Upcoming siege changes in next major update

Ishammael

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?

The interaction isn't that simple.

The problem has several characteristics:
1. Debuffs and buffs currently are too easy to remove: purge, purify, cloak.
2. Debuffs and buffs are too easy to apply: spam skills, shoot siege.
3. Some debuffs are disproportionately powerful: defile, snare.
4. Some debuffs are disproportionately weak b/c they are so easily removed: DoTs.
5. Not all classes can deal with debuffs using class skills: DK, Sorc.
6. Not all classes can escape from a snare with class skills: DK, Templar.

My point is this: its pointless to argue the skill purge vs. siege by itself. The entire skill ecosystem has to be considered because ever class and playstyle is affected differently.

Before putting up a single change like this, put up a list of all the changes and let us discuss them as a group. Then put them on the PTS so that we can test them.

frozywozy

Manoekin wrote: »

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.

This lead us to the first point I have been talking about. If you attack a well defended keep with a medium group only, you are doing it extremely wrong. Defended keeps should require an army, to not say a legion to take. And this is the case when capping/dethroning the last emp keep.

You should never try to siege a well defended keep with a medium group and expect to capture it. If the enemy stack and turtle the next keep in the transit line, such as what DC ballgroups have been doing on Chalman for the past month or two, you go hit deep in enemy territory by flagging keeps or capturing ressources in an attempt to spread them out.

Docmandu

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?

How about a portion of the debuff being purgeable and a portion not..

ie. 75% debuff from a meat bag.. but if you purge, you're left with a 50% debuff. (numbers just as an example)

Or some sort of mechanic / effect like that. Maybe keep the 75% but have purge cut the duration down a bit.

Ixtyr

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.

This also concerned me a LOT.

Will these oil debuffs stack? A well-timed trio of oils, coupled with the previous nerfing of regeneration rates, could render a lot of stamina-dps players, like myself, completely helpless. @ZOS_BrianWheeler, please consider putting a debuff timer on these, so you can't be affected by multiple stamina-sapping oils within, say, 6 seconds. That means that oil is still brutal, but not completely broken in that it could destroy the viability of stamina builds, and also cripple non-stamina builds who are already low on stamina in the first place.

As much as I don't want it to happen for selfish reasons, I do like this concept of stamina and magicka-sapping siege. Just don't let it completely break builds.

Sublime

myrrrorb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

That's kinda contradicting itself in my eyes. Why not just buff/nerf it to the desired streangth?

Xsorus

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

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.

This lead us to the first point I have been talking about. If you attack a well defended keep with a medium group only, you are doing it extremely wrong. Defended keeps should require an army, to not say a legion to take. And this is the case when capping/dethroning the last emp keep.

You should never try to siege a well defended keep with a medium group and expect to capture it. If the enemy stack and turtle the next keep in the transit line, such as what DC ballgroups have been doing on Chalman for the past month or two, you go hit deep in enemy territory by flagging keeps or capturing ressources in an attempt to spread them out.

I mean in DAOC...My 8 man never attacked a defended keep outright..That would of been a death sentence...8 mans in general in that game generally circled the area of a friendly zerg when they were taking a keep and cleared reinforcements and other 8mans thinking of hitting their friendly zerg

Manoekin

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

That's AOE caps, not siege. Siege already isn't AOE capped, it just doesn't do enough damage unless you seriously focus the fire and only with stone trebs.

Zheg

Xsorus wrote: »

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?

For a few seconds forget about your disdain for non DAOC sized groups and reread the post. Not saying it shouldn't be difficult, not saying there aren't times you should lose, I AM saying a change to so drastically flip the scales to defenders will have a negative impact on pvp. Poor groups will just bring more people, better groups will say eff that and instead sit at their own keeps waiting for a group stupid enough to push tight funnels with zero stamina. Again, my biggest gripe is simply how insanely large 5k stam per hit really is when people realize how good it is and run 4-whatever oil catapults. The mechanic doesn't work when everyone not on stam builds typically run between 10-16k stam. It's too strong - stronger than all of the other siege changes, and likely will result in stupid fights where you get cc'd once and can't do anything but die.

