What if hypothetically Cyrodiil and siege worked like this?

caeliusstarbreaker

Firstly, all siege would work in a fashion similar to rams. Do away with all the unneeded siege options, and make trebs, ballistas and meatbags have a 1-3 person rate of fire capability. They would function much like a crew-served weapon, one person aims and fires, the other 2 people "reload" or actually just sit there to be in zone to apply the tiered siege use system, where if it is just one person the rate of fire is slow, with 3 people on the siege rate of fire is increased. This would aid a little in lowering the 1-2 person in the back firing siege in a fight over and over constantly applying debuffs (in the light of new oncoming siege changes). Power of siege would again scale with members on it, much like rams. Oils would be 1 person fire and basically stay as is.

Secondly, use the vast map of Cyrodiil to add siege factories, that can promote small group pvp, as well as have bigger groups, or zone coordination as a method for their defense. These siege factories, through increments of 5 increase siege placement caps. So, with no factories, 5 siege cap, 1 factory-10, 2-15, so on and so forth. The increment numbers can change based on amount of factories that are displaced throughout Cyrodiil. Factories would work similarly like a resource, yes I know.. pve in pvp, however given that these little areas can and should appeal to smaller groups to fight for and defend, with their own offense and defense ticks, can help the larger groups in their overall "map tactics" view of Cyrodiil. If Zerg A goes to capture a siege factory, and then leaves Small Group X can come take it back when they leave thus negating their siege cap increase, so they would have to coordinate as a whole to leave behind Small Group Y to defend against Small Group X while Zerg A and Zerg B fight over a keep.

You wouldn't have to modify wall HP, you would have to apply different dmg values to siege based on members on it, sieges would take longer by nature of it, players would be spread out to work efficiently as a faction, ie small groups can have their little LoS urban terrain based fighting, big groups can still have their keeps raids.

Ideally, this could all carry over into district fighting in IC. If siege increments were by a factor of 2-3, then in districts more factories or supply lines(where you get aforementioned increases by adjacent districts connecting to your home district allowing quicker more efficient sige etc) would encourage meaningful fighting across the IC districts, as well as sewers being that they would force people to power through a district by district capturing objectives, or clandestine insertion via sewers.

Big picture of intertwining everything and making siege more team oriented to use, as well as other objectives for people of all playstyles to find pvp at, I personally think that it would add a cohesive coordination of an alliance as a whole, to spread out and engage in varying styles of pvp.

Your thoughts?

PosternHouse

Hire this man!

Forcebuster

@ZOS_BrianWheeler some good ideas

Keiryan

I like the idea of siege factories.. Cyrodiil needs to have some other sort of objectives and just be revamped in general to add more depth and layers to open world Cyrodiil.. I think a new PvP zone would sort of destroy the community by splitting it apart. Adjustments need to be made to improve what we already have.

The big thing though that I agree with is that siege should require multiple people to operate.. I wouldn't mind the new siege changes at all if it took multiple people to operate siege because the main problem is that larger groups already have a number advantage.. and siege (specifically meatbags) is used all the time in open field. At least by requiring a group to off-load 2 - 3 people to operate a meatbag it would sort of balance out to the strength of the increased siege damage / the fact that healing debuffs won't be purgeable.

caeliusstarbreaker

The incoming siege changes definitely will further change the landscape of pvp.

As much as everyone is for it, I don't think arenas are necessarily the answer, albeit shouldn't be excluded. However, what we have handed to us in this game is objective based pvp, where the server strain at said objectives leads to decreased performance, and a pvx zone with no relevance or correspondence to the pvp zone.

By adding more objectives and taking what we have and linking relevance we can obtain the actual desired spread of combat to server strain ratio to make this model of pvp work with current hardware.

Overall I think it would make keep takes more significant, that 10-15% difference of owning resources to keeps not substantial, spread players out and encourage different and ever changing pvp dynamics through out. It would make open field combat a risk vs reward for small mobile groups to fight larger ones with the decision on which siege to implement and how many to leave on it for effectiveness, small groups could use tactics to out maneuver larger ones or using siege in an ambush opener.

IC would have some relevance, instead of being a stone/trophy/mats farming zone.

manny254

It would be something better than what we have now. The only issue I would see is how it would function on a dead/buff server. Although that is a whole other issue that has yet to be solved.

caeliusstarbreaker

@manny254 agreed... Dead/buff servers would be a different story.

I think to some degree they wouldn't be necessary if the heart of darkness that is lag, is predominately pin pointed to masses in one area and the mathematical calculations there in, then the "spread out band aid " would function well enough in and of itself by implementing reasons for people to fight else where. ...... In a perfect world.

Keiryan

Having repairing of walls become a channeled action would be a good idea too.. just have the resource in your inventory and it slowly drains as you repair

AbraXuSeXile

Firstly they should add a reason to give a toss about winning a campaign and sieging.

Poxheart

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Firstly they should add a reason to give a toss about winning a campaign and sieging.

What, you don't like getting 6 random gear with sturdy and exploration traits?

Mrs_Quietus

Does anyone else think they should buff siege shield as well due the to changes on siege???

Don't make fun of meh