Upcoming siege changes in next major update

frozywozy

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

WebBull wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

i keep seeing this. please explain how this hurts small groups? This is a tool for small groups to use to break up the larger groups and spread them out. it also allows small groups to defend a keep against ball groups. How does this hurt small groups?

Yeah, in what possible instance do the small group of arround 10 - 12 people compared to a large zerg of 24+ spread all over the keep, pleaceing sieges on the postern doors, oils above the flags and over the meatbags.. They DONT, they cannot spare the numbers for this.

I can think of quite a few. The main one being after the wall is down and the zerg is rushing in the breach. The zerg isn't sieging at that point so these changes definitely help the smaller defending group.

Yes at breaches it will be usefull but after that? If you dont kill everyone in one impact its over already, Enemies will start to siege the breach too and spread arround cockroach ressing everybody like they do now. Some guilds we face dont even fight they just spread arround trying to ress.

In most scenarios, when a blob siege a keep, there is near to no defense (because they know that sieging a keep right next in transit line is not the best strategy). The point is not to kill all of them in impact at the breach. The point is that if defenders DEPLOYED SIEGES PROPERLY TO COUNTER THE BLOB THREATENING, said blob group would be forced to use strategies such as sieging down another wall or spread out in smaller groups TO BUY TIME TO PEOPLE TO RUN BACK TO THE KEEP AND OFFER A REAL CHALLENGE WITH EQUAL NUMBERS.

A keep fight should not be over because a wall is down. Going inside a breach (choke point) should be challenging and dangerous. Right now, going inside a breach =

Darlgon

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Battlespirit did indeed change the value of damage from Siege weapons, which we are looking to correct with these changes.

How about, instead of adjusting seige damage up, adjust the Battle Spirit Debuff to a lower number.. preferable zero.

Sigh...I will post.. more about that.. later this week. @ZOS_BrianWheeler You are playing havoc with something I am writing/composing right now.. Grrrr.

Satiar

Holy Jesus What. Cuz what this game needed was more siege spam lol

Daveheart

These changes seem poorly designed.

MrGrimey

.

Jammer480 wrote: »

I think that the bigger the group, the more health and damage buff they should get. Single players going into pvp areas should get a damage and health debuff...so group up, it's about massive head to head battles! (which rarely happens anymore) Death to gank squads!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thank you for that one. Got a good laugh

themdogesbite

frozywozy wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

Really? All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable.

this is just going to make the zergs more stronger, smaller groups won't have a chance to anything.

seriously who comes up with these ideas and thinks they'd be great because there is no thought into this at all you just haven't got a clue, you want to be splitting the zergs up not making them get bigger and win every time with a meatbag in this dumb down pvp because that's exactly what's going to happen.

the underpopulated side will never take a keep if this goes through.

what are you talking about. guess who uses seige when defending a keep. typically it is the smaller groups and the underpopulated groups. that means when you only have 10 people defending a keep and 30 running in the seige may actually flip the fight in the smaller groups favor. As it stands right now seige does not allow this.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS!

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

"All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable."

This is NOT the way to go at all... compare a group of 12 and a group of 24, guess three times which group gets affected the most from healing reduction.

WHY DO YOU LOVE NUMBERS SO MUCH, WHY!?

one we dont know what other balances are coming that will compliment these change.
Second, even on its own, this change gives tools to smaller groups to fight those larger groups. also, instead of one blob fighting another blob on one pin for 20 min while the server lags out will no longer be the most effective way to fight. No the side defending the resource or keep will have the advantage of seige be it 6 v 24 or 24 v 60 or even 40 v 40 etc. Moreover, this will change the strategy used by the groups on the offensive because it will no longer be advisable to just stick on crown and move in would big blob. Although not gone completely it will be minimized.

Wrong, the larger group is always the one that can spare people to place sieges, a smaller one can NOT!

I'm trying to figure out how larger groups can setup more sieges while they try to run inside an enemy breach and take possession of the courtyard, then run inside the inner breach and take possession of the flags? Explain that to me please with a screenshot maybe because I cannot see your point.

