Upcoming siege changes in next major update

Talcyndl

Remdale wrote: »

'why aren't you doing something else' (they don't understand development resources/process)

To be fair to the complainers...

In this case, it is not about development resources. It is 100% about the fact that the Combat/Ability lead Developer is utterly unconcerned about PvP balance. This is a PvE game to him and that is where his focus is directed.

Don't believe me? Look at his "I made a forum account" post...not A SINGLE word about PvP balance. But hey, bleed effects will soon apply to Dwemers!

bowmanz607

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

"All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable."

This is NOT the way to go at all... compare a group of 12 and a group of 24, guess three times which group gets affected the most from healing reduction.

WHY DO YOU LOVE NUMBERS SO MUCH, WHY!?

one we dont know what other balances are coming that will compliment these change.
Second, even on its own, this change gives tools to smaller groups to fight those larger groups. also, instead of one blob fighting another blob on one pin for 20 min while the server lags out will no longer be the most effective way to fight. No the side defending the resource or keep will have the advantage of seige be it 6 v 24 or 24 v 60 or even 40 v 40 etc. Moreover, this will change the strategy used by the groups on the offensive because it will no longer be advisable to just stick on crown and move in would big blob. Although not gone completely it will be minimized.

Wrong, the larger group is always the one that can spare people to place sieges, a smaller one can NOT!

sorry but even in a small group you need to drop seige to fight a larger one. You really tell me that if your a group of 8 fighting a group of 24 you dont drop even one siege? you should work on that it will really help. Also, think about when seige is actually used. It is used primarily for keeps and resources. When a large group charges a keep they are you know charging the keep and no longer outside on siege. It is the group defending that has the siege and typically the group defending is the small group. WHen do you really ever see a large group in open feild combat really using siege? only on rare occasions and usually when it is blob v blob not 24 v 8.

Sometimes we can pop up a siege for one shot if theres enough time, but honestly in most scenarios its just not fesable or possible.

And yes, it is VERY common that people place a buttload of siege against my group, no matter the size.

in open field i can understand not having the time. However, a large group should be a small group in open field. Such is the way of life. A small group should need advantages of defensive positions and what not. or fighting in smaller areas which would make siege feasible and wiht these changes make them a very attractive choice for small groups in those scenarios.

Remdale

If you like to wipe larger groups and don't realize how much these changes favor you..... think about it again. Slowly.

Tomato

This is the new class balance fix!

WebBull

It seems that Zos may have over-complicated the changes. There are two issues, weak siege and purge spamming. Simply increase siege (personally I would say 40%-50%) and put either a cool down or cast time on purge. To me, purge being spammable and an AoE is the biggest issue.

Remdale

Talcyndl wrote: »

Remdale wrote: »

'why aren't you doing something else' (they don't understand development resources/process)

To be fair to the complainers...

In this case, it is not about development resources. It is 100% about the fact that the Combat/Ability lead Developer is utterly unconcerned about PvP balance. This is a PvE game to him and that is where his focus is directed.

Don't believe me? Look at his "I made a forum account" post...not A SINGLE word about PvP balance. But hey, bleed effects will soon apply to Dwemers!

That may be so, but don't take it out here, on Brian Wheeler and his proposed changes. Even with AoE caps, the sheer devastating nature of these changes will favor the groups with the greater tactics more than the greater numbers. At least, it's a step in the right direction.

bowmanz607

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

i keep seeing this. please explain how this hurts small groups? This is a tool for small groups to use to break up the larger groups and spread them out. it also allows small groups to defend a keep against ball groups. How does this hurt small groups?

Yeah, in what possible instance do the small group of arround 10 - 12 people compared to a large zerg of 24+ spread all over the keep, pleaceing sieges on the postern doors, oils above the flags and over the meatbags.. They DONT, they cannot spare the numbers for this.

Well that large zerg comes through ONE hole. They get spread out all over the keep and put oils down because the current effectiveness of siege is laughable. you can pound that hole with siege now and it does not matter. With these changes you pund that hole and it will not only wipe a good amount, but it will also deplete the resource of the people that have made it through making them easy pickens.

Possibly, but again theres nothign stopping the enemies from siegeing the breech too. One meatbag and your entire group can never move to that spot without dieying.

I dont know about you but i prefer to use abbilities when i PvP to kill people. Not.. sieges. urgh.

Y but this game has always been about large scale seige and keep battles. That is what it was sold as. Currently that is not the case. Ideally, however, this is coming with other changes that requires a balance of both.

azoriangaming

Talcyndl wrote: »

Remdale wrote: »

'why aren't you doing something else' (they don't understand development resources/process)

To be fair to the complainers...

