Upcoming siege changes in next major update

Sotha_Sil

Still don't know for sure if we can cleanse the snares with manoeuver or not.

Catblade

Sotha_Sil wrote: »

Still don't know if we can cleanse the snares with manoeuver or not.

No he said anything that removes a negative effect is considered a purge.

Catblade

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Anything that removes a "negative" effect is considered a purge, so not just the "Purge" abliity as you noted.

Enodoc

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We will look at tool-tips when this goes in as well, however displaying the range won't be possible as it varies based on trajectory of the projectile and whether it will land uphill, downhill, even ground, etc. There may be a generic "about this range" added.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Yeah someone else mentioned a similar thing in my thread. I think Damage is the most important thing to include, but I suggested maybe a "Trajectory" entry including min and max of angle (firing arc), height (clearance) and range (horizontal) would be more useful than just a straightforward "Range" entry:

Enodoc wrote: »

lolo_01b16_ESO wrote: »

Would be a nice addition, but I think it's impossible to provide a range, as it depends on the height difference between you and the target area.

Hmm, interesting point. The different siege weapons still have different ranges from each other though (I think treb has the longest), so it would be good to see something that indicates that. Perhaps the value for range could assume flat terrain for comparison purposes, and then any height differences would be down to the operator to assess. Or maybe Trajectory would be a better detail to see, as that could include the firing arc, the height, and the horizontal distance:

So for example, for a Catapult using the values in this diagram:
Trajectory: Angle: 75°-60°, Height: 4.7m-3.7m, Range: 5m-8.7m

Xsorus

Realistically it won't stop zergballs i don't think...You might be able to take some how with the stamina drain one and holding the opening with roots...But most likely they'll still rush through.... in most keeps..It will make it more dangerous though..and Open Field Zerg Balls will have a harder time moving together against pugs throwing down Siege on them.

That is where it will have the biggest effect...Could never put down siege in enough spots to stop them in keeps it felt like..open field though a proper meatbag shot was devastating..

Turelus

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Battlespirit did indeed change the value of damage from Siege weapons, which we are looking to correct with these changes.

Thanks for the confirmation on this.

How are you making the changes to damage, are sieges being removed from Battle Spirit then adjusted to reach the damage level desired or just gaining a damage bonus under Battle Spirit? As the later seems like it could cause some issues down the road if you adjust the Battle Spirit levels again.

Thanks for the feedback and taking the time to follow this thread and post Brian, it's really nice to see developer interaction on this level and gives me hope for the game going forward.

Catblade

What buff are stone trebs getting? Or am I expected to sit there getting meatbagged and can't heal, snared and uber damaged with no buff to stone? maybe we all just move to resource servers and let these changes play by themselves, what then?

The way I see it siege is getting three buffs.

1-More damage

2- Adding snares/removing magika/stam

3- Removing counters.

That's over the top. Pick two

TheBull

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

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?

So, your "squad" is "smaller". 14, 16 then? Smaller than a full raid? Purge, purge, purge? Maneuvers? Purge purge? Like I thought, that is you and your "squad".

I don't know your education level either. I do know your "squad" will have to learn to adjust once the siege changes go through. You do too huh? Working as intended.

ClockworkArc

Xiphyla wrote: »

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

I think these proposed changes are huge and have real potential to make for interesting small group defense of keeps. Props to those people who worked on them.

There seems to be a lot of QQ going on in regards to the nonpurgable healing debuff. Pretty sure the idea is that people are supposed to use shields to counter act this, thus forcing zergs to react to the type of damage being done with heals or shields, or manage their stamina efficiently enough so they can dodgeroll. All things that force the zerg to split up into more manageable bite-sized meals and provide a higher skill-cap for play.

I think this is a really positive change.

You must be joking right ? When a 24man fights a 8 or 10man , the 24man just need 2 people put down 2 meatbag and aim at the 10man , so the other 22man will keep chasing the 10man and hit them if the 10man push to the meatbag. So can you tell me whose going to benefit from the non-purgeable healing debuff more ?

To be honest , this non-purgeable healing debuff = the most stupid changes ever if it goes through.

Conclusion : Big group will benefit more than small group.

I understand your point but isn't the purpose of this to force people to not stand in siege? A single meatbag won't kill you but it will make you run and hide.

Currently if a 24- man group is hit by a meatbag, they basically just stand there and heal themselves / purge. Correct?

Currently, if a 10-man group gets hit by a meatbag and is also being chased by most of the previous group. Will they continue to clump or will they re-position themselves intelligently?

If a 24-man group gets hit by a meatbag and CAN'T out heal/purge the damage, will they just stand there and spam aoe or will they move?

