Upcoming siege changes in next major update

RoamingRiverElk

DeanTheCat wrote: »

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

DeanTheCat wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

How would people feel about efficient purge being self target only? So if people want that spammable immunity they have to bring it themselves and use their own resources. Then have the healing variant which is already costly be the AoE one.

I know this is a little more skill based and @Wrobel 's area but seems rather relevant to this thread and the issues on hand.

Problem with that is that is only usable for Magicka builds (I'm not asking for a stam purge, so put down your pitchforks), and will further cement the utility disadvantage that Stamina builds face in PvP. It also means that there will be less purges available from allies for Stam builds to purge of siege effects, as a lot of people will most likely still take the efficient morph.

Perhaps instead of making Purge single target only, make it work like a Templar's Cleansing Ritual. This means that if an ally uses a purge near you, you have to manually hit X in order to purge yourself. This purge synergy could have a longer cooldown as compared to the Templar version and use separate cooldowns, but it still allows nearby allies have a chance of purging negative effects.

Another idea is to creat a few "Tiers" of siege effects. For example, let's take the meatbag.

Tier 1: 25% healing reduction, 3 seconds
Tier 2: 50% healing reduction, 6 seconds

When a purge is used, all Tier 2 effects currently applied are turned into Tier 1 effects which are unpurgable. Being hit again by the same type of siege refreshes the duration and reverts the effect back to Tier 2. This allows siege to still have some impact on the battlefield, while still allowing a counter to be used to dampen the effect of the impact.

Magicka builds need to invest in stamina management if they don't run in huge groups, sacrificing damage. I don't understand why stamina builds are so unwilling to invest in magicka management. It's a choice. It's perfectly doable to have a stamina build that also allows one to use efficient purge relatively often. Purge even gives more magicka regen when it's slotted.

I can purge negative effects with my cloak easily, and I have put CP into Magicka cost reduction and regeneration (As well as using magicka regen drinks) to help further sustain my self purging. However, not every stamina based player is a Templar or a Nightblade, and the cost of Efficient Purge for them will be too high to properly sustain, especially since it doesn't offer any secondary effect (Invis for Cloak, Cleansing Ritual removes 5 effects) to the caster.

It's kinda the same thing as expecting a Magicka build to spam something like Rapids/Caltrops/Circle of Protection/Immovable. They simply don't have the resources to pull it off, even when dedicating a significant portion of their power to doing so.

Well, drawing on my actual gameplay experience as a Dunmer stamina dk, I'm able to use efficient purge. ^^ With 6 medium, 1 light, using food. Running the Atronach mundus.

DeanTheCat

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

DeanTheCat wrote: »

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

DeanTheCat wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

How would people feel about efficient purge being self target only? So if people want that spammable immunity they have to bring it themselves and use their own resources. Then have the healing variant which is already costly be the AoE one.

I know this is a little more skill based and @Wrobel 's area but seems rather relevant to this thread and the issues on hand.

Problem with that is that is only usable for Magicka builds (I'm not asking for a stam purge, so put down your pitchforks), and will further cement the utility disadvantage that Stamina builds face in PvP. It also means that there will be less purges available from allies for Stam builds to purge of siege effects, as a lot of people will most likely still take the efficient morph.

Perhaps instead of making Purge single target only, make it work like a Templar's Cleansing Ritual. This means that if an ally uses a purge near you, you have to manually hit X in order to purge yourself. This purge synergy could have a longer cooldown as compared to the Templar version and use separate cooldowns, but it still allows nearby allies have a chance of purging negative effects.

Another idea is to creat a few "Tiers" of siege effects. For example, let's take the meatbag.

Tier 1: 25% healing reduction, 3 seconds
Tier 2: 50% healing reduction, 6 seconds

When a purge is used, all Tier 2 effects currently applied are turned into Tier 1 effects which are unpurgable. Being hit again by the same type of siege refreshes the duration and reverts the effect back to Tier 2. This allows siege to still have some impact on the battlefield, while still allowing a counter to be used to dampen the effect of the impact.

Magicka builds need to invest in stamina management if they don't run in huge groups, sacrificing damage. I don't understand why stamina builds are so unwilling to invest in magicka management. It's a choice. It's perfectly doable to have a stamina build that also allows one to use efficient purge relatively often. Purge even gives more magicka regen when it's slotted.

I can purge negative effects with my cloak easily, and I have put CP into Magicka cost reduction and regeneration (As well as using magicka regen drinks) to help further sustain my self purging. However, not every stamina based player is a Templar or a Nightblade, and the cost of Efficient Purge for them will be too high to properly sustain, especially since it doesn't offer any secondary effect (Invis for Cloak, Cleansing Ritual removes 5 effects) to the caster.

It's kinda the same thing as expecting a Magicka build to spam something like Rapids/Caltrops/Circle of Protection/Immovable. They simply don't have the resources to pull it off, even when dedicating a significant portion of their power to doing so.

Well, drawing on my actual gameplay experience as a Dunmer stamina dk, I'm able to use efficient purge. ^^ With 6 medium, 1 light, using food. Running the Atronach mundus.

Atronach Mundus is basically the same as a drink.

You can use E.Purge, but pretty much nothing else if you want to keep constant uptime on it. Magicka is also used for other abilities like buffs and CC, which in your case is Fossilise, Reflective Scales, Razor Armor and Igneous Shield. You cannot really maintain those + constant E.Purge on a stamina build, in addition to the new threat of the Lightning Balistae.

Also, not every class has Helping Hands or Battle Roar. The resources they return in long combat is substantial. Which in turn let's you pull recovery away from Stamina and into Magicka.

Olivierko

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.

Make all heals and purges for caster only and you'll see how much better it would get.

"Smart" healing is one of the features that I despise the most.

Erondil

babanovac wrote: »

Any buff to siege weapons is welcome as they are currently completely useless.

This reasonment is so stupid, I lost my words... Its like if you say "A change to agony so its unbreakable and doesnt break on damage (10sec unbreakable stun) is welcome as it is currently completely useless".

Balance isnt about making things currently useless completely OP and vice versa,you know

Enodoc

Turelus wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

I'm one for the changes but I have to agree with some of the players making the point about flags and stacking. I don't think this is an issue which can be fixed by siege changes alone. The siege changes will work, if a bunch of other things are done. However alone and in current build of skills/flag ranges/AoE.

I think the idea of larger flag capture zones is a good one (of course I do I said it!) so that even with sieges placed and shooting towards the flag groups can use the cover offered by walls and line of sight to protect themselves from the sieges.

Sure, it's the capture zone mechanics that promote stacking the flag. If I remember rightly, the more people you have in the capture zone, the faster it changes; how many people do you need before that caps off? Maybe that number should be reduced, and overall time extended. I like the idea of a larger capture zone. Something that effectively covers the whole "room" that the flag is in. Or maybe players should be required to actively burn the flag (like you do with a siege engine) rather than the flag automatically burning just because you're standing next to it. This would bring a new dynamic in because people flipping the flag would be taken out of the combat numbers. They would need to be defended by their allies while burning the flag so that they are not interrupted. The numbers benefit would remain; the more people burning the flag, the faster the flag goes down, but the less people there are to fight the defenders. Defenders would have to kill the flag burners first, then douse the flames (like you do with a siege engine) to restore the flag. Dousing the flames would also take them out of the battle, so defenders would have to decide whether restoring the flag is more important than killing the attackers. Raising the new flag (once the neutral state has been reached) would be similar, and would require players to actively raise the flag. By this time, in an efficient attack, there shouldn't be any defenders left, so attacker time can be spent entirely on raising the flag. If the flag raising is interrupted by defenders to the point where there are no attackers actively raising the flag, then it falls back to neutral. At any time when the flag is neutral (perhaps after an initial cooldown period), defenders would also be able to re-raise their own flag, but that would also fall back to neutral if they were all interrupted.

