Upcoming siege changes in next major update

Enodoc

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Sharee "If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned."

But if the amount of players that can be Purged is reduced, is that still a valid statement?

I am inclined to believe that the statement remains valid, as it will just result in the zergball getting larger so they can shoot off more purges. (Unless purge becomes self-only.) This would only be countered by the removal of AoE caps in such a way that a larger zergball is detrimental to the people in it.

However;

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

if the healing reduction is less, as in this situation, maybe having it being non-purgeable per the original suggestion is no longer such an issue?

Xsorus

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Most likely if you make things purgable; and reduce the amount targets purge actually hits...It will only make smaller groups weaker as larger groups will have the advantage of having more people to spam purge.

Purge should have a cap don't get me wrong...But i'm already seeing ya cave to pressure and i have a feeling this is just going to end up being one of those band aid fixes in the end.

Dreyloch

So just a couple quick thoughts on this @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Will the siege limit in or around a keep be increased? With this proposed change, there will need to be decisions made by the attacking force on what to bring to bare against the defenders on the walls. This would change the rate at which a wall goes down, and in doing so, creates opportunity for more and more forces to come to the battlle. This in turn, makes for lag scaling up until something breaks. Especially if it's the last keep on an Emp push.

I'm all for large scale battles, just not the lag that comes with it. I think a lot of the people on this thread just don't like moving away from the meta they've played for so long. Lag or not. I also think I see some of the logic in it." If you don't want to get pummeled by siege trying to take a keep with a smaller group? Then move to a less defended one." This in turn spreads out the numbers, and there is less lag overall.At least this is how it "should" work.

Please if you could let us test it? If we give feedback, MAKE the changes. Don't just toss it to live anyway, and change it later. Like most other major changes that have gone into the game. Leave it on the PTS till most sides can agree with it.

Kwivur

Make purge for self only. There's too many group buffs in this game as it is or, if anything, cap it at 3 people with a 3 meter radius.

Catblade

Kwivur wrote: »

Make purge for self only. There's too many group buffs in this game as it is or, if anything, cap it at 3 people with a 3 meter radius.

This. limit purge to three people and make the seize purgeable that way if they want to spam it they can, but at a heavy cost.

Zheg

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Sharee "If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned."

But if the amount of players that can be Purged is reduced, is that still a valid statement?

With a reduction in the number of people purge hits, that should be a viable improvement to meatbags without making them absurd. The more important point though, at 5k stam per pop, I would push heavily for our guys to switch from a group that pretty much only ever uses siege on walls to a raid that drops 2-4 oil catapults so no one can cc break. Who cares about heal debuffs if your stam is all gone in 2 seconds and half or more of the opposing raid is feared and can't cc break? Fight is over at that point, doesn't matter if your incoming heals are weakened, all of your healers are in an unbreakable cc for 3 seconds and you're dead.

timidobserver

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

If it is purgable it won't matter what you do to the target cap. You just get more people casting it more frequently. I have been in groups with 15+ people all with purge slotted for situational use.

ZOS_GinaBruno

It's great to see so much discussion around the topics that Brian posted about and requested feedback on. That said, please keep your replies constructive. We know things can get heated and everyone is very passionate about some of these topics, but that's no excuse to be rude to Brian or each other.

Thanks, guys.

Xsorus

Zheg wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Sharee "If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned."

But if the amount of players that can be Purged is reduced, is that still a valid statement?

With a reduction in the number of people purge hits, that should be a viable improvement to meatbags without making them absurd. The more important point though, at 5k stam per pop, I would push heavily for our guys to switch from a group that pretty much only ever uses siege on walls to a raid that drops 2-4 oil catapults so no one can cc break. Who cares about heal debuffs if your stam is all gone in 2 seconds and half or more of the opposing raid is feared and can't cc break? Fight is over at that point, doesn't matter if your incoming heals are weakened, all of your healers are in an unbreakable cc for 3 seconds and you're dead.

Problem with reducing it to say 2k stamina..no one is going to really notice........If you get hit by 2 to 4 Oil Catapults at once you should notice....That's a problem here..If you're stacking up so your entire group is eating those constant Oil Catapult hits you should suffer for it.