It's pretty easy to counter siege... you just walk away from it. This change would prohibit large groups from just tanking siege, which is realistically an unreasonable strategy in the first place.

The onus is on the 10-man group to play intelligently, use terrain, keep walls, and such to fight a group over twice the size of themselves. So not square off against a 24-man group in open ground. That doesn't make any sense in the first place.

EDIT:

Currently, being hit by a meatbag ENCOURAGES you to group to run to your healer for the purge. The counter play to siege should be NOT being hit by siege. Not standing in a pile.

PainfulFAFA

I dont have the leisure to read 10 pages atm but...

Will Oil/Lightning siege debuffs stack?


If yes, then everyone will be using oil catapult....

WebBull

Artemis wrote: »

Good stuff. Sieges should have a greater impact on the battlefield than right now. And these changes look very interesting. DOT should stay purgeable, not sure it's a good idea that other side effects can't be purged, but we'll see how it works

DoT's should not be purgeable otherwise the DoT is useless with spammable purge (like currently). Purge is the problem here. It needs to be changed. Keep it spammable but make it so only one purge can apply to a player every X seconds. Purge immunity.

Xsorus

A 8 to 10 man group shouldn't be able to hit a 24 man head on and live if they are equal skill..
The 8 to 10 man should be able to side swipe them though or hit them from behind and win if they are smart.
Aoe caps is what effects that outcome; siege will not play a factor as the 8 to 10 man don't have the numbers to stop and do it in a head on and the 24 man simply doesn't need to do it to win.

The siege change will effect basically pug zergs the most.. It'll give them tools to fight against Zerg balls as pugs are generally more spread out and multiple siege hitting ya from different directions will be a problem. It'll also of course effect sieges as well.

This change was not designed to change the balance between organized small groups and organized Zergballs; only changing things like aoe caps will effect that outcome.

Ezareth

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

This all sounds great Brian. Siege used to be the primary counter to ball groups back in the day when Oil catapults and meatbags meant something.

To all the people talking about 10 man versus 30 man being hurt by this you're crazy. This isn't about 10 man groups being given something to be able to kill 30 people. It is about giving that lone guy who isn't a 500CP PvP Superstar a way to contribute to the fight. Now he can spend his hard-earned AP on a ballista and lay down some fire into the zerg ball that isn't going to be ignored. Enforced snares coupled with damage that cant be ignored (I *love* the resource draining idea) will make people consider twice about tightly condensing themselves into a nice easy target....especially now that ballistas will be much easier to aim and hit your targets.

Most exciting PvP News I've heard in a long while.

I'm also somewhat hopeful about the AoE buff changes being made and the potential performance implications.

GreenSoup2HoT

This change is awesome! Siege for the win! I love siege pvp. At least now i can break it out all the time and take away player stamina and magicka lol.

For some feedback. I think the damage was good in 1.6. I died all the time. 30% increase should bring back what was lost. I would suggest increasing the damage of certain siege though. Like meatbag's and Ice siege weapon's. The only real deadly siege were Cold Stone Treb's.

themdogesbite

TheBull wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

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?

So, your "squad" is "smaller". 14, 16 then? Smaller than a full raid? Purge, purge, purge? Maneuvers? Purge purge? Like I thought, that is you and your "squad".

I don't know your education level either. I do know your "squad" will have to learn to adjust once the siege changes go through. You do too huh? Working as intended.

Honestly i dont think you know anything about the guild group i play with or any of the history behind it either. You are just another one that dont think we can adapt, we always have and we always will, succesfully so. keep on hatin' though.

The size of group we usualy run with is between 8 - 14 with the rare exception. This is still a smaller group then a full raid, this should be obvious even to you.

Outnumbered = smaller.

Talcyndl

PainfulFAFA wrote: »

I dont have the leisure to read 10 pages atm but...

Will Oil/Lightning siege debuffs stack?


If yes, then everyone will be using oil catapult....

Good question.

If they can stack (with other hits of the same type), then the 5k and 2k/tick values seem too high.

Xiphyla

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

I think these proposed changes are huge and have real potential to make for interesting small group defense of keeps. Props to those people who worked on them.

There seems to be a lot of QQ going on in regards to the nonpurgable healing debuff. Pretty sure the idea is that people are supposed to use shields to counter act this, thus forcing zergs to react to the type of damage being done with heals or shields, or manage their stamina efficiently enough so they can dodgeroll. All things that force the zerg to split up into more manageable bite-sized meals and provide a higher skill-cap for play.

I think this is a really positive change.

