Siege Damage Should Be Temporarily Lowered For No-CP Week: Will Make Tests More Accurate

Talcyndl

Recremen wrote: »

@Talcyndl

Except that's not the point of the test from everything I can gather, and also your supposition has already been tested in the past and found to be completely unfounded. High siege damage gives advantage to zergs because they can place more of it down and faster. It is encourages the opposite of productive combat. I feel like nobody who wants high siege damage even played through the high siege meta, these arguments simply don't reflect the reality we faced when that was a thing.

I'm on Azuras full time. Siege is used effectively to counter zerging. Those of us who use it can effectively run multiple siege weapons to defend keeps and outposts from larger numbers. It is rarely used effectively by zergs.

Yes, in theory an organized large group can outsiege an opponent. But that is not what actually happens. Most of the time, they are focused on following crown and healing/dps'ing their little area.

That's not to say that 40 DC won't put down a bunch of random siege weapons and power through a keep take. But on balance, higher siege damage hurts bunched up groups more than it helps them.

Anazasi

Recremen wrote: »

@Talcyndl

Except that's not the point of the test from everything I can gather, and also your supposition has already been tested in the past and found to be completely unfounded. High siege damage gives advantage to zergs because they can place more of it down and faster. It is encourages the opposite of productive combat. I feel like nobody who wants high siege damage even played through the high siege meta, these arguments simply don't reflect the reality we faced when that was a thing.

I was here when that meta materialized. Large groups can place more siege yes but smaller more mobile groups can out maneuver it even now with the faster turn speeds of siege. You have to know when to drop it when to hold it and when to fire it. The next thing you need to know is once siege goes down groups are at their most vulnerable state. Why do you think the counter to this has been moving the group to the biggest threat on the field. This is going to be a fun week everyone needs to look not at the old meta's but realize the new advantages that are upon us.

Talcyndl

Anazasi wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

@Talcyndl

Except that's not the point of the test from everything I can gather, and also your supposition has already been tested in the past and found to be completely unfounded. High siege damage gives advantage to zergs because they can place more of it down and faster. It is encourages the opposite of productive combat. I feel like nobody who wants high siege damage even played through the high siege meta, these arguments simply don't reflect the reality we faced when that was a thing.

I was here when that meta materialized. Large groups can place more siege yes but smaller more mobile groups can out maneuver it even now with the faster turn speeds of siege. You have to know when to drop it when to hold it and when to fire it. The next thing you need to know is once siege goes down groups are at their most vulnerable state. Why do you think the counter to this has been moving the group to the biggest threat on the field. This is going to be a fun week everyone needs to look not at the old meta's but realize the new advantages that are upon us.

Yup.

It was nothing more than a theory put forth by people who ran/run in ball groups when they feared that ZOS would make siege effects non-purgeable.

Anazasi

The real issue here and since this thread was at its heart asking for additional changes to be made when they turn off CP, is battle spirit buff. I'm ok with the damage reduction, but the healing reduction is going to be crazy hurtful. You have to remember that Templar heals has been nerfed 7 times over the course of 3 years. CP 25% increased healing was the crutch that many healers relied upon. With CP being turned off the heal reduction of 50% should be dropped back to 30% as it was originally.

Rohamad_Ali

The siege , the battle spirit , the proc suits and all the classes need re balancing under no cp conditions . Most of the last round of nerfs were based on over performance with cp and some ... Well , I think Wrobel just went nerf crazy and decided to hit every class for Stendar knows what reason ...

But it all needs to be redone .

Recremen

@Talcyndl

That's because AZ by and large does not have good groups running in it. There's a huge difference between a bunch of scrubs running around getting easily sieged down and trying to fight large guilds who are actually reasonably competent and can field huge numbers of raids, like Pact Militia. Incidentally, their actual fighting potential increased enormously after the siege nerf, when they needed to use their abilities more. I will giggle fits if you have to fight a guild like that during the test week.

In any case, @Anazasi , @Talcyndl , and @Minno are all just confirming my initial predicate: that high siege damage results in fights that are entirely unlike what we see on live servers with high population, like Trueflame. As such, it is without a doubt that the damage should be temporarily adjusted downwards to ensure sound testing.

