Upcoming siege changes in next major update

Catblade

Turelus wrote: »

Cryhavoc wrote: »

Sotha_Sil wrote: »

@Turelus I think the issue stated by smaller groups here is that with these changes (unpurgeable stuff), enemy randoms will be able to put some sieges and the players won't be able to counter it by their skills meaning that in any case, skills won't matter anymore but instead you will simply need numbers to win. (when attacking a keep)

This is why "unpurgeable" is no good. Keep defense remains the same, still a numbers game. Walls, siege, etc are no benefit to the defense.

If anything, they should buff defense siege even higher.

What happens if the numbers are the defenders? You buff them once again.

TBH I think they can solve the meatbag at a skill or AoE cap level rather than making it unpurgeable. There have been some good arguments as to why that's not a good idea.

Have the meatbag function as it does now but raise (or remove) the cap of how many people are effected by it and make changes to purge so one or more people spamming it isn't the solution to beating it.

In a groups number way then I feel the AoE cap removal fixes the issue all on it's own, you stack 24 guys on one spot and get pelted with Lightning Ballista and Meatbag then you won't be able to permanently purge any more due to resources and additionally you need to cast more times because you have more people who need to be cleansed.

That's what I'm saying they are already draining resources and they make it unpurgable too? Why not just make all seize an instant kill and be done with it if removing counters anyway?

Morostyle

@bowmanz607 (ZERGS DO NOT USE SIEGE)

Here is a clear sample of how wrong you are..

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

@ZOS_BrianWheeler RIP small/medium scale

bowmanz607

Catblade wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

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?

ya see that is the issue. You are talking open field. For one thing, it is easier for a small group to avoid siege together rather than a large group. Additionally, 20 people should be able to wipe 6 ppl in open field with or without siege. Not to mention siege is much harder to use in open field cause it is much easier to avoid. Regardless, the bottom line is if a 20 man group goes head to head with a 6 man group in open field then the 6 man group should die quickly. No ifs ands or buts. the only time a 6man group should wipe a 20 man group is when that 20 man group is just chilling in the field and the 6 man group drops in out of know where with ults and aoe. However, even then you should just be iven a chance to wipe them. In reality a good group of 20 should still prevail. Where 6 man groups should have higher odds of beating a 20 man group is when they are holding a defensive position. IN that sort of position you should be dropping at least oine siege, especially with the changes. It is not our fault if you do not want to use the tools given to you.

That's nonsense 6 man groups wipe 20 man groups all the time. Bat swarm+ magika det have you even played pvp?

A ya im sure that happens all the time. Ya eveytime a 6 man group in TS with champion points comes across a 20 man pug group. Or when vet players jump onto their non-vet toons and wipe the noobs. (which is fun). More often then not a 6 man group in open field fighting a 20 man group will lose if that 20 man group is halfway competent. WHy? becuase of aoe caps. Sure you can drop your batsawrms and proxy dets and 6 random people out of that 20 man group will get hit for full dmage. TO top it off the 6 that get hit by your prxy may not even be the same 6 that get hit be bats.

If your statement was true "6 man groups wipe 20 man groups all the time" then why does a large majority of the population talk about how the small groups have little to no means to fight larger groups? If you are consistently wiping 20 man groups with 6 ALL THE TIME then i would like to know your secrets. In fact, i think the community would. Outside of them being an uncoordinated pug group i just dont see it. Moreover, im sure there are plenty of 20 man groups that would love to see your 6 man group wipe them in this meta.

Celas_Dranacea

I like these changes. Good job Brian.

Everyone whose saying this will disproportionately benefit large groups - I don't think your wrong, but I also don't think this is totally the case.

Small groups are inherently more mobile. I remember using siege with a small group back before the damage was reduced. We were able to control a fight better against a group that was larger and organized but less strategic.

In the case of defending a keep, the limit per alliance is 20 siege. A group of 10 defenders can run 20 siege whereas a group of 40 can't run more than 20 siege.

Sure, large groups will find ways to exploit this, but I don't care. I'm ready to
Man up and give this a shot.

Ultimately this will add a dynamic element to large group fights that I welcome.

Also just a side note: If you have constructive criticism write your comments in a way that someone can respect you.

Dalglish

bowmanz607 wrote: »

LazyLewis wrote: »

In my two years of playing this game this has to be one of the worst proposed updates I have ever seen. ARE YOU ACTUALLY KIDDING ME ZOS? THIS IS YOUR ANSWER.

