Upcoming siege changes in next major update

Manoekin

DeanTheCat wrote: »

The perfect summary of the proposed siege changes. Illustrated perfectly! @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Farorin

Looking forward to testing it out, I am glad that you are including additional effects and revised effects for some of the lesser used and less useful siege.

Master_Kas

Nafirian wrote: »

LOOL

TheBull

All I know is that these changes sure do have the purge, purge, purge groups upset.

frozywozy

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Jhunn

Xsorus wrote: »

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

Blame people for zerging though in reality you have no idea what you're talking about. Zzzzzz.

It's just sad that this is how they try to break up zerg balls. AOE caps? Dynamic ulti? Casual catering. Zzzzzz.

Nafirian

Master_Kas wrote: »

Nafirian wrote: »

LOOL

I aim to please Kas.

Xsorus

Manoekin wrote: »

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.

Umm; Ultimates were most certainly affected by AOE caps as that was changed in 1.1.....There were virtually no zergballs before the caps were even announced so i'm not sure where you get that they weren't affected by caps..

The groups running 16 at the time were getting stopped by pugs with siege...soon as they went and made the snare purgable from Oil Catapults those groups became damn near unstoppable...and then they swelled in size to what we have today.

The people who are going to benefit from this the most are going to be zergs yes..but it'll be pug zergs..which need the help to deal with Zergballs of 24 man guild groups who decided they'd rather zerg around instead of ya know..actually being good.

Nafirian

Joy_Division wrote: »

If I were Wheeler, I'd quit and find a more rewarding job where his work would be better appreciated, like eith the Internal Revenue Service.

Half the community has yelled, begged, and pleaded with him to buff siege damage so that smaller groups could effectively fight zergs.

Now after acceding to the request, half the community is dubbing him zerg-lover because he has done what many people have asked him to do.

Yea its confusing a lot did ask for buffed siege dmg but when ZOS Change something they reinvent the *** wheel all over again instead of making just a few of these changes and then asking us if its better or we could improve it they go LOL NO ALL CHANGES HERE YA GO BOIIIIIZ. Seriously they go overboard whenever they want to change the tiniest thing.

Xsorus

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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

Blame people for zerging though in reality you have no idea what you're talking about. Zzzzzz.

It's just sad that this is how they try to break up zerg balls. AOE caps? Dynamic ulti? Casual catering. Zzzzzz.

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

Jhunn

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Nafirian

Xsorus

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

WillhelmBlack

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?

20 man, small Zerg vs 6 man group, 2 tanky characters at front to apply CC's, 3 DD's and a healer. Out in the open field, which group do you think has someone spare to put up siege?

Jhunn

Xsorus wrote: »

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Talking about eXile who at the moment have the 'vast majority' soloing or small scale PVPing in 4-5 man groups because the game perfomance is so s*it. You're boring and your argument is invalid again.

kkravaritieb17_ESO

WillhelmBlack 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?

20 man, small Zerg vs 6 man group, 2 tanky characters at front to apply CC's, 3 DD's and a healer. Out in the open field, which group do you think has someone spare to put up siege?

Its not only that but also the fact that when you fighting outnumbered they are so many that they will just burn your sieges in your face.

Erondil

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Pretty much all EU people complaining about this change run in group of 8-14. On the other hand @Turelus who seems to approve this change is well known to run 24 man guild blob, and more than often decides to stack up to 3 raids with another guild. Just stating fact you know

RoamingRiverElk

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Just for the record, I mainly run in groups of 2 to 5, and that's the perspective I'm whining from regarding the healing debuff not being purgeable. Magicka DKs and templars will be so screwed with this change - exactly the classes that need buffs anyway. Once you get hit once by either meatbag or oil catapult when outnumbered, it's the beginning of the end if there's any pressure at all. They will have a much harder time dealing with the siege than sorcs or nbs will.

Helluin

The goal of this changement is understandable and it can be interesting from many points of view, but the problems are:
- sieges will be used directly also in open field
- sieges will be used by both sides, small and large ones

Sieges should be usable just near keeps, resources, outposts, temples and gates, maybe bridges.
For the second issue, we will see: like many others, I'm worried it could help more larger groups and zergs than vice versa.