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

If you have attacking siege outside and defending siege upstairs, the effects should balance out. If you have attacking sieges both outside and upstairs then maybe that situation should be a lost cause. Standing in one place should not be an effective defensive mechanism alone; but this again goes back to the capture zone mechanics. Maybe capture time should be increased so that it would take longer to flip the flag. Perhaps also there should be a cool-down period between "burning" the old flag and "raising" the new flag, during which time its state cannot change. This would help the defenders have enough time to regroup and try to destroy the attackers before they can complete the flip.

Lava_Croft

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

Enodoc

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

You summed that up much better than I did

Lava_Croft

Enodoc wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

You summed that up much better than I did

Given the amount of whining in this thread, having the same message posted twice in a different wording won't hurt.

RoamingRiverElk

ToRelax wrote: »

So, while @Wrobel is now using "hit & run tactics" on the forums (nice term whoever brought that up in this thread), @ZOS_BrianWheeler seems to be giving his best in listening to the PvP community. And as a response mostly gets back a rediculous amount of whining and complaining, wich is really sad.

I'll go over some complaints I read in this thread so far, though I can't possibly quote them all now, this thread just exploded since yesterday.

1) "This is going to help larger numbers!"
If everything in this game was the fight between the small numbers and the large ones, maybe. You need to specify that more, this is definitely not going to help zergballs (ball groups, organized raids, bombgroups, guildgroups, just dont tell me I'm insulting you by telling you you're a zerg, okay?). It is true that this change will make it easier for a spread out random zerg to break up a (for whatever reason) tightly packed enemy group be it a big or small one. It is also true that smaller groups can make use of siege less consistently than larger ones, just like it is with Maneuver, Barrier, Purge, rezzing and a lot of other things. Not everything is designed to help small groups wipe large ones, but it's not the other way around either. This change is to make keep defense easier and to help anyone against stacked up zergballs. As far as I'm concerned that's a positive thing.

2) "But right now I can take a well defended keep with only 12-24 players, heavily outnumbered, and it may not work after this change!"
Well it's nice for you how you can just run past defended breaches and choke points, but not so much for your enemies, right? What do you suppose them to do, stack up like yourself? Maybe that's just not very enjoyable for them. You know, maybe they are only there because they don't really want to lose the keep you are trying to take, that doesn't mean they want to adapt to the same zergball meta you already have.
But enough of today, let's try to remember how it was a year ago, in the (at that time already far too rare) case that no invincible zergball came along. It was dangerous to go through a breach with oils and meatbags up. And I don't mean that "dangerous" as some people in this thread seem to interpretate it, as something that gives an advantage to the enemy blob, or in that some group members could die to gankers waiting for the barrier to go down. I mean if you went in without someone spamming Purge and another one Healing Springs, you'd probably die. And that was good, because keeps should be hard to take, especially if you are outnumbered (though we don't need any artificial advantages to larger groups, tyvm @Wrobel ).
So, you would have to be a bit creative and adapt to the situation. Some tactics/strategies we used included sieging from different sides, sending in NBs/Sorcs to take out siegers, using DK tanks to draw sieges and archers on them so the rest could break through, send one or two players to siege the next keep while keeping up the siege, to storm the keep, die, bloodport and take the next keep once it's flagged. And yes, I consider that to be more fun than making one breach and running on the flag, maybe even clearing upstairs.

3) "Storming a choke point or breach IS dangerous for my relatively small zergball... But how are we to survive after this change, you have to get into AoE range of each other to pass..."
...wich is the #1 reason that should make a choke point an easily defensible position. But as I already told you, there are counter tactics to that. For example you can send in those players who can take the heat for a moment, so the others can rush in thanks to a poorly timed AoE burst. Or you can send in those players who can get through on their own, to draw out the fight behind the gate or to focus down siegers, so the rest can follow. Or you could actually make the way to the next gate and attack the enemy from behind (equivalent to 2nd siege against a keep).
And one more thing to think about. When we first had raids at tthe start of the game, we were glad when we stormed a breach together and more than 2/3 of the players actually survived so they could get a hold on the upper level. It seems in this thread everyone sees that as equal to a wipe...

4) "Both to take and defend a keep you need to stack on the flag, you can't avoid siege than always."
That is correct, and the fact that the attacking force can turn the flag just by superior numbers without killing anyone alone should be enough to tell you what the problem is here. Tip: it's not the siege.
The flag system, as well as strenght of NPCs need to be overhauled/adjusted, but that doesn't justify holding back another change that is designed to combat zergballs as well. The game is not in some sweet spot right now where we better don't touch anything. I hope all who need to agree on that will do so.

5) "The siege is more dangerous to magicka players with low stamina pools." "No, magicka can use more utility and shields, stamina will be screwed with less mobility!" "Does anyone think of Templars and DKs, too? " More imbalance!

You know, even if some or even all of this is true - even if your character will be at a distinct disadvantage with these changes - can you not rather make suggestions about how to buff and diversify certain classes/builds with these changes in mind? Instead of attacking the lucky neighbor who is playing a less effected spec atm?

Here is a suggestion for @Wrobel and @ZOS_BrianWheeler :
- Make Efficient Purge a self purge that only effects the caster. Also let Efficient Purge, as well as Cleansing Rituals and it's morphs and syngergy, remove secondary siege effects.
This would give everyone a way to counter siege. This is a magicka skills and costs a skill slot, but with skillful play and a Templar in the group, everyone can make use of the synergy, and this won't be a problem because it's not spammable. The problem we have today is largely because the existence of an instant spammable group purge.
I also thought about letting Purge have no effect during the 6 seconds of reduced debuff time. But I don't think it's a good idea because of the way debuffs work in this game. So if you get hammered with debuffs, Purge would be useless and never remove the one debuff you actually want to get rid of.

Edit: You can also make Shuffle work vs oil catapults.

6) "I don't want to stay on some siege all the time and press left mouse button every 12 seconds. That's not engaging gameplay!"
That's such a stupid argument, sorry. Firstly, sieging has big drawbacks and is mostly useless in the open field against someone who knows what he is doing. Is killing bad players more fun using Overload or Surprise Attack? Then, you are making yourself a target by sieging. If the enemy players are clever, they will try to take you out, making it a dangerous job if you are outnumbered, so you have to be on your guard. And thirdly, one player can use several siege weapons on cooldown, wich isn't that easy if you are also getting attacked. Instead of this argument, you could also say a big ranged AoE nuke with a medium to long cooldown time is a boring thing (except that it's less dangerous to use, because siege forces you to sheathe your weapon and operate form a very specific location, plus it takes time to turn it around). And I can't see any reasoning behind that.
I can, however, understand if some people would like siege to be restricted to keep/outpost/resource areas. I do not have a problem with being able to use them anywhere myself though, and even if this would be changed, ZOS should increase these areas to include all the places players commonly siege from.

I also think @frozywozy had some good ideas earlier in this thread.

And if I forgot some more complaints, feel free to send them in for a discussion. Thank you.

One could say that it's good that zergballs can be stopped at least half the time after this change, when defending a keep is easier against them. Something needs to be done about groups being able to ignore choke points totally by just running through them unaffected (with full HP and being able to run through even if someone is trying to root them).

Even though I've pointed out some severe issues with this for magicka templars and DKs, in general I think that these changes would still be better than what we currently have.