Firstly this promotes more zerging because people are gonna wanna be in a bigger safer group with more healers than ever.

YOU ARE GONNA GIVE PEOPLE THE POWER TO DRAIN MULTIPLE PEOPLES STAMINA AND MAGIKA POOLS SIMULTANEOUSLY. WHO THE HELL COMES UP WITH THESE IDEAS?

IS THIS EVEN GONNA BE TESTED ON A LARGE SCALE FIRSTLY?

IM UTTERLY AND PROFOUNDLY SHOCKED AT THESE CHANGES.

*breathe*

LESS SKILL AND MORE ZERG
LESS SKILL AND MORE ZERG
LESS SKILL AND MORE ZERG
LESS SKILL AND MORE ZERG
LESS SKILL AND MORE ZERG
LESS SKILL AND MORE ZERG

that makes no sense. the bigger the group the more you will get hit with siege. the smaller the group the less likely ppl will use siege against you. Also, the champ tree made it so any person who even half-way knows what they are doing have no issues with resource managment. this make resource management a real thing again. Also, you dont like getting hit with it, then guess waht...DONT STAND IN IT!!!! People keep talking about how people will run in bigger groups because they will need more heals. Ya maybe IF YOUR STANDING IN THE DAMN RED CIRCLE! Sure if people continue to stand in siege ike they curntly do know then ya you might want more healers and what not around you. Dont stand in the crap! dodgeroll! Again this change still needs to be tested and will be coupled with other changes in the game so dont get your panties in a wad just yet.

Take a deep breathe, step back, wait for the other changes to be announced, and then jump on the PTS to test it out.

We all know the second anything gets to PTS its almost 99% always going to be going live and will be there for the next 6 months before any talk of changes. Some of the changes being discussed don't make sense for the game.

I am all for reducing the effectiveness of any kind of Purge, but totally nullifying it when it relates to heal-reduction or any kind of long-term debuff is absurd.

Something for which there is zero counter does not balance anything.

Talcyndl

Manoekin wrote: »

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.

Except now those larger groups lose the main advantage they had against siege - constant purge. Yes, simply cranking up damage didn't help against the purge/healing springs spamming blobs.

But, with the proposed changes, those massed groups will not be siege immune zones (hopefully - let's see with actual testing). Those masses will instead be targets where players will quickly learn they will lose stamina/magicka and get cc'd.

bowmanz607

Morostyle wrote: »

@bowmanz607 (ZERGS DO NOT USE SIEGE)

Here is a clear sample of how wrong you are..

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

@ZOS_BrianWheeler RIP small/medium scale

im confused what is your point? clarification please.

Catblade

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Catblade wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

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?

ya see that is the issue. You are talking open field. For one thing, it is easier for a small group to avoid siege together rather than a large group. Additionally, 20 people should be able to wipe 6 ppl in open field with or without siege. Not to mention siege is much harder to use in open field cause it is much easier to avoid. Regardless, the bottom line is if a 20 man group goes head to head with a 6 man group in open field then the 6 man group should die quickly. No ifs ands or buts. the only time a 6man group should wipe a 20 man group is when that 20 man group is just chilling in the field and the 6 man group drops in out of know where with ults and aoe. However, even then you should just be iven a chance to wipe them. In reality a good group of 20 should still prevail. Where 6 man groups should have higher odds of beating a 20 man group is when they are holding a defensive position. IN that sort of position you should be dropping at least oine siege, especially with the changes. It is not our fault if you do not want to use the tools given to you.

That's nonsense 6 man groups wipe 20 man groups all the time. Bat swarm+ magika det have you even played pvp?

A ya im sure that happens all the time. Ya eveytime a 6 man group in TS with champion points comes across a 20 man pug group. Or when vet players jump onto their non-vet toons and wipe the noobs. (which is fun). More often then not a 6 man group in open field fighting a 20 man group will lose if that 20 man group is halfway competent. WHy? becuase of aoe caps. Sure you can drop your batsawrms and proxy dets and 6 random people out of that 20 man group will get hit for full dmage. TO top it off the 6 that get hit by your prxy may not even be the same 6 that get hit be bats.

If your statement was true "6 man groups wipe 20 man groups all the time" then why does a large majority of the population talk about how the small groups have little to no means to fight larger groups? If you are consistently wiping 20 man groups with 6 ALL THE TIME then i would like to know your secrets. In fact, i think the community would. Outside of them being an uncoordinated pug group i just dont see it. Moreover, im sure there are plenty of 20 man groups that would love to see your 6 man group wipe them in this meta.