Anazasi

Recremen wrote: »

@Talcyndl

That's because AZ by and large does not have good groups running in it. There's a huge difference between a bunch of scrubs running around getting easily sieged down and trying to fight large guilds who are actually reasonably competent and can field huge numbers of raids, like Pact Militia. Incidentally, their actual fighting potential increased enormously after the siege nerf, when they needed to use their abilities more. I will giggle fits if you have to fight a guild like that during the test week.

In any case, @Anazasi , @Talcyndl , and @Minno are all just confirming my initial predicate: that high siege damage results in fights that are entirely unlike what we see on live servers with high population, like Trueflame. As such, it is without a doubt that the damage should be temporarily adjusted downwards to ensure sound testing.

Perhaps, Siege can be used effectively and stupidly. I have seen it done over the last 3 years and I will confess that it has gotten the better of me from time to time. You can ask any member that has witnessed my lectures on fighting: Siege has been and will always be the biggest damage against an enemy. It's been the only constant in PVP for 3 years. Without CP the players are stripped of the defenses against it and frankly I think it should be that way. There was a fight I had over a year ago a few AD players remember, when EP was attacking Alessia on the mine side. My group dropped 16 fire trebs on the ground behind the outer wall and timed the firing of them. We blanketed the field with damage killing 30 or 40 EP in under 2 minutes. The outer wall never fell below 20%. This was the intention of siege. Will this happen again? Well I'm not sure, maybe the conditions will repeat itself for this to happen, who knows... The fact will always remain siege is number 1 and when it can be used effectively, it should be. If the opposition is not smart enough to get out of the red, well that's no one's fault but theirs.

Minno

Anazasi wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

@Talcyndl

That's because AZ by and large does not have good groups running in it. There's a huge difference between a bunch of scrubs running around getting easily sieged down and trying to fight large guilds who are actually reasonably competent and can field huge numbers of raids, like Pact Militia. Incidentally, their actual fighting potential increased enormously after the siege nerf, when they needed to use their abilities more. I will giggle fits if you have to fight a guild like that during the test week.

In any case, @Anazasi , @Talcyndl , and @Minno are all just confirming my initial predicate: that high siege damage results in fights that are entirely unlike what we see on live servers with high population, like Trueflame. As such, it is without a doubt that the damage should be temporarily adjusted downwards to ensure sound testing.

Perhaps, Siege can be used effectively and stupidly. I have seen it done over the last 3 years and I will confess that it has gotten the better of me from time to time. You can ask any member that has witnessed my lectures on fighting: Siege has been and will always be the biggest damage against an enemy. It's been the only constant in PVP for 3 years. Without CP the players are stripped of the defenses against it and frankly I think it should be that way. There was a fight I had over a year ago a few AD players remember, when EP was attacking Alessia on the mine side. My group dropped 16 fire trebs on the ground behind the outer wall and timed the firing of them. We blanketed the field with damage killing 30 or 40 EP in under 2 minutes. The outer wall never fell below 20%. This was the intention of siege. Will this happen again? Well I'm not sure, maybe the conditions will repeat itself for this to happen, who knows... The fact will always remain siege is number 1 and when it can be used effectively, it should be. If the opposition is not smart enough to get out of the red, well that's no one's fault but theirs.

Thank you for the chubby. Death to those drunks!

RinaldoGandolphi

DeadlyRecluse wrote: »

Siege and NPC damage should be slightly lowered in no-CP environments in general, permanently.

LadyLavina wrote: »

If they do a no-cp week on tf/haddy , a lotttt of people are going to lose their sh*t and say f*** it for a week lol , the population will plummet.

but if such an event does happen, while i'd be against it happening at all, yes the siege dmg should be lowered.

The event is happening, but it comes with double AP to keep pops high.