In this case, it is not about development resources. It is 100% about the fact that the Combat/Ability lead Developer is utterly unconcerned about PvP balance. This is a PvE game to him and that is where his focus is directed.

Don't believe me? Look at his "I made a forum account" post...not A SINGLE word about PvP balance. But hey, bleed effects will soon apply to Dwemers!

see i don't think it's the devs fault i think they want this game to good but they've the fatcats behind them saying make this game more zergy, more zergs = more people, more people = more money to line my pockets.

Talcyndl

Jhunn wrote: »

But who's lagging? The 10 coordinated people or the 40 pugs running the same place? The 10 people are the ones who this will affect negatively. Not the 40 pugs or 24 man zergs.

You mean who's causing the lag?

By a disproportionate amount, it's the tightly packed Blobs spamming AoEs. 10, 15, 20+ players all in heal and AoE damage range spam casting abilities is going to require significantly more server resources compared to the same number of players spread out casting fewer AoE abilities effecting fewer friendlies and enemies.

Not to mention, most of us who have played since launch have seen the immediate and obvious impact from those groups.

That doesn't mean that large overall server population and numbers in a particular area don't impact performance as well, but the Blobs make things MUCH worse.

Kwivur

“The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.” Sun Tsu

bowmanz607

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

Really? All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable.

this is just going to make the zergs more stronger, smaller groups won't have a chance to anything.

seriously who comes up with these ideas and thinks they'd be great because there is no thought into this at all you just haven't got a clue, you want to be splitting the zergs up not making them get bigger and win every time with a meatbag in this dumb down pvp because that's exactly what's going to happen.

the underpopulated side will never take a keep if this goes through.

what are you talking about. guess who uses seige when defending a keep. typically it is the smaller groups and the underpopulated groups. that means when you only have 10 people defending a keep and 30 running in the seige may actually flip the fight in the smaller groups favor. As it stands right now seige does not allow this.

bowmanz607 wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

Really? All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable.

this is just going to make the zergs more stronger, smaller groups won't have a chance to anything.

seriously who comes up with these ideas and thinks they'd be great because there is no thought into this at all you just haven't got a clue, you want to be splitting the zergs up not making them get bigger and win every time with a meatbag in this dumb down pvp because that's exactly what's going to happen.

the underpopulated side will never take a keep if this goes through.

what are you talking about. guess who uses seige when defending a keep. typically it is the smaller groups and the underpopulated groups. that means when you only have 10 people defending a keep and 30 running in the seige may actually flip the fight in the smaller groups favor. As it stands right now seige does not allow this.

Image that you fight a 24 man group as a 12 man group. 4 of these 24 put up a siege and you are still outnumbered 20 to 12 or even less if you've got some on siege as well, so who do you think will win the 24 people or the 12 with the healing reduction that is unpurgeable with the current aoe caps? I said take a keep not defend.

Yes taking a keep should be very difficult for a smaller group. As i stated in another comment, A keep is meant to be defended by small numbers against large numbers. This is how it was sold and how it works in real life. So, having more numbers on top of being in the defensive position should be a gimme win. I mean it is only logical.

SturgeHammer

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

In the next major update we'll be adjusting damage and other effects from siege weapons. This will go in conjunction with other changes regarding repair kits and keep upgrades, but the changes noted here are specific to players effects (damage, snares, dots, etc.).

These changes are currently being tested internally and may change before they go to PTS/Live:

• Damage across the board for all siege weapons has been increased roughly 30%, but we are considering increasing that more.
• Snares have been normalized on all siege weapons that apply that debuff (ice treb, lightning ballista, oil catapult) to be a 50% snare, and last 6 seconds.
• All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable.
• Oil Catapults will now also have a "Stamina damage" value added, which takes away roughly 5000 Stamina from enemy targets.
• Lightning Ballista will now also have a "Magicka Damage" value added, which takes away roughly 5000 Magicka from enemy targets.
• Ballista now turn faster and have their "scatter" variable removed, making them 100% accurate to your aimed location.
• Scattershot now adds 20% damage taken from other siege weapons instead of 10%

Thanks for any feedback regarding these changes and again, these may or may not go up to PTS/Live exactly as stated here, but this is what we're currently testing

Awesome. You are my hero @ZOS_BrianWheeler.

bowmanz607

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Why do you hate small groups so much? This will make it even harder for groups that arent 24 man raids. You should promote smaller groups, not destroy them.

i keep seeing this. please explain how this hurts small groups? This is a tool for small groups to use to break up the larger groups and spread them out. it also allows small groups to defend a keep against ball groups. How does this hurt small groups?

@bowmanz607
Obviously the larger groups will use siege aswell. And because they are way more they will be able to place way more sieges.