Pretty sure you can figure it out on your own since you know it all already

Anazasi

First off this is probably going to work better for small groups defending keeps. Second, the dot portion of the siege is still purge able so I don't see it really hurting the game play as it is. The issue that you will find however is the snare can not be purged the heal de-buff can not be purged and now stat pool damage is a reality.

In open field combat smaller groups will always out maneuver larger groups . It's a matter of player coordination. Response time with a 12 man group will move faster than the siege can be dropped and fired. 16 man groups will struggle with point blank siege attacks but they will move fast enough to disengage and recover still. Groups of 24 will simply not listen or be too spread out to move fast enough as a group or react fast enough. The trains will be snared, de-buffed and rolled before they can organize a recovery. Snipers sharpen your arrows tighten your strings this patch will make you hero's

Ha ha I can't wait for keep defense now this will make life a living hell for zerg balls that wont be able to breach the outer walls.

Xsorus

Turelus wrote: »

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.

It won't be as bad as it use to be with the defile buff...2 Meatbags in the past resulted in 100% heal debuff since they stacked.

Dalglish

Could we not move Purge out of Alliance War tree and into the Undaunted tree perhaps, allow it to only hit 6 targets not the 24 it currently does?

Enodoc

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc 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?

Ishammael wrote: »

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.

On that note... Brian said that siege CC wouldn't be purgeable, but did he ever say that you won't be able to break free from it yourself? Or can you not do that now anyway?

Edit: OK, maybe I should clarify that; this is with reference to having no control over the character (root/snare), not all the different types of debuffs.

There's no hard CC secondary effect to siege. What we're saying is that having a 50% unpurgable snare is to some extent loss of control. Because it's irresistible, you can't remove it at any cost (stamina or magicka) and you have to just ride it out for the duration.

Right, but what I'm getting at is that Brian said the snare couldn't be purged, which he defined as any ability which removes a negative effect. He didn't say that it couldn't be CC-broken using "break free" (the RMB/LMB stamina escape), which is not considered an ability.

What makes me very skeptical about that is the duration (6") is equalised across all sieges (catas/trebs/ballistas). That makes ballistas and catapults very lethal because by the time the 6" have run out the same ballista will be firing at you again, meaning you can basically be pinned to the spot with no recourse.

Yeah I would agree with that. The duration should be directly related to the reload time.

Xeven wrote: »

I don't mind powerful siege as long as it can only be placed in the vicinity of a keep, outpost, or resource. If I find a nice 1v2 or 1v3 I don't want meathead #1 setting up a ballista while I'm trying to stop meathead #2 from resing meathead #3.

I agree with this idea. Siege should only be usable within the keep's grounds.

frozywozy

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

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.

I think much of the misunderstanding comes from the interpretation of what a small group is and I'll elaborate on this a bit later.

Regarding me playing the objectives, of course nowhere near as much as medium or large groups do but I still play the map . Which means if I see the AD zerg (by zerg I mean large numbers of ungrouped randoms) are heading to re-take Roebeck, I will naturally take my group north of Roe either at the farm or at Nikel to get small fights out of the DC reinforcements. That's still part of the Cyrodiil PvP and I'm still doing my bit for the faction by delaying the adds getting to the siege.

You would be surprised how much large groups have a role into capture objectives compared to small/medium groups. Small groups tend to do much more than most people think, at least in EP. Pvedooring, maybe, but still effective. Flagging keeps deep in enemy territory, capturing ressources to cut transit and spread out enemy forces or even capturing Dragon/Drake/Brindle are major keys of success when facing large organized groups stacking the next keep in transit line and turtling it.

Not to forget that some large groups (24players) rarely focus on objectives. 90% of their focus is to AP farm EP pugs all day inside Sejanus or at Arrius mine while the third faction gets emperorship.

Some other groups will farm the Alessia Bridge while their own alliance home keeps are getting hit.

Each their own.

Xsorus

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

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.

I mean..I don't expect it to be easy? Do you expect taking a defended keep with a bunch of siege to be easy? Maybe i'm missing something here....

Dalglish

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

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.

Except now those larger groups lose the main advantage they had against siege - constant purge. Yes, simply cranking up damage didn't help against the purge/healing springs spamming blobs.