Xsorus

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

That's AOE caps, not siege. Siege already isn't AOE capped, it just doesn't do enough damage unless you seriously focus the fire and only with stone trebs.

you're missing the point...I'm showing how 2 different groups handle things....In this game a lot of you guys are arguing based on the point that "Hey there is AOE going to hit us..Lets stack up"....

in DAOC we learned early on.."Hey there is a AOE to hit us..lets not stack up"

The Siege discussion relates directly to this... People are expecting..flat out that they should be able to stack on an objective and take siege hits and it not be a problem.... where as because of how DAOC was from the beginning..No one would ever expect that.

AOE caps in general has really screwed the perspective of a lot of players when it comes to these things.

Manoekin

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

Maybe the pug zergs should do something other than be terrible then. There's enough of them there, why don't they coordinate? Because they don't want to. You don't need to throw them i-win buttons because they decide to be bad at the game. Well, maybe they're not all bad? Siege isn't the answer. Remove the AOE caps and let the good players shine. Pugs are pugs. They shouldn't be walking around with 20 nukes in their backpack.

Maulkin

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?

At risk of sounding like a suck-up, top marks for keeping the discussion going. I understand you're all busy with objectives and timelines but trust me when I say that engaging the community is one of the best ways to keep them interested and feeling involved. You might get a lot of vitriolic comments and it might not feel like it's worth the time, but it is. So, kudos.

On the subject of these changes I would personally recommend either of these two options as a first attempt:
1) The debuff values (heal/speed) are greatly reduced but become unpurgeable
2) The debuff values stay high but remain purgeable

Option 2 would require Wrobel to make significant changes to Purge. For a start it needs a cap, that much is obvious and thankfully he has agreed on it. I also think Efficient Purge is currently too.... efficient, it costs less than Breath of Life or Healing Ward and as a result it's highly spammable.

When a cap is introduced, there'll be a 3rd question that's very important and that question is if it's "smart targeting" or not. Why is that important? Because even with a 6-target cap (hypothetically speaking) if it's smart targeting the people with negative effects, it will only take 4 purges to cover a whole 24-man raid. 4 purges by 2 dedicated purgers is 2 casts each and the whole raid is "clean" in 2". The large raids will simply laugh it off.

If option 2 is taken then Purge will need:
a) a lower target cap
b) to have the Efficient Purge morph changed to not be as efficient as it currently is. Or alternatively, provide some other benefit instead of cost reduction.
c) to not be smart

The current suggestion of keeping debuff values high and making them unpurgable, is a little bit too aggressive for first pass. I would recommend choosing a "milder" option like 1) or 2) and letting them sink in for a couple of months, taking stock afterwards to see if they've made enough of a difference.

Other things suggested like lowering the AP gain for larger groups and hopefully removing AoE caps would also be changes in the right direction and help. You might hit the sweetspot without having to add unpurgeable effects and that would be great.

Speaking of AoE caps, what did you guys do with Wrobel. His AoE cap thread is the forum equivalent of doing a hit & run.

Talcyndl

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?

Without changes to Purge that make it less spammable, it would defeat the purpose of these changes. That is assuming the purpose is to provide an effective counter to the Blob groups.

Talcyndl

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?

Not really. Purge is spammable once the Efficient Purge morph is unlocked. Even limiting it to 6 party members, it just means that the 2-3 people tasked with casting it will cast it an extra time.

Talcyndl

Manoekin wrote: »

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

Assuming they all "Stacked on Crown" standing in big red circles in the first place.