Compare a 12 man group to a 24 man group. Who will be affected more by this change? The solution to this change will be to bring even more people to a fight.

as i have stated many times already. a zerg is not placing seige when they are storming through a hole in the keep. It is only after they secure an area in a keep that they place siege. This helps prevent them from securing an area to place seige. Also, now multiple seige targeting one area will be able todestroy that area. UNlike right now where a player just sits in 3 or 4 sige hitting them.

The zerg will be sieging the breach. The defenders can't stand there.

well ya but defenders should stand in the breach. The players on the offensive, howvever, MUST use the breach.

Morostyle

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Morostyle wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Morostyle wrote: »

WTF IS THIS ***? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
THIS IS RIP

So now a zerg can wipe anyone with 1 meatbag?
How u gonna defend a keep 10 man vs 30+?

only way I see this work is a group kiting a zerg in open world and use meatbag to initate - but good luck with the lag

[REMOVE AOE CAP WITH THIS AND IM GLAD] IF NOT - Q_Q

This makes no sense. A zerg just runs in a keep in a ball. Siege is not effective right now. They dont need to drop a meatbag o kill anyone THEY ARE ZERGING!. Moreover, when a zerg is taking a keep they are not using siege to charge up the stairs and all that. The defending team is the one using the siege and have their seige defense set up inside the keep. This gives tools to the smaller groups to actually kill the zergs as they try pushing up the stairs. as it stands, this is not possible. This forces groups to split up because they actually have a penalty for being hit with siege.

From my experience - those zergs we fight pop firebalista and meatbags @ the upper flag from breach.. which means, we cant push that flag since 30 stack + siege? which leaves us with the main gate flag, followed up by enemies runing upstairs and oiling? eeeh.. and they might just add a meatbag on the upper flag, shooting maingate flag, since they have the flag covered by 3-4 sieges from breachside + postern?

here you seem to be talking about a group taking a keep having problems taking the keep. If i am reading that correctly. And yes I think it should be hard for groups to take a keep. A keep is meant to be maintain and defended by small numbers against larger numbers. IN fact this is how it was back in the day. This is not only how they were designed in the game, but also in real life. Strongholds such as a keep are meant to allow small numbers to defend it which is currently not the case. So having a large number of players defending a keep should be even easier for them. Lastly, you seem to be commenting on the difficulty from breaching the door. The door is by far the worst place to breach when a keep is properly defended even currently exactly for the reason of the amount of oils present at a door.

Its the other way around - talking about defending a keep vs a zerg as 10-12-16 man

Alucardo

Please allow DKs to reflect siege projectiles.

Thank you in advance.

kkravaritieb17_ESO

Kwivur wrote: »

“The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.” Sun Tsu

"The group who loses the battle in eso is the one without the zerg and siege. The group who wins in eso is the group who is the zerg and has sieges" ZOS 2015

Talcyndl

Remdale wrote: »

That may be so, but don't take it out here, on Brian Wheeler and his proposed changes. Even with AoE caps, the sheer devastating nature of these changes will favor the groups with the greater tactics more than the greater numbers. At least, it's a step in the right direction.

True. I'm defending these changes. They are better than the "alternative" changes people want to the AoE system - for the simple fact that the AoE system is out of the PvP developers control and will almost certainly not change.

Jhunn

Talcyndl wrote: »

You mean who's causing the lag?

By a disproportionate amount, it's the tightly packed Blobs spamming AoEs. 10, 15, 20+ players all in heal and AoE damage range spam casting abilities is going to require significantly more server resources compared to the same number of players spread out casting fewer AoE abilities effecting fewer friendlies and enemies.

Not to mention, most of us who have played since launch have seen the immediate and obvious impact from those groups.

That doesn't mean that large overall server population and numbers in a particular area don't impact performance as well, but the Blobs make things MUCH worse.

A 10 man group doesn't lag the server. Don't give me bullsh*it. I don't know why you're bringing up 'since launch'. I've been here since launch aswell, and if you have, you should know how *** this change to siege is. Unless you don't want to rely on skill, of course, and have a numbers = win kind of game

bowmanz607

Tomato wrote: »

This is the new class balance fix!

This is where we need the LOL button back.

bowmanz607

WebBull wrote: »

It seems that Zos may have over-complicated the changes. There are two issues, weak siege and purge spamming. Simply increase siege (personally I would say 40%-50%) and put either a cool down or cast time on purge. To me, purge being spammable and an AoE is the biggest issue.

ya but the champ points have made resource management well nonexistent. So adding the resource damage not only helps with that issue, but actually gives a good reason to use something other than fire and meatbag.

WebBull

Talcyndl wrote: »

Remdale wrote: »

'why aren't you doing something else' (they don't understand development resources/process)

To be fair to the complainers...

