Upcoming siege changes in next major update

Talcyndl

Jhunn wrote: »

A 10 man group doesn't lag the server.

All by themselves, no they don't.

If that 10 man group is constantly bunched on Crown and non-stop spamming AoE abilities (which are the groups we are discussing) they obviously create more stress on the server.

Not to mention they are silly. Friendly fire can't be implemented for obvious reasons, but a game system is broken when it allows those groups to dominate to the point of being invincible (unless confronted by another Blob - which is where the lag often spikes to unplayable levels).

azoriangaming

Talcyndl wrote: »

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.

agrees

themdogesbite

TheBull wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

TheBull 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!

Zerger arguing for the small group. This is rich.

No idea who you are for starters, but judgeing by your forum post you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about or you didnt play the game before 1.6.

Better ask somebody.

What's small to you? 10? 12? 16? anything short of 24? Group up? Purge purge purge? Maneuvers? Purge purge purge? If this is you "squad". This is intended to affect you adversely.

Small for me is 8 people, medium sized 9 - 12. But if you payed a little more attention to my posts i've not written small, i've written smaller. I dont know if you and me had had the same basic education but i would claim that 12 is a smaller number then 30.

This change is for the zerglings, or did you already forget who the 1.6 siege changes benefited?

Xsorus

hopefully they remove aoe caps also and we finally put an end to
Zergballs

Warraxx

ALL PRAY TO THE OUR LORD, D-TICK!

Talcyndl

Jhunn wrote: »

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

The skill required is in following Crown, having Prox Det and/or Efficient Purge unlocked, and having enough healers and steel tornado spammers. Beyond that it's about your numbers versus the other Blob's numbers. Currently, siege can play a tie-breaking role in Blob versus Blob action.

I've run in very good Blob groups. With 10+ grouped in TS, 40 pugs spread out is simply "Juice".

Aunatar

So 3 oil cata=half of my main resource pool drained?
Welcome to the Elder Siege Online!

Kwivur

kkravaritieb17_ESO wrote: »

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

"Convince your enemy that he will gain very little by attacking you; this will diminish his enthusiasm." Sun Tsu

bowmanz607

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

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?

Here is the thing taking a keep should be a task for the alliance. To properly take a keep you need numbers just like back in the days of cyrodill's prime. You have the players that like to run in large groups on siege. You have smaller groups doing things such as taking resources, watching the breach, defending choke holds such as bridges, messing around in the opponents backfield, and tagging other keeps as distractions. Then the solo players are fighting the reinforcements coming from other keeps. PLayers like Sypher and Fengrush can pull there 3 players and get thier 1vx which ultimately help the overall keep battle. That is pvp in cyrodill. That is what this game is. That is what this game was. This is what we bought. This is why many players have stuck around this long because we know that cyrodill can be that again!

Merlight

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

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.

You're not supposed to be taking keeps defended by superior numbers, unless you outclass them by a large margin.

Jhunn

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Here is the thing taking a keep should be a task for the alliance. To properly take a keep you need numbers just like back in the days of cyrodill's prime. You have the players that like to run in large groups on siege. You have smaller groups doing things such as taking resources, watching the breach, defending choke holds such as bridges, messing around in the opponents backfield, and tagging other keeps as distractions. Then the solo players are fighting the reinforcements coming from other keeps. PLayers like Sypher and Fengrush can pull there 3 players and get thier 1vx which ultimately help the overall keep battle. That is pvp in cyrodill. That is what this game is. That is what this game was. This is what we bought. This is why many players have stuck around this long because we know that cyrodill can be that again!

Ye let's stack even more people in a keep. The servers can handle it

Merlight wrote: »

You're not supposed to be taking keeps defended by superior numbers, unless you outclass them by a large margin.

Yay numbers game

themdogesbite

Merlight wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

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.

You're not supposed to be taking keeps defended by superior numbers, unless you outclass them by a large margin.

And here's whats wrong with this community. If people weren't stuck in number > everything maybe we'd have a better PvP enviorment and a hardcore crowd left in this game.

bowmanz607

Morostyle wrote: »

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

Well then i guess i am a little confused. Perhaps some clarification? But, if you are talking about a zerg getting into a keep and then setting up siege, then what i am saying is that a zerg is going to have a much more difficult time even getting in the keep in the first place with siege properlly placed by the small group. Moreover, by the time the first wave gets in their resources are nearly halfed at least. Perhaps even more once the players get caught up with the best combination of siege. Now the players that do get through all that in the zerg dont have nearly the same numbers and group cohesion to properlly place siege without getting attacked.

lolo_01b16_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Just to clarify, the DOT on Flame Trebs and Flame Ballista can still be purged....for now.