No way the reason siege hits like it does is why the zergballs that survive on CP campaigns get wrecked by it on non-cp. siege is working as it was intended to work before everyone got too much CP

If you can't stand in stupid in trials or VMA and not die, you should not be able to stand in stupid in pvp period. Leave the red circle or get wrecked it's a very simple concept

RinaldoGandolphi

Recremen wrote: »

@Talcyndl

Except that's not the point of the test from everything I can gather, and also your supposition has already been tested in the past and found to be completely unfounded. High siege damage gives advantage to zergs because they can place more of it down and faster. It is encourages the opposite of productive combat. I feel like nobody who wants high siege damage even played through the high siege meta, these arguments simply don't reflect the reality we faced when that was a thing.

That's simply not true. Back during the siege buff I could wipe a whole raid at a resource tower with 4 people. Can't do that now because siege hits like a noodle most player skills deal more damage on a cp campaign

That myth was made up by zergers. Ask Hova and NM and their 4-6 man groups wiping whole raids with workable siege back in the day if it gave zergs some kinda advantage lol...too bad he doesn't play anymore

heystreethawk

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Good call.

Alright gang, huddle up; we're gonna be doing the "Swiss Miss" maneuver on the keep. I want every one of you manning 3 ballistae each on every single wall on the west and east sides, and then in 10 minutes time we're going to be darting through each of them breaches, one at a time, to "spread out" and make sure the enemies don't think their siege is gonna work. We'll meet up on the front door to high five and drop a siege shield on the tank, who's going to be one-man-ramming it; I think his pointy helm will give him a buff when he butts it into the door.

You're probably wondering why we've spent so much time watching Busby Berkeley films on raid night, and I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Men'Do at this juncture for the use of his personal screening room; call me crazy, but I don't think the classics pack the same visual "wallop" when translated to digital media. Anyhoo, I asked you to take notes on all the climactic synchronized swimming numbers, and we're going to put your storyboard breakdowns to good use on this next maneuver, which I call "Gilding the Lily Pad". We're gonna be pirouetting into the keep in unison, but again: one at a time, mirroring one another's movements on opposite sides, coalescing at the end to dodge roll through the flag. I reckon it will take the tank six minutes to solo ram through the FD, and he should be able to cast Guard on the other tank to brute force the flags.

Thank you for the advice on group play, Minno; the trials analogy helped me to remember the time I ran AA. Please drop me a line if you ever want to try out a blazing shield build.

It's not hard. Distract the enemy, purge/heal. A smaller group runs on the less crowded side and start seiging another hole. Once that wall breaks, reform the group at breach. This is keep taking 101...

No, it's not keep taking 101. It's fan fiction for armchair generals, the kind of stuff that sounds super clever on the page, but falls apart in practice 90% of the time. The people who talk about these tactics as if they offer an answer to anything either 1) play primarily in the daytime / on servers with small or inexperienced populations, or 2) do not substantially contribute to keep captures, ever. Perhaps you are both; I don't often play during the day.

If I have enough people in my group (let's say 16) to comfortably setup a second siege line, the enemies inside (who, unlike me, are immune to any substantial threat at this juncture) have enough people to set up a second counter-siege line while sipping margaritas. Maybe they don't even need to do that; one man can comfortably run several, because counter-siege pointed at the opposite side of the keep only needs to be about a foot away from the siege pointed at the other breach. Meanwhile, I have split my forces in half (8 on each side, in this example), so if a group of 16 shows up with enough hair on their chest to hop off the wall and use their abilities, my best bet is to reconvene my two groups at a third, equidistant location to fight them. Now, I either keep a few people behind at each siege line, in the hopes that they won't be run down by the larger group that is amassing at the keep-- pugs are spilling in by now, don't kid yourself-- or I abandon the siege altogether. Either way, I am at a severe disadvantage. I am sieged down, I am split up, and the walls are being repaired. If we beat the enemies, we start over, and the best case scenario is that the keep is still flagged and the wall that isn't fully repaired is at 80%. Your awesome tactic doesn't work, no matter how confidently you assert that it does.

Trials analogy was an insult. "Actors" playing a script event know the mechanics of avoiding red circles better than anyone that dies to seige. Trying to get the game to change to suit your mistakes, is not the right choice for balance.

