify paying for. By no means am i suggesting everyone is like me but with the amount of ppl already lost and loaing more and more paying customers in my position. Then add new promising games that are getting close to release. In my opinion this game is at do or die stage.... again just my opinion

Then, yeah, I would not be surprised at a low number of paying long term PVP customers, far below the average. I don't want to insult you, but I don't think you are in a very large group of players. A distinct, and shrinking, minority.

PVP in ESO will benefit from lag fixes (which may never come) and balance corrections. If they can get both of those done, that will be enough to save the PVP game, even with no new content, for those people who want large scale unstructured PVP. For those who what small scale PVP and structured PVP, or like large scale PVP but cannot tolerate the balance and lag issues, I have to think that ESO is not the place to hang around.

If Imperial City is any indication, any small scale PVP or structured PVP that they do will be so "ESO flavored" that the people who want that form of PVP won't want that PVP. ZOS will do their own thing.

Manoekin

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Since most of this information is scattered about the forums here's a nice condensed "short answer" list:

• Reintroducing forward camps with smaller radius', restrictive respawning within radius only and global cooldown.
• Refactoring Siege damage (again)
• Removing alliance campaign restrictions on your account
• Allowing you to unassign yourself with cooldowns
• Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground
• More things to spend your AP on and updating current sets to higher levels

Most, if not all, of these changes should be in the next major update (barring issues with testing).

We are also staying vigilant about improving performance in Cyrodiil. There were a few ability changes made earlier this week and we're watching the performance after those changes, but we're still digging into getting the performance better.

Honest question, Brian:

That all is stuff that you tried before (sieges, forward camps, npcs). Sieges in particular never stopped ball groups, instead they used it. Purge is just too mighty.

Why not focus on the roots of the problems instead of bandaids that have proven to not work or relocate problems from one front to another? A lot of the things you brought up above do not affect a solo player or smaller group (the ones spreading out, according to you not influencing performance negatively) in any positive way or promote smaller groups.

I mean, isn`t there a saying that it isn`t necessarily the smartest thinking to try the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes?!

The list above is a list catering to ballgroups more than to smaller ones... again.

Buffing sieges promote smaller groups alot. Just imagine any siege defense situation where a balling group pvedoor a keep without proper defense already there. Smaller numbers need to be able to hold the large assaulting group with sieges. When the outter wall goes down, properly placed siege weapons such as oil catapults (if it was not purgable), meatbags (with the old healing debuff reduction), fire balistas while purges cooldown on players at 4seconds would actually give a chance to stop the 25men barrier and purge spam group going in. It would convince them to either spread out in smaller group while going in or open an additional wall, while giving time to reinforcements to ride to the keep and defend it with even numbers.

We've been through this before, buffing siege benefits the zerg far more than any bonus it provides to a small group. You want siege buffed to help you defend? All you're going to be doing is defending because the moment you step outside the keep walls you're being bombarded with siege in the open field while being swarmed by a zerg.

And through all the discussions we have had over the past 1year and a half regarding sieges, yet you have not understood that NO ONE CARE about openfield battles. Openfield battles don't win the war. Keep battles win the war. And I'm tired to see people rolling over keeps in a 2mins 32seconds timer just because they have a 4barriers rotation and 6 efficient purge spammers. I want large groups to be be forced to time their movements into breaches between each siege volley and to spread out into smaller groups OR to bring an additional wall down if defenders properly deployed their counter siege weapons firing at the breach.

I could care less about a large group of players who want to deploy sieges on the field between Alessia and Faregyl. I will just go around and flag the keep from behind while they waste their time firing at the grass.

Also, what you described as changes for siege is not just buffing, it's basically an I-Win button. The point of siege is to supplement the PvP, not be the main focus. How can people still not realize this? I can agree with a slight damage buff for siege, but everyone I've seen is going way overboard with the "why can't I 1shot that group of people with my meatbag?" type of arguments.