Joy_Division

My quick thoughts:

1. Right now, ball-groups literally do not move when hit by siege. Something had to be done and that something was increase it's effectiveness
2. Everything favors larger groups. This siege, however, may prompt them to spread out. It also will help defend keeps against large groups which is the point of these weapons.
3. I think the secondary effects go too far. 6 seconds is a *long* time to be hit with an unpurgable effect. A magicka build that gets hit with an oil catapult is screwed: snare and half it's stamina gone? The solution to purgespam abuse is to reform purge, not make negative effects unpurgable.
4. Somewhere between the ineffectiveness of siege at present and the OP siege in this proposal is where siege effectiveness should be.
5. Don't forget flaming oil. It currently is bad and I didn;t see any mention about them. Now that I think about flaming oils not getting the job done, I have noticed that if I try to use them against rams at castle keep gatehouse through the grate, I never see any damage ... is this grate less than 6 meters above the ground?
6. I still think you should bring back ground oils.

Turelus

Erondil wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Pretty much all EU people complaining about this change run in group of 8-14. On the other hand @Turelus who seem to approve this change is well known to run 24 man guild blob, and more than often decides to stack up to 3 raids with another guild. Just stating fact you know

I approve the change along side the AoE cap removal so that stacking groups now has a negative. Yes I play in large scale groups I have run everything from 2vX to 40 man raids and I honestly do feel more powerful sieges benefits everyone.

When you stack a raid on top of a tower and have 5+ sieges hitting you and you're just laughing at them, then siege isn't working at intended. These changes would be painful to my guild blob and that style of play (more so with AoE cap removal) have someone with a lightning ballista bombardning the group while they're stacked up and see just how long the healers can keep up that stacked healing.

I am honestly confused how these changes harm small groups, unless you're standing and stacking up. If the issue is you're outnumbered and have problems in PvP because there are 40+ of a faction at a keep then that seems to be a numbers issue not a direct siege issue. I haven't had the chanced to read back through the thread yet since my last post so I may have missed it but has anyone from the small groups given a breakdown of why this is bad or the issues they see with it yet? Most of the posts I read yesterday were the normal "this is a horrible change!" with no actual information as to why they felt this way or how they envisioned the changes going against their play style.

If I can see some information which shows me why it's bad for that play style and would ruin it for a number of the player base then I would be willing to support changes to what's proposed to support that group.

Say what you will about the style of game I play when I am in Cyrodiil but I don't tend to come to the forums and sling poo at others because it doesn't benefit the game. I would rather engage in a mature dialogue about how it can be a better place for all of us without completely eradicating one style of gameplay in favour of another.

Xsorus

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Talking about eXile who at the moment have the 'vast majority' soloing or small scale PVPing in 4-5 man groups because the game perfomance is so s*it. You're boring and your argument is invalid again.

Yet it wasn't that long ago you were running 12-16....funny how that works.

Xsorus

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Just for the record, I mainly run in groups of 2 to 5, and that's the perspective I'm whining from regarding the healing debuff not being purgeable. Magicka DKs and templars will be so screwed with this change - exactly the classes that need buffs anyway. Once you get hit once by either meatbag or oil catapult when outnumbered, it's the beginning of the end if there's any pressure at all. They will have a much harder time dealing with the siege than sorcs or nbs will.

I'm confused about how you think you're going to be hit by this type of siege in a 2-5 man group?

If you run across a zerg; they're not going to stop and siege you down..They'll just run you over with their numbers. You won't run into it in a 1v1 that's for sure....You'll get hit by occasionally if you're near a keep of course...But long as you're not directly on top of the people you should be fine as the heal debuff isn't that long.

Erondil

Turelus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Pretty much all EU people complaining about this change run in group of 8-14. On the other hand @Turelus who seem to approve this change is well known to run 24 man guild blob, and more than often decides to stack up to 3 raids with another guild. Just stating fact you know

I approve the change along side the AoE cap removal so that stacking groups now has a negative. Yes I play in large scale groups I have run everything from 2vX to 40 man raids and I honestly do feel more powerful sieges benefits everyone.

When you stack a raid on top of a tower and have 5+ sieges hitting you and you're just laughing at them, then siege isn't working at intended. These changes would be painful to my guild blob and that style of play (more so with AoE cap removal) have someone with a lightning ballista bombardning the group while they're stacked up and see just how long the healers can keep up that stacked healing.