I am aware that it was an insult, and I assure you that if it came from anyone who actually leads groups and takes keeps in the modern era of Trueflame, I would probably take offense. Why are you talking to me like you're my sensei?

For why nCP seige is better:

- gives smaller groups chance to funnel zergs to avoid the AOE caps. Seige, if I understand, ignores this. So if a 14 player group is defending a keep against two raids, they should have a chance to kill you.

They're not going to kill two raids. They will kill a few, who will be rezzed by the time the rest of the hydra arrives at the top. Siege does nothing against two raids, but it does a lot against a medium sized group (8-16). Siege is favored by large groups, who can spare the bodies to run it. Small and medium groups cannot.

- currently in TF, seige does nothing. Even against unorganized zergs its terrible. And it masks terrible groups from organized ones.

There is nothing I can say to this other than "no". I don't understand the part about the masks, though. Do you believe that you should be able to kill people with siege without having anyone else fighting them? Do you think you should just be able to one shot people from range? Is this the fundamental disagreement?

- rapids/mist form still let you ignore snares for entering keep breaches. The best counter to seige, and it's invincible in TF. I can ignore everything hitting me in mist form but the skill is performing as intended. It's because seige is underperforming in CP campaigns due to the dmg mitigation.

You can't exactly mist around forever though, can you? Not if you want to get anything done. Without CP, WHICH IS THE TOPIC AT HAND, you can mist once in a while. You can't just keep misting. However, the guys inside can keep clicking their mouse button until their ballista runs out. I don't think there's even a point here.

You're acting like you have something to teach me about group play, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression. Acting confident about what you're saying, and acting like I just finished the tutorial quest, does not make your words real.

I'll be happy knowing that ZoS removed your CP crutch for a week . I stopped running groups after Daniel turned NPK into CN. Idk why we are taking about this, or writing novels.

I can mist form fine in AZ, enough to go past a tough breach or use as a "fake block" but the reduced Regen will kill me if that is all I'm casting. But this is good because you want the action to represent meaning and that decision to have a setback if it's wrong. In TF can mist form from Arrius to Ales using channeled focus and pots on 1400 mag recovery. You only need mist form anyway to go thru a breach, not stand there soaking up dmg.

I'm not teaching you anything. Except that seige in AZ/nCP is not the seige buff a few DLC updates ago and that nCP might actually be great for pvp.

I'll be happy knowing that I spent a week of physical therapy in Azura's beforehand, walking just fine! We are talking about this because you refuted my statements with over-simplified and irrelevant playstyle suggestions, as if there were some extremely basic tenets of group PvP that neither myself nor the illustrious thread author had considered, despite our group PvP presence and pedigree. You referred to an imaginary situation as "keep taking 101", as though we were students, and you were an upperclassman, if not the professor himself. That is our primary disagreement, because as you said, you have not led groups in an extremely long time.

However, it seems to have been cleared up-- and I think non-CP is very nice aside from the siege, I will note-- so we can move on.

Anazasi wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Good call.

Alright gang, huddle up; we're gonna be doing the "Swiss Miss" maneuver on the keep. I want every one of you manning 3 ballistae each on every single wall on the west and east sides, and then in 10 minutes time we're going to be darting through each of them breaches, one at a time, to "spread out" and make sure the enemies don't think their siege is gonna work. We'll meet up on the front door to high five and drop a siege shield on the tank, who's going to be one-man-ramming it; I think his pointy helm will give him a buff when he butts it into the door.

You're probably wondering why we've spent so much time watching Busby Berkeley films on raid night, and I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Men'Do at this juncture for the use of his personal screening room; call me crazy, but I don't think the classics pack the same visual "wallop" when translated to digital media. Anyhoo, I asked you to take notes on all the climactic synchronized swimming numbers, and we're going to put your storyboard breakdowns to good use on this next maneuver, which I call "Gilding the Lily Pad". We're gonna be pirouetting into the keep in unison, but again: one at a time, mirroring one another's movements on opposite sides, coalescing at the end to dodge roll through the flag. I reckon it will take the tank six minutes to solo ram through the FD, and he should be able to cast Guard on the other tank to brute force the flags.