You must be joking right ? When a 24man fights a 8 or 10man , the 24man just need 2 people put down 2 meatbag and aim at the 10man , so the other 22man will keep chasing the 10man and hit them if the 10man push to the meatbag. So can you tell me whose going to benefit from the non-purgeable healing debuff more ?

To be honest , this non-purgeable healing debuff = the most stupid changes ever if it goes through.

Conclusion : Big group will benefit more than small group.

I understand your point but isn't the purpose of this to force people to not stand in siege? A single meatbag won't kill you but it will make you run and hide.

Currently if a 24- man group is hit by a meatbag, they basically just stand there and heal themselves / purge. Correct?

Currently, if a 10-man group gets hit by a meatbag and is also being chased by most of the previous group. Will they continue to clump or will they re-position themselves intelligently?

If a 24-man group gets hit by a meatbag and CAN'T out heal/purge the damage, will they just stand there and spam aoe or will they move?

It's pretty easy to counter siege... you just walk away from it. This change would prohibit large groups from just tanking siege, which is realistically an unreasonable strategy in the first place.

The onus is on the 10-man group to play intelligently, use terrain, keep walls, and such to fight a group over twice the size of themselves. So not square off against a 24-man group in open ground. That doesn't make any sense in the first place.

EDIT:

Currently, being hit by a meatbag ENCOURAGES you to group to run to your healer for the purge. The counter play to siege should be NOT being hit by siege. Not standing in a pile.

It's obvious the 10man aint going to stay in 1 place to purge and heal. Look at it this way , 10man is on mobile , the 22man chase and use cc to try to lockdown as many people as they can , eventually the 10man going to get outresource because they being outnumber heavily and get hit by meatbag right , it's not like the 24man are so dumb that they dont know how to move thier meatbag around in a versatile way. If you say by always moving away , how long can u run ? From one end of the map to another end of the map ? What they need to do is make meatbag purgeable but make it cost like 3 or 4 times more , so people cant spam purge or have a purge immunity like after u get purged , you cant be purge for another 5-8 secs.

frozywozy

tinythinker wrote: »

Siege has always been my favorite part of PvP. Personally I prefer a third Alliance War skill line that gives the kinds of buffs listed (and making each AW skill line mutually exclusive), but it will be interesting to see how this pans out nonetheless. Scaling (does less damage to fewer targets/increased damage to more targets) would be useful with these changes, along the lines of an inverted AoE cap but with different break points to take into account the impact radius (first 2 players =50% damage, next 2 = 75%, everything after the first 4 up to any max cap = 100% damage).

I like this idea alot.

1) Add a siege section in the Alliance war skill line
2) Add every siege weapon and two morphs available

Ex.: Lightning Balista (Deal damage over time and 50% movement speed reduction for 6 seconds)

Morph #1 : Unpurgable
Morph #2 : 2500 magicka damage every tick

My personnal thoughts :

1) I don't think siege damage should be changed. It is great as it is.
2) Meatbags should be purgable, but not by Efficient Purge.
3) I think that 5k stam/magicka dmg is way too much. 2k seems reasonable for now but I like the initiative and the idea.
4) Making balistas rotate faster and 100% accuracy is amazing.

P.S. : All people complaining that these changes are going to favor larger groups :



Thank you so much @ZOS_BrianWheeler

I appreciate the concern to address this issue that was long overdue.

Enodoc

Talcyndl wrote: »

PainfulFAFA wrote: »

I dont have the leisure to read 10 pages atm but...

Will Oil/Lightning siege debuffs stack?


If yes, then everyone will be using oil catapult....

Good question.

If they can stack (with other hits of the same type), then the 5k and 2k/tick values seem too high.

I agree. I think a cooldown would be necessary; both of these have a 6 second snare, so perhaps it could be set so that while the snare is active, the same debuff doesn't tick again (or that successive debuffs within the snare period have diminishing returns).

AbraXuSeXile

Anyone who likes this idea doesnt like pvp. Sitting on a siege weapon left clicking hoping to grab a kill.

Boring.

Jammer480

Since when does massive war on a massive scale cater to small groups and single player combat? 90% of the negative comments indicate that people want to ride into pvp battles and win them all by themselves. Blows my mind that people in their teeny groups think they should be able to battle against an army at even the lowest level. The possibility of "300" being replicated should be extremely remote. I'm in favor of any changes that promote grand battles and death on an epic scale.

I think that the bigger the group, the more health and damage buff they should get. Single players going into pvp areas should get a damage and health debuff...so group up, it's about massive head to head battles! (which rarely happens anymore) Death to gank squads!