While defending a keep, it is crucial that the defenders have a MAJOR ADVANTAGE if properly prepared with sieges aiming at the breach. The way it is right now, blobs can easily get inside ONE SINGLE BREACH while spamming their barriers and purges which is UNACCEPTABLE. They should be forced to bring an additional wall down or to spread out in smaller groups and to time their movements between each siege volley.

All of you who claim that buffing sieges favor larger groups have in mind openfield battles which barely have any impact on the course of the campaign and the scoring system.

frozywozy wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

WebBull wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

i keep seeing this. please explain how this hurts small groups? This is a tool for small groups to use to break up the larger groups and spread them out. it also allows small groups to defend a keep against ball groups. How does this hurt small groups?

Yeah, in what possible instance do the small group of arround 10 - 12 people compared to a large zerg of 24+ spread all over the keep, pleaceing sieges on the postern doors, oils above the flags and over the meatbags.. They DONT, they cannot spare the numbers for this.

I can think of quite a few. The main one being after the wall is down and the zerg is rushing in the breach. The zerg isn't sieging at that point so these changes definitely help the smaller defending group.

Yes at breaches it will be usefull but after that? If you dont kill everyone in one impact its over already, Enemies will start to siege the breach too and spread arround cockroach ressing everybody like they do now. Some guilds we face dont even fight they just spread arround trying to ress.

In most scenarios, when a blob siege a keep, there is near to no defense (because they know that sieging a keep right next in transit line is not the best strategy). The point is not to kill all of them in impact at the breach. The point is that if defenders DEPLOYED SIEGES PROPERLY TO COUNTER THE BLOB THREATENING, said blob group would be forced to use strategies such as sieging down another wall or spread out in smaller groups TO BUY TIME TO PEOPLE TO RUN BACK TO THE KEEP AND OFFER A REAL CHALLENGE WITH EQUAL NUMBERS.

A keep fight should not be over because a wall is down. Going inside a breach (choke point) should be challenging and dangerous. Right now, going inside a breach =

I dont mind upping siege damage or the resource drain from getting hit, i personaly strongly dislike useing sieges instead of actually fighting people but currently they were a bit to puny. But what i DO mind is unremovable healdebuffs.

I'm useing eso-database addon which tracks a lot of funny stats, so let me show you the saved ammount of damage i've been taking from my nightblade i've been playing since arround... halfway through IC patch or so.; 36,784,105,770 damage. (!)

This should just clarify how much damage we receive in the 8 - 14 man groups we usually run in. A next to permament 35% healdebuff on top of this that we can't do ANYTHING to counter is just.. lol.

Keep fights are most definetly not over due to a wall breaking.. but it makes me wonder. The way you word your posts i get the impression sieges barely exist on the NA megaserver. I could upload a video from yesterday showcaseing a very good example of sieges beeing everywhere in a outpost from enemies, and with theese suggested changes we wouldn't had been able to last arround 10 min against it until we eventualy died to fall damage and latency spikes. Problem is that im not to keen on a 3 hour render and a 3 hour upload time..

Perhaps i'm beeing overly pesimistic about this change, but given the previous trackrecord we have with changes like theese in ESO there haven't been any good ones so far. Point i'm trying to get across i guess is that PvP should be Player versus Player and not Siege versus siege. Adding unremovable healdebuffs is a band-aid fix for a real problem. I'd rather have stacking ones in that case but removable somehow.

Talcyndl

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Anyone who likes this idea doesnt like pvp. Sitting on a siege weapon left clicking hoping to grab a kill.

Boring.

Anyone who thinks using siege effectively consists of "sitting on a siege weapon" doesn't know how to use siege.

bowmanz607

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Anyone who likes this idea doesnt like pvp. Sitting on a siege weapon left clicking hoping to grab a kill.

Boring.

this game was advertised as huge siege warfare.

themdogesbite

bowmanz607 wrote: »

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Anyone who likes this idea doesnt like pvp. Sitting on a siege weapon left clicking hoping to grab a kill.

Boring.

this game was advertised as huge siege warfare.

It was also advertised to handle hundreds of players on the screen at once, it dosent.

Cryhavoc

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

[*] All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable.

Bad idea.

This might work if you restrict the effect to Keep defense siege weapons. Seriously, small groups should be able to defend a keep. It's a CASTLE.