So buff those classes' magicka builds on the class level, and don't forget them when planning general changes to Cyrodiil. Magicka DKs keep getting nerfed because of general changes to Cyrodiil and gameplay (0 stamina regen, much slower ultimate gain rate). The least mobile classes are the ones affected the most by siege because they get hit the most by them. If those classes then also happen to be the ones who suffer the most from the debuffs, that's not good at all from a class balance perspective.

I want more changes from the Wrobel department (no aoe caps, purge, rapid maneuver and barrier affecting MUCH fewer people, dynamic ulti gain), they are a must. Meatbag should be purgable - it's too unfair for different classes otherwise. Just make everyone in a ball group / zerg have to do things in order to survive instead of having a couple of support characters do everything for the rest of the 24 person group (getting rid of everyone's roots, healing debuffs, dots). But I'm not saying make the support skills only affect one person, because I do see value in playing as a group. I want to be able to help someone with purge, or to be able to be purged when I'm CCd. It's just where to draw the line, how many people should purge affect? I'm beginning to think a good number is three - and when you think of it, that's how templar instaheal kinda works too. It doesn't heal ten people in the group. Purge is a powerful skill. Let it stay powerful, but something that isn't automatic just because a couple of people keep spamming it in a big group. It shouldn't have a cooldown because sometimes you really do get a lot of debuffs thrown your way, and there needs to be a counter to them. And the thing is, the more people need to use purge individually, the less time they have to use other defensive or offensive skills anyway.

You mention DK tanks drawing sieges and archers on them. How do you see that part of the play going now if these siege changes take place? DKs back then were able to have nearly endless immunity against projectiles, and they were able to purge meatbags, and they wouldn't be rooted forever, and they were able to block a lot. Would this kind of tanky drawing of enemy fire be possible at all these days with this proposed siege change? How?

I do love the idea of keeps needing to be breached from multiple sides again - this would hopefully spread fights out and give more options for small groups to contribute to keep fights too. I can also see the potential for wiping a zerg in a keep while defending even with a small group if the big group/zerg cannot/hasn't invested in being able to counter siege. These changes would hopefully bring more variety to Cyrodiil. Thing is, we just need more support for variety also from Wrobel, in the form of buffing tanking in Cyrodiil, for instance. DKs used to be good at managing zergs by the way... Yet they certainly weren't completely op in duels back in the day. The 0 stamina regeneration while blocking was a huge hit to build variety in Cyrodiil.

Erondil

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

No because we can't spare one member to put sieges all over the place and he would have to deal with the many other ennemies that aren't on the flag anyway.
Atm succesfully defend a keep/outpost when heavily outnumbered is still doable if your group is very well coordinated and knows what he is doing, and it was even more so before but I highly doubt it wil be possible with unpurgeable meatbags. Basically it's going to advantage numbers even more in a keep fight which, imo, isn't desirable.

Turelus

Enodoc wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

I'm one for the changes but I have to agree with some of the players making the point about flags and stacking. I don't think this is an issue which can be fixed by siege changes alone. The siege changes will work, if a bunch of other things are done. However alone and in current build of skills/flag ranges/AoE.

I think the idea of larger flag capture zones is a good one (of course I do I said it!) so that even with sieges placed and shooting towards the flag groups can use the cover offered by walls and line of sight to protect themselves from the sieges.

Sure, it's the capture zone mechanics that promote stacking the flag. If I remember rightly, the more people you have in the capture zone, the faster it changes; how many people do you need before that caps off? Maybe that number should be reduced, and overall time extended. I like the idea of a larger capture zone. Something that effectively covers the whole "room" that the flag is in. Or maybe players should be required to actively burn the flag (like you do with a siege engine) rather than the flag automatically burning just because you're standing next to it. This would bring a new dynamic in because people flipping the flag would be taken out of the combat numbers. They would need to be defended by their allies while burning the flag so that they are not interrupted. The numbers benefit would remain; the more people burning the flag, the faster the flag goes down, but the less people there are to fight the defenders. Defenders would have to kill the flag burners first, then douse the flames (like you do with a siege engine) to restore the flag. Dousing the flames would also take them out of the battle, so defenders would have to decide whether restoring the flag is more important than killing the attackers. Raising the new flag (once the neutral state has been reached) would be similar, and would require players to actively raise the flag. By this time, in an efficient attack, there shouldn't be any defenders left, so attacker time can be spent entirely on raising the flag. If the flag raising is interrupted by defenders to the point where there are no attackers actively raising the flag, then it falls back to neutral. At any time when the flag is neutral (perhaps after an initial cooldown period), defenders would also be able to re-raise their own flag, but that would also fall back to neutral if they were all interrupted.

From my understanding the cap for flag capture is on the speed only and at six people. I believe however that each enemy on the flag reduces your number by one. So 6 v 6 no change, 6 v 8 it slowly moves in favour of the 8.
This is why when two bomb groups meet they stand on the flag together and order more and more to the flag, because the flag will still change during lag as long as your value is higher.

I could be entirely wrong about the above but that was my understanding and how it was explained to me a long time ago.

In regards to burning/raising flags that's an interesting idea. Not sure on what the range of this would be as if it's close it doesn't prevent the problem that targeted siege on a single small area wouldn't allow the flipping of flags. I know EVE Online recently moved away from HP grinds for structure captures over to one where a module (skill) could be used to slowly change the ownership of the structure.

Maybe that's something we could see here in ESO. Rather than numbers standing on the flag to capture we have new Alliance War Skills (granted for free) or items (start with some free, rest an new AP sink) which we throw on to the flag areas to begin the capture of it. The same skill could be used by the defenders to change it back to their favour. Sadly this is still a numbers game of for and against however it would take the fighting away from the flags as you could keep you opponents away fighting elsewhere and limit their ability to change the flags, even fight up above in oil locations and throw these items down onto the flags. The goal would shift from fighting at the flag to denying your enemies access to the range of the flag needed to clear/counter your capture devices.

I also realise this would be a coding nightmare for ZOS an not something which we could see soon enough to effect the siege changes offered here.

ToRelax

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

So, while Wrobel is now using "hit & run tactics" on the forums (nice term whoever brought that up in this thread), ZOS_BrianWheeler seems to be giving his best in listening to the PvP community. And as a response mostly gets back a rediculous amount of whining and complaining, wich is really sad.

I'll go over some complaints I read in this thread so far, though I can't possibly quote them all now, this thread just exploded since yesterday.

1) "This is going to help larger numbers!"
If everything in this game was the fight between the small numbers and the large ones, maybe. You need to specify that more, this is definitely not going to help zergballs (ball groups, organized raids, bombgroups, guildgroups, just dont tell me I'm insulting you by telling you you're a zerg, okay?). It is true that this change will make it easier for a spread out random zerg to break up a (for whatever reason) tightly packed enemy group be it a big or small one. It is also true that smaller groups can make use of siege less consistently than larger ones, just like it is with Maneuver, Barrier, Purge, rezzing and a lot of other things. Not everything is designed to help small groups wipe large ones, but it's not the other way around either. This change is to make keep defense easier and to help anyone against stacked up zergballs. As far as I'm concerned that's a positive thing.

