You can take my door but you can't take my farm!

Poxheart

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

It's like you're on a mission to find ways to keep people from having fun playing this game.

GreenSoup2HoT

Imagine a line of siege side by side...... so cool. This change sounds great!

God_flakes

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

So you really think so?

*Satuday Morning 7 am*

*Loud knock on Stalker's door*

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

*Second longer loud knock*

*Stalker's wife (a khajiit) turns around in bed*

Stalker's wife: hhhhrrrrrmmmm, this one heard something. Honey wake up.

*Stalker's eyes open and blink a few times*

Stalker: Yeah I heard it.

*Third knock on the door. Notably more forceful than the previous two*

Stalker: *in a loud tone yelling across the house* OK! OK! Hold your horses!

*Stalker throws the comforter and bedsheets off of him, gets up, puts his feet into his favorite slippers (the khajiit ones his wife got him for his birthday a few birthdays ago), grabs his robe lying on a chair near the bed, begins walking out of the bedroom to go to the front door while tying the robe snuggly across his waist*

*Stalker unlocks and opens his front door*
*Two Dominion soldiers (Pixy Stix and Teapot) are standing on his porch*

Stalker: Can I help you two?
Teapot: Mr. Stalker?
Stalker: Yeah, that's me.

*Pixy Stix extends his arm out to Stalker*
*In Pixy Stix's hand is a scroll with the official seal of the Dominion on it*
*Stalker looks down at the scroll and then looks back up at the two soldiers*

Stalker: What the hell is this?
Pixy Stix: These papers are to inform you that YOUR FARM is now property of the Dominion. You and your family have one week to vacate.
Stalker: What!!!? Is this a joke!? Under whose authority!?
Teapot: Under the authority of High Commander Crown.

*Stalker angrily rips the scroll out of Pixy Stix's hand, breaks the seal, rolls it open and scans it for a few seconds*

Stalker: High Commander Crown!!! You two mother f[snip] come to my house at 7 am! Wake up my wife! And tell me that I no longer own my farm!!!???
Stalker: This farm has been in my family for generations!!! Great Great Great Granpappy Stalker settled here and started this farm! The corn fields here are the same fields he tilled!
Stalker: How will i provide for my family!!??

Teapot: That is of no concern to us. We follow orders.
Pixy Stix: You have one week to vacate the premises. If you fail to do so you will be found to be in contempt of these orders and the authority herein. You will be promptly arrested.

*Teapot and Pixy Stix turn around walk off Stalker's porch, and continue walking down the long driveway to the street where their horses are tied*

*Stalker angrily looks side to side*
*Stalker looks back down at the scroll clenched tightly in his fist*
*Stalker angrily with both hands crumples the paper into a ball and hurls it at the floor of the porch*

Stalker: AAAARRRGGGHHH!!! You two mother f[snip]!!!!!!!! How dare you!!!!!?? I am Stalker!!!! Mother f[snip]erssssss!!!!!!!!

Old McStalker had a farm!
E-I-E-I-O!
And on that farm he had a khajiit!!!
E-I-E-I-O!

With a meow meow here
And a meow meow there
Here a meow, there a meow
Everywhere a meow meow

Old McStalker had a farm!
E-I-E-I-OOOOOoooooOOOOOooooooOOO!!!!!

I just took your farm away.

Teapot

Asmael

WTB set to reflect ballista bolts.

MLRPZ

oh yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis

Sanct16

This is a horrible change.

If anything we need less sieges. Just wait for full raids to go upstairs in a big keep with a scroll and place 20 fireballistas aimed at the stairs being operated while the other 14 stand on top of the stairs with *** malubeth/reactive tankbuilds to just hold everyone on the stairs because hey you wont lack damage with 20 ballistas, thats for sure.

In the end the group that will profit the most is the casual zerglings that are happy if they can place 1 siege for every enemy and kill them without having to think about resource managment etc. just leftclick leftclick leftclick leftclick.

Zyn

IMPRESSIVE AF

Manoekin

Sanct16 wrote: »

This is a horrible change.

If anything we need less sieges. Just wait for full raids to go upstairs in a big keep with a scroll and place 20 fireballistas aimed at the stairs being operated while the other 14 stand on top of the stairs with *** malubeth/reactive tankbuilds to just hold everyone on the stairs because hey you wont lack damage with 20 ballistas, thats for sure.