Would pvp grouping be an option? Similar to what they do for dungeons? hahaha. Just queue in and get added to the next group that doesn't have the max number of players...hehehe

Now...about the lag issue...

TheBull

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Anyone who likes this idea doesnt like pvp. Sitting on a siege weapon left clicking hoping to grab a kill.

Boring.

I kill siege lines. More game for me once this hits.

ClockworkArc

Xiphyla wrote: »

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

I think these proposed changes are huge and have real potential to make for interesting small group defense of keeps. Props to those people who worked on them.

There seems to be a lot of QQ going on in regards to the nonpurgable healing debuff. Pretty sure the idea is that people are supposed to use shields to counter act this, thus forcing zergs to react to the type of damage being done with heals or shields, or manage their stamina efficiently enough so they can dodgeroll. All things that force the zerg to split up into more manageable bite-sized meals and provide a higher skill-cap for play.

I think this is a really positive change.

You must be joking right ? When a 24man fights a 8 or 10man , the 24man just need 2 people put down 2 meatbag and aim at the 10man , so the other 22man will keep chasing the 10man and hit them if the 10man push to the meatbag. So can you tell me whose going to benefit from the non-purgeable healing debuff more ?

To be honest , this non-purgeable healing debuff = the most stupid changes ever if it goes through.

Conclusion : Big group will benefit more than small group.

I understand your point but isn't the purpose of this to force people to not stand in siege? A single meatbag won't kill you but it will make you run and hide.

Currently if a 24- man group is hit by a meatbag, they basically just stand there and heal themselves / purge. Correct?

Currently, if a 10-man group gets hit by a meatbag and is also being chased by most of the previous group. Will they continue to clump or will they re-position themselves intelligently?

If a 24-man group gets hit by a meatbag and CAN'T out heal/purge the damage, will they just stand there and spam aoe or will they move?

It's pretty easy to counter siege... you just walk away from it. This change would prohibit large groups from just tanking siege, which is realistically an unreasonable strategy in the first place.

The onus is on the 10-man group to play intelligently, use terrain, keep walls, and such to fight a group over twice the size of themselves. So not square off against a 24-man group in open ground. That doesn't make any sense in the first place.

EDIT:

Currently, being hit by a meatbag ENCOURAGES you to group to run to your healer for the purge. The counter play to siege should be NOT being hit by siege. Not standing in a pile.

It's obvious the 10man aint going to stay in 1 place to purge and heal. Look at it this way , 10man is on mobile , the 22man chase and use cc to try to lockdown as many people as they can , eventually the 10man going to get outresource because they being outnumber heavily and get hit by meatbag right , it's not like the 24man are so dumb that they dont know how to move thier meatbag around in a versatile way. If you say by always moving away , how long can u run ? From one end of the map to another end of the map ? What they need to do is make meatbag purgeable but make it cost like 3 or 4 times more , so people cant spam purge or have a purge immunity like after u get purged , you cant be purge for another 5-8 secs.

Haha, I never said the smaller group was going to win. I don't particularly care about the 10 man group winning. They are outnumbered.

It matters that there are mechanics in this game that currently reward grouping under siege, such as the siege shield and purge. I like the idea that there is one type of siege that encourages dispersion or alternative tactics which force healers to use different strategies to combat what is going on, rather than just using random healing spells and purging.

I do also like your idea of making purge cost more to remove the effect.

Potentially another solution could just be that purge only purges one effect and does not provide the 50% negative effect reduction and that the meatbag is purge-able. Which would overall force healers to decide if purging every effect that hits the group is worthwhile (and meatbag would be worth it) or if they should conserve mana and/or pop shields / out heal the DoTs or other negative effects instead.

I personally don't like that one ability can remove 2 harmful effects from 6 people AND provide 50% immunity to incoming negative effects for 6 seconds and takes 1 second to cast. There has to be some sort of meaningful counter-play to that.

frozywozy

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS!

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!

I'm trying to figure out how larger groups can setup more sieges while they try to run inside an enemy breach and take possession of the courtyard, then run inside the inner breach and take possession of the flags? Explain that to me please with a screenshot maybe because I cannot see your point.

While defending a keep, it is crucial that the defenders have a MAJOR ADVANTAGE if properly prepared with sieges aiming at the breach. The way it is right now, blobs can easily get inside ONE SINGLE BREACH while spamming their barriers and purges which is UNACCEPTABLE. They should be forced to bring an additional wall down or to spread out in smaller groups and to time their movements between each siege volley.

All of you who claim that buffing sieges favor larger groups have in mind openfield battles which barely have any impact on the course of the campaign and the scoring system.