2) "But right now I can take a well defended keep with only 12-24 players, heavily outnumbered, and it may not work after this change!"
Well it's nice for you how you can just run past defended breaches and choke points, but not so much for your enemies, right? What do you suppose them to do, stack up like yourself? Maybe that's just not very enjoyable for them. You know, maybe they are only there because they don't really want to lose the keep you are trying to take, that doesn't mean they want to adapt to the same zergball meta you already have.
But enough of today, let's try to remember how it was a year ago, in the (at that time already far too rare) case that no invincible zergball came along. It was dangerous to go through a breach with oils and meatbags up. And I don't mean that "dangerous" as some people in this thread seem to interpretate it, as something that gives an advantage to the enemy blob, or in that some group members could die to gankers waiting for the barrier to go down. I mean if you went in without someone spamming Purge and another one Healing Springs, you'd probably die. And that was good, because keeps should be hard to take, especially if you are outnumbered (though we don't need any artificial advantages to larger groups, tyvm Wrobel ).
So, you would have to be a bit creative and adapt to the situation. Some tactics/strategies we used included sieging from different sides, sending in NBs/Sorcs to take out siegers, using DK tanks to draw sieges and archers on them so the rest could break through, send one or two players to siege the next keep while keeping up the siege, to storm the keep, die, bloodport and take the next keep once it's flagged. And yes, I consider that to be more fun than making one breach and running on the flag, maybe even clearing upstairs.

3) "Storming a choke point or breach IS dangerous for my relatively small zergball... But how are we to survive after this change, you have to get into AoE range of each other to pass..."
...wich is the #1 reason that should make a choke point an easily defensible position. But as I already told you, there are counter tactics to that. For example you can send in those players who can take the heat for a moment, so the others can rush in thanks to a poorly timed AoE burst. Or you can send in those players who can get through on their own, to draw out the fight behind the gate or to focus down siegers, so the rest can follow. Or you could actually make the way to the next gate and attack the enemy from behind (equivalent to 2nd siege against a keep).
And one more thing to think about. When we first had raids at tthe start of the game, we were glad when we stormed a breach together and more than 2/3 of the players actually survived so they could get a hold on the upper level. It seems in this thread everyone sees that as equal to a wipe...

4) "Both to take and defend a keep you need to stack on the flag, you can't avoid siege than always."
That is correct, and the fact that the attacking force can turn the flag just by superior numbers without killing anyone alone should be enough to tell you what the problem is here. Tip: it's not the siege.
The flag system, as well as strenght of NPCs need to be overhauled/adjusted, but that doesn't justify holding back another change that is designed to combat zergballs as well. The game is not in some sweet spot right now where we better don't touch anything. I hope all who need to agree on that will do so.

5) "The siege is more dangerous to magicka players with low stamina pools." "No, magicka can use more utility and shields, stamina will be screwed with less mobility!" "Does anyone think of Templars and DKs, too? " More imbalance!

You know, even if some or even all of this is true - even if your character will be at a distinct disadvantage with these changes - can you not rather make suggestions about how to buff and diversify certain classes/builds with these changes in mind? Instead of attacking the lucky neighbor who is playing a less effected spec atm?

Here is a suggestion for Wrobel and ZOS_BrianWheeler :
- Make Efficient Purge a self purge that only effects the caster. Also let Efficient Purge, as well as Cleansing Rituals and it's morphs and syngergy, remove secondary siege effects.
This would give everyone a way to counter siege. This is a magicka skills and costs a skill slot, but with skillful play and a Templar in the group, everyone can make use of the synergy, and this won't be a problem because it's not spammable. The problem we have today is largely because the existence of an instant spammable group purge.
I also thought about letting Purge have no effect during the 6 seconds of reduced debuff time. But I don't think it's a good idea because of the way debuffs work in this game. So if you get hammered with debuffs, Purge would be useless and never remove the one debuff you actually want to get rid of.

Edit: You can also make Shuffle work vs oil catapults.

6) "I don't want to stay on some siege all the time and press left mouse button every 12 seconds. That's not engaging gameplay!"
That's such a stupid argument, sorry. Firstly, sieging has big drawbacks and is mostly useless in the open field against someone who knows what he is doing. Is killing bad players more fun using Overload or Surprise Attack? Then, you are making yourself a target by sieging. If the enemy players are clever, they will try to take you out, making it a dangerous job if you are outnumbered, so you have to be on your guard. And thirdly, one player can use several siege weapons on cooldown, wich isn't that easy if you are also getting attacked. Instead of this argument, you could also say a big ranged AoE nuke with a medium to long cooldown time is a boring thing (except that it's less dangerous to use, because siege forces you to sheathe your weapon and operate form a very specific location, plus it takes time to turn it around). And I can't see any reasoning behind that.
I can, however, understand if some people would like siege to be restricted to keep/outpost/resource areas. I do not have a problem with being able to use them anywhere myself though, and even if this would be changed, ZOS should increase these areas to include all the places players commonly siege from.

I also think frozywozy had some good ideas earlier in this thread.

And if I forgot some more complaints, feel free to send them in for a discussion. Thank you.

One could say that it's good that zergballs can be stopped at least half the time after this change, when defending a keep is easier against them. Something needs to be done about groups being able to ignore choke points totally by just running through them unaffected (with full HP and being able to run through even if someone is trying to root them).

Even though I've pointed out some severe issues with this for magicka templars and DKs, in general I think that these changes would still be better than what we currently have.

So buff those classes' magicka builds on the class level, and don't forget them when planning general changes to Cyrodiil. Magicka DKs keep getting nerfed because of general changes to Cyrodiil and gameplay (0 stamina regen, much slower ultimate gain rate). The least mobile classes are the ones affected the most by siege because they get hit the most by them. If those sieges then also happen to be the ones who suffer the most from the debuffs, that's not good at all from a class balance perspective.

I want more changes from the Wrobel department (no aoe caps, purge, rapid maneuver and barrier affecting MUCH fewer people, dynamic ulti gain), they are a must. Meatbag should be purgable - it's too unfair for different classes otherwise. Just make everyone in a ball group / zerg have to do things in order to survive instead of having a couple of support characters do everything for the rest of the 24 person group (getting rid of everyone's roots, healing debuffs, dots). But I'm not saying make the support skills only affect one person, because I do see value in playing as a group. I want to be able to help someone with purge, or to be able to be purged when I'm CCd. It's just where to draw the line, how many people should purge affect? I'm beginning to think a good number is three - and when you think of it, that's how templar instaheal kinda works too. It doesn't heal ten people in the group. Purge is a powerful skill. Let it stay powerful, but something that isn't automatic just because a couple of people keep spamming it in a big group. It shouldn't have a cooldown because sometimes you really do get a lot of debuffs thrown your way, and there needs to be a counter to them. And the thing is, the more people need to use purge individually, the less time they have to use other defensive or offensive skills anyway.

You mention DK tanks drawing sieges and archers on them. How do you see that part of the play going now if these siege changes take place? DKs back then were able to have nearly endless immunity against projectiles, and they were able to purge meatbags, and they wouldn't be rooted forever, and they were able to block a lot. Would this kind of tanky drawing of enemy fire be possible at all these days with this proposed siege change? How?

I do love the idea of keeps needing to be breached from multiple sides again - this would hopefully spread fights out and give more options for small groups to contribute to keep fights too. I can also see the potential for wiping a zerg in a keep while defending even with a small group if the big group/zerg cannot/hasn't invested in being able to counter siege. These changes would hopefully bring more variety to Cyrodiil. Thing is, we just need more support for variety also from Wrobel, in the form of buffing tanking in Cyrodiil, for instance. DKs used to be good at managing zergs by the way... Yet they certainly weren't completely op in duels back in the day. The 0 stamina regeneration while blocking was a huge hit to build variety in Cyrodiil.

I only suggested the Efficient Purge morph should be self purge only. I think the high cost of Cleanse is perfectly reasonable for a group purge, but a group purge like that is one of the problems we have now. Also dont forget that Purifying ritual still acts as a more powerful self purge for the Templar, who can also support his group with the synergy. But the synergy has to be activated individually and has a cooldown, wich Efficient Purge is lacking. I mean I understand you want to be able to support your group - and I'd like if you did :P - but allowing players to survive without reacting to enemy actions individually is exactly what brought us here.