Manoekin

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

That's AOE caps, not siege. Siege already isn't AOE capped, it just doesn't do enough damage unless you seriously focus the fire and only with stone trebs.

you're missing the point...I'm showing how 2 different groups handle things....In this game a lot of you guys are arguing based on the point that "Hey there is AOE going to hit us..Lets stack up"....

in DAOC we learned early on.."Hey there is a AOE to hit us..lets not stack up"

The Siege discussion relates directly to this... People are expecting..flat out that they should be able to stack on an objective and take siege hits and it not be a problem.... where as because of how DAOC was from the beginning..No one would ever expect that.

AOE caps in general has really screwed the perspective of a lot of players when it comes to these things.

I'm not missing the point, you are. You're comparing two different games. Your argument is invalid at that point. There's reasons people stack up and it's not for any reason you've listed so far. Learn a thing or two from the countless number of posts people have made about this. No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage. That's the worst thing you could do to avoid that. The problem is the damage part. The damage part is being addressed. I said in my very first post I'm okay with that. There's no reason at all to add the one part I consider unnecessary. The other changes are enough; we're going overkill at this point. We've made siege useful, let's not make it the most important thing. I want to play a game where I play against other players, not against their siege weaponry.

Talcyndl

Manoekin wrote: »

No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage.

They are stacking because it avoids ALL damage via AoE heals (which automatically target low health allies) and spammable purge which removes all negative effects. Add to that the "best offense is a good defense" of spammed steel detonation, well...we see the results in idiotic gameplay and lag.

There are a lot of ways to potentially fix that. Siege is the one that @ZOS_BrianWheeler can control. So the goal should be to make siege effective against stacked groups that can spam purge and heals.

Manoekin

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

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

Assuming they all "Stacked on Crown" standing in big red circles in the first place.

Assuming you can't just drop a catapult and fire it directly in front of you in the heat of combat. It's not like they're shooting it at max range with a hug arc and you have 10 seconds to get out of it. You can aim in front of groups and the shot will hit with essentially no time to react if it's done correctly.

Also assuming you're not being targeted by 5 or more. DC was the best at this, and some of my friends from NM( @hammayolettuce ) can attest that anytime you'd engage in PvP back in the day pugs or players from both factions would just surround the entire engagement with oil catapults and whoever got more up generally won. We even made jokes that DC players were gifted a stack of oil catapults upon character creation it got so bad.

Ixtyr

frozywozy wrote: »

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

Glad to see someone else agree with me on the AP-gain issues. They've bugged me for a while now.

As for your other points...I see where you're coming from. My thought process is simply that, yes, while it's doable to run multiple groups and split into smaller teams, it's rarely done now because nobody wants to miss out on the big AP gains or not be in the "main leader's" group. We do it on DC, but I don't think any of the factions do it nearly enough to make the maps truly interesting. Forcing smaller group sizes would highly encourage more people to bounce around and split up, going to multiple POIs at once - at a far greater rate than happens currently.

Oh, and yeah, I'm not going to dispute the fact that skilled players don't make a big difference. They do. I'm just saying that the skill of individual players gets all-but completely lost in groups of 25+. It's just a leader calling for people when to hit one of their 2-3 buttons. In a 12-man team, that skill would be far more useful and showcased a lot better, which is what I'm calling for.

timidobserver

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage.

They are stacking because it avoids ALL damage via AoE heals (which automatically target low health allies) and spammable purge which removes all negative effects. Add to that the "best offense is a good defense" of spammed steel detonation, well...we see the results in idiotic gameplay and lag.

There are a lot of ways to potentially fix that. Siege is the one that @ZOS_BrianWheeler can control. So the goal should be to make siege effective against stacked groups that can spam purge and heals.

Nobody stacks for this reason. People stack because it makes coordinating movement and damage easier. I have not once heard someone say "stack up so we can take advantage of the aoe cap."