Thank you for the advice on group play, Minno; the trials analogy helped me to remember the time I ran AA. Please drop me a line if you ever want to try out a blazing shield build.

It's not hard. Distract the enemy, purge/heal. A smaller group runs on the less crowded side and start seiging another hole. Once that wall breaks, reform the group at breach. This is keep taking 101...

No, it's not keep taking 101. It's fan fiction for armchair generals, the kind of stuff that sounds super clever on the page, but falls apart in practice 90% of the time. The people who talk about these tactics as if they offer an answer to anything either 1) play primarily in the daytime / on servers with small or inexperienced populations, or 2) do not substantially contribute to keep captures, ever. Perhaps you are both; I don't often play during the day.

If I have enough people in my group (let's say 16) to comfortably setup a second siege line, the enemies inside (who, unlike me, are immune to any substantial threat at this juncture) have enough people to set up a second counter-siege line while sipping margaritas. Maybe they don't even need to do that; one man can comfortably run several, because counter-siege pointed at the opposite side of the keep only needs to be about a foot away from the siege pointed at the other breach. Meanwhile, I have split my forces in half (8 on each side, in this example), so if a group of 16 shows up with enough hair on their chest to hop off the wall and use their abilities, my best bet is to reconvene my two groups at a third, equidistant location to fight them. Now, I either keep a few people behind at each siege line, in the hopes that they won't be run down by the larger group that is amassing at the keep-- pugs are spilling in by now, don't kid yourself-- or I abandon the siege altogether. Either way, I am at a severe disadvantage. I am sieged down, I am split up, and the walls are being repaired. If we beat the enemies, we start over, and the best case scenario is that the keep is still flagged and the wall that isn't fully repaired is at 80%. Your awesome tactic doesn't work, no matter how confidently you assert that it does.

Trials analogy was an insult. "Actors" playing a script event know the mechanics of avoiding red circles better than anyone that dies to seige. Trying to get the game to change to suit your mistakes, is not the right choice for balance.

I am aware that it was an insult, and I assure you that if it came from anyone who actually leads groups and takes keeps in the modern era of Trueflame, I would probably take offense. Why are you talking to me like you're my sensei?

For why nCP seige is better:

- gives smaller groups chance to funnel zergs to avoid the AOE caps. Seige, if I understand, ignores this. So if a 14 player group is defending a keep against two raids, they should have a chance to kill you.

They're not going to kill two raids. They will kill a few, who will be rezzed by the time the rest of the hydra arrives at the top. Siege does nothing against two raids, but it does a lot against a medium sized group (8-16). Siege is favored by large groups, who can spare the bodies to run it. Small and medium groups cannot.

- currently in TF, seige does nothing. Even against unorganized zergs its terrible. And it masks terrible groups from organized ones.

There is nothing I can say to this other than "no". I don't understand the part about the masks, though. Do you believe that you should be able to kill people with siege without having anyone else fighting them? Do you think you should just be able to one shot people from range? Is this the fundamental disagreement?

- rapids/mist form still let you ignore snares for entering keep breaches. The best counter to seige, and it's invincible in TF. I can ignore everything hitting me in mist form but the skill is performing as intended. It's because seige is underperforming in CP campaigns due to the dmg mitigation.

You can't exactly mist around forever though, can you? Not if you want to get anything done. Without CP, WHICH IS THE TOPIC AT HAND, you can mist once in a while. You can't just keep misting. However, the guys inside can keep clicking their mouse button until their ballista runs out. I don't think there's even a point here.

You're acting like you have something to teach me about group play, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression. Acting confident about what you're saying, and acting like I just finished the tutorial quest, does not make your words real.

Josh this is going to be fun...I'm thinking we gather the old Campaign 1 generation here and play just like the good old days.....

I'm into that! Anyone have a spell to summon Lunamarie?

Domander

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

This, champion points let players easily just stand in siege. Siege is supposed to be effective. It is really only working as it should on Azura's right now. Even on Azura's you can still stand in it with decent healing. A siege shield makes it even easier.