Right now tanking in PvP is a joke compared to what it used to be, as you well know. As an alternative now a Sorc could go in first and up the second stairs. If my suggested change to purges would be implemented 1:1, a Templar tank could go first with Purifying Ritual, but that would still cost a lot of resources the group is then lacking in the subsequent fight on the upper end of the stairs. If Efficient Purge was enough as well, a DK may be a better choice as he can restore his resources with a banner on the stairs, or all along use Magma Armor to run inside. In short, I can't tell, we'll have to see how it actually plays out.
But I agree that especially siege battles would be much more fun if tanking would become more realistic again. I mean, if someone can survive a lot while standing in one spot, that would already be very useful now. We don't need stuff like guard that cost loads of resources to take even more damage because getting hit is not the problem, sustaining it is.

@Wrobel , because I deleted all the tags from the quote

themdogesbite

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

You summed that up much better than I did

Given the amount of whining in this thread, having the same message posted twice in a different wording won't hurt.

The only thing i whine about personaly is the healdebuff, the rest i dont care about .

Siegs definetly need to be tweaked, but shouldn't go overboard. I personaly really like suggestions like;

Low headbuff but unpurgable.
Very high but purgable.
Curent values but only removable by purify synnergy. (Its a cooldown so can't be spammed.)

Atleast we get to have theese discussion now compared to how it's been before, thats definetly a big improvment from the devs.

Lava_Croft

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

You summed that up much better than I did

Given the amount of whining in this thread, having the same message posted twice in a different wording won't hurt.

The only thing i whine about personaly is the healdebuff, the rest i dont care about .

Siegs definetly need to be tweaked, but shouldn't go overboard. I personaly really like suggestions like;

Low headbuff but unpurgable.
Very high but purgable.
Curent values but only removable by purify synnergy. (Its a cooldown so can't be spammed.)

Atleast we get to have theese discussion now compared to how it's been before, thats definetly a big improvment from the devs.

And we all still have to see how this works out in actual live PvP. Cyrodiil and its inhabitants can act in unexpected ways.

Enodoc

Turelus wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

I'm one for the changes but I have to agree with some of the players making the point about flags and stacking. I don't think this is an issue which can be fixed by siege changes alone. The siege changes will work, if a bunch of other things are done. However alone and in current build of skills/flag ranges/AoE.

I think the idea of larger flag capture zones is a good one (of course I do I said it!) so that even with sieges placed and shooting towards the flag groups can use the cover offered by walls and line of sight to protect themselves from the sieges.

Sure, it's the capture zone mechanics that promote stacking the flag. If I remember rightly, the more people you have in the capture zone, the faster it changes; how many people do you need before that caps off? Maybe that number should be reduced, and overall time extended. I like the idea of a larger capture zone. Something that effectively covers the whole "room" that the flag is in. Or maybe players should be required to actively burn the flag (like you do with a siege engine) rather than the flag automatically burning just because you're standing next to it. This would bring a new dynamic in because people flipping the flag would be taken out of the combat numbers. They would need to be defended by their allies while burning the flag so that they are not interrupted. The numbers benefit would remain; the more people burning the flag, the faster the flag goes down, but the less people there are to fight the defenders. Defenders would have to kill the flag burners first, then douse the flames (like you do with a siege engine) to restore the flag. Dousing the flames would also take them out of the battle, so defenders would have to decide whether restoring the flag is more important than killing the attackers. Raising the new flag (once the neutral state has been reached) would be similar, and would require players to actively raise the flag. By this time, in an efficient attack, there shouldn't be any defenders left, so attacker time can be spent entirely on raising the flag. If the flag raising is interrupted by defenders to the point where there are no attackers actively raising the flag, then it falls back to neutral. At any time when the flag is neutral (perhaps after an initial cooldown period), defenders would also be able to re-raise their own flag, but that would also fall back to neutral if they were all interrupted.

From my understanding the cap for flag capture is on the speed only and at six people. I believe however that each enemy on the flag reduces your number by one. So 6 v 6 no change, 6 v 8 it slowly moves in favour of the 8.
This is why when two bomb groups meet they stand on the flag together and order more and more to the flag, because the flag will still change during lag as long as your value is higher.

I could be entirely wrong about the above but that was my understanding and how it was explained to me a long time ago.

In regards to burning/raising flags that's an interesting idea. Not sure on what the range of this would be as if it's close it doesn't prevent the problem that targeted siege on a single small area wouldn't allow the flipping of flags. I know EVE Online recently moved away from HP grinds for structure captures over to one where a module (skill) could be used to slowly change the ownership of the structure.

Ah ok, so does 18 v 20 move in favour of the 20 by 2? Because IMO it shouldn't. If the cap is 6, overloading shouldn't help if you go above something like 200%. Adding more people to 12 v 12 shouldn't benefit either side, because they've already hit the cap (and then some). The only way to address the situation then would be to siege, kill or otherwise force the opponent out of the capture zone (rather than adding more allies) so that their number drops below 12.

If the system was based around burning and raising flags, there would be no "capture zone" radius at all, as it would be irrelevant. Targeting siege on the flag would then force whoever was on the flag away, but if nobody was actively working on the flag, it's status wouldn't change. You'd attack the defenders (through siege or otherwise) to stop them from restoring the flag, and you'd siege the attackers to stop them from burning it.

babanovac

Erondil wrote: »

babanovac wrote: »

Any buff to siege weapons is welcome as they are currently completely useless.

This reasonment is so stupid, I lost my words... Its like if you say "A change to agony so its unbreakable and doesnt break on damage (10sec unbreakable stun) is welcome as it is currently completely useless".

Balance isnt about making things currently useless completely OP and vice versa,you know

Your reasoning is so stupid. These changes are not "completely OP", and you thinking so is only your opinion. See, two can play that game.

Even having ground oils was not completely OP or game breaking. This is a breeze.

sirinsidiator

Lava_Croft wrote: »

And we all still have to see how this works out in actual live PvP. Cyrodiil and its inhabitants can act in unexpected ways.

Exactly. Complaining about the proposed changes and saying things like "this won't work", "that would be so much better" is like saying "that cake tastes horrible" when shown a picture of a never before seen cake creation. Try it before you complain, because no one here knows what it will be like - even the self-proclaimed "pros" - and who knows, maybe it turns out good.

Lava_Croft

Just require the enemy to occupy both flags at the same time for a set amount of seconds to flip a keep. This would spread out the attacking force and give the defenders some more advantages than the fact they are in their own keep.

themdogesbite

sirinsidiator wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

And we all still have to see how this works out in actual live PvP. Cyrodiil and its inhabitants can act in unexpected ways.

Exactly. Complaining about the proposed changes and saying things like "this won't work", "that would be so much better" is like saying "that cake tastes horrible" when shown a picture of a never before seen cake creation. Try it before you complain, because no one here knows what it will be like - even the self-proclaimed "pros" - and who knows, maybe it turns out good.

What im affraid of is that if it happens to absolutely suck theres no way it will ever be reversed or changed, no matter how gamebreaking. (Lightning patch im looking at you.)

RoamingRiverElk

sirinsidiator wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

And we all still have to see how this works out in actual live PvP. Cyrodiil and its inhabitants can act in unexpected ways.

Exactly. Complaining about the proposed changes and saying things like "this won't work", "that would be so much better" is like saying "that cake tastes horrible" when shown a picture of a never before seen cake creation. Try it before you complain, because no one here knows what it will be like - even the self-proclaimed "pros" - and who knows, maybe it turns out good.

I agree that it's good to experiment, but one can definitely make predictions of what might happen. It was pretty clear what would happen to magicka DK play, for instance, when reading patch notes, without having to experience it in practice, starting with 1.6. And - aoe caps, anyone?