You say that what I ask is an "I-Win button" but strangely, I see your suggestion about buffing siege damage as the "I-Win button". Damage is perfectly fine as it is. What we need is to give more utility to the siege to counter people stacking on each other. We need to force them to spread out in strategic times when engaging in a keep area. I never said that a meatbag should one shot people, I asked for the healing reduction debuff be increased slightly (let say 10%). It could still be purged by the 25man ballgroup with 6players spamming purges.

Everyone talks about the fun days of 1.5 and before when things were balanced. Guess what we didn't have back then? Broken siege. There was a point where oil cata wasn't able to be purged and ZOS rightly saw that as ruining the PvP experience because you completely lost control of your character if you were hit just one time.

Unpurgable oil catapult is probably the most needed buff at the moment because of how retreating maneuver is broken. And this has been discussed and approved alot in these forums. I don't care if you put an AOE cap on oil catapults to hit 6players only, but make it unpurgable. Dodge roll a lil bit and learn how to relay on your self defense instead of others from time to time won't hurt.

Other than that the only thing you could say was OP were ground oils, but that's only if you're stupid enough to stand in all of them or not bash the person setting them down. The siege people didn't use back then are the same siege people don't use now. Simply buffing the siege damage to insane amounts is not fixing ***.

I have always been in favor of ground oils. My best moments into this game have been standing inside the cobby next to an outter breach pouring oils on my magicka DK with @Aegon or defending ressources with @xylena with 4oils on the flag.

Yeah, and I could care less about someone completely ignoring a part of PvP in this game. It doesn't matter what you think if you can't put aside your own bias and instead realize you have to look at the whole of PvP. You're only going to ruin the game further that way.

I ask for a "slight" buff to siege damage. In each and every post about siege damage you see me saying to not make it ridiculous like how it was before. I'm talking like a 10% increase if anything. Other than getting hit by a stone treb I don't mind being hit by siege at all right now, and that's wrong. Siege is fine right now, but something like that isn't going to make it crazy. Also, you cannot increase the meatbag healing reduction without increasing all healing reduction. If you want that why don't you spec for it? It's in the champ tree bro.

Retreating is not broken. What's broken is that you can spam snares and roots with 0 diminishing returns. That's why retreating is still the way it is, and why it stops the user from attacking if they want to keep the buff on themselves. That's a pretty significant negative to the skill. Here's a little story for you. A group of 12 goes to Glademist Mine thinking we're going to siege the keep right? We set up some siege, and lo and behold a bajillion blues pour out of the keep. This is going to be a good farm right, because they're all terrible pugs? Wrong. You've got 6 oil catapults hitting your group and you're completely stationary while the the blues that significantly outnumber you can do whatever the *** they want because ZOS decided they could have control of their characters. Oh? Only 6 members of your group were hit this time giving the other 6 the chance to get LOS. Too bad you only have 6 group members left because the other 6 are dead.* The same thing happens inside a keep outer and inner.

*Movie and script rights not for sale*

We all agree ground oils were the ***.

Rust_in_Peace

bob.ellisonb16_ESO wrote: »

You know what is funny?

DAOC was the predecessor for several ESO devs. It had 10000% better keep defense and anti-zerg tactics.

You could actually defend a keep vs large numbers because it had a choke point. A small group of 6-8 could take out a group of 40 with tactics and communication.

WTF

We can't have that in ESO because then the 40 people who died will come here and make threads saying the 5 man group that killed them was cheating, hacking, botting, part of ISIS, etc. instead of trying to rethink their tactics.

Ezareth

Lava_Croft wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

You know, the AOE caps may have nothing to do with it. The lag could be purely a result of the lighting changes. If I were them, I'd test just removing that first, and see what happens.

If a 25men group spam aoes on top of nothing in front of another 25men group doing the same, there is no latency issues.
If a 25men group spam aoes on top of another group spamming aoes, there are latency issues.

Lightning has nothing to do with latency performance issues, aoe and los calculations do.

QFT and please stop whining about the lighting causing problems. My bottom spec potato of a PC clearly shows it's not the lighting.