I will give an example. I was on Haderus very late one night trying to defend against a group of 4 ramming the front door. I dumped 2 oils and dropped a standard (area healing debuff) on them, they just stood there, that combo used to wipe groups that stayed in it.

Recremen

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

@Talcyndl

Except that's not the point of the test from everything I can gather, and also your supposition has already been tested in the past and found to be completely unfounded. High siege damage gives advantage to zergs because they can place more of it down and faster. It is encourages the opposite of productive combat. I feel like nobody who wants high siege damage even played through the high siege meta, these arguments simply don't reflect the reality we faced when that was a thing.

That's simply not true. Back during the siege buff I could wipe a whole raid at a resource tower with 4 people. Can't do that now because siege hits like a noodle most player skills deal more damage on a cp campaign

That myth was made up by zergers. Ask Hova and NM and their 4-6 man groups wiping whole raids with workable siege back in the day if it gave zergs some kinda advantage lol...too bad he doesn't play anymore

@RinaldoGandolphi

Oh you mean back when resource towers had doors that forced your guard to be down? Yeah, we all could wipe huge numbers of people in those conditions, now you have to actually have a lot of skill or a lot of people to farm in resource towers. Also you're only talking about a single type of fight, you have to also account for keep takes and open-field fighting. Either way you're admitting to using siege as a crutch for a lack of player damage, so I wouldn't exactly talk so proudly about it. And no, most players' AoE skills are still outshined by siege, even on a CP campaign, but that's tempered by the fact that on CP campaigns people want to actually get into fights and not be knows as point-and-click heroes.

Personally I'd love to see Hova and NM try to take on a guild like Pact Militia in open field with high siege damage. Watching such a belief go up in flames around you sounds like a thoroughly entertaining experience. Either way, changing player behavior doesn't seem to be the point of the test they're doing, so implying that siege would cause a different dynamic at keep and open-field fights completely validates this posts' premise.

NightbladeMechanics

But I want to wipe zergs with one button....

Oh wait...

Anazasi

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Good call.

Alright gang, huddle up; we're gonna be doing the "Swiss Miss" maneuver on the keep. I want every one of you manning 3 ballistae each on every single wall on the west and east sides, and then in 10 minutes time we're going to be darting through each of them breaches, one at a time, to "spread out" and make sure the enemies don't think their siege is gonna work. We'll meet up on the front door to high five and drop a siege shield on the tank, who's going to be one-man-ramming it; I think his pointy helm will give him a buff when he butts it into the door.

You're probably wondering why we've spent so much time watching Busby Berkeley films on raid night, and I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Men'Do at this juncture for the use of his personal screening room; call me crazy, but I don't think the classics pack the same visual "wallop" when translated to digital media. Anyhoo, I asked you to take notes on all the climactic synchronized swimming numbers, and we're going to put your storyboard breakdowns to good use on this next maneuver, which I call "Gilding the Lily Pad". We're gonna be pirouetting into the keep in unison, but again: one at a time, mirroring one another's movements on opposite sides, coalescing at the end to dodge roll through the flag. I reckon it will take the tank six minutes to solo ram through the FD, and he should be able to cast Guard on the other tank to brute force the flags.

Thank you for the advice on group play, Minno; the trials analogy helped me to remember the time I ran AA. Please drop me a line if you ever want to try out a blazing shield build.

It's not hard. Distract the enemy, purge/heal. A smaller group runs on the less crowded side and start seiging another hole. Once that wall breaks, reform the group at breach. This is keep taking 101...

No, it's not keep taking 101. It's fan fiction for armchair generals, the kind of stuff that sounds super clever on the page, but falls apart in practice 90% of the time. The people who talk about these tactics as if they offer an answer to anything either 1) play primarily in the daytime / on servers with small or inexperienced populations, or 2) do not substantially contribute to keep captures, ever. Perhaps you are both; I don't often play during the day.