That being said, not every prediction is created equal.

Turelus

Enodoc wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

I'm one for the changes but I have to agree with some of the players making the point about flags and stacking. I don't think this is an issue which can be fixed by siege changes alone. The siege changes will work, if a bunch of other things are done. However alone and in current build of skills/flag ranges/AoE.

I think the idea of larger flag capture zones is a good one (of course I do I said it!) so that even with sieges placed and shooting towards the flag groups can use the cover offered by walls and line of sight to protect themselves from the sieges.

Sure, it's the capture zone mechanics that promote stacking the flag. If I remember rightly, the more people you have in the capture zone, the faster it changes; how many people do you need before that caps off? Maybe that number should be reduced, and overall time extended. I like the idea of a larger capture zone. Something that effectively covers the whole "room" that the flag is in. Or maybe players should be required to actively burn the flag (like you do with a siege engine) rather than the flag automatically burning just because you're standing next to it. This would bring a new dynamic in because people flipping the flag would be taken out of the combat numbers. They would need to be defended by their allies while burning the flag so that they are not interrupted. The numbers benefit would remain; the more people burning the flag, the faster the flag goes down, but the less people there are to fight the defenders. Defenders would have to kill the flag burners first, then douse the flames (like you do with a siege engine) to restore the flag. Dousing the flames would also take them out of the battle, so defenders would have to decide whether restoring the flag is more important than killing the attackers. Raising the new flag (once the neutral state has been reached) would be similar, and would require players to actively raise the flag. By this time, in an efficient attack, there shouldn't be any defenders left, so attacker time can be spent entirely on raising the flag. If the flag raising is interrupted by defenders to the point where there are no attackers actively raising the flag, then it falls back to neutral. At any time when the flag is neutral (perhaps after an initial cooldown period), defenders would also be able to re-raise their own flag, but that would also fall back to neutral if they were all interrupted.

From my understanding the cap for flag capture is on the speed only and at six people. I believe however that each enemy on the flag reduces your number by one. So 6 v 6 no change, 6 v 8 it slowly moves in favour of the 8.
This is why when two bomb groups meet they stand on the flag together and order more and more to the flag, because the flag will still change during lag as long as your value is higher.

I could be entirely wrong about the above but that was my understanding and how it was explained to me a long time ago.

In regards to burning/raising flags that's an interesting idea. Not sure on what the range of this would be as if it's close it doesn't prevent the problem that targeted siege on a single small area wouldn't allow the flipping of flags. I know EVE Online recently moved away from HP grinds for structure captures over to one where a module (skill) could be used to slowly change the ownership of the structure.

Ah ok, so does 18 v 20 move in favour of the 20 by 2? Because IMO it shouldn't. If the cap is 6, overloading shouldn't help if you go above something like 200%. Adding more people to 12 v 12 shouldn't benefit either side, because they've already hit the cap (and then some). The only way to address the situation then would be to siege, kill or otherwise force the opponent out of the capture zone (rather than adding more allies) so that their number drops below 12.

If the system was based around burning and raising flags, there would be no "capture zone" radius at all, as it would be irrelevant. Targeting siege on the flag would then force whoever was on the flag away, but if nobody was actively working on the flag, it's status wouldn't change. You'd attack the defenders (through siege or otherwise) to stop them from restoring the flag, and you'd siege the attackers to stop them from burning it.

Interesting idea, I won't keep the back and forth on this too much as it's not directly on the issue at hand.

In regards to the flipping mechanic, I may be way off the pulse on that one. Just what was explained to me long ago and how I assumed it worked. normally we have 10+ for a flag any way.

RoamingRiverElk

ToRelax wrote: »

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

So, while Wrobel is now using "hit & run tactics" on the forums (nice term whoever brought that up in this thread), ZOS_BrianWheeler seems to be giving his best in listening to the PvP community. And as a response mostly gets back a rediculous amount of whining and complaining, wich is really sad.

I'll go over some complaints I read in this thread so far, though I can't possibly quote them all now, this thread just exploded since yesterday.

1) "This is going to help larger numbers!"
If everything in this game was the fight between the small numbers and the large ones, maybe. You need to specify that more, this is definitely not going to help zergballs (ball groups, organized raids, bombgroups, guildgroups, just dont tell me I'm insulting you by telling you you're a zerg, okay?). It is true that this change will make it easier for a spread out random zerg to break up a (for whatever reason) tightly packed enemy group be it a big or small one. It is also true that smaller groups can make use of siege less consistently than larger ones, just like it is with Maneuver, Barrier, Purge, rezzing and a lot of other things. Not everything is designed to help small groups wipe large ones, but it's not the other way around either. This change is to make keep defense easier and to help anyone against stacked up zergballs. As far as I'm concerned that's a positive thing.

2) "But right now I can take a well defended keep with only 12-24 players, heavily outnumbered, and it may not work after this change!"
Well it's nice for you how you can just run past defended breaches and choke points, but not so much for your enemies, right? What do you suppose them to do, stack up like yourself? Maybe that's just not very enjoyable for them. You know, maybe they are only there because they don't really want to lose the keep you are trying to take, that doesn't mean they want to adapt to the same zergball meta you already have.
But enough of today, let's try to remember how it was a year ago, in the (at that time already far too rare) case that no invincible zergball came along. It was dangerous to go through a breach with oils and meatbags up. And I don't mean that "dangerous" as some people in this thread seem to interpretate it, as something that gives an advantage to the enemy blob, or in that some group members could die to gankers waiting for the barrier to go down. I mean if you went in without someone spamming Purge and another one Healing Springs, you'd probably die. And that was good, because keeps should be hard to take, especially if you are outnumbered (though we don't need any artificial advantages to larger groups, tyvm Wrobel ).
So, you would have to be a bit creative and adapt to the situation. Some tactics/strategies we used included sieging from different sides, sending in NBs/Sorcs to take out siegers, using DK tanks to draw sieges and archers on them so the rest could break through, send one or two players to siege the next keep while keeping up the siege, to storm the keep, die, bloodport and take the next keep once it's flagged. And yes, I consider that to be more fun than making one breach and running on the flag, maybe even clearing upstairs.

3) "Storming a choke point or breach IS dangerous for my relatively small zergball... But how are we to survive after this change, you have to get into AoE range of each other to pass..."
...wich is the #1 reason that should make a choke point an easily defensible position. But as I already told you, there are counter tactics to that. For example you can send in those players who can take the heat for a moment, so the others can rush in thanks to a poorly timed AoE burst. Or you can send in those players who can get through on their own, to draw out the fight behind the gate or to focus down siegers, so the rest can follow. Or you could actually make the way to the next gate and attack the enemy from behind (equivalent to 2nd siege against a keep).
And one more thing to think about. When we first had raids at tthe start of the game, we were glad when we stormed a breach together and more than 2/3 of the players actually survived so they could get a hold on the upper level. It seems in this thread everyone sees that as equal to a wipe...

4) "Both to take and defend a keep you need to stack on the flag, you can't avoid siege than always."
That is correct, and the fact that the attacking force can turn the flag just by superior numbers without killing anyone alone should be enough to tell you what the problem is here. Tip: it's not the siege.
The flag system, as well as strenght of NPCs need to be overhauled/adjusted, but that doesn't justify holding back another change that is designed to combat zergballs as well. The game is not in some sweet spot right now where we better don't touch anything. I hope all who need to agree on that will do so.

5) "The siege is more dangerous to magicka players with low stamina pools." "No, magicka can use more utility and shields, stamina will be screwed with less mobility!" "Does anyone think of Templars and DKs, too? " More imbalance!