A lot of people are questioning the changes based on how they play the game currently..Which is stacking up in a tightball..and they're like "Well if I get hit by a bunch of siege while stacked in a tight ball...This will be bad for us" which of course is what the change is designed to do...Get you guys to spread out so all your healers aren't stacked up CCed.

Jhunn

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

Speaking of @Wrobel ...........

Reducing purge and barrier cap while still having meatbags purgeable sounds like one of the best ideas to implement in a long time. Yes, please.

themdogesbite

I wouldnt mind the debuff beeing 100% aslong as there's some way to counter it. This would still allow well timed burst from a group togheter with a meatbag to be a very strong option compared to a auto win as it would be with the unremovable option.

Also @frozywozy have some intresting ideas regarding sieges that i definetly think are intresting and worth considering.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Changing AP gain rates are in the books to get more AP for smaller groups than larger groups. Not dramatically punishing for super large groups mind you, but really giving a boost to the smaller groups out there.

All my yes, its about time.

PainfulFAFA

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

Wheeler,
a 75% un-purgeable healing de-buff that stacks with other healing debuffs is just too OP.
ESO would become Elder Sieges Online. Whoever gets more siege up would win.

I think you should lower meatbag healing debuff somewhere between 30%-50% and
leave it un-purgeable.

myrrrorb14_ESO

Kwivur wrote: »

Make purge for self only. There's too many group buffs in this game as it is or, if anything, cap it at 3 people with a 3 meter radius.

Sounds good. 3 people in group, keep the range, and limit group size.

pjwb16_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Changing AP gain rates are in the books to get more AP for smaller groups than larger groups. Not dramatically punishing for super large groups mind you, but really giving a boost to the smaller groups out there.

At least a first step on the right way a few more ideas would be:
- introducing camps with the idea to spread fights more over the map and making dieing not that worthy (riding simulator- > people dont want this -> people stack up so they dont die as often -> with camps people dont have to play riding simulator -> people dont mind dieing that much -> people have ONE reason less to stack up -> people play more in small groups -> MAYBE less lag too depending on how the camps will be introduced
- removal of aoe caps -> less calculations i guess compared to the system atm with the first people taking full damage, next few people taking less, then furthermore taking less etc you know what i mean -> less calculations -> less lag -> probably easier to kill larger groups so they have -> spread the zerg -> less lag OR -> die rather fast if stacked up -> less lag cause of shorter fights

Goal is always less lag, better performance

AFTER THIS we can think about class balance

Turelus

Sharee wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned. Reduction in number of targets will simply be compensated by running more purgers. Stick to the original plan. Make them move.

This. Unless there are changes made to purge which stop it being spammable or the AoE caps are removed for siege weapons so you're applying the effect to more numbers than the purges can keep up with then very little changes.

Right now when my guild runs a bomb train we can stand in one location, place a siege bubble, spam healing springs and purge and not suffer any ill effects no matter how much we are hit by meatbags. Granted the new lightning ballista effect will have a massive part to play here in ruining healing done but efficient purge is far too easy to spam for complete protection right now.

myrrrorb14_ESO

Turelus wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned. Reduction in number of targets will simply be compensated by running more purgers. Stick to the original plan. Make them move.

This. Unless there are changes made to purge which stop it being spammable or the AoE caps are removed for siege weapons so you're applying the effect to more numbers than the purges can keep up with then very little changes.

Right now when my guild runs a bomb train we can stand in one location, place a siege bubble, spam healing springs and purge and not suffer any ill effects no matter how much we are hit by meatbags. Granted the new lightning ballista effect will have a massive part to play here in ruining healing done but efficient purge is far too easy to spam for complete protection right now.

At the very least AOE caps need to go on siege equipment. All other arguments aside, siege should effect everything! I mean, it takes down castles why should bodies limit it.

frozywozy

Ixtyr wrote: »

Also, just as a side note, @ZOS_BrianWheeler, have you considered limiting the group sizes in Cyrodiil from 24 down to 12? I know it'd probably be fairly controversial amongst the playerbase, but I really think that forcing a group to run two 12-man squads instead of one 24-person team would, coupled with siege changes, performance improvements, and AP-gain tweaks, actively encourage groups to split up a bit more, while also making it somewhat more challenging to continually follow around in a massive ball.