Talcyndl

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

It was also advertised to handle hundreds of players on the screen at once, it dosent.

Perhaps one of the reasons is that the huge siege warfare aspect has been made ineffective.

Jura23

Darlgon wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Battlespirit did indeed change the value of damage from Siege weapons, which we are looking to correct with these changes.

How about, instead of adjusting seige damage up, adjust the Battle Spirit Debuff to a lower number.. preferable zero.

Sigh...I will post.. more about that.. later this week. @ZOS_BrianWheeler You are playing havoc with something I am writing/composing right now.. Grrrr.

ZOS don't listen.

SkylarkAU

Awesome @ZOS_BrianWheeler - time for a shake up!

Maulkin

I've read all the arguments and I've thought long and hard about this and I generally like it though I'm not 100% sure.

My main worry and the only reason I'm not giving an enthusiastic 2 thumbs up is that it's a bit too much change all at once. Damage goes up (great), AoE caps incoming on Purge and Barrier as Wrobel said (fantastic), but then also unpurgable secondary effects from siege... I don't know, we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. Though we should get an indication from PTS.

I agree with @Ezareth on this. This change is mostly to help pug raids and randoms put a dent into PBAoE ball groups and make them spread out. I believe it will succeed in doing that.

I also fully understand the concerns from my Arena guild-mates and fellow small scalers here. They want dynamic ults, AoE cap removal and a means to wipe ball groups with a combination of skill and surprise rather than standing on siege clicking LMB every 7". They also don't like being on the receiving end of siege.

Now, let's be honest. While I fully agree that those changes would be great, we all know they are not gonna happen. Especially a reversion on the dynamic ult removal. ZOS have a very large audience of casual players and a small hard-core community. While they make changes to put an end to a harmful meta like balling, they will inevitably try to do that without adding mechanics that give an extra advantage to their hardcore and more skilled players.

They've shown time and again that they want to make the little man (metaphorically speaking) feel useful, rather than getting mowed down relentlessly by what appears to him as a group of invincible demi-gods that drop ulties like smarties. That was the state of PvP in 1.4-1.5 and they moved away from it.

Call it catering to casuals, call it whatever you will, but ZOS have been consistent with their approach to that for the last 16 months at least. If at this point you are still surprised that the game caters for its casual players more than their hardcore ones.... well, then I'm surprised at your surprise. If we want a more hardcore-oriented game then we ought to have taken the hint by now: it's not happening.

So here's how I approach it. Alright, it's not the perfect change but to be honest... this game needs a change and I'm willing to try this one. And I believe it will have a positive effect against large groups because we've been here before (stronger siege damage and unprugeable slows) and it was better than it is now, though it was not solely down to siege ofc.

@johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO, you will adapt. I know you will. You might have to shift the play-style a bit and be more mobile, but I firmly believe that the larger the group the more punishing siege will be and pug zergs simply won't be able to survive it. The effect will (hopefully) be fewer zergs and ball groups and more spread out players. That's something we'll all benefit from and who knows it might even help with the performance a tiny bit (I'm a glass full kinda guy, what can I say).

Finally, the community did ask for siege to become more meaningful and @ZOS_BrianWheeler did listen, as to be fair to him he always does. So Brian, I know it means absolutely nothing, but you have my backing... let's try it

Talcyndl

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

AoE caps incoming on Purge and Barrier as Wrobel said (fantastic)

Great post. You have a link for this?

Maulkin

Talcyndl wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

AoE caps incoming on Purge and Barrier as Wrobel said (fantastic)

Great post. You have a link for this?

Wrobel wrote: »

With that being said, there are a few situations where healing is able to out scale damage. The first step we are taking is to look at some of the abilities that heal far more than we would like in large group fights. We’re specifically looking at Purge and Barrier initially, and will be reducing the max targets these abilities can hit.

Manoekin

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

This. RIP pvp if this makes it live. I actually like all but one of the changes (though the damage may be a little overboard).

There's a reason side effects from siege were changed to be purgable in the first place, @ZOS_BrianWheeler unless we've forgotten.

1. Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.
2. I am a healer and if my heals are rendered ineffective with no chance to recover their effectiveness I might as well quit the game or just roll a different class/spec because I am completely useless. This is the reason why heal debuff stacking is no longer a thing. Because it is *** and negates an entire aspect of the game.
3. You're only promoting zerg gameplay. The pvp will once again revolve around whoever can get the most siege up instead of who can actually play their characters better. The group that will get more siege up you ask? The larger one.

Why are you going against the actual good things that have been done previously in this game? Making siege useful for the average player is fine, but making siege the only important thing in pvp is the wrong way to go. We've been down this road before and those specific reasons plus more I'm probably forgetting are why they do not and should not exist in this game.

Sublime

There's one question I'd like to get clarified as it has a major impact on the result of these changes: Can the ice trebuchet snare be avoided/removed with retreating maneuver?

Xsorus

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Anyone who likes this idea doesnt like pvp. Sitting on a siege weapon left clicking hoping to grab a kill.

Boring.

Anyone who likes zerging around in 24 man groups doesn't like PvP

Xsorus

Manoekin wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

This. RIP pvp if this makes it live. I actually like all but one of the changes (though the damage may be a little overboard).

There's a reason side effects from siege were changed to be purgable in the first place, @ZOS_BrianWheeler unless we've forgotten.

1. Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.
2. I am a healer and if my heals are rendered ineffective with no chance to recover their effectiveness I might as well quit the game or just roll a different class/spec because I am completely useless. This is the reason why heal debuff stacking is no longer a thing. Because it is *** and negates an entire aspect of the game.
3. You're only promoting zerg gameplay. The pvp will once again revolve around whoever can get the most siege up instead of who can actually play their characters better. The group that will get more siege up you ask? The larger one.

Why are you going against the actual good things that have been done previously in this game? Making siege useful for the average player is fine, but making siege the only important thing in pvp is the wrong way to go. We've been down this road before and those specific reasons plus more I'm probably forgetting are why they do not and should not exist in this game.

Funny enough; we have been down this road before..and when they changed it..it made the game instantly worse by removing one of the few things that worked against Zergballs

I mean..I've seen quite a few posts here of people who are talking about how this will kill PvP; and virtually everyone of them is in large zergball groups

Maulkin

Manoekin wrote: »

Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.

That is a very astute observation, that he's trying to fix Wrobel's problem. And it's not the most elegant of solutions, agreed, but I still believe it's better than what we've currently got.

Yes losing control of your char is frustrating. Getting rooted and silenced (which is for all intends and purposes same as getting stunned) with every gap closer was the single most infuriating and idiotic change thus far. So why do I not think so badly over even more irresistible CC?

Because the stun on gap-closing is more effective when a larger group is chasing a small group or solo player, it's not really a big deal the other way round. The opposite is true of siege. I get hit with siege too, we all do. But for every 1 time I get hit, a ball group gets hit 100. Therefore the effect is far more pronounced on larger groups and it's hurting them more. So I hope it will be to the benefit of individuals and smaller more mobile teams.

Would I like a game with less emphasis on irresistible CC and different mechanics (like no AoE caps, less effective Purge/Barrier and more effective class based ults) to allow you to take out big groups with coordination and skill? You betcha, and I will keep campaigning for some of those changes until they are implemented or I get bored and quit.

But for now I'm happy to try out a change that will hurt me a bit, if I feel it's going to hurt the blob even more.

Dakrana_Thrazvoth

Zergs kill the pvp.
ZOS idea ?
Let's go help more zergs.

Manoekin

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

This. RIP pvp if this makes it live. I actually like all but one of the changes (though the damage may be a little overboard).

There's a reason side effects from siege were changed to be purgable in the first place, @ZOS_BrianWheeler unless we've forgotten.

1. Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.
2. I am a healer and if my heals are rendered ineffective with no chance to recover their effectiveness I might as well quit the game or just roll a different class/spec because I am completely useless. This is the reason why heal debuff stacking is no longer a thing. Because it is *** and negates an entire aspect of the game.
3. You're only promoting zerg gameplay. The pvp will once again revolve around whoever can get the most siege up instead of who can actually play their characters better. The group that will get more siege up you ask? The larger one.