FPS issues still exist in the game. My computer drops to 10-15 FPS in the "Lobby" area of Maelstrom Arena because of lighting or some effects in the area. Poorly optimized code can bring even the fastest machine to its knees and my computer is pretty bleeding edge.

frozywozy

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Since most of this information is scattered about the forums here's a nice condensed "short answer" list:

• Reintroducing forward camps with smaller radius', restrictive respawning within radius only and global cooldown.
• Refactoring Siege damage (again)
• Removing alliance campaign restrictions on your account
• Allowing you to unassign yourself with cooldowns
• Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground
• More things to spend your AP on and updating current sets to higher levels

Most, if not all, of these changes should be in the next major update (barring issues with testing).

We are also staying vigilant about improving performance in Cyrodiil. There were a few ability changes made earlier this week and we're watching the performance after those changes, but we're still digging into getting the performance better.

Honest question, Brian:

That all is stuff that you tried before (sieges, forward camps, npcs). Sieges in particular never stopped ball groups, instead they used it. Purge is just too mighty.

Why not focus on the roots of the problems instead of bandaids that have proven to not work or relocate problems from one front to another? A lot of the things you brought up above do not affect a solo player or smaller group (the ones spreading out, according to you not influencing performance negatively) in any positive way or promote smaller groups.

I mean, isn`t there a saying that it isn`t necessarily the smartest thinking to try the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes?!

The list above is a list catering to ballgroups more than to smaller ones... again.

Buffing sieges promote smaller groups alot. Just imagine any siege defense situation where a balling group pvedoor a keep without proper defense already there. Smaller numbers need to be able to hold the large assaulting group with sieges. When the outter wall goes down, properly placed siege weapons such as oil catapults (if it was not purgable), meatbags (with the old healing debuff reduction), fire balistas while purges cooldown on players at 4seconds would actually give a chance to stop the 25men barrier and purge spam group going in. It would convince them to either spread out in smaller group while going in or open an additional wall, while giving time to reinforcements to ride to the keep and defend it with even numbers.

We've been through this before, buffing siege benefits the zerg far more than any bonus it provides to a small group. You want siege buffed to help you defend? All you're going to be doing is defending because the moment you step outside the keep walls you're being bombarded with siege in the open field while being swarmed by a zerg.

And through all the discussions we have had over the past 1year and a half regarding sieges, yet you have not understood that NO ONE CARE about openfield battles. Openfield battles don't win the war. Keep battles win the war. And I'm tired to see people rolling over keeps in a 2mins 32seconds timer just because they have a 4barriers rotation and 6 efficient purge spammers. I want large groups to be be forced to time their movements into breaches between each siege volley and to spread out into smaller groups OR to bring an additional wall down if defenders properly deployed their counter siege weapons firing at the breach.

I could care less about a large group of players who want to deploy sieges on the field between Alessia and Faregyl. I will just go around and flag the keep from behind while they waste their time firing at the grass.

Also, what you described as changes for siege is not just buffing, it's basically an I-Win button. The point of siege is to supplement the PvP, not be the main focus. How can people still not realize this? I can agree with a slight damage buff for siege, but everyone I've seen is going way overboard with the "why can't I 1shot that group of people with my meatbag?" type of arguments.

You say that what I ask is an "I-Win button" but strangely, I see your suggestion about buffing siege damage as the "I-Win button". Damage is perfectly fine as it is. What we need is to give more utility to the siege to counter people stacking on each other. We need to force them to spread out in strategic times when engaging in a keep area. I never said that a meatbag should one shot people, I asked for the healing reduction debuff be increased slightly (let say 10%). It could still be purged by the 25man ballgroup with 6players spamming purges.

Everyone talks about the fun days of 1.5 and before when things were balanced. Guess what we didn't have back then? Broken siege. There was a point where oil cata wasn't able to be purged and ZOS rightly saw that as ruining the PvP experience because you completely lost control of your character if you were hit just one time.