The reason I bring this up here is because while this discussion about these siege changes, along with @Wrobel's thread about AoE Cap Removal, have me feeling optimistic, I'm still somewhat worried that the PvP "meta" won't really move away from big AoE-spamming ball-groups slamming themselves against one another.

Totally support your point here. Max group size is one of the most important aspect if not the most important one having a direct impact on server performances. With Population cap of campaigns. I think that reducing the max group size to 16 would be be amazing. Or assign 24men to one campaign and 16 to the other.

Plus, just from personal experience, while running in ball-groups is enjoyable at times, it's really quite mindless gameplay once you learn to follow directions. It's only really difficult on the leader(s) calling the shots. 24 or 36 or 48+ person "zergs" really do diminish the skill of individual players. Sure, ultimate-rotation and timely CCs require some skill, and some groups do it better than others, but that's still generally something that falls more to the leader to call out rather than the player to execute themselves. I've always found that running a 12-person team of skilled, geared players is a lot more fun and rewarding than larger groups, and it's also doable with newer players and a great way to help them get better individually when you're not just telling someone "Slot your Steel Tornado and follow the Crown". That style of gameplay will always exist to a degree, but 10-15 people vs. 10-15 people fights are among the best I've experienced (and I've been playing since the 2013 beta), and they're also the best kind of experience a new player can have to become a better group-PvP player.

As much as the leader has the biggest responsability in the medium size group (8-14), the players have a huge role and without proper gearing, specing and knowledges of the games mechanics, the other classes, the counters and over Cyrodiil techniques, the leader will fail in most scenarios without highly valuable teamates.

Mind you, with a 12-member cap, guilds or factions could still very much run 3-4 groups and maintain a 50-player group if they wanted to. It'd just be more work and require more skill and better leadership to do so as seamlessly as is currently possible. That said, if I'm commanding 48 people, I'd honestly much prefer being able to more easily take 4 12-mans and say "Group A go to Bleakers, Group C go to Arrius, and Groups B & D go to Chalman". As it currently stands, doing that with 2 24-mans feels like more work than most would care to deal with, and everyone's just like "screw it, everyone go to Chalman" - which leads to the massive lag-fest ball-group Steel Tornado-spamming Barrier-rotating ridiculousness we currently see every night on Azura's Star.

I'm not sure to understand the hard part in splitting two organized groups in two different location. I do it everyday with the pact and it works really well.

Also, changing AP-gain rates to scale a bit more punishingly for massive groups would probably be worth, at the very least, testing for a Patch or two (and tie AP-gain to people who participate in the fight, not to whoever sticks around in a point-of-interest for the defensive tick, a problem that groups have been abusing to cheaply and artificially farm up ridiculous levels of AP for one person in their group by forcing everyone to leave a resource so one person can reap the entire AP tick for themselves, effectively removing the possibility of anyone besides the "chosen one" of the top 2-3 groups on a server from having an even remote chance at being crowned Emperor). That, along with removing/changing those AoE Caps and empowering siege would be, together, really big changes, and I think they would work for the better. For everyone - not just experienced groups, or skilled-solo players, or new PvPers.

I support this idea alot. Defensive ticks based on participation instead of locations. I would also like that AP gains on direct attacks/heals worked as followed :

1) AP gains on damage should be given to said player accordingly to the % of damage he delt
2) AP gains on healing should be given to said healer only

SturgeHammer

Sublime wrote: »

SturgeHammer wrote: »

Unless the new number of targets is 1 (self targeted), then I'd say that statement is true.

Out of curiosity: What do you think of a 3-6man cap but an additional penaltiy similar to the one bolt escape currently has?

I've always wanted the number of purge targets to scale 1 to 1 with the number of alliance war support abilities slotted your on your bar. I like the idea of purge being strong if you are dedicated to the role.

Sublime

myrrrorb14_ESO wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned. Reduction in number of targets will simply be compensated by running more purgers. Stick to the original plan. Make them move.

This. Unless there are changes made to purge which stop it being spammable or the AoE caps are removed for siege weapons so you're applying the effect to more numbers than the purges can keep up with then very little changes.

Right now when my guild runs a bomb train we can stand in one location, place a siege bubble, spam healing springs and purge and not suffer any ill effects no matter how much we are hit by meatbags. Granted the new lightning ballista effect will have a massive part to play here in ruining healing done but efficient purge is far too easy to spam for complete protection right now.