But, with the proposed changes, those massed groups will not be siege immune zones (hopefully - let's see with actual testing). Those masses will instead be targets where players will quickly learn they will lose stamina/magicka and get cc'd.

They won't be immune, but they can put x amount of siege down themselves; they still hold a big if not massive advantage if they are in any way organised.

To permanently debuff a small group just for a few seconds; they will have no chance of surviving against a large group.

frozywozy

kylewwefan wrote: »

I have no idea what any of this means? Would be nice to be able to fast travel to imperial city without having to run 10 minutes through cyrodil. It would also be good to be able to do cyrodil quests without getting one shotted and starting off back on the other side of the map half hour away.

It would also be nice that people who don't care about Cyrodiil and who just wanna farm IC sewers all day find a NON-COMPETITIVE campaign to do their pve thingy and not falsify the population bars of people who actually care for the campaign.

Xsorus

I think a lot of people are confused here by going on about Small/Medium group vs Large Group.

this change is not designed around changing that narrative.

If you're a small or medium group and you come across a Large Group...They're not going to throw down siege and pelt you to death..They're going to run directly on top of you while spamming Steel tornado and god knows what else.

At least that's how it goings to go in open field usually.... this narrative will not be changed with this..The only thing that will change that narrative is by limiting things like barrier and purge and getting rid of AOE caps..So that your small/medium group can side swipe or hit a big group from behind and wipe them..Notice I said side swipe or hit a big group from behind...If you attack them from the front you should probably die.....I base this on the 10 years of playing DAOC..if my group hit a Zerg or say 2 or 3 groups head on we were probably screwed..We had to hit them from the side or behind to stand a chance to wipe most of the numbers to make it "even"

That is an AOE cap issue right there...not a siege issue.

This changed is designed around keeps and Large Pug zergs running across Large groups (Zergballs) in open field...This is where this change is going to come into play.

Now if you're a small or medium group attacking a well defended keep with a bunch of siegers..You should not be able to just run through all the siege..stack on the flag and take the keep..Hell you shouldn't be able to do it with a large group either..But I see it happen a lot now a days..

It should be extremely difficult to take a keep.....esp a defended one with a bunch of siege....Getting hit by siege should hurt...

Talcyndl

Joy_Division wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

http://www.esohead.com/skills/40211-retreating-maneuver

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Anything that removes a "negative" effect is considered a purge, so not just the "Purge" abliity as you noted.

Although you would still get the speed buff from retreating. So it would still be a useful counter to the speed debuff from siege.

frozywozy

Sotha_Sil wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

http://www.esohead.com/skills/40211-retreating-maneuver

Apparently maneuver won't work and I guess this is also the case for shuffle. The immunity will or will not (?) be applied but it won't cleanse snare for sure. It's what wheeler said.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Anything that removes a "negative" effect is considered a purge, so not just the "Purge" abliity as you noted.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler - Could we get a confirmation that Retreating Maneuver will still give snare immunity?

myrrrorb14_ESO

Xsorus wrote: »

It won't be as bad as it use to be with the defile buff...2 Meatbags in the past resulted in 100% heal debuff since they stacked.

Should be interesting combined with the general nerf to healing in Cyrodiil. But yeah, at least stuff doesn't stack anymore. That would be nightmarish.

Xsorus

myrrrorb14_ESO wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

It won't be as bad as it use to be with the defile buff...2 Meatbags in the past resulted in 100% heal debuff since they stacked.

Should be interesting combined with the general nerf to healing in Cyrodiil. But yeah, at least stuff doesn't stack anymore. That would be nightmarish.

People are really scared of that meatbag..but honestly its not the scariest siege weapon..Its going to be the Oil Catapult that screws people.

RinaldoGandolphi

haha finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unpurgable siege!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ZOS you may have just finally fixed things here, I have been clamoring for this change for over a year....

Know what this means?

it won't be an exercise in futility to defend anything....standing in red circles will now get you killed...as it should have been all along...

a few Oil Cats and Meatbags at the breech and oils over head...no more charging that breech and walking through siege fire like it don't matter....best change in the game....we will now actually have a viable means to defend against larger numbers.

I don't care about open field battles, larger numbers will win there anyways regardless of these changes, however these changes now make defense of keeps and such not an exercise in futility. this is the best change to date....if standing in stpid gets you killed in PVe it should get you rekt in PVP too.