In the end the group that will profit the most is the casual zerglings that are happy if they can place 1 siege for every enemy and kill them without having to think about resource managment etc. just leftclick leftclick leftclick leftclick.

But I love doing things like this Sanct! Fun, engaging gameplay. Left click best click.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsgXwB_tVBs

IxSTALKERxI

Before I get anyones hopes up, I took this screenshot for a bit of a laugh. If I had a small group I wouldn't be setting up like in the picture that's for sure. That much siege would only work if you had a 16- 20 man group camping the top floor. Using abilities is always the most important part, siege should just be there to help aid your groups dps output or heal debuff. It does still allow you to fit additional balista's with say a meat bag & oils etc though.

Sanct16 wrote: »

This is a horrible change.

If anything we need less sieges. Just wait for full raids to go upstairs in a big keep with a scroll and place 20 fireballistas aimed at the stairs being operated while the other 14 stand on top of the stairs with *** malubeth/reactive tankbuilds to just hold everyone on the stairs because hey you wont lack damage with 20 ballistas, thats for sure.

In the end the group that will profit the most is the casual zerglings that are happy if they can place 1 siege for every enemy and kill them without having to think about resource managment etc. just leftclick leftclick leftclick leftclick.

Haha yeah, it certainly helps the players with the larger group. You need enough players to operate siege while the others use abilities in order to take advantage of the siege changes.

It's a bit of a concern when you see posts from large guilds like the following:

NACtron wrote: »

I'm just thinking about how many cold fire ballistas we can set up as counter siege when defending keep. I approve of this change.

It could always backfire though, If a group sets up 20 siege on one side of the keep you could just go siege the other side and they won't be able to place counter siege coz of siege limit lol. If people over use siege their groups can become easier to wipe.

God_flakes

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Cogo

What the!?

Haha!

Rohamad_Ali

The farming will continue until moral improves !

Manoekin

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

When large groups use siege they put one of their monkeys on a ballista and tell him to point and click regardless of the situation because they don't expect them to use their brain to assess a situation and decide for themselves on what they should do. The evidence for this fact is that they will not get off their ballista or treb even if they are about to die. They will stay on it until their last breath trying to get one more left click off because they can't actually play their characters.

Small groups use them in their intended fashion. They are a way around AOE caps since siege damage is not capped itself. They apply helpful debuffs to large amounts of players. They use them to help even the odds. A player in a small group understands that when you fire a siege there is a reloading period, so they get off the siege and help by actually using abilities. Sometimes they go back to fire it again, sometimes once was enough.

I shouldn't classify it as big group/small group even. It's more just players with brains and those without. The ones without tend to just group up together is all, but that doesn't mean all large groups include such players.

God_flakes

Manoekin wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

When large groups use siege they put one of their monkeys on a ballista and tell him to point and click regardless of the situation because they don't expect them to use their brain to assess a situation and decide for themselves on what they should do. The evidence for this fact is that they will not get off their ballista or treb even if they are about to die. They will stay on it until their last breath trying to get one more left click off because they can't actually play their characters.

Small groups use them in their intended fashion. They are a way around AOE caps since siege damage is not capped itself. They apply helpful debuffs to large amounts of players. They use them to help even the odds. A player in a small group understands that when you fire a siege there is a reloading period, so they get off the siege and help by actually using abilities. Sometimes they go back to fire it again, sometimes once was enough.

I shouldn't classify it as big group/small group even. It's more just players with brains and those without. The ones without tend to just group up together is all, but that doesn't mean all large groups include such players.

It's funny you think you know what everyone is doing behind their screens and what their intentions are.

Luigi_Vampa

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

It is a spinoff, but none of the comments you were quoting were talking about the doors at all. I, nor leepalmer were talking about doors. We were talking about setting up siege in enemy resources and keeps.

It isn't hypocrisy. It is bad gameplay when a zerg has more siege out then the total number of people they are fighting against. Dropping 15 siege to take care of that 12 man group is just terrible gameplay. Using some strategic siege to even the odds against a zerg isn't bad gameplay.