At the very least AOE caps need to go on siege equipment. All other arguments aside, siege should effect everything! I mean, it takes down castles why should bodies limit it.

I don't get it, do you want to buff or nerf sieges? O.o

Xsorus

People need to get out of the mindset of stacking to counter AOE

Watch the first fight in this video

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

That's bad gameplay....They saw an enemy guild group..That group stacked...and so did they when rushing into blow them up.

In fact most of the video is this same thing over and over again...Stacking up and trying to blow each other up with AOE's.

Here is an 8v8 in DAOC now for example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc6FX2GAh7M

Notice when the enemy i seen everyone spreads out...

This is the problem with pvp currently in this game...and how people are currently viewing the siege for example....They're expecting to be able to all stack up and take a siege shot and it be fine....When really if you see the enemy with a catapult you should spread the hell out so you don't get screwed.

This game needs to punish people stacking to avoid AOE...AOE should make you spread out...not the opposite...and siege is included in this.

Zheg

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Sharee "If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned."

But if the amount of players that can be Purged is reduced, is that still a valid statement?

With a reduction in the number of people purge hits, that should be a viable improvement to meatbags without making them absurd. The more important point though, at 5k stam per pop, I would push heavily for our guys to switch from a group that pretty much only ever uses siege on walls to a raid that drops 2-4 oil catapults so no one can cc break. Who cares about heal debuffs if your stam is all gone in 2 seconds and half or more of the opposing raid is feared and can't cc break? Fight is over at that point, doesn't matter if your incoming heals are weakened, all of your healers are in an unbreakable cc for 3 seconds and you're dead.

Problem with reducing it to say 2k stamina..no one is going to really notice........If you get hit by 2 to 4 Oil Catapults at once you should notice....That's a problem here..If you're stacking up so your entire group is eating those constant Oil Catapult hits you should suffer for it.

A lot of people are questioning the changes based on how they play the game currently..Which is stacking up in a tightball..and they're like "Well if I get hit by a bunch of siege while stacked in a tight ball...This will be bad for us" which of course is what the change is designed to do...Get you guys to spread out so all your healers aren't stacked up CCed.

The spreadout argument is nice on paper, but we typically push well defended emp keeps with just our raid. When you're pushing brk and all of GoS is there to defend with counter siege galore it's already a difficult fight. Not many keeps are structured to allow you good sieges unless you're in an open field right below a wall, fighting a raid while pelted by (soon to be OP) siege. Furthermore, once inside, you can set up 3 oil catapults facing a breach (breach, back flag, non breach), one on the middle of stairs facing breach, one on upper level facing the outside of inner breach, and even more if inner was front doored. Realistically, how can you push something like that without going in with zero stamina? How do you 'spreadout' to push into the inner which is meant to be tight spaces? How do you cast immoveable to make sure the pathetic jerks meteoring the stairs don't catch even more of your raid with a oneshot exploit?

Fighting on a resource flag is one thing, pushing a defended inner is another. Does the meta then become who can nightcap and do a better job sitting at keeps to defend with absurd siege mechanics that make it near impossible for a single raid to take alone? (exaggerating here)

As far as spreading out to other keeps, the map design is more to blame than anything. Emp keeps are more valuable than glade/Arrius/fare, and those three are more valuable then gate keeps, and those are more valuable then the three worthless ones that shouldn't even be mentioned. It's nice on paper to say go hi another keep, but when you're one or two away from emp, why in the world would you?

Ishammael

Joy_Division wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

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.

Even if you could use maneuvers... 5k stam drain follow by a 5k stam skill? REKT

Manoekin

Sharee wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned. Reduction in number of targets will simply be compensated by running more purgers. Stick to the original plan. Make them move.

They can't move because they're all snared indefinitely under your scenario.

myrrrorb14_ESO

Sublime wrote: »

myrrrorb14_ESO wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned. Reduction in number of targets will simply be compensated by running more purgers. Stick to the original plan. Make them move.

This. Unless there are changes made to purge which stop it being spammable or the AoE caps are removed for siege weapons so you're applying the effect to more numbers than the purges can keep up with then very little changes.

Right now when my guild runs a bomb train we can stand in one location, place a siege bubble, spam healing springs and purge and not suffer any ill effects no matter how much we are hit by meatbags. Granted the new lightning ballista effect will have a massive part to play here in ruining healing done but efficient purge is far too easy to spam for complete protection right now.