Unpurgable oil catapult is probably the most needed buff at the moment because of how retreating maneuver is broken. And this has been discussed and approved alot in these forums. I don't care if you put an AOE cap on oil catapults to hit 6players only, but make it unpurgable. Dodge roll a lil bit and learn how to relay on your self defense instead of others from time to time won't hurt.

Other than that the only thing you could say was OP were ground oils, but that's only if you're stupid enough to stand in all of them or not bash the person setting them down. The siege people didn't use back then are the same siege people don't use now. Simply buffing the siege damage to insane amounts is not fixing ***.

I have always been in favor of ground oils. My best moments into this game have been standing inside the cobby next to an outter breach pouring oils on my magicka DK with @Aegon or defending ressources with @xylena with 4oils on the flag.

Yeah, and I could care less about someone completely ignoring a part of PvP in this game. It doesn't matter what you think if you can't put aside your own bias and instead realize you have to look at the whole of PvP. You're only going to ruin the game further that way.

Dude I'm not ignoring a part of PvP in this game. I actually enjoy openfield battles when they do happen. What I'm saying is that openfield battles don't win campaigns. So I don't care if large groups are favored by using sieges during such situations. What matters is that smaller groups are favored by using sieges during keep battles.

I ask for a "slight" buff to siege damage. In each and every post about siege damage you see me saying to not make it ridiculous like how it was before. I'm talking like a 10% increase if anything. Other than getting hit by a stone treb I don't mind being hit by siege at all right now, and that's wrong. Siege is fine right now, but something like that isn't going to make it crazy. Also, you cannot increase the meatbag healing reduction without increasing all healing reduction. If you want that why don't you spec for it? It's in the champ tree bro.

I'm not sure to understand your refference here. You're telling me that I should put points in Befouled champoint point if I want to increase my own disease damage with meatbags? If I would have 501 cps, sure. I just hit 360 yesterday and all my green cps are used in stamina recovery and stamina cost reduction, obviously, since i'm playing a Stam DK.

Retreating is not broken. What's broken is that you can spam snares and roots with 0 diminishing returns. That's why retreating is still the way it is, and why it stops the user from attacking if they want to keep the buff on themselves. That's a pretty significant negative to the skill. Here's a little story for you. A group of 12 goes to Glademist Mine thinking we're going to siege the keep right? We set up some siege, and lo and behold a bajillion blues pour out of the keep. This is going to be a good farm right, because they're all terrible pugs? Wrong. You've got 6 oil catapults hitting your group and you're completely stationary while the the blues that significantly outnumber you can do whatever the *** they want because ZOS decided they could have control of their characters. Oh? Only 6 members of your group were hit this time giving the other 6 the chance to get LOS. Too bad you only have 6 group members left because the other 6 are dead.* The same thing happens inside a keep outer and inner.

There are two different flaws in your scenario. First of all, the fight is happening in a ressource with no choke point (unlike keeps with outter and inner breach). Second, if you get caught by 6 players using oil catapults, that means that you entirely screwed up your assault on the keep and you should be ashamed. If you give the time to defenders to rally themselves inside the keep and to push you all the way up to the ressource, you wasted alot of time. People right now can capture a keep in 2mins 30seconds if done properly.

The point to make oil catapults unpurgable is to encourage players in a ball group to spread out. It is an anti-zerg tool which would do what proximity detonation should have done in the first time if the increased damage would not stop at 5players.

You see people dropping oil catapults aiming at you ? get out of the area or spread out, simple.

You're saying that fighting people using oil catapults at Glademist mine would bring same results as fighting people inside a keep ? You must be kidding. There are almost no fences, rocks, trees or walls to LoS sieges on a ressource. However, inside keep coutyard, there are cobbies, towers, pillars, stairs and walls to LoS easily.