Xsorus

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

That's AOE caps, not siege. Siege already isn't AOE capped, it just doesn't do enough damage unless you seriously focus the fire and only with stone trebs.

you're missing the point...I'm showing how 2 different groups handle things....In this game a lot of you guys are arguing based on the point that "Hey there is AOE going to hit us..Lets stack up"....

in DAOC we learned early on.."Hey there is a AOE to hit us..lets not stack up"

The Siege discussion relates directly to this... People are expecting..flat out that they should be able to stack on an objective and take siege hits and it not be a problem.... where as because of how DAOC was from the beginning..No one would ever expect that.

AOE caps in general has really screwed the perspective of a lot of players when it comes to these things.

I'm not missing the point, you are. You're comparing two different games. Your argument is invalid at that point. There's reasons people stack up and it's not for any reason you've listed so far. Learn a thing or two from the countless number of posts people have made about this. No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage. That's the worst thing you could do to avoid that. The problem is the damage part. The damage part is being addressed. I said in my very first post I'm okay with that. There's no reason at all to add the one part I consider unnecessary. The other changes are enough; we're going overkill at this point. We've made siege useful, let's not make it the most important thing. I want to play a game where I play against other players, not against their siege weaponry.

It'd be invalid if I was comparing say..FFXIV with ESO; but i'm comparing ESO with the game its directly trying to borrow mechanics from.

And people are stacking for multiple reasons...But seeing siege in an area shouldn't mean.."Hey lets stack more"

It should mean..Hey we better spread out.

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

Maybe the pug zergs should do something other than be terrible then. There's enough of them there, why don't they coordinate? Because they don't want to. You don't need to throw them i-win buttons because they decide to be bad at the game. Well, maybe they're not all bad? Siege isn't the answer. Remove the AOE caps and let the good players shine. Pugs are pugs. They shouldn't be walking around with 20 nukes in their backpack.

They've given you an I win mechanic based entirely on stacking a bunch of people in a single spot to avoid damage....You can't harp on pugs being terrible when the game has given you a passive damage mitigation for free with no penalty.

Manoekin

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage.

They are stacking because it avoids ALL damage via AoE heals (which automatically target low health allies) and spammable purge which removes all negative effects. Add to that the "best offense is a good defense" of spammed steel detonation, well...we see the results in idiotic gameplay and lag.

There are a lot of ways to potentially fix that. Siege is the one that @ZOS_BrianWheeler can control. So the goal should be to make siege effective against stacked groups that can spam purge and heals.

So it's okay to sacrifice gameplay so you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Stacking doesn't avoid "ALL damage". You get ZERO smart healing from stacking in siege aoe because SIEGE IS NOT AOE CAPPED. Everyone takes the same *** damage. How can I explain basic game mechanics any simpler for you? The problem is you can easily out heal the damage up to a certain point and right now that point is too difficult to reach. Brian kindly suggested a fix for that which not one person I've seen has brought up as a complaint. Like holy *** I'm *** Mugatu over here I must be taking crazy pills. It's so easy to see now why the game has gone so far downhill because the devs gather feedback from these forums.

Talcyndl

Manoekin wrote: »

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

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

Assuming they all "Stacked on Crown" standing in big red circles in the first place.

Assuming you can't just drop a catapult and fire it directly in front of you in the heat of combat. It's not like they're shooting it at max range with a hug arc and you have 10 seconds to get out of it. You can aim in front of groups and the shot will hit with essentially no time to react if it's done correctly.

Also assuming you're not being targeted by 5 or more. DC was the best at this, and some of my friends from NM( @hammayolettuce ) can attest that anytime you'd engage in PvP back in the day pugs or players from both factions would just surround the entire engagement with oil catapults and whoever got more up generally won. We even made jokes that DC players were gifted a stack of oil catapults upon character creation it got so bad.

Yup. But I have no problem with siege being the difference when two large groups collide.

Spread out. Get your own siege up. Run in places where there isn't a lot of room to siege.

It makes healing harder and AoE damage will no longer overwhelm all enemies around you. But, honestly, that's the point of the changes.