At the very least AOE caps need to go on siege equipment. All other arguments aside, siege should effect everything! I mean, it takes down castles why should bodies limit it.

I don't get it, do you want to buff or nerf sieges? O.o

Both!

I want it to make sense and still have abilities mean something.

Ishammael

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.

What are you talking about? Snares and heal debuffs cannot be "broken free" from.

This is the issue: the snare portion (50%!!!!) or healing debuff (50%!!!!) of a siege effect will be unpurgeable. Therefore, characters will be forced to wait SIX (6) seconds for it to wear off. Six seconds in pvp is an eternity. Six seconds snare is basically dead. Six seconds heal debuff is huge. Especially difficult for Templars and DKs which have neither cloak nor BE to get away.

Xsorus

Zheg wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Sharee "If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned."

But if the amount of players that can be Purged is reduced, is that still a valid statement?

With a reduction in the number of people purge hits, that should be a viable improvement to meatbags without making them absurd. The more important point though, at 5k stam per pop, I would push heavily for our guys to switch from a group that pretty much only ever uses siege on walls to a raid that drops 2-4 oil catapults so no one can cc break. Who cares about heal debuffs if your stam is all gone in 2 seconds and half or more of the opposing raid is feared and can't cc break? Fight is over at that point, doesn't matter if your incoming heals are weakened, all of your healers are in an unbreakable cc for 3 seconds and you're dead.

Problem with reducing it to say 2k stamina..no one is going to really notice........If you get hit by 2 to 4 Oil Catapults at once you should notice....That's a problem here..If you're stacking up so your entire group is eating those constant Oil Catapult hits you should suffer for it.

A lot of people are questioning the changes based on how they play the game currently..Which is stacking up in a tightball..and they're like "Well if I get hit by a bunch of siege while stacked in a tight ball...This will be bad for us" which of course is what the change is designed to do...Get you guys to spread out so all your healers aren't stacked up CCed.

The spreadout argument is nice on paper, but we typically push well defended emp keeps with just our raid. When you're pushing brk and all of GoS is there to defend with counter siege galore it's already a difficult fight. Not many keeps are structured to allow you good sieges unless you're in an open field right below a wall, fighting a raid while pelted by (soon to be OP) siege. Furthermore, once inside, you can set up 3 oil catapults facing a breach (breach, back flag, non breach), one on the middle of stairs facing breach, one on upper level facing the outside of inner breach, and even more if inner was front doored. Realistically, how can you push something like that without going in with zero stamina? How do you 'spreadout' to push into the inner which is meant to be tight spaces? How do you cast immoveable to make sure the pathetic jerks meteoring the stairs don't catch even more of your raid with a oneshot exploit?

Fighting on a resource flag is one thing, pushing a defended inner is another. Does the meta then become who can nightcap and do a better job sitting at keeps to defend with absurd siege mechanics that make it near impossible for a single raid to take alone? (exaggerating here)

As far as spreading out to other keeps, the map design is more to blame than anything. Emp keeps are more valuable than glade/Arrius/fare, and those three are more valuable then gate keeps, and those are more valuable then the three worthless ones that shouldn't even be mentioned. It's nice on paper to say go hi another keep, but when you're one or two away from emp, why in the world would you?

So you're saying you should be able to just rush through a well defended choke point covered by multiple defenders and siege equipment and it be fine cause reasons?

I mean maybe i'm missing something here...But when did everyone start believing they should always be able to win in every situation?

Manoekin

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

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.

If you are sieging a keep with plenty of enemies inside, plus on top of that, you pick a wall that has already alot of counter-sieges up against you, you are doing it extremely wrong. Use strategies and hit where the enemy doesn't expect it. If you hit a keep already well defended, you should die or be forced to open multiple walls on different sides to find a weak spot.

Or send vampires nightblades mist forming between each siege volleys and cloaking to counter-siegers to neutralize the zone. Remember when it was a thing 8months ago? This is the reality. Getting inside a breach of a defended keep should NOT be a walk in the park.

If you hit a keep that's already well defended you can't just move to the other side... the people inside the keep can just follow you dude. You probably can't even siege because you've got a full raid+ jumping out to attack you while you're being sieged to ***. It's like you never try to do anything without the zerg behind you, Frozn.