Why are you going against the actual good things that have been done previously in this game? Making siege useful for the average player is fine, but making siege the only important thing in pvp is the wrong way to go. We've been down this road before and those specific reasons plus more I'm probably forgetting are why they do not and should not exist in this game.

Funny enough; we have been down this road before..and when they changed it..it made the game instantly worse by removing one of the few things that worked against Zergballs

I mean..I've seen quite a few posts here of people who are talking about how this will kill PvP; and virtually everyone of them is in large zergball groups

When the change was made the first time everyone was running group of 12-16 in size and they all hated it. Your argument is invalid. It did not affect anything other than making the gameplay more enjoyable. You were still able to smash zerg groups because ultimates weren't affected by AOE caps and soft caps kept stats in check. the people who abused the siege back then were the ones doing the zerging and it will be the same way this time around if they go through with this.

Manoekin

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.

That is a very astute observation, that he's trying to fix Wrobel's problem. And it's not the most elegant of solutions, agreed, but I still believe it's better than what we've currently got.

Yes losing control of your char is frustrating. Getting rooted and silenced (which is for all intends and purposes same as getting stunned) with every gap closer was the single most infuriating and idiotic change thus far. So why do I not think so badly over even more irresistible CC?

Because the stun on gap-closing is more effective when a larger group is chasing a small group or solo player, it's not really a big deal the other way round. The opposite is true of siege. I get hit with siege too, we all do. But for every 1 time I get hit, a ball group gets hit 100. Therefore the effect is far more pronounced on larger groups and it's hurting them more. So I hope it will be to the benefit of individuals and smaller more mobile teams.

Would I like a game with less emphasis on irresistible CC and different mechanics (like no AoE caps, less effective Purge/Barrier and more effective class based ults) to allow you to take out big groups with coordination and skill? You betcha, and I will keep campaigning for some of those changes until they are implemented or I get bored and quit.

But for now I'm happy to try out a change that will hurt me a bit, if I feel it's going to hurt the blob even more.

That was proven not true the first time they buffed siege damage. It resulted in larger groups forming because they needed people putting up siege during the fights. The larger group will always have more siege available and more opportunities to place siege.

Ishammael

Manoekin wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

This. RIP pvp if this makes it live. I actually like all but one of the changes (though the damage may be a little overboard).

There's a reason side effects from siege were changed to be purgable in the first place, @ZOS_BrianWheeler unless we've forgotten.

1. Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.
2. I am a healer and if my heals are rendered ineffective with no chance to recover their effectiveness I might as well quit the game or just roll a different class/spec because I am completely useless. This is the reason why heal debuff stacking is no longer a thing. Because it is *** and negates an entire aspect of the game.
3. You're only promoting zerg gameplay. The pvp will once again revolve around whoever can get the most siege up instead of who can actually play their characters better. The group that will get more siege up you ask? The larger one.

Why are you going against the actual good things that have been done previously in this game? Making siege useful for the average player is fine, but making siege the only important thing in pvp is the wrong way to go. We've been down this road before and those specific reasons plus more I'm probably forgetting are why they do not and should not exist in this game.

Agree with Mano, here.

The buffs to siege damage are good. The addition of magicka and stamina drain is good. Unpurgeable debuffs is awful. Six seconds is a long *** time. Especially for classes with no mobility... Once you're stuck, you're dead as Mano observed.

Next, siege weapons are awful gameplay. LMB every few seconds. Ugh.

Why couldn't we just have ground oils back?

Finally, will the siege shield skill change to accommodate these new changes? Can you replace the "guard" skill with a buff to reduce siege effect time or something?

Maulkin

Manoekin wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.

That is a very astute observation, that he's trying to fix Wrobel's problem. And it's not the most elegant of solutions, agreed, but I still believe it's better than what we've currently got.

Yes losing control of your char is frustrating. Getting rooted and silenced (which is for all intends and purposes same as getting stunned) with every gap closer was the single most infuriating and idiotic change thus far. So why do I not think so badly over even more irresistible CC?