Manoekin

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Since most of this information is scattered about the forums here's a nice condensed "short answer" list:

• Reintroducing forward camps with smaller radius', restrictive respawning within radius only and global cooldown.
• Refactoring Siege damage (again)
• Removing alliance campaign restrictions on your account
• Allowing you to unassign yourself with cooldowns
• Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground
• More things to spend your AP on and updating current sets to higher levels

Most, if not all, of these changes should be in the next major update (barring issues with testing).

We are also staying vigilant about improving performance in Cyrodiil. There were a few ability changes made earlier this week and we're watching the performance after those changes, but we're still digging into getting the performance better.

Honest question, Brian:

That all is stuff that you tried before (sieges, forward camps, npcs). Sieges in particular never stopped ball groups, instead they used it. Purge is just too mighty.

Why not focus on the roots of the problems instead of bandaids that have proven to not work or relocate problems from one front to another? A lot of the things you brought up above do not affect a solo player or smaller group (the ones spreading out, according to you not influencing performance negatively) in any positive way or promote smaller groups.

I mean, isn`t there a saying that it isn`t necessarily the smartest thinking to try the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes?!

The list above is a list catering to ballgroups more than to smaller ones... again.

Buffing sieges promote smaller groups alot. Just imagine any siege defense situation where a balling group pvedoor a keep without proper defense already there. Smaller numbers need to be able to hold the large assaulting group with sieges. When the outter wall goes down, properly placed siege weapons such as oil catapults (if it was not purgable), meatbags (with the old healing debuff reduction), fire balistas while purges cooldown on players at 4seconds would actually give a chance to stop the 25men barrier and purge spam group going in. It would convince them to either spread out in smaller group while going in or open an additional wall, while giving time to reinforcements to ride to the keep and defend it with even numbers.

We've been through this before, buffing siege benefits the zerg far more than any bonus it provides to a small group. You want siege buffed to help you defend? All you're going to be doing is defending because the moment you step outside the keep walls you're being bombarded with siege in the open field while being swarmed by a zerg.

And through all the discussions we have had over the past 1year and a half regarding sieges, yet you have not understood that NO ONE CARE about openfield battles. Openfield battles don't win the war. Keep battles win the war. And I'm tired to see people rolling over keeps in a 2mins 32seconds timer just because they have a 4barriers rotation and 6 efficient purge spammers. I want large groups to be be forced to time their movements into breaches between each siege volley and to spread out into smaller groups OR to bring an additional wall down if defenders properly deployed their counter siege weapons firing at the breach.

I could care less about a large group of players who want to deploy sieges on the field between Alessia and Faregyl. I will just go around and flag the keep from behind while they waste their time firing at the grass.

Also, what you described as changes for siege is not just buffing, it's basically an I-Win button. The point of siege is to supplement the PvP, not be the main focus. How can people still not realize this? I can agree with a slight damage buff for siege, but everyone I've seen is going way overboard with the "why can't I 1shot that group of people with my meatbag?" type of arguments.

You say that what I ask is an "I-Win button" but strangely, I see your suggestion about buffing siege damage as the "I-Win button". Damage is perfectly fine as it is. What we need is to give more utility to the siege to counter people stacking on each other. We need to force them to spread out in strategic times when engaging in a keep area. I never said that a meatbag should one shot people, I asked for the healing reduction debuff be increased slightly (let say 10%). It could still be purged by the 25man ballgroup with 6players spamming purges.

Everyone talks about the fun days of 1.5 and before when things were balanced. Guess what we didn't have back then? Broken siege. There was a point where oil cata wasn't able to be purged and ZOS rightly saw that as ruining the PvP experience because you completely lost control of your character if you were hit just one time.

Unpurgable oil catapult is probably the most needed buff at the moment because of how retreating maneuver is broken. And this has been discussed and approved alot in these forums. I don't care if you put an AOE cap on oil catapults to hit 6players only, but make it unpurgable. Dodge roll a lil bit and learn how to relay on your self defense instead of others from time to time won't hurt.

Other than that the only thing you could say was OP were ground oils, but that's only if you're stupid enough to stand in all of them or not bash the person setting them down. The siege people didn't use back then are the same siege people don't use now. Simply buffing the siege damage to insane amounts is not fixing ***.