Manoe, I have done that dozens of times. Deploying on a keep and then realize that there are scouts on the wall. Or deploying on a keep and then take too much counter-siege damage. I never thought I actually had to explain to someone with your experience how to proceed but I'll do it.

1) You ask your people to pack up their sieges
2) You give a rally point OUT of the line of sight of people on the wall
3) You mount up and go wide around the keep without being seen
4) You redeploy on another side and ask people to not start firing until there is at least 15 stone trebs up (2-3 per player)
5) Resume sieging all together

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

For the sake of discussion, and bearing in mind possible changes to Purge (the ability itself as noted by Wrobel in his thread), how would a 50% healing reduction instead of 75% from the meatbag sound as well as being purge-able?

My own suggestions :

1) Meatbags should be purgable, but not with Efficient Purge and Cleanse. Those should be used to remove player debuffs and player snares only. Cleansing Ritual (which require player interaction by using the synergy) should remove every debuff and snare (including siege debuffs).
2) Lightning balistas and Oil Catapults should deal 2k magicka/stamina damage.
3) Overall siege damage should not be increased.
4) Retreating Maneuvers should NOT remove siege snares
5) Charging Maneuvers should remove all kind of snares but NOT give immunity

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Sharee "If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned."

But if the amount of players that can be Purged is reduced, is that still a valid statement?

That would only promote more people slotting purge and spamming it, increasing calculation and decreasing server performances in the meantime.

Kwivur wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@Sharee "If healing reduction is purgeable then there is no healing reduction as far as a zergball is concerned."

But if the amount of players that can be Purged is reduced, is that still a valid statement?

Just make purge castable on self only.

I like this idea alot!

You're describing a situation in which there's a few counter siege or scouts on the wall. I'm talking, I run up to a keep and there's a full raid group jumping out after my 12man group with counter siege on the walls. That's what I consider a well defended keep. A keep I can flag without any resistance isn't a well defended keep. Someone might call it out before it gets flagged, but there's no one there actually defending it. Two different things, Frozn.

Your suggestion leaves other classes with no way of dealing with siege. I don't disagree with all of them, though.

Purge casting on self is a terrible idea. Just remove efficient purge.

Manoekin

Xsorus wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Most likely if you make things purgable; and reduce the amount targets purge actually hits...It will only make smaller groups weaker as larger groups will have the advantage of having more people to spam purge.

Purge should have a cap don't get me wrong...But i'm already seeing ya cave to pressure and i have a feeling this is just going to end up being one of those band aid fixes in the end.

Smaller groups will have less people to be purged as well, it's balanced.

Edit: This entire thread is a bandaid fix. We're trying to fix combat being broken with siege effects, and then when we find out the siege effects are broken as *** we're trying to come up with bandaid fixes for that issue. The sad thing is people are actually falling for it.

Zheg

Ishammael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

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.

Even if you could use maneuvers... 5k stam drain follow by a 5k stam skill? REKT

I could pull that off easily on my speed build. That's the problem many don't seem to get - larger groups can dedicate an entire role to some niche, smaller groups can't. Siege needs improvements, yes, but the smaller v larger number debate needs to be solved with mechanics and not siege. Siege can be a piece of the puzzle, perhaps, but this all looks to me like Brian is trying to help the situation with a hail mary because it's one of the few things he does have control over, and wroebel can't/won't/is too slow on making the mechanic changes that are really the source of many of these issues.

Xsorus

Zheg wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

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.

Even if you could use maneuvers... 5k stam drain follow by a 5k stam skill? REKT

I could pull that off easily on my speed build. That's the problem many don't seem to get - larger groups can dedicate an entire role to some niche, smaller groups can't. Siege needs improvements, yes, but the smaller v larger number debate needs to be solved with mechanics and not siege. Siege can be a piece of the puzzle, perhaps, but this all looks to me like Brian is trying to help the situation with a hail mary because it's one of the few things he does have control over, and wroebel can't/won't/is too slow on making the mechanic changes that are really the source of many of these issues.

Again this change isn't decided around smaller vs larger number debate.

This change will not let small groups take on large groups in a fight.... That will only be fixed when they remove things like AOE caps

This change is designed around punishing zerg balls when fighting pug zergs or defended keeps.