You know, even if some or even all of this is true - even if your character will be at a distinct disadvantage with these changes - can you not rather make suggestions about how to buff and diversify certain classes/builds with these changes in mind? Instead of attacking the lucky neighbor who is playing a less effected spec atm?

Here is a suggestion for Wrobel and ZOS_BrianWheeler :
- Make Efficient Purge a self purge that only effects the caster. Also let Efficient Purge, as well as Cleansing Rituals and it's morphs and syngergy, remove secondary siege effects.
This would give everyone a way to counter siege. This is a magicka skills and costs a skill slot, but with skillful play and a Templar in the group, everyone can make use of the synergy, and this won't be a problem because it's not spammable. The problem we have today is largely because the existence of an instant spammable group purge.
I also thought about letting Purge have no effect during the 6 seconds of reduced debuff time. But I don't think it's a good idea because of the way debuffs work in this game. So if you get hammered with debuffs, Purge would be useless and never remove the one debuff you actually want to get rid of.

Edit: You can also make Shuffle work vs oil catapults.

6) "I don't want to stay on some siege all the time and press left mouse button every 12 seconds. That's not engaging gameplay!"
That's such a stupid argument, sorry. Firstly, sieging has big drawbacks and is mostly useless in the open field against someone who knows what he is doing. Is killing bad players more fun using Overload or Surprise Attack? Then, you are making yourself a target by sieging. If the enemy players are clever, they will try to take you out, making it a dangerous job if you are outnumbered, so you have to be on your guard. And thirdly, one player can use several siege weapons on cooldown, wich isn't that easy if you are also getting attacked. Instead of this argument, you could also say a big ranged AoE nuke with a medium to long cooldown time is a boring thing (except that it's less dangerous to use, because siege forces you to sheathe your weapon and operate form a very specific location, plus it takes time to turn it around). And I can't see any reasoning behind that.
I can, however, understand if some people would like siege to be restricted to keep/outpost/resource areas. I do not have a problem with being able to use them anywhere myself though, and even if this would be changed, ZOS should increase these areas to include all the places players commonly siege from.

I also think frozywozy had some good ideas earlier in this thread.

And if I forgot some more complaints, feel free to send them in for a discussion. Thank you.

One could say that it's good that zergballs can be stopped at least half the time after this change, when defending a keep is easier against them. Something needs to be done about groups being able to ignore choke points totally by just running through them unaffected (with full HP and being able to run through even if someone is trying to root them).

Even though I've pointed out some severe issues with this for magicka templars and DKs, in general I think that these changes would still be better than what we currently have.

So buff those classes' magicka builds on the class level, and don't forget them when planning general changes to Cyrodiil. Magicka DKs keep getting nerfed because of general changes to Cyrodiil and gameplay (0 stamina regen, much slower ultimate gain rate). The least mobile classes are the ones affected the most by siege because they get hit the most by them. If those sieges then also happen to be the ones who suffer the most from the debuffs, that's not good at all from a class balance perspective.

I want more changes from the Wrobel department (no aoe caps, purge, rapid maneuver and barrier affecting MUCH fewer people, dynamic ulti gain), they are a must. Meatbag should be purgable - it's too unfair for different classes otherwise. Just make everyone in a ball group / zerg have to do things in order to survive instead of having a couple of support characters do everything for the rest of the 24 person group (getting rid of everyone's roots, healing debuffs, dots). But I'm not saying make the support skills only affect one person, because I do see value in playing as a group. I want to be able to help someone with purge, or to be able to be purged when I'm CCd. It's just where to draw the line, how many people should purge affect? I'm beginning to think a good number is three - and when you think of it, that's how templar instaheal kinda works too. It doesn't heal ten people in the group. Purge is a powerful skill. Let it stay powerful, but something that isn't automatic just because a couple of people keep spamming it in a big group. It shouldn't have a cooldown because sometimes you really do get a lot of debuffs thrown your way, and there needs to be a counter to them. And the thing is, the more people need to use purge individually, the less time they have to use other defensive or offensive skills anyway.

You mention DK tanks drawing sieges and archers on them. How do you see that part of the play going now if these siege changes take place? DKs back then were able to have nearly endless immunity against projectiles, and they were able to purge meatbags, and they wouldn't be rooted forever, and they were able to block a lot. Would this kind of tanky drawing of enemy fire be possible at all these days with this proposed siege change? How?

I do love the idea of keeps needing to be breached from multiple sides again - this would hopefully spread fights out and give more options for small groups to contribute to keep fights too. I can also see the potential for wiping a zerg in a keep while defending even with a small group if the big group/zerg cannot/hasn't invested in being able to counter siege. These changes would hopefully bring more variety to Cyrodiil. Thing is, we just need more support for variety also from Wrobel, in the form of buffing tanking in Cyrodiil, for instance. DKs used to be good at managing zergs by the way... Yet they certainly weren't completely op in duels back in the day. The 0 stamina regeneration while blocking was a huge hit to build variety in Cyrodiil.

I only suggested the Efficient Purge morph should be self purge only. I think the high cost of Cleanse is perfectly reasonable for a group purge, but a group purge like that is one of the problems we have now. Also dont forget that Purifying ritual still acts as a more powerful self purge for the Templar, who can also support his group with the synergy. But the synergy has to be activated individually and has a cooldown, wich Efficient Purge is lacking. I mean I understand you want to be able to support your group - and I'd like if you did :P - but allowing players to survive without reacting to enemy actions individually is exactly what brought us here.

Right now tanking in PvP is a joke compared to what it used to be, as you well know. As an alternative now a Sorc could go in first and up the second stairs. If my suggested change to purges would be implemented 1:1, a Templar tank could go first with Purifying Ritual, but that would still cost a lot of resources the group is then lacking in the subsequent fight on the upper end of the stairs. If Efficient Purge was enough as well, a DK may be a better choice as he can restore his resources with a banner on the stairs, or all along use Magma Armor to run inside. In short, I can't tell, we'll have to see how it actually plays out.
But I agree that especially siege battles would be much more fun if tanking would become more realistic again. I mean, if someone can survive a lot while standing in one spot, that would already be very useful now. We don't need stuff like guard that cost loads of resources to take even more damage because getting hit is not the problem, sustaining it is.

@Wrobel , because I deleted all the tags from the quote

Sustain is definitely a problem now when trying to tank in PvP.
Also, magma armor doesn't really give a very long time to tank concentrated fire, given how much it costs in comparison. Also, getting sweeped I think counts as four attacks and is a very fast way to lose health even with it active. Yep I know, one should move out of the way, but still. Relying on a 200 costing ultimate for tanking a brief amount of time really doesn't make up at all for what was lost with the past two major updates to the game.

I feel that the cost of Cleanse would still be too cheap for purging and healing a huge number of people. Groups could still have a couple of dedicated cleansers around with a lot of magicka regen and go about purging nearly the same as before. There really needs to be a cap on targets affected.

Kas

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

You summed that up much better than I did

Given the amount of whining in this thread, having the same message posted twice in a different wording won't hurt.

The only thing i whine about personaly is the healdebuff, the rest i dont care about .

Siegs definetly need to be tweaked, but shouldn't go overboard. I personaly really like suggestions like;

Low headbuff but unpurgable.
Very high but purgable.
Curent values but only removable by purify synnergy. (Its a cooldown so can't be spammed.)

Atleast we get to have theese discussion now compared to how it's been before, thats definetly a big improvment from the devs.

i like the suggestions, personally i'd add:
give a casttime to purge.