I don't know you, or how you play in game. I've only read your comments and comments about you on these forums. From what I have read you seem to really dislike small groups, or at least a lot of the NA players that run in those groups. I'm not calling you a zergling or anything, but I am curious. You seem to dislike tower farms. Even those not relying on the door based on your distaste of the siege placement in that picture. (Which is obviously just for fun, no serious small man would set up that many sieges upstairs.) What kind of gameplay do you like? Farming has a place in this game. It doesn't always have to be full raids taking keeps against full raids. If you are getting farmed at resources or milegates, I can't help you. You don't need to engage those groups. If it is just the rest of your faction that is getting farmed there and it is frustrating all you can do is try to talk sense into them, leave them to their idiocy or to form your own group to do something intelligent on the map.

Like I said before, I don't know how you play and I'm not calling you a zergling, but you seem to only support zerging style gameplay. You seem to be against everything that helps a small group shake off or even the odds against the rampaging pug army.

Manoekin

God_flakes wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

When large groups use siege they put one of their monkeys on a ballista and tell him to point and click regardless of the situation because they don't expect them to use their brain to assess a situation and decide for themselves on what they should do. The evidence for this fact is that they will not get off their ballista or treb even if they are about to die. They will stay on it until their last breath trying to get one more left click off because they can't actually play their characters.

Small groups use them in their intended fashion. They are a way around AOE caps since siege damage is not capped itself. They apply helpful debuffs to large amounts of players. They use them to help even the odds. A player in a small group understands that when you fire a siege there is a reloading period, so they get off the siege and help by actually using abilities. Sometimes they go back to fire it again, sometimes once was enough.

I shouldn't classify it as big group/small group even. It's more just players with brains and those without. The ones without tend to just group up together is all, but that doesn't mean all large groups include such players.

It's funny you think you know what everyone is doing behind their screens and what their intentions are.

So you can't refute anything that I just said. We agree on something at last!

Unlike some people I can separate the game from reality. Maybe some of these people are very nice, but if they are a toxic player they are a toxic player. There's no exceptions made based on your personality in real life.

God_flakes

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

It is a spinoff, but none of the comments you were quoting were talking about the doors at all. I, nor leepalmer were talking about doors. We were talking about setting up siege in enemy resources and keeps.

It isn't hypocrisy. It is bad gameplay when a zerg has more siege out then the total number of people they are fighting against. Dropping 15 siege to take care of that 12 man group is just terrible gameplay. Using some strategic siege to even the odds against a zerg isn't bad gameplay.

I don't know you, or how you play in game. I've only read your comments and comments about you on these forums. From what I have read you seem to really dislike small groups, or at least a lot of the NA players that run in those groups. I'm not calling you a zergling or anything, but I am curious. You seem to dislike tower farms. Even those not relying on the door based on your distaste of the siege placement in that picture. (Which is obviously just for fun, no serious small man would set up that many sieges upstairs.) What kind of gameplay do you like? Farming has a place in this game. It doesn't always have to be full raids taking keeps against full raids. If you are getting farmed at resources or milegates, I can't help you. You don't need to engage those groups. If it is just the rest of your faction that is getting farmed there and it is frustrating all you can do is try to talk sense into them, leave them to their idiocy or to form your own group to do something intelligent on the map.

Like I said before, I don't know how you play and I'm not calling you a zergling, but you seem to only support zerging style gameplay. You seem to be against everything that helps a small group shake off or even the odds against the rampaging pug army.

I support ALL playstyles. I typically run with one or two people. On occasion if the mood strikes me I play with a guild or a larger group of friends. On occasion I find myself swept up in a wave of DC and I ride it happily, like most folks. I don't condemn large groups or small groups. I DO BOTH.

What I dislike is deliberate exploitive playstyles by punks in game who seem to only get enjoyment this way.

God_flakes

Manoekin wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

When large groups use siege they put one of their monkeys on a ballista and tell him to point and click regardless of the situation because they don't expect them to use their brain to assess a situation and decide for themselves on what they should do. The evidence for this fact is that they will not get off their ballista or treb even if they are about to die. They will stay on it until their last breath trying to get one more left click off because they can't actually play their characters.

Small groups use them in their intended fashion. They are a way around AOE caps since siege damage is not capped itself. They apply helpful debuffs to large amounts of players. They use them to help even the odds. A player in a small group understands that when you fire a siege there is a reloading period, so they get off the siege and help by actually using abilities. Sometimes they go back to fire it again, sometimes once was enough.

I shouldn't classify it as big group/small group even. It's more just players with brains and those without. The ones without tend to just group up together is all, but that doesn't mean all large groups include such players.

It's funny you think you know what everyone is doing behind their screens and what their intentions are.

So you can't refute anything that I just said. We agree on something at last!