So as you didn't mention Flaming Oil, can it's dot not be purged?

bowmanz607

Jhunn wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Here is the thing taking a keep should be a task for the alliance. To properly take a keep you need numbers just like back in the days of cyrodill's prime. You have the players that like to run in large groups on siege. You have smaller groups doing things such as taking resources, watching the breach, defending choke holds such as bridges, messing around in the opponents backfield, and tagging other keeps as distractions. Then the solo players are fighting the reinforcements coming from other keeps. PLayers like Sypher and Fengrush can pull there 3 players and get thier 1vx which ultimately help the overall keep battle. That is pvp in cyrodill. That is what this game is. That is what this game was. This is what we bought. This is why many players have stuck around this long because we know that cyrodill can be that again!

Ye let's stack even more people in a keep. The servers can handle it

Merlight wrote: »

You're not supposed to be taking keeps defended by superior numbers, unless you outclass them by a large margin.

Yay numbers game

The issue is not put a lot of players in a keep and around a keep. The issue is the two tiny balls of players clashing on each other. Spreading players out in the courtyard, along the walls, on siege in the inner, scattered on the outside of the keep is fine. That works. It has worked. We played it. So long as they adjust AoE caps which they likely will (we will see in what fashion) the blobs should end because they will no longer be the strongest way for large groups to pvp. Again, we have seen and played through the game like this.

zerosingularity

Y'all need to chill. These changes may not fix PvP, dunno if anything ever will. What they do add though is a lot more dynamic to siege, which was horribly lacking. Now you will see some siege engines that probably 90% of PvPers don't even know about. Increasing the damage is also very much needed, when someone can face-tank a trebuchet like it is nothing, you know siege is too weak. I look forward to seeing how these changes shake up the PvP META we have.

Also,

#REMOVEAOECAPS

Soulac

Jhunn

Merlight wrote: »

The issue is not put a lot of players in a keep and around a keep. The issue is the two tiny balls of players clashing on each other. Spreading players out in the courtyard, along the walls, on siege in the inner, scattered on the outside of the keep is fine. That works. It has worked. We played it. So long as they adjust AoE caps which they likely will (we will see in what fashion) the blobs should end because they will no longer be the strongest way for large groups to pvp. Again, we have seen and played through the game like this.

That is the issue aswell. Even with no organized +12-24 man groups, 50v50 pugs in a keep will lag the server aswell. We could have those fights long ago, yes, but I don't know if you've noticed but server capability is slowly and steadily getting more and more sh*it, to the point where 70 people just standing around doing NOTHING will cause the server to have problems

themdogesbite

zerosingularity wrote: »

Y'all need to chill. These changes may not fix PvP, dunno if anything ever will. What they do add though is a lot more dynamic to siege, which was horribly lacking. Now you will see some siege engines that probably 90% of PvPers don't even know about. Increasing the damage is also very much needed, when someone can face-tank a trebuchet like it is nothing, you know siege is too weak. I look forward to seeing how these changes shake up the PvP META we have.

Also,

#REMOVEAOECAPS

Siege never had aoe caps in the first place. Guess why they removed ground oil, it was a succesfull zergbuster and didnt benefit the masses as much.

Kwivur

This thread is annoying.. It sounds like the ones complaining about more damage just refuse to adapt and the ones defending it want what they had in the beginning. To sum it up.. Some people are better at checkers than they are chess.

themdogesbite

Kwivur wrote: »

This thread is annoying.. It sounds like the ones complaining about more damage just refuse to adapt and the ones defending it want what they had in the beginning. To sum it up.. Some people are better at checkers than they are chess.

More damage on siege is not a problem, neither is the resource drain or whatever. The only thing i have a problem with is unpurgable meatbags. Why? Cus after seeing pvp in 1.6 after the siege buff and what that brought it should be obvious that this chnage is genocide for medium sized pvp groups or for people that prefer to use abbilities in PvP over shooting meatballs on eacother.

Talcyndl

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

Siege never had aoe caps in the first place. Guess why they removed ground oil, it was a succesfull zergbuster and didnt benefit the masses as much.