Xsorus

Ezareth wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

This all sounds great Brian. Siege used to be the primary counter to ball groups back in the day when Oil catapults and meatbags meant something.

To all the people talking about 10 man versus 30 man being hurt by this you're crazy. This isn't about 10 man groups being given something to be able to kill 30 people. It is about giving that lone guy who isn't a 500CP PvP Superstar a way to contribute to the fight. Now he can spend his hard-earned AP on a ballista and lay down some fire into the zerg ball that isn't going to be ignored. Enforced snares coupled with damage that cant be ignored (I *love* the resource draining idea) will make people consider twice about tightly condensing themselves into a nice easy target....especially now that ballistas will be much easier to aim and hit your targets.

Most exciting PvP News I've heard in a long while.

I'm also somewhat hopeful about the AoE buff changes being made and the potential performance implications.

I honestly think that Oil Catapult is going to be what screws the Zergball the most.....

I honestly see like 2 or 3 Pugs throwing that down in a fight; hitting the zerg ball with it..and it'll be a chain reaction of screwing of them.

They'll lose retreating manuevers cause they won't have stamina..They'll be snared from the catapult...and they'll soon be unable to break roots or other CC..and that'll be the end of them.

PainfulFAFA

Xsorus wrote: »

Ezareth wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

This all sounds great Brian. Siege used to be the primary counter to ball groups back in the day when Oil catapults and meatbags meant something.

To all the people talking about 10 man versus 30 man being hurt by this you're crazy. This isn't about 10 man groups being given something to be able to kill 30 people. It is about giving that lone guy who isn't a 500CP PvP Superstar a way to contribute to the fight. Now he can spend his hard-earned AP on a ballista and lay down some fire into the zerg ball that isn't going to be ignored. Enforced snares coupled with damage that cant be ignored (I *love* the resource draining idea) will make people consider twice about tightly condensing themselves into a nice easy target....especially now that ballistas will be much easier to aim and hit your targets.

Most exciting PvP News I've heard in a long while.

I'm also somewhat hopeful about the AoE buff changes being made and the potential performance implications.

I honestly think that Oil Catapult is going to be what screws the Zergball the most.....

I honestly see like 2 or 3 Pugs throwing that down in a fight; hitting the zerg ball with it..and it'll be a chain reaction of screwing of them.

They'll lose retreating manuevers cause they won't have stamina..They'll be snared from the catapult...and they'll soon be unable to break roots or other CC..and that'll be the end of them.

Of course it will. What better way to stop the steelnado trains?

I'm still wondering if the resource drain from sieges will stack? If they do, 3-4 oil catapults will completely drain them

Jhunn

Jammer480 wrote: »

Since when does massive war on a massive scale cater to small groups and single player combat? 90% of the negative comments indicate that people want to ride into pvp battles and win them all by themselves. Blows my mind that people in their teeny groups think they should be able to battle against an army at even the lowest level. The possibility of "300" being replicated should be extremely remote. I'm in favor of any changes that promote grand battles and death on an epic scale.

I think that the bigger the group, the more health and damage buff they should get. Single players going into pvp areas should get a damage and health debuff...so group up, it's about massive head to head battles! (which rarely happens anymore) Death to gank squads!

.....
..............

Plz be sarcasm

Leandor

I love this change already.

skillastat

Complaints, complaints never changes....

Seriously, just watch your feets and spread your 24-man group instead of balling up.

I think this update will be awesome for the zerg problem.

DHale

I am very happy about these changes. We have been running around in 8-9 person groups getting demolished by 20 to 30 person groups regularly on TF and AZ. We were getting Sieged at Alessia last night and I was on a meat bag hitting ppl for 2 to 3 k. No incentive to spread out or even get off siege for me as as a sieger, offensively or defensively. That said there are ppl in this reply line who hit ppl with 9 to 13 k wrecking blows on every shot. Much more than any seige that you can walk out of as its too slow to require a roll dodge. You know big red circles and all. Most notable are a certain DK scrub with his 14,663 wb this last weekend on Sej front porch. Geez wouldn't want any seige to compete with that. But go ahead and complain about seige damage.... Glad to see its only 50 percent damage reduction for some of us. Seems some ppl are only happy when they do the one shotting or in this case crit charge wrecking blow. That is almost as much skill as firing siege... I think.... nah. I think this is great thing for small groups and a bad day for those 30 person groups that can't really play but do know a thing or two about color patterns. We will see just how valuable black boot is when you can't take a keep then farm the keep with the scroll on a players back with 41 players against about 15 defenders. I would have liked some decent siege then.