I am honestly confused how these changes harm small groups, unless you're standing and stacking up. If the issue is you're outnumbered and have problems in PvP because there are 40+ of a faction at a keep then that seems to be a numbers issue not a direct siege issue. I haven't had the chanced to read back through the thread yet since my last post so I may have missed it but has anyone from the small groups given a breakdown of why this is bad or the issues they see with it yet? Most of the posts I read yesterday were the normal "this is a horrible change!" with no actual information as to why they felt this way or how they envisioned the changes going against their play style.

If I can see some information which shows me why it's bad for that play style and would ruin it for a number of the player base then I would be willing to support changes to what's proposed to support that group.

Say what you will about the style of game I play when I am in Cyrodiil but I don't tend to come to the forums and sling poo at others because it doesn't benefit the game. I would rather engage in a mature dialogue about how it can be a better place for all of us without completely eradicating one style of gameplay in favour of another.

The thing you may not understand is, as a group of 12-14 you have to stack up on flags to turn a keep,and in sucha group you have limited heals and barriers (cant deal with a perma major defile). Thats how the game works. Its a problem when there are 30 people with 15 sieges all over the place, and people ressing everytime the group moves.

Xsorus

Erondil wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Pretty much all EU people complaining about this change run in group of 8-14. On the other hand @Turelus who seem to approve this change is well known to run 24 man guild blob, and more than often decides to stack up to 3 raids with another guild. Just stating fact you know

I approve the change along side the AoE cap removal so that stacking groups now has a negative. Yes I play in large scale groups I have run everything from 2vX to 40 man raids and I honestly do feel more powerful sieges benefits everyone.

When you stack a raid on top of a tower and have 5+ sieges hitting you and you're just laughing at them, then siege isn't working at intended. These changes would be painful to my guild blob and that style of play (more so with AoE cap removal) have someone with a lightning ballista bombardning the group while they're stacked up and see just how long the healers can keep up that stacked healing.

I am honestly confused how these changes harm small groups, unless you're standing and stacking up. If the issue is you're outnumbered and have problems in PvP because there are 40+ of a faction at a keep then that seems to be a numbers issue not a direct siege issue. I haven't had the chanced to read back through the thread yet since my last post so I may have missed it but has anyone from the small groups given a breakdown of why this is bad or the issues they see with it yet? Most of the posts I read yesterday were the normal "this is a horrible change!" with no actual information as to why they felt this way or how they envisioned the changes going against their play style.

If I can see some information which shows me why it's bad for that play style and would ruin it for a number of the player base then I would be willing to support changes to what's proposed to support that group.

Say what you will about the style of game I play when I am in Cyrodiil but I don't tend to come to the forums and sling poo at others because it doesn't benefit the game. I would rather engage in a mature dialogue about how it can be a better place for all of us without completely eradicating one style of gameplay in favour of another.

The thing you may not understand is, as a group of 12-14 you have to stack up on flags to turn a keep,and in sucha group you have limited heals and barriers (cant deal with a perma major defile). Thats how the game works. Its a problem when there are 30 people with 15 sieges all over the place, and people ressing everytime the group moves.

Clear the keep before stacking on a flag and eating siege? I mean...No one really should be stacking on a flag and taking a buttload siege directly with no problem..That kind of defeats the purpose of it

Turelus

Xsorus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Pretty much all EU people complaining about this change run in group of 8-14. On the other hand @Turelus who seem to approve this change is well known to run 24 man guild blob, and more than often decides to stack up to 3 raids with another guild. Just stating fact you know

I approve the change along side the AoE cap removal so that stacking groups now has a negative. Yes I play in large scale groups I have run everything from 2vX to 40 man raids and I honestly do feel more powerful sieges benefits everyone.

When you stack a raid on top of a tower and have 5+ sieges hitting you and you're just laughing at them, then siege isn't working at intended. These changes would be painful to my guild blob and that style of play (more so with AoE cap removal) have someone with a lightning ballista bombardning the group while they're stacked up and see just how long the healers can keep up that stacked healing.