It will (hopefully) require a complete change in tactics by the Blob groups.

Manoekin

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

That's AOE caps, not siege. Siege already isn't AOE capped, it just doesn't do enough damage unless you seriously focus the fire and only with stone trebs.

you're missing the point...I'm showing how 2 different groups handle things....In this game a lot of you guys are arguing based on the point that "Hey there is AOE going to hit us..Lets stack up"....

in DAOC we learned early on.."Hey there is a AOE to hit us..lets not stack up"

The Siege discussion relates directly to this... People are expecting..flat out that they should be able to stack on an objective and take siege hits and it not be a problem.... where as because of how DAOC was from the beginning..No one would ever expect that.

AOE caps in general has really screwed the perspective of a lot of players when it comes to these things.

I'm not missing the point, you are. You're comparing two different games. Your argument is invalid at that point. There's reasons people stack up and it's not for any reason you've listed so far. Learn a thing or two from the countless number of posts people have made about this. No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage. That's the worst thing you could do to avoid that. The problem is the damage part. The damage part is being addressed. I said in my very first post I'm okay with that. There's no reason at all to add the one part I consider unnecessary. The other changes are enough; we're going overkill at this point. We've made siege useful, let's not make it the most important thing. I want to play a game where I play against other players, not against their siege weaponry.

It'd be invalid if I was comparing say..FFXIV with ESO; but i'm comparing ESO with the game its directly trying to borrow mechanics from.

And people are stacking for multiple reasons...But seeing siege in an area shouldn't mean.."Hey lets stack more"

It should mean..Hey we better spread out.

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

Maybe the pug zergs should do something other than be terrible then. There's enough of them there, why don't they coordinate? Because they don't want to. You don't need to throw them i-win buttons because they decide to be bad at the game. Well, maybe they're not all bad? Siege isn't the answer. Remove the AOE caps and let the good players shine. Pugs are pugs. They shouldn't be walking around with 20 nukes in their backpack.

They've given you an I win mechanic based entirely on stacking a bunch of people in a single spot to avoid damage....You can't harp on pugs being terrible when the game has given you a passive damage mitigation for free with no penalty.

Obviously this is not DAOC 2.0. SORRY to ruin your last two years thinking it was.

Your first point... see my previous response. You just don't understand basic game mechanics well enough.

Your second point... see where I don't want that I-win mechanic? Yeah. I'm all up in the AOE cap thread like I am in this one trying to get it fixed. What do I have over there? Other people trying to tell me AOE caps are good like I have people telling me here that the proposed changes aren't the slightest bit overboard. There's a lot of pugs and solo players that I like knowing are there. I know they're not all bad players there's some really good ones. The game does not allow them to show that. I've said that several times in this very thread. Why do you even bring that up? We agree on this, right?

Manoekin

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

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

Assuming they all "Stacked on Crown" standing in big red circles in the first place.

Assuming you can't just drop a catapult and fire it directly in front of you in the heat of combat. It's not like they're shooting it at max range with a hug arc and you have 10 seconds to get out of it. You can aim in front of groups and the shot will hit with essentially no time to react if it's done correctly.

Also assuming you're not being targeted by 5 or more. DC was the best at this, and some of my friends from NM( @hammayolettuce ) can attest that anytime you'd engage in PvP back in the day pugs or players from both factions would just surround the entire engagement with oil catapults and whoever got more up generally won. We even made jokes that DC players were gifted a stack of oil catapults upon character creation it got so bad.

Yup. But I have no problem with siege being the difference when two large groups collide.

Spread out. Get your own siege up. Run in places where there isn't a lot of room to siege.

It makes healing harder and AoE damage will no longer overwhelm all enemies around you. But, honestly, that's the point of the changes.

It will (hopefully) require a complete change in tactics by the Blob groups.