Unlike some people I can separate the game from reality. Maybe some of these people are very nice, but if they are a toxic player they are a toxic player. There's no exceptions made based on your personality in real life.

I've refuted your statements again and again. I'm tired of repeating myself, Manoe. I am kicking myself for even engaging you-knowing what I now know about the kind of person you are. I think that word toxic is thrown around way too much on these forums. And I think people use these forums to put on a fake persona and then proceed to behave very different in game. At least l am consistent and don't put my fake on.

Luigi_Vampa

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

It is a spinoff, but none of the comments you were quoting were talking about the doors at all. I, nor leepalmer were talking about doors. We were talking about setting up siege in enemy resources and keeps.

It isn't hypocrisy. It is bad gameplay when a zerg has more siege out then the total number of people they are fighting against. Dropping 15 siege to take care of that 12 man group is just terrible gameplay. Using some strategic siege to even the odds against a zerg isn't bad gameplay.

I don't know you, or how you play in game. I've only read your comments and comments about you on these forums. From what I have read you seem to really dislike small groups, or at least a lot of the NA players that run in those groups. I'm not calling you a zergling or anything, but I am curious. You seem to dislike tower farms. Even those not relying on the door based on your distaste of the siege placement in that picture. (Which is obviously just for fun, no serious small man would set up that many sieges upstairs.) What kind of gameplay do you like? Farming has a place in this game. It doesn't always have to be full raids taking keeps against full raids. If you are getting farmed at resources or milegates, I can't help you. You don't need to engage those groups. If it is just the rest of your faction that is getting farmed there and it is frustrating all you can do is try to talk sense into them, leave them to their idiocy or to form your own group to do something intelligent on the map.

Like I said before, I don't know how you play and I'm not calling you a zergling, but you seem to only support zerging style gameplay. You seem to be against everything that helps a small group shake off or even the odds against the rampaging pug army.

I support ALL playstyles. I typically run with one or two people. On occasion if the mood strikes me I play with a guild or a larger group of friends. On occasion I find myself swept up in a wave of DC and I ride it happily, like most folks. I don't condemn large groups or small groups. I DO BOTH.

What I dislike is deliberate exploitive playstyles by punks in game who seem to only get enjoyment this way.

I can understand the hate against the doors on towers. Although it has been ages since I died at the first floor of a tower I was entering because I know what to do to get passed the kill zone and up to the second and third floor. And I know when it is just stupid to enter because you'll be farmed. For some people the door is buggy enough that it could be called an exploit if they can't respond fast enough. I understand that.

What I don't understand is why you are against siege in towers without doors? The enemy can carpet bomb the tower with siege from top to bottom without the door to protect the first floor. If we can't set up any siege to help kill the waves of enemy players that will be pouring in as siege is raining down on us, what is the point of that tower? We can't escape siege in it. We can't stop the enemy from pouring in, we can only use it to create a little bit of line of sight even though we can still be hit with siege in every inch of that tower. Now you want us to not even be able to put up some oil or a meatbag or anything to occasionally fire to try and even the odds? If that is the case why have the tower? At that point it is the most useless defensive building ever constructed.

Ghostbane

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

So you really think so?

*Satuday Morning 7 am*

*Loud knock on Stalker's door*

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

*Second longer loud knock*

*Stalker's wife (a khajiit) turns around in bed*

Stalker's wife: hhhhrrrrrmmmm, this one heard something. Honey wake up.

*Stalker's eyes open and blink a few times*

Stalker: Yeah I heard it.

*Third knock on the door. Notably more forceful than the previous two*

Stalker: *in a loud tone yelling across the house* OK! OK! Hold your horses!

*Stalker throws the comforter and bedsheets off of him, gets up, puts his feet into his favorite slippers (the khajiit ones his wife got him for his birthday a few birthdays ago), grabs his robe lying on a chair near the bed, begins walking out of the bedroom to go to the front door while tying the robe snuggly across his waist*

*Stalker unlocks and opens his front door*
*Two Dominion soldiers (Pixy Stix and Teapot) are standing on his porch*

Stalker: Can I help you two?
Teapot: Mr. Stalker?
Stalker: Yeah, that's me.