I am honestly confused how these changes harm small groups, unless you're standing and stacking up. If the issue is you're outnumbered and have problems in PvP because there are 40+ of a faction at a keep then that seems to be a numbers issue not a direct siege issue. I haven't had the chanced to read back through the thread yet since my last post so I may have missed it but has anyone from the small groups given a breakdown of why this is bad or the issues they see with it yet? Most of the posts I read yesterday were the normal "this is a horrible change!" with no actual information as to why they felt this way or how they envisioned the changes going against their play style.

If I can see some information which shows me why it's bad for that play style and would ruin it for a number of the player base then I would be willing to support changes to what's proposed to support that group.

Say what you will about the style of game I play when I am in Cyrodiil but I don't tend to come to the forums and sling poo at others because it doesn't benefit the game. I would rather engage in a mature dialogue about how it can be a better place for all of us without completely eradicating one style of gameplay in favour of another.

The thing you may not understand is, as a group of 12-14 you have to stack up on flags to turn a keep,and in sucha group you have limited heals and barriers (cant deal with a perma major defile). Thats how the game works. Its a problem when there are 30 people with 15 sieges all over the place, and people ressing everytime the group moves.

Clear the keep before stacking on a flag and eating siege? I mean...No one really should be stacking on a flag and taking a buttload siege directly with no problem..That kind of defeats the purpose of it

This. Although I think there could be other changes made to make this easier on smaller groups. Maybe make the range of flag capture within keeps larger so the fight can be spread out across the rooms rather than directly around the flag?

I do want to see the perma-defile in action to really judge it, it seems like a harsh change all around but defiantly one which will break up stacked groups. Having a lightning ballista and meatbag aimed at a stacked group is going to really hurt the healing power of them. If (and please do it ZOS!) they remove the AoE cap you're going to be screwing over every member of that group at once as well.

I think we need to see what changes @Wrobel is planning with the skills as well along side this. I almost feel that the purge issue should be handled on the skill level rather than the siege level.

Erondil

Xsorus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Pretty much all EU people complaining about this change run in group of 8-14. On the other hand @Turelus who seem to approve this change is well known to run 24 man guild blob, and more than often decides to stack up to 3 raids with another guild. Just stating fact you know

I approve the change along side the AoE cap removal so that stacking groups now has a negative. Yes I play in large scale groups I have run everything from 2vX to 40 man raids and I honestly do feel more powerful sieges benefits everyone.

When you stack a raid on top of a tower and have 5+ sieges hitting you and you're just laughing at them, then siege isn't working at intended. These changes would be painful to my guild blob and that style of play (more so with AoE cap removal) have someone with a lightning ballista bombardning the group while they're stacked up and see just how long the healers can keep up that stacked healing.

I am honestly confused how these changes harm small groups, unless you're standing and stacking up. If the issue is you're outnumbered and have problems in PvP because there are 40+ of a faction at a keep then that seems to be a numbers issue not a direct siege issue. I haven't had the chanced to read back through the thread yet since my last post so I may have missed it but has anyone from the small groups given a breakdown of why this is bad or the issues they see with it yet? Most of the posts I read yesterday were the normal "this is a horrible change!" with no actual information as to why they felt this way or how they envisioned the changes going against their play style.

If I can see some information which shows me why it's bad for that play style and would ruin it for a number of the player base then I would be willing to support changes to what's proposed to support that group.

Say what you will about the style of game I play when I am in Cyrodiil but I don't tend to come to the forums and sling poo at others because it doesn't benefit the game. I would rather engage in a mature dialogue about how it can be a better place for all of us without completely eradicating one style of gameplay in favour of another.

The thing you may not understand is, as a group of 12-14 you have to stack up on flags to turn a keep,and in sucha group you have limited heals and barriers (cant deal with a perma major defile). Thats how the game works. Its a problem when there are 30 people with 15 sieges all over the place, and people ressing everytime the group moves.

Clear the keep before stacking on a flag and eating siege? I mean...No one really should be stacking on a flag and taking a buttload siege directly with no problem..That kind of defeats the purpose of it

Of course its what we do man but people ress like coakroaches and we cant take the time to find every sneaky ennemy who is just waiting for us to leave to ress (otherwise more will inc from the next keep). We cant let one player camp everywhere we kill a group neither, because of our ""small"" size (every single player is vital). Also when we clear the keep people have the time to get 10 sieges up because they outnumber us 3:1

AbraXuSeXile

Xsorus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

I know exactly what i'm talking about; which is what upsets you. This is one method to stop Zergballs; Its not the only method...AOE caps for example need to be removed..and will most certainly help small organized groups fight zergballs...