In that scenario it's whoever brings the larger numbers wins though. At least with ground oils it was skillful enough that you had to know how to do it. How many times was a GvG fight back then won by bashing the guy trying to set up the oil? You have to actually be engaged in the fight rather than off to the side pressing left click without a care in the world. Other siege weapons are just pug tools with little to no drawbacks.

Talcyndl

timidobserver wrote: »

Nobody stacks for this reason. People stack because it makes coordinating movement and damage easier. I have not once heard someone say "stack up so we can take advantage of the aoe cap."

The heals, purges and effective immunity to damage has NOTHING to do with it?

Talcyndl

Manoekin wrote: »

In that scenario it's whoever brings the larger numbers wins though. At least with ground oils it was skillful enough that you had to know how to do it. How many times was a GvG fight back then won by bashing the guy trying to set up the oil? You have to actually be engaged in the fight rather than off to the side pressing left click without a care in the world. Other siege weapons are just pug tools with little to no drawbacks.

Not at all. It's whoever has a better field strategy. Where to fight. What siege to deploy where. When to push siege. When to move to better ground.

It's a contest that is actually dynamic. As things stand now it's a game of "stacking on crown" and relying on a few AoE skills.

Setting up siege in the open has never been a no risk move. It almost always brings attackers to you. The only ones "without a care in the world" are those who are tightly packed in a blob group. Well no care until another group spamming the same 4 skills shows up and everyone wonders when the lag will drop enough for damage to start hitting.

Xsorus

Here's a thought; How about we scale Siege based on how many people hit

For example
Oil Catapult
4 people hit - 1000 Stamina Removed
8 people hit - 2000 Stamina Removed
12 People Hit - 3000 Stamina Removed
16 people hit - 4000 Stamina removed
20 people hit - 5000 stamina removed
24 people hit - 6000 stamina removed

This gives a direct counter to some of the more powerful siege effects...basically don't stack up..and rewards smaller groups by not punishing them as much as larger groups who choose to stack.

Manoekin

timidobserver wrote: »

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage.

They are stacking because it avoids ALL damage via AoE heals (which automatically target low health allies) and spammable purge which removes all negative effects. Add to that the "best offense is a good defense" of spammed steel detonation, well...we see the results in idiotic gameplay and lag.

There are a lot of ways to potentially fix that. Siege is the one that @ZOS_BrianWheeler can control. So the goal should be to make siege effective against stacked groups that can spam purge and heals.

Nobody stacks for this reason. People stack because it makes coordinating movement and damage easier. I have not once heard someone say "stack up so we can take advantage of the aoe cap."

They don't say it, but they know it. It is easier to move when you're together, but you don't have to be inside the crown's pixels to do it. Damage is just wrong. You can easily coordinate your damage on a certain location. Certain groups will spread out and then converge on an enemy group. They're damage all hits at once because they're all hitting the same target. Stacking only coordinates your damage in the area around you, but that's not the only way to do it. The main reason for stacking is for AOE heals and the damage mitigation regardless of why you say you're actually doing it.

Xsorus

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

That's AOE caps, not siege. Siege already isn't AOE capped, it just doesn't do enough damage unless you seriously focus the fire and only with stone trebs.

you're missing the point...I'm showing how 2 different groups handle things....In this game a lot of you guys are arguing based on the point that "Hey there is AOE going to hit us..Lets stack up"....

in DAOC we learned early on.."Hey there is a AOE to hit us..lets not stack up"

The Siege discussion relates directly to this... People are expecting..flat out that they should be able to stack on an objective and take siege hits and it not be a problem.... where as because of how DAOC was from the beginning..No one would ever expect that.

AOE caps in general has really screwed the perspective of a lot of players when it comes to these things.