*Pixy Stix extends his arm out to Stalker*
*In Pixy Stix's hand is a scroll with the official seal of the Dominion on it*
*Stalker looks down at the scroll and then looks back up at the two soldiers*

Stalker: What the hell is this?
Pixy Stix: These papers are to inform you that YOUR FARM is now property of the Dominion. You and your family have one week to vacate.
Stalker: What!!!? Is this a joke!? Under whose authority!?
Teapot: Under the authority of High Commander Crown.

*Stalker angrily rips the scroll out of Pixy Stix's hand, breaks the seal, rolls it open and scans it for a few seconds*

Stalker: High Commander Crown!!! You two mother f[snip] come to my house at 7 am! Wake up my wife! And tell me that I no longer own my farm!!!???
Stalker: This farm has been in my family for generations!!! Great Great Great Granpappy Stalker settled here and started this farm! The corn fields here are the same fields he tilled!
Stalker: How will i provide for my family!!??

Teapot: That is of no concern to us. We follow orders.
Pixy Stix: You have one week to vacate the premises. If you fail to do so you will be found to be in contempt of these orders and the authority herein. You will be promptly arrested.

*Teapot and Pixy Stix turn around walk off Stalker's porch, and continue walking down the long driveway to the street where their horses are tied*

*Stalker angrily looks side to side*
*Stalker looks back down at the scroll clenched tightly in his fist*
*Stalker angrily with both hands crumples the paper into a ball and hurls it at the floor of the porch*

Stalker: AAAARRRGGGHHH!!! You two mother f[snip]!!!!!!!! How dare you!!!!!?? I am Stalker!!!! Mother f[snip]erssssss!!!!!!!!

Old McStalker had a farm!
E-I-E-I-O!
And on that farm he had a khajiit!!!
E-I-E-I-O!

With a meow meow here
And a meow meow there
Here a meow, there a meow
Everywhere a meow meow

Old McStalker had a farm!
E-I-E-I-OOOOOoooooOOOOOooooooOOO!!!!!

I just took your farm away.

Teapot taking orders. Huehuehue.

God_flakes

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

leepalmer95 wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

In theory you shouldn't be able to set siege inside a tower of a resource you don't own.

Why not, people can set siege up in keeps they don't own.

Unless you've broken down the outer you can't get into a keep to set siege. Only if you've exploited into a keep. Right? I think perhaps if zos had just made it impossible to set siege inside the tower of a enemy resource, they wouldn't need to get rid of the doors. I mean you can't go inside the tower of an enemy resource, so why should you be able to set siege in there?

If you are stealthed in an enemy keep when it is repaired you can set up siege after walls are up and it is no longer flagged. There are legitimate ways of being in a keep without having just smashed down the walls. This is the same idea.

Yeah, it's been done to prep a keep. But never to defend it. You have no need to defend a keep you don't own. You should have no reason to defend a tower of an enemy owned resource you don't own, either. I'm just thinking maybe they can leave the dang doors and simply prevent people from setting siege period. Problem solved.

Not really they've been a few times when i've been sieging a keep with a few other people and people call out a mega zerg coming to wipe us, so well all go into a tower and set up oils and such as it's easier to defend.

And guess what? Those towers don't have doors.

Why are you still talking about doors? We are talking about setting up siege in an enemy keep. You said you couldn't without exploiting or smashing down the walls yourself and I showed you otherwise. You then said you had no reason to use siege to defend yourself in an enemy controlled keep and @leepalmer95 showed you otherwise.

Because this discussion is a spin off from the one about the removal of resource tower doors. The pic is of a resource tower not a keep. This discussion is about farming, not defending. I also find it ironic that for many people upset about the removal of doors, who are insistent on continuing to attempt to farm....that siege is bad gameplay when large groups do it to defend but perfectly wonderful when their so called small groups use it to farm. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

It is a spinoff, but none of the comments you were quoting were talking about the doors at all. I, nor leepalmer were talking about doors. We were talking about setting up siege in enemy resources and keeps.

It isn't hypocrisy. It is bad gameplay when a zerg has more siege out then the total number of people they are fighting against. Dropping 15 siege to take care of that 12 man group is just terrible gameplay. Using some strategic siege to even the odds against a zerg isn't bad gameplay.