In this case, it is not about development resources. It is 100% about the fact that the Combat/Ability lead Developer is utterly unconcerned about PvP balance. This is a PvE game to him and that is where his focus is directed.

Don't believe me? Look at his "I made a forum account" post...not A SINGLE word about PvP balance. But hey, bleed effects will soon apply to Dwemers!

This is so spot on and a huge problem with the games development. Purge is a huge issue and Brian can't do anything to change it because it is out of his control.

Talcyndl

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

see i don't think it's the devs fault i think they want this game to good but they've the fatcats behind them saying make this game more zergy, more zergs = more people, more people = more money to line my pockets.

The money people would happily see all the PvP focused players leave if that's the price of not annoying the PvE population. The subscriber/paying player numbers are HEAVILY skewed toward PvE.

Nutshotz

I just come to bare and laugh at how we bash our devs at fail attempts at fixing issues in pvp but I'll say this new siege update might pan out. Sure do miss the good ol days with siege rekt zergs!

Xsorus

The last time they had unpuragble meatbag and snares in the game; it seriously messed with groups.. In fact just eating one hit meant death and they've added some nasty changes

Talcyndl

Jhunn wrote: »

Unless you don't want to rely on skill, of course, and have a numbers = win kind of game

Blob groups don't rely on "skill" in any meaningful sense of the word.

azoriangaming

bowmanz607 wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

Really? All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable.

this is just going to make the zergs more stronger, smaller groups won't have a chance to anything.

seriously who comes up with these ideas and thinks they'd be great because there is no thought into this at all you just haven't got a clue, you want to be splitting the zergs up not making them get bigger and win every time with a meatbag in this dumb down pvp because that's exactly what's going to happen.

the underpopulated side will never take a keep if this goes through.

what are you talking about. guess who uses seige when defending a keep. typically it is the smaller groups and the underpopulated groups. that means when you only have 10 people defending a keep and 30 running in the seige may actually flip the fight in the smaller groups favor. As it stands right now seige does not allow this.

bowmanz607 wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

Really? All side effects from siege weapons (snare, healing taken reduction, siege damage increase taken) are no longer purgable.

this is just going to make the zergs more stronger, smaller groups won't have a chance to anything.

seriously who comes up with these ideas and thinks they'd be great because there is no thought into this at all you just haven't got a clue, you want to be splitting the zergs up not making them get bigger and win every time with a meatbag in this dumb down pvp because that's exactly what's going to happen.

the underpopulated side will never take a keep if this goes through.

what are you talking about. guess who uses seige when defending a keep. typically it is the smaller groups and the underpopulated groups. that means when you only have 10 people defending a keep and 30 running in the seige may actually flip the fight in the smaller groups favor. As it stands right now seige does not allow this.

Image that you fight a 24 man group as a 12 man group. 4 of these 24 put up a siege and you are still outnumbered 20 to 12 or even less if you've got some on siege as well, so who do you think will win the 24 people or the 12 with the healing reduction that is unpurgeable with the current aoe caps? I said take a keep not defend.

Yes taking a keep should be very difficult for a smaller group. As i stated in another comment, A keep is meant to be defended by small numbers against large numbers. This is how it was sold and how it works in real life. So, having more numbers on top of being in the defensive position should be a gimme win. I mean it is only logical.

so my point from my first comment is that the smaller number then have to turn into larger numbers which generates a zerg and where does it stop? does it not favor the zerg mentality?

Jhunn

Talcyndl wrote: »

Blob groups don't rely on "skill" in any meaningful sense of the word.

So a 10 man group ... vs 40 pugs ... whatever, it's like speaking to a door. Bye

WebBull

PeaNutShotz wrote: »

I just come to bare and laugh at how we bash our devs at fail attempts at fixing issues in pvp but I'll say this new siege update might pan out. Sure do miss the good ol days with siege rekt zergs!

Where are the ground oils?????? Stop the zergs at the choke points Seriously I think bringing ground oils back would actually be a positive.

Erondil

TheBull wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

Orchish wrote: »

Huge thread about siege weapons lack of threat against players, they finally make some changes to make it something you really want to avoid again and people still complain. Can't win. Why not wait and test it out before complaining?

Everything is fine besides unremovable healingdebuffs. Already outnumbered heavily and we have to deal with permanent major defile on us 24/7 with 2 healers?...

That is not the solution. I wonder whos sitting at the office thinking "what can we mess up today." Unbeliveable.

You might have to spread out?

Spread out when we are 12 agaisnt 50 ppl inside a keep and they siege everywhere? This when the mechanic to take a keep requires to stack on flags? Ye man smart.

Kwivur

"Confront them with annihilation, and they will then survive; plunge them into a deadly situation, and they will then live. When people fall into danger, they are then able to strive for victory." Sun Tsu