If I have enough people in my group (let's say 16) to comfortably setup a second siege line, the enemies inside (who, unlike me, are immune to any substantial threat at this juncture) have enough people to set up a second counter-siege line while sipping margaritas. Maybe they don't even need to do that; one man can comfortably run several, because counter-siege pointed at the opposite side of the keep only needs to be about a foot away from the siege pointed at the other breach. Meanwhile, I have split my forces in half (8 on each side, in this example), so if a group of 16 shows up with enough hair on their chest to hop off the wall and use their abilities, my best bet is to reconvene my two groups at a third, equidistant location to fight them. Now, I either keep a few people behind at each siege line, in the hopes that they won't be run down by the larger group that is amassing at the keep-- pugs are spilling in by now, don't kid yourself-- or I abandon the siege altogether. Either way, I am at a severe disadvantage. I am sieged down, I am split up, and the walls are being repaired. If we beat the enemies, we start over, and the best case scenario is that the keep is still flagged and the wall that isn't fully repaired is at 80%. Your awesome tactic doesn't work, no matter how confidently you assert that it does.

Trials analogy was an insult. "Actors" playing a script event know the mechanics of avoiding red circles better than anyone that dies to seige. Trying to get the game to change to suit your mistakes, is not the right choice for balance.

I am aware that it was an insult, and I assure you that if it came from anyone who actually leads groups and takes keeps in the modern era of Trueflame, I would probably take offense. Why are you talking to me like you're my sensei?

For why nCP seige is better:

- gives smaller groups chance to funnel zergs to avoid the AOE caps. Seige, if I understand, ignores this. So if a 14 player group is defending a keep against two raids, they should have a chance to kill you.

They're not going to kill two raids. They will kill a few, who will be rezzed by the time the rest of the hydra arrives at the top. Siege does nothing against two raids, but it does a lot against a medium sized group (8-16). Siege is favored by large groups, who can spare the bodies to run it. Small and medium groups cannot.

- currently in TF, seige does nothing. Even against unorganized zergs its terrible. And it masks terrible groups from organized ones.

There is nothing I can say to this other than "no". I don't understand the part about the masks, though. Do you believe that you should be able to kill people with siege without having anyone else fighting them? Do you think you should just be able to one shot people from range? Is this the fundamental disagreement?

- rapids/mist form still let you ignore snares for entering keep breaches. The best counter to seige, and it's invincible in TF. I can ignore everything hitting me in mist form but the skill is performing as intended. It's because seige is underperforming in CP campaigns due to the dmg mitigation.

You can't exactly mist around forever though, can you? Not if you want to get anything done. Without CP, WHICH IS THE TOPIC AT HAND, you can mist once in a while. You can't just keep misting. However, the guys inside can keep clicking their mouse button until their ballista runs out. I don't think there's even a point here.

You're acting like you have something to teach me about group play, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression. Acting confident about what you're saying, and acting like I just finished the tutorial quest, does not make your words real.

I'll be happy knowing that ZoS removed your CP crutch for a week . I stopped running groups after Daniel turned NPK into CN. Idk why we are taking about this, or writing novels.

I can mist form fine in AZ, enough to go past a tough breach or use as a "fake block" but the reduced Regen will kill me if that is all I'm casting. But this is good because you want the action to represent meaning and that decision to have a setback if it's wrong. In TF can mist form from Arrius to Ales using channeled focus and pots on 1400 mag recovery. You only need mist form anyway to go thru a breach, not stand there soaking up dmg.

I'm not teaching you anything. Except that seige in AZ/nCP is not the seige buff a few DLC updates ago and that nCP might actually be great for pvp.

I'll be happy knowing that I spent a week of physical therapy in Azura's beforehand, walking just fine! We are talking about this because you refuted my statements with over-simplified and irrelevant playstyle suggestions, as if there were some extremely basic tenets of group PvP that neither myself nor the illustrious thread author had considered, despite our group PvP presence and pedigree. You referred to an imaginary situation as "keep taking 101", as though we were students, and you were an upperclassman, if not the professor himself. That is our primary disagreement, because as you said, you have not led groups in an extremely long time.

However, it seems to have been cleared up-- and I think non-CP is very nice aside from the siege, I will note-- so we can move on.