I don't know you, or how you play in game. I've only read your comments and comments about you on these forums. From what I have read you seem to really dislike small groups, or at least a lot of the NA players that run in those groups. I'm not calling you a zergling or anything, but I am curious. You seem to dislike tower farms. Even those not relying on the door based on your distaste of the siege placement in that picture. (Which is obviously just for fun, no serious small man would set up that many sieges upstairs.) What kind of gameplay do you like? Farming has a place in this game. It doesn't always have to be full raids taking keeps against full raids. If you are getting farmed at resources or milegates, I can't help you. You don't need to engage those groups. If it is just the rest of your faction that is getting farmed there and it is frustrating all you can do is try to talk sense into them, leave them to their idiocy or to form your own group to do something intelligent on the map.

Like I said before, I don't know how you play and I'm not calling you a zergling, but you seem to only support zerging style gameplay. You seem to be against everything that helps a small group shake off or even the odds against the rampaging pug army.

I support ALL playstyles. I typically run with one or two people. On occasion if the mood strikes me I play with a guild or a larger group of friends. On occasion I find myself swept up in a wave of DC and I ride it happily, like most folks. I don't condemn large groups or small groups. I DO BOTH.

What I dislike is deliberate exploitive playstyles by punks in game who seem to only get enjoyment this way.

I can understand the hate against the doors on towers. Although it has been ages since I died at the first floor of a tower I was entering because I know what to do to get passed the kill zone and up to the second and third floor. And I know when it is just stupid to enter because you'll be farmed. For some people the door is buggy enough that it could be called an exploit if they can't respond fast enough. I understand that.

What I don't understand is why you are against siege in towers without doors? The enemy can carpet bomb the tower with siege from top to bottom without the door to protect the first floor. If we can't set up any siege to help kill the waves of enemy players that will be pouring in as siege is raining down on us, what is the point of that tower? We can't escape siege in it. We can't stop the enemy from pouring in, we can only use it to create a little bit of line of sight even though we can still be hit with siege in every inch of that tower. Now you want us to not even be able to put up some oil or a meatbag or anything to occasionally fire to try and even the odds? If that is the case why have the tower? At that point it is the most useless defensive building ever constructed.

I'm not against siege in towers without doors. I was actually trying to come up with a way they could leave the doors because I can see both sides. I can see why the doors are needed for some small group play and can see why they're being removed to stop the clowning at the resources. I'd like to see a workable compromise everyone can agree on. Even if I think zos refuses to listen to us 99% of the time.

frozywozy

What I like about this change is the fact that if a farm group have siege setup already in a tight position, it will now be possible for players trying to wipe them to setup their own sieges closeby. Right now if a farm group setup 2 balistas inside a tower, there is no more space to put more and you must proceed to burn one before you can set your own.

WillhelmBlack

Sanct16 wrote: »

This is a horrible change.

If anything we need less sieges. Just wait for full raids to go upstairs in a big keep with a scroll and place 20 fireballistas aimed at the stairs being operated while the other 14 stand on top of the stairs with *** malubeth/reactive tankbuilds to just hold everyone on the stairs because hey you wont lack damage with 20 ballistas, thats for sure.

In the end the group that will profit the most is the casual zerglings that are happy if they can place 1 siege for every enemy and kill them without having to think about resource managment etc. just leftclick leftclick leftclick leftclick.

It is a horrible change, it isn't good for the current game but with battle grounds in the making we'll just leave the AvA stuff to the other guys. They can blow themselves up all they want! I just wish siege was only placeable within say 50m of a keep, then at least skirmishes can happen without some tool firing a fire ballista at you when you're 4v20 already.

Telel

Asmael wrote: »

WTB set to reflect ballista bolts.

It's not a set but cyrodiil's ward reduces siege and player damage.

Then there's that one dual wield skill that reduces AOE damage.

Oh, and the five piece bonus of leki's.

dashima

*Squinting* hey... isn't that...?

Rohamad_Ali

dashima wrote: »

*Squinting* hey... isn't that...?

Yes it is . Two Dorritos in a bowl .

Master_Kas

dashima wrote: »

*Squinting* hey... isn't that...?

Lol inb4 ban.

Ffastyl

Aren't you damaging the tower with every ballista bolt, eventually collapsing the roof and your farm?

Pchela

dashima wrote: »

*Squinting* hey... isn't that...?

Siege makes the AP come alive
I call upon the powers of the Dark Tower and I invite the great potatoes, you may enter.
Siegetanus
Siegetanus
Siegetanus
Siegetanus
Siegetanus
AP of the great potatoes, come to us.

BFT88

Hektik_V wrote: »

The yellows would love this change with their love for siege!

Touche good sir.

To the OP: Awesome picture lmao!!!