Talcyndl

Enodoc wrote: »

Right, but what I'm getting at is that Brian said the snare couldn't be purged, which he defined as any ability which removes a negative effect. He didn't say that it couldn't be CC-broken using "break free" (the RMB/LMB stamina escape), which is not considered an ability.

You can't Break Free from a Snare.

RinaldoGandolphi

The unpurgable effects makes siege what it should have been at launch.

Come on guys you get a 3 secon warning to get out of the circle before it hits, if your dumb enough to stand in it, you should get rekt.....everyone in this game has developed bad habits of just standing in red circles in PVP because siege is rarely a threat to you and 20+ man groups should not be able to stand in concentrated seige fire and not die because of healing and purge spam, its these lag trains that are ruining the darn game.

ZOS this is the one thing you got right, don't back down from it....this makes seige a zerg ball buster, these large stell nado trains will get rekt by 2-3 well placed and fired siege weapons, this is what we want....folks are sick of this garbage.....running around 20 deep being "organized" as they call it with each person pushing 1-2 buttons shouldn't be the dominant meta in this game and it should have counters, now we got that counter...stick with it Brian.

This is the right call, stacked groups will no longer the go to way to play...and positioning and tactical siege will actually matter....this adds a lot more strategy to the game....siege should be powerful, you lose access to your skill bar, you have to place it, your a sitting duck while using it, it fires slow, etc...it should have some positive to outweigh the negatives and now it will.

This change alone may get me to resub! best news i have heard all year concerning ESO!

Zheg

Thinking further on the changes, the lightning and oil changes are heavily going to favor stam builds. Stam builds aren't hit too hard if they lose 5k magicka, and their stam pools and regen can shrug off 5k stam from oil. Magic builds, healers in particular, should have enough to likewise shrug off lightnings 5k magicka loss, but certainly not 5k stam loss. As it is you'd get maybe 2 cc breaks and a block or dodge roll if you have a racial or tri food and have just enough extra to manage that. One oil catapult, one cc like fear, and most magicka builds won't have any stam left. It's like you think 5k magicka = 5k stam Brian, and it doesn't. If you're looking to target peoples stat pools, you're going to need to actually think about numbers that make sense.

Wroebel linked active defense like cc break, dodge roll, and block to the same pool as physical damage abities. If the pools were separate and you had siege that targeted everyones ability to actively defend equally, that'd be one thing, but that's not the reality. I see even more people going to tornado spam builds as an unintended consequence of this particular change, and I see healers needed to pump more into stamina to survive, making heals even weaker than they're going to be with your meatbag fiasco.

There are good intents and ideas in these changes, so I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (old man expression), but there are also really poorly thought out changes.

Xsorus

Zheg wrote: »

Thinking further on the changes, the lightning and oil changes are heavily going to favor stam builds. Stam builds aren't hit too hard if they lose 5k magicka, and their stam pools and regen can shrug off 5k stam from oil. Magic builds, healers in particular, should have enough to likewise shrug off lightnings 5k magicka loss, but certainly not 5k stam loss. As it is you'd get maybe 2 cc breaks and a block or dodge roll if you have a racial or tri food and have just enough extra to manage that. One oil catapult, one cc like fear, and most magicka builds won't have any stam left. It's like you think 5k magicka = 5k stam Brian, and it doesn't. If you're looking to target peoples stat pools, you're going to need to actually think about numbers that make sense.

Wroebel linked active defense like cc break, dodge roll, and block to the same pool as physical damage abities. If the pools were separate and you had siege that targeted everyones ability to actively defend equally, that'd be one thing, but that's not the reality. I see even more people going to tornado spam builds as an unintended consequence of this particular change, and I see healers needed to pump more into stamina to survive, making heals even weaker than they're going to be with your meatbag fiasco.

There are good intents and ideas in these changes, so I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (old man expression), but there are also really poorly thought out changes.

You might be able to shrug off one oil catapult...But stamina builds are not going to be able to shrug off 3 or more of them...

You're also forgetting that Stamina is Stamina Builds DPS as well...they're generally spamming things like Steel Tornado for example in zerg balls..or popping Retreating Manuevers...You will not be able to shrug off an instant 15k stamina gone on any setup....

myrrrorb14_ESO

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

The unpurgable effects makes siege what it should have been at launch.