(I just really want everything strong to be even stronger but interruptable (steel tornado, hardened ward, BoL, purge, barrier, wrecking blow, ...) and I won't stop spamming every thread that is remotely related ^^)

RoamingRiverElk

Kas wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Many people have said that to avoid the siege debuffs, don't stand in the siege. This is being countered by "but you need to stack on flags" and "but I'm going through a choke point". Have you considered, perhaps, that this is actually the point of the siege debuffs? You need to decide whether to hold your position, or to leave the area for a (relatively short) period of time and then go back. For example, if you're on a flag, leave the flag to avoid the siege, then go back to it. If you're going through a choke, back up to avoid the siege then go for it again.

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

8. Each one takes up an inventory slot

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

But you cant leave the flags when there are at least 10 ennemies inside, otherwise they will flip the keep and the battle is lost. Also in a keep fight when you're heavily outnumbered sometimes there are sieges hitting wherever you go (oils above posterns and maingate flag, 3+ meatbags/ballista hitting the back flag from outside the breach, 2-3 sieges upstairs too just in case etc...)

Enemies also need to stay on the flags so the same things apply to them.
If you are heavily outnumbered in your own keep, you are just *** out of luck and will probably lose it. Not much you can do about that except artificially buff small groups, which is as stupid as the current artificial buff to large(r) groups.

You summed that up much better than I did

Given the amount of whining in this thread, having the same message posted twice in a different wording won't hurt.

The only thing i whine about personaly is the healdebuff, the rest i dont care about .

Siegs definetly need to be tweaked, but shouldn't go overboard. I personaly really like suggestions like;

Low headbuff but unpurgable.
Very high but purgable.
Curent values but only removable by purify synnergy. (Its a cooldown so can't be spammed.)

Atleast we get to have theese discussion now compared to how it's been before, thats definetly a big improvment from the devs.

i like the suggestions, personally i'd add:
give a casttime to purge.

(I just really want everything strong to be even stronger but interruptable (steel tornado, hardened ward, BoL, purge, barrier, wrecking blow, ...) and I won't stop spamming every thread that is remotely related ^^)

It's just that things with cast time harm small groups more than large groups, because time is something small outnumbered groups have very little of. Applies to rezzing, setting up siege too...

Ishammael

frozywozy wrote: »

The point IS to make it the most important thing to force zergballs to spread out, since magicka detonation didn't work and since purge / barrier spam counter everything. Those changes (if tweaked correctly and this is the reason why Brian Wheeler made this discussion in the first place) are going to finally give a chance to solo, small/medium groups to counter large organized groups during keep battles.

If siege is the "most important" anti-zerg tool, then I'm out. Siege gameplay is even more boring that PvE.

vortexman11

Ishammael wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

The point IS to make it the most important thing to force zergballs to spread out, since magicka detonation didn't work and since purge / barrier spam counter everything. Those changes (if tweaked correctly and this is the reason why Brian Wheeler made this discussion in the first place) are going to finally give a chance to solo, small/medium groups to counter large organized groups during keep battles.

If siege is the "most important" anti-zerg tool, then I'm out. Siege gameplay is even more boring that PvE.

This is exactly my stance on these changes. If siege is the defining factor in all battles than this game is just getting worse and worse. You people argue that this will promote a more "skillful" way of playing the game, but its destroying the purpose of so many things. Standard of Might is our unpurgable meatbag, solar prison our unpurgable snare...and who'll need a negate when you can drain everyones resources with lightning ballistas and oil catapults.
People used to build to be "anti-zerg" now you just have to spend your AP, buy a catapult, and fire away.

Siege IS effective, the problem is purge, this stuff doesn't have to be unpurgable, purge just has to cost more, have a cooldown, or effect less people. That bug from 1.5 with Wall of Elements was a much better solution to this problem, if it wasn't for that bug you would of seen just as much purge spam as you see now.

Ishammael

vortexman11 wrote: »

This is exactly my stance on these changes. If siege is the defining factor in all battles than this game is just getting worse and worse. You people argue that this will promote a more "skillful" way of playing the game, but its destroying the purpose of so many things. Standard of Might is our unpurgable meatbag, solar prison our unpurgable snare...and who'll need a negate when you can drain everyones resources with lightning ballistas and oil catapults.
People used to build to be "anti-zerg" now you just have to spend your AP, buy a catapult, and fire away.

Siege IS effective, the problem is purge, this stuff doesn't have to be unpurgable, purge just has to cost more, have a cooldown, or effect less people. That bug from 1.5 with Wall of Elements was a much better solution to this problem, if it wasn't for that bug you would of seen just as much purge spam as you see now.

Agreed here. Un-purgeable heal debuff is *** insane. There is a reason why you are allowed to move out of Standard of Might.

I will add the following: the purge <--> siege interaction should not be balanced by itself. Siege damage/effects coupled with purge should be considered with in the entire meta of PvP. Too many ancillary effect arise because all skills affect each other.

From earlier in the thread: 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 every class and playstyle is affected differently.

Talcyndl

Satiar wrote: »

When pushing a choke in a keep, the whole point is it is a choke. if I can't move for shares, can't block or dodge for Stam reduction, can't heal for magica reduction and heal rebuffs, cannot purge these debuffs, what am I supposed to do? It's suicide and everyone knows it.

I highly doubt it will be suicide in every situation.

But, as the game stands now, the supposed "choke point" is no barrier at all to a purge Blob.

Talcyndl

Enodoc wrote: »

At one point, sieges were supposed to stack to 5. I wonder what happened to that idea:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote:

Siege equipment can be stacked to five in the inventory (with the exception of forward camps and mercenary contracts).

This is from Patch Notes 1.1.2, May 2014. I haven't found any patch notes saying this was changed, but it's clearly not the case currently.

ZOS happened.

It made the patch notes, but never actually into the game.

Apparently, they had issues stacking siege that had taken damage/decayed.

mike.eso

vortexman11 wrote: »

Ishammael wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

The point IS to make it the most important thing to force zergballs to spread out, since magicka detonation didn't work and since purge / barrier spam counter everything. Those changes (if tweaked correctly and this is the reason why Brian Wheeler made this discussion in the first place) are going to finally give a chance to solo, small/medium groups to counter large organized groups during keep battles.

If siege is the "most important" anti-zerg tool, then I'm out. Siege gameplay is even more boring that PvE.

This is exactly my stance on these changes. If siege is the defining factor in all battles than this game is just getting worse and worse. You people argue that this will promote a more "skillful" way of playing the game, but its destroying the purpose of so many things. Standard of Might is our unpurgable meatbag, solar prison our unpurgable snare...and who'll need a negate when you can drain everyones resources with lightning ballistas and oil catapults.
People used to build to be "anti-zerg" now you just have to spend your AP, buy a catapult, and fire away.

Siege IS effective, the problem is purge, this stuff doesn't have to be unpurgable, purge just has to cost more, have a cooldown, or effect less people. That bug from 1.5 with Wall of Elements was a much better solution to this problem, if it wasn't for that bug you would of seen just as much purge spam as you see now.

While I will reserve judgment of the actual changes until we actually have a chance to test it…mostly because I will welcome almost any change to mix up a currently very stale pvp atmosphere. I do whole heartily agree with your underlying premise vort, that is that this is not a fix, similar to other “fixes” we have received in the past this is a work around attempting to side set the actual issue. The skill purge is where the heart of this particular issue lies and to attempt to “fix” that issue by doing anything other than looking at the skill and adjusting the skill’s mechanics is the wrong way to go about it. Similarly how in the past, certain problems/imbalances to particular individual skills or mechanics were addressed with blanket “fixes” which did not actually fix anything.

These fixes that we keep receiving go like this…

A is “broken”
We implemented B to deal with A
A is still “broken” regardless of B and B has introduced a handful of new issues
We’re now talking about C while A and B are still “broken”
WHY NOT JUST FIX A??