Actually, it was because it ruined my immersion.

Asmael

Do note that 2 subjects are brought up:

1) The overall low damage of sieges
2) The efficiency of purge

Point 1) is adressed by a damage increase, fair enough, and I'd support this.

Point 2) is adressed by making unpurgeable / on-hit instant effects, which is definitely more debatable.

So, do we make some effects unpurge-able, or do we change Purge?

usmcjdking

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

DO NOT FORGET ICE TREBUCHET

Also, hard values that like are pretty useless. Should be a % of max magicka and max stamina lost.

bowmanz607

Jhunn wrote: »

Merlight wrote: »

The issue is not put a lot of players in a keep and around a keep. The issue is the two tiny balls of players clashing on each other. Spreading players out in the courtyard, along the walls, on siege in the inner, scattered on the outside of the keep is fine. That works. It has worked. We played it. So long as they adjust AoE caps which they likely will (we will see in what fashion) the blobs should end because they will no longer be the strongest way for large groups to pvp. Again, we have seen and played through the game like this.

That is the issue aswell. Even with no organized +12-24 man groups, 50v50 pugs in a keep will lag the server aswell. We could have those fights long ago, yes, but I don't know if you've noticed but server capability is slowly and steadily getting more and more sh*it, to the point where 70 people just standing around doing NOTHING will cause the server to have problems

We have had 2 different experiences then. The only time I ever experience lag is when two ball groups are going at it. I have been in many of fights in pvp where it was pug v pug group and not have any issues. Unless ofcourse there are two ball groups on the other side of the map going at it. Watch. when those ball groups get taken care of you will see a noticable difference. If you will notice the "server capabilities slowly and steadily getting more s***" as also occured in the same time frame in which people started baling up, then more people caught on to how the ball groups operate, and then more people figured it out to where everyone must run it to win against it.

Talcyndl

Asmael wrote: »

So, do we make some effects unpurge-able, or do we change Purge?

"We" don't do anything. Eric Wroebel could change Purge. But it is obvious he won't to balance PvP because it would impact PvE.

Which leaves "us" (the PvPers) changing siege effects.

azoriangaming

bowmanz607 wrote: »

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

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?

Here is the thing taking a keep should be a task for the alliance. To properly take a keep you need numbers just like back in the days of cyrodill's prime. You have the players that like to run in large groups on siege. You have smaller groups doing things such as taking resources, watching the breach, defending choke holds such as bridges, messing around in the opponents backfield, and tagging other keeps as distractions. Then the solo players are fighting the reinforcements coming from other keeps. PLayers like Sypher and Fengrush can pull there 3 players and get thier 1vx which ultimately help the overall keep battle. That is pvp in cyrodill. That is what this game is. That is what this game was. This is what we bought. This is why many players have stuck around this long because we know that cyrodill can be that again!

so you think the servers will handle the whole alliance taking a keep? they can't handle the minimal amount we've got on screen now.

eliisra

Kwivur wrote: »

This thread is annoying.. It sounds like the ones complaining about more damage just refuse to adapt and the ones defending it want what they had in the beginning. To sum it up.. Some people are better at checkers than they are chess.

I dont give a crap about more dmg. I'm upset over the fact that they're pushing blanket nerfs and changes every patch, without considering how it affects class balance.

How the hell is a templar suppose to deal with unpurgeable meatbags and snares? I have 0 mobility, preventing me from moving out of all the siege, before it lands. I have no teleports, no class stamina managements and the class shield is ruined. The only defence I have left after countless of nerfs is healing and class purge. Now I'm going to be stuck and snared in siege unable to heal/cleanse myself and be the nr1 sitting duck.

If they're pushing patches like this, at least make sure it's going to be equally sucky for all classes. I mean take a sorc with 40% movement speed, Bolt Escape and 10k+dmg absorbing shields, at least they have tools to deal with it.

Talcyndl

rdbrown1987 wrote: »

so you think the servers will handle the whole alliance taking a keep? they can't handle the minimal amount we've got on screen now.

In beta and early game, Cyrodiil ran fine with 100s of players on screen. Two things changed:

(1) The lighting patch (who know what kind of impact this still has).

(2) Players began stacking more and more while using spammable AoEs.

Enodoc

@ZOS_BrianWheeler With these changes to siege weapons, would you consider improving their tooltips as well?