Come on guys you get a 3 secon warning to get out of the circle before it hits, if your dumb enough to stand in it, you should get rekt.....everyone in this game has developed bad habits of just standing in red circles in PVP because siege is rarely a threat to you and 20+ man groups should not be able to stand in concentrated seige fire and not die because of healing and purge spam, its these lag trains that are ruining the darn game.

ZOS this is the one thing you got right, don't back down from it....this makes seige a zerg ball buster, these large stell nado trains will get rekt by 2-3 well placed and fired siege weapons, this is what we want....folks are sick of this garbage.....running around 20 deep being "organized" as they call it with each person pushing 1-2 buttons shouldn't be the dominant meta in this game and it should have counters, now we got that counter...stick with it Brian.

This is the right call, stacked groups will no longer the go to way to play...and positioning and tactical siege will actually matter....this adds a lot more strategy to the game....siege should be powerful, you lose access to your skill bar, you have to place it, your a sitting duck while using it, it fires slow, etc...it should have some positive to outweigh the negatives and now it will.

This change alone may get me to resub! best news i have heard all year concerning ESO!

But if it's so easy to get out of the red won't the zerg move out of the red? Don't see how this is a zerg buster. Multiple siege attacks can be difficult to dodge though, so maybe it will kill zergs /shrugs

If you want a zerg buster make one in the assault tree. Chain lightening. Hits target explodes 5m jumps to next nearest target within 3m. Repeat. That will get people to spread out

Zheg

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Thinking further on the changes, the lightning and oil changes are heavily going to favor stam builds. Stam builds aren't hit too hard if they lose 5k magicka, and their stam pools and regen can shrug off 5k stam from oil. Magic builds, healers in particular, should have enough to likewise shrug off lightnings 5k magicka loss, but certainly not 5k stam loss. As it is you'd get maybe 2 cc breaks and a block or dodge roll if you have a racial or tri food and have just enough extra to manage that. One oil catapult, one cc like fear, and most magicka builds won't have any stam left. It's like you think 5k magicka = 5k stam Brian, and it doesn't. If you're looking to target peoples stat pools, you're going to need to actually think about numbers that make sense.

Wroebel linked active defense like cc break, dodge roll, and block to the same pool as physical damage abities. If the pools were separate and you had siege that targeted everyones ability to actively defend equally, that'd be one thing, but that's not the reality. I see even more people going to tornado spam builds as an unintended consequence of this particular change, and I see healers needed to pump more into stamina to survive, making heals even weaker than they're going to be with your meatbag fiasco.

There are good intents and ideas in these changes, so I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (old man expression), but there are also really poorly thought out changes.

You might be able to shrug off one oil catapult...But stamina builds are not going to be able to shrug off 3 or more of them...

You're also forgetting that Stamina is Stamina Builds DPS as well...they're generally spamming things like Steel Tornado for example in zerg balls..or popping Retreating Manuevers...You will not be able to shrug off an instant 15k stamina gone on any setup....

I'm talking a single oil catapult being an issue for non stam builds, of course 3 is going to be silly for everyone. Couldn't see wanting to run anything less than 15k stam on my healer with these changes. Forget the heal debuff and all other siege buffs, all you need to do is put up tons of oil catapults and wipe out 5k stam each hit from people so they can be perma stunned. It didn't sound like a debuff like pulsar, it sounded like you lose 5k each time you're hit. We'll be looking at an oil cata meta and who can cast a few fears the quickest. Fun.

Enodoc

Talcyndl wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Right, but what I'm getting at is that Brian said the snare couldn't be purged, which he defined as any ability which removes a negative effect. He didn't say that it couldn't be CC-broken using "break free" (the RMB/LMB stamina escape), which is not considered an ability.

You can't Break Free from a Snare.

Ah. That would be the problem then.
Someone's going to have to tell me sometime what the difference is between a snare and a root (and also why you can Roll Dodge out of some things and Break Free from others). And maybe while we're at it the difference between stun and disorient.

Joy_Division

Talcyndl wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

http://www.esohead.com/skills/40211-retreating-maneuver

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Anything that removes a "negative" effect is considered a purge, so not just the "Purge" abliity as you noted.

Although you would still get the speed buff from retreating. So it would still be a useful counter to the speed debuff from siege.

I haven't seen any confirmation as to exactly how this debuff and buff will interact so until there is I will continue to caution against unprugable effects. If there was a magicka based ability that granted a speed maneuver, it would be a much more practical counterplay to a magicka build getting hit with an oil catapult.