This is just the method for pugs to stand a chance at fighting them...it remains to be seen if they're smart and remove aoe caps in the process.

frozywozy wrote: »

Omg all those players running in large organized groups claiming that buffing sieges favor larger groups.. Delicious tears are delicious! They probably didn't even matter reading all the counter arguments to that theory presented in this thread.. they read the green text on the first page, and went straight to commenting saying their zergball group is going to setup sieges while running inside a breach to destroy defenders before they have a chance to use their own siege.

Make perfect sense!

Remember these are the same people that insist 24 people is just 1 group and they're not zerging.

Its a complete disconnect with reality.

This might dissapoint you, but I'm not upset at all, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. All I'm getting out of your posts is that you have been d*cked 8-12 man groups (the people against this change) and therefore cry about them zerging and running 24 man groups.

Virtually none of the people whining about the change are in 8-12 man groups; damn near everyone of them runs 16+ the vast majority of the time.

Pretty much all EU people complaining about this change run in group of 8-14. On the other hand @Turelus who seem to approve this change is well known to run 24 man guild blob, and more than often decides to stack up to 3 raids with another guild. Just stating fact you know

I approve the change along side the AoE cap removal so that stacking groups now has a negative. Yes I play in large scale groups I have run everything from 2vX to 40 man raids and I honestly do feel more powerful sieges benefits everyone.

When you stack a raid on top of a tower and have 5+ sieges hitting you and you're just laughing at them, then siege isn't working at intended. These changes would be painful to my guild blob and that style of play (more so with AoE cap removal) have someone with a lightning ballista bombardning the group while they're stacked up and see just how long the healers can keep up that stacked healing.

I am honestly confused how these changes harm small groups, unless you're standing and stacking up. If the issue is you're outnumbered and have problems in PvP because there are 40+ of a faction at a keep then that seems to be a numbers issue not a direct siege issue. I haven't had the chanced to read back through the thread yet since my last post so I may have missed it but has anyone from the small groups given a breakdown of why this is bad or the issues they see with it yet? Most of the posts I read yesterday were the normal "this is a horrible change!" with no actual information as to why they felt this way or how they envisioned the changes going against their play style.

If I can see some information which shows me why it's bad for that play style and would ruin it for a number of the player base then I would be willing to support changes to what's proposed to support that group.

Say what you will about the style of game I play when I am in Cyrodiil but I don't tend to come to the forums and sling poo at others because it doesn't benefit the game. I would rather engage in a mature dialogue about how it can be a better place for all of us without completely eradicating one style of gameplay in favour of another.

The thing you may not understand is, as a group of 12-14 you have to stack up on flags to turn a keep,and in sucha group you have limited heals and barriers (cant deal with a perma major defile). Thats how the game works. Its a problem when there are 30 people with 15 sieges all over the place, and people ressing everytime the group moves.

Clear the keep before stacking on a flag and eating siege? I mean...No one really should be stacking on a flag and taking a buttload siege directly with no problem..That kind of defeats the purpose of it

You know absolutely nothing.

Its hardest task to keep people down.

Turelus

Someone edit that quote string and remove my name, I keep coming back here expecting more poo slung at me.

I just had to take some breaths and mentally prepare myself because I saw "AbraXuSeXile mentioned you" and was expecting the worst.

How much do the smaller groups see siege being fired at them on flags within keeps at the moment? From my own experience leading groups I find normally we can't get anyone to place siege a a defence and if we do it's just one fire ballista. The meatbags tend to come from randoms also within the keep if we ever get one.

I haven't been around the last weeks (because Fallout) and I know Torsten has a heavy favour on siege weapons but from my own experience it's not been something we actively use once inside and fighting for flags.

Erondil makes a good point with flags becoming death zones now which might be something ZOS want to consider.

Jitterbug

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Damage across the board for all siege weapons has been increased roughly 30%, but we are considering increasing that more.