I'm not missing the point, you are. You're comparing two different games. Your argument is invalid at that point. There's reasons people stack up and it's not for any reason you've listed so far. Learn a thing or two from the countless number of posts people have made about this. No one is stacking up to avoid siege damage. That's the worst thing you could do to avoid that. The problem is the damage part. The damage part is being addressed. I said in my very first post I'm okay with that. There's no reason at all to add the one part I consider unnecessary. The other changes are enough; we're going overkill at this point. We've made siege useful, let's not make it the most important thing. I want to play a game where I play against other players, not against their siege weaponry.

It'd be invalid if I was comparing say..FFXIV with ESO; but i'm comparing ESO with the game its directly trying to borrow mechanics from.

And people are stacking for multiple reasons...But seeing siege in an area shouldn't mean.."Hey lets stack more"

It should mean..Hey we better spread out.

Manoekin wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

Maybe the pug zergs should do something other than be terrible then. There's enough of them there, why don't they coordinate? Because they don't want to. You don't need to throw them i-win buttons because they decide to be bad at the game. Well, maybe they're not all bad? Siege isn't the answer. Remove the AOE caps and let the good players shine. Pugs are pugs. They shouldn't be walking around with 20 nukes in their backpack.

They've given you an I win mechanic based entirely on stacking a bunch of people in a single spot to avoid damage....You can't harp on pugs being terrible when the game has given you a passive damage mitigation for free with no penalty.

Obviously this is not DAOC 2.0. SORRY to ruin your last two years thinking it was.

Your first point... see my previous response. You just don't understand basic game mechanics well enough.

Your second point... see where I don't want that I-win mechanic? Yeah. I'm all up in the AOE cap thread like I am in this one trying to get it fixed. What do I have over there? Other people trying to tell me AOE caps are good like I have people telling me here that the proposed changes aren't the slightest bit overboard. There's a lot of pugs and solo players that I like knowing are there. I know they're not all bad players there's some really good ones. The game does not allow them to show that. I've said that several times in this very thread. Why do you even bring that up? We agree on this, right?

I understand basic mechanics far better then you mate...hence why i'm not complaining about getting ownt by Siege while stacked in a zerg ball

Manoekin

Xsorus wrote: »

Here's a thought; How about we scale Siege based on how many people hit

For example
Oil Catapult
4 people hit - 1000 Stamina Removed
8 people hit - 2000 Stamina Removed
12 People Hit - 3000 Stamina Removed
16 people hit - 4000 Stamina removed
20 people hit - 5000 stamina removed
24 people hit - 6000 stamina removed

This gives a direct counter to some of the more powerful siege effects...basically don't stack up..and rewards smaller groups by not punishing them as much as larger groups who choose to stack.

I like it. Not sure how easily that can be implemented though.

Talcyndl wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

In that scenario it's whoever brings the larger numbers wins though. At least with ground oils it was skillful enough that you had to know how to do it. How many times was a GvG fight back then won by bashing the guy trying to set up the oil? You have to actually be engaged in the fight rather than off to the side pressing left click without a care in the world. Other siege weapons are just pug tools with little to no drawbacks.

Not at all. It's whoever has a better field strategy. Where to fight. What siege to deploy where. When to push siege. When to move to better ground.

It's a contest that is actually dynamic. As things stand now it's a game of "stacking on crown" and relying on a few AoE skills.

Setting up siege in the open has never been a no risk move. It almost always brings attackers to you. The only ones "without a care in the world" are those who are tightly packed in a blob group. Well no care until another group spamming the same 4 skills shows up and everyone wonders when the lag will drop enough for damage to start hitting.

IDK man I've been a part of MANY of GvG fights involving siege. It's plenty easy enough to go off to the side and get siege up. Any enemies coming towards you you can either engage if it's something you can take on or just avoid. Avoiding damage is probably one of the easier things in this game. Most of the times I die it's either extremely laggy and all the damage hits at once, or I get charge spam rooted in place making it impossible to avoid anything.

The last thing I'm trying to do is benefit larger groups because I hate that gameplay. I just think this is overkill and the wrong way of going about it. There's a better option that will make PvP between actual players a lot more fun and dynamic.