Because the stun on gap-closing is more effective when a larger group is chasing a small group or solo player, it's not really a big deal the other way round. The opposite is true of siege. I get hit with siege too, we all do. But for every 1 time I get hit, a ball group gets hit 100. Therefore the effect is far more pronounced on larger groups and it's hurting them more. So I hope it will be to the benefit of individuals and smaller more mobile teams.

Would I like a game with less emphasis on irresistible CC and different mechanics (like no AoE caps, less effective Purge/Barrier and more effective class based ults) to allow you to take out big groups with coordination and skill? You betcha, and I will keep campaigning for some of those changes until they are implemented or I get bored and quit.

But for now I'm happy to try out a change that will hurt me a bit, if I feel it's going to hurt the blob even more.

That was proven not true the first time they buffed siege damage. It resulted in larger groups forming because they needed people putting up siege during the fights. The larger group will always have more siege available and more opportunities to place siege.

I don't know, we experienced that siege buff very differently it seems. I was an advocate of it before it got implemented and I actually enjoyed it when it released to the point that I missed it when update 2.1 debuffed siege damage.

I spend 50% of my time in groups of <5 people and the other 50% solo. So having siege set up against me, or getting hit by siege is something that happens, but very very infrequently. It was the same with 1.6 (buffed siege) and it's the same now. The effectiveness or not of siege, did not change the amount of people that sieged me.

I don't recall ball groups being bigger back then (just less of them) compared to now. And yeah they suffered some terrible wipes on breaches, whereas now that rarely happens unless you stack an equally large group to defend it.

Maulkin

double post.

ToRelax

I don't like the idea of an unpurgeable healdebuff, but the rest sounds actually perfect... I don't understand why everyone's so negative to this change, even with the unpurgeable meatbag it sounds way better than what we have now.

Manoekin

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Having 0 control over your own character is not fun or engaging gameplay. That's why the break free system exists, and why Purge and other spells like it even exist in the game at all. You're trying to fix @Wrobel's problem for him in some roundabout way that makes no sense.

That is a very astute observation, that he's trying to fix Wrobel's problem. And it's not the most elegant of solutions, agreed, but I still believe it's better than what we've currently got.

Yes losing control of your char is frustrating. Getting rooted and silenced (which is for all intends and purposes same as getting stunned) with every gap closer was the single most infuriating and idiotic change thus far. So why do I not think so badly over even more irresistible CC?

Because the stun on gap-closing is more effective when a larger group is chasing a small group or solo player, it's not really a big deal the other way round. The opposite is true of siege. I get hit with siege too, we all do. But for every 1 time I get hit, a ball group gets hit 100. Therefore the effect is far more pronounced on larger groups and it's hurting them more. So I hope it will be to the benefit of individuals and smaller more mobile teams.

Would I like a game with less emphasis on irresistible CC and different mechanics (like no AoE caps, less effective Purge/Barrier and more effective class based ults) to allow you to take out big groups with coordination and skill? You betcha, and I will keep campaigning for some of those changes until they are implemented or I get bored and quit.

But for now I'm happy to try out a change that will hurt me a bit, if I feel it's going to hurt the blob even more.

That was proven not true the first time they buffed siege damage. It resulted in larger groups forming because they needed people putting up siege during the fights. The larger group will always have more siege available and more opportunities to place siege.

I don't know, we experienced that siege buff very differently it seems. I was an advocate of it before it got implemented and I actually enjoyed it when it released to the point that I missed it when update 2.1 debuffed siege damage.

I spend 50% of my time in groups of <5 people and the other 50% solo. So having siege set up against me, or getting hit by siege is something that happens, but very very infrequently. It was the same with 1.6 (buffed siege) and it's the same now. The effectiveness or not of siege, did not change the amount of people that sieged me.

I don't recall ball groups being bigger back then (just less of them) compared to now. And yeah they suffered some terrible wipes on breaches, whereas now that rarely happens unless you stack an equally large group to defend it.

You're not playing any objectives then. I don't know how much you should comment on siege if it barely affects you. You won't be able to take a keep without significantly outnumbering the enemy. That's adding to lag (as it did when the buff happened and we predicted it would). Maybe it happened differently on EU, idk. The way to make you useful in a small group is to equalize player combat instead of forcing people to sit on siege and press left click.

DeanTheCat