I have always been in favor of ground oils. My best moments into this game have been standing inside the cobby next to an outter breach pouring oils on my magicka DK with @Aegon or defending ressources with @xylena with 4oils on the flag.

Yeah, and I could care less about someone completely ignoring a part of PvP in this game. It doesn't matter what you think if you can't put aside your own bias and instead realize you have to look at the whole of PvP. You're only going to ruin the game further that way.

Dude I'm not ignoring a part of PvP in this game. I actually enjoy openfield battles when they do happen. What I'm saying is that openfield battles don't win campaigns. So I don't care if large groups are favored by using sieges during such situations. What matters is that smaller groups are favored by using sieges during keep battles.

I ask for a "slight" buff to siege damage. In each and every post about siege damage you see me saying to not make it ridiculous like how it was before. I'm talking like a 10% increase if anything. Other than getting hit by a stone treb I don't mind being hit by siege at all right now, and that's wrong. Siege is fine right now, but something like that isn't going to make it crazy. Also, you cannot increase the meatbag healing reduction without increasing all healing reduction. If you want that why don't you spec for it? It's in the champ tree bro.

I'm not sure to understand your refference here. You're telling me that I should put points in Befouled champoint point if I want to increase my own disease damage with meatbags? If I would have 501 cps, sure. I just hit 360 yesterday and all my green cps are used in stamina recovery and stamina cost reduction, obviously, since i'm playing a Stam DK.

Retreating is not broken. What's broken is that you can spam snares and roots with 0 diminishing returns. That's why retreating is still the way it is, and why it stops the user from attacking if they want to keep the buff on themselves. That's a pretty significant negative to the skill. Here's a little story for you. A group of 12 goes to Glademist Mine thinking we're going to siege the keep right? We set up some siege, and lo and behold a bajillion blues pour out of the keep. This is going to be a good farm right, because they're all terrible pugs? Wrong. You've got 6 oil catapults hitting your group and you're completely stationary while the the blues that significantly outnumber you can do whatever the *** they want because ZOS decided they could have control of their characters. Oh? Only 6 members of your group were hit this time giving the other 6 the chance to get LOS. Too bad you only have 6 group members left because the other 6 are dead.* The same thing happens inside a keep outer and inner.

There are two different flaws in your scenario. First of all, the fight is happening in a ressource with no choke point (unlike keeps with outter and inner breach). Second, if you get caught by 6 players using oil catapults, that means that you entirely screwed up your assault on the keep and you should be ashamed. If you give the time to defenders to rally themselves inside the keep and to push you all the way up to the ressource, you wasted alot of time. People right now can capture a keep in 2mins 30seconds if done properly.

The point to make oil catapults unpurgable is to encourage players in a ball group to spread out. It is an anti-zerg tool which would do what proximity detonation should have done in the first time if the increased damage would not stop at 5players.

You see people dropping oil catapults aiming at you ? get out of the area or spread out, simple.

You're saying that fighting people using oil catapults at Glademist mine would bring same results as fighting people inside a keep ? You must be kidding. There are almost no fences, rocks, trees or walls to LoS sieges on a ressource. However, inside keep coutyard, there are cobbies, towers, pillars, stairs and walls to LoS easily.

Your inability to comprehend the situation in my post only proves your own PvP inexperience. I know you've played long enough to understand. You must either be blind to what's going on around you, or have some sort of memory problem. Make oil catapults unpurgeable and I'll have 2-3 hitting every breach in a fully breached inner keep. It's not a matter of LoS. If you have more people you can put siege up wherever you want and you can hit any target. There's no spot in a keep you can't hit. Spreading out doesn't work when you're vastly outnumbered. Even if you do the problem is that some of your group members are going to get hit regardless because of any number of possibilities. Those players are dead. Not because they aren't good players, they just happened to get hit by an i-win button siege. You can't just simply "get out of the area" inside a keep either, so don't know what the *** you are talking about there.