Anazasi wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Minno wrote: »

heystreethawk wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

Agreed. Lowering seige damage promotes unhealthy zerging and dumb-ball group play because you'll just outheal and don't need to run purge.

There are counters available (seige seige, avoid red circles, and group purge and healing). Use them and let's get back to playing.

That's not the case without CP, in part from a lack of mitigation against the unchanged base damage of a ballista, and in part because you just can't purge or heal enough to get through it. You think we don't drop already drop siege shield on a regular CP-enabled day? And what's this about purge; what does purging mean? This isn't an l2p lesson; these intimately familiar counter measures are not enough in a no-CP ballgame.

People overuse the siege on AZ, because they can lob off ridiculous amounts of damage at absolute minimal risk. It winds up promoting bad practices like zerging, because how else are you going to make it into a keep? And more dangerously, it makes for bad soldiers; people who can't handle themselves in Actual Big Boy Combat because they've learned that siege is the most effective way to deal damage, so they get really good at clicking on the ground at the right moment from inside of the keep. I don't want my children to inherit a Cyrodiil populated entirely by people RPing as drone pilots.

Spread out? If this was a trial, you'd learn to not stack if the mob was dishing out extra dmg the more players they hit.

They only use seige because you are letting them think it can work. I only died to seige last night once in AZ and it was because I didn't realize I got hit and let it do full dmg on me. That's not a seige problem, that's a player mistake which rewarded the enemy.

Good call.

Alright gang, huddle up; we're gonna be doing the "Swiss Miss" maneuver on the keep. I want every one of you manning 3 ballistae each on every single wall on the west and east sides, and then in 10 minutes time we're going to be darting through each of them breaches, one at a time, to "spread out" and make sure the enemies don't think their siege is gonna work. We'll meet up on the front door to high five and drop a siege shield on the tank, who's going to be one-man-ramming it; I think his pointy helm will give him a buff when he butts it into the door.

You're probably wondering why we've spent so much time watching Busby Berkeley films on raid night, and I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Men'Do at this juncture for the use of his personal screening room; call me crazy, but I don't think the classics pack the same visual "wallop" when translated to digital media. Anyhoo, I asked you to take notes on all the climactic synchronized swimming numbers, and we're going to put your storyboard breakdowns to good use on this next maneuver, which I call "Gilding the Lily Pad". We're gonna be pirouetting into the keep in unison, but again: one at a time, mirroring one another's movements on opposite sides, coalescing at the end to dodge roll through the flag. I reckon it will take the tank six minutes to solo ram through the FD, and he should be able to cast Guard on the other tank to brute force the flags.

Thank you for the advice on group play, Minno; the trials analogy helped me to remember the time I ran AA. Please drop me a line if you ever want to try out a blazing shield build.

It's not hard. Distract the enemy, purge/heal. A smaller group runs on the less crowded side and start seiging another hole. Once that wall breaks, reform the group at breach. This is keep taking 101...

No, it's not keep taking 101. It's fan fiction for armchair generals, the kind of stuff that sounds super clever on the page, but falls apart in practice 90% of the time. The people who talk about these tactics as if they offer an answer to anything either 1) play primarily in the daytime / on servers with small or inexperienced populations, or 2) do not substantially contribute to keep captures, ever. Perhaps you are both; I don't often play during the day.

If I have enough people in my group (let's say 16) to comfortably setup a second siege line, the enemies inside (who, unlike me, are immune to any substantial threat at this juncture) have enough people to set up a second counter-siege line while sipping margaritas. Maybe they don't even need to do that; one man can comfortably run several, because counter-siege pointed at the opposite side of the keep only needs to be about a foot away from the siege pointed at the other breach. Meanwhile, I have split my forces in half (8 on each side, in this example), so if a group of 16 shows up with enough hair on their chest to hop off the wall and use their abilities, my best bet is to reconvene my two groups at a third, equidistant location to fight them. Now, I either keep a few people behind at each siege line, in the hopes that they won't be run down by the larger group that is amassing at the keep-- pugs are spilling in by now, don't kid yourself-- or I abandon the siege altogether. Either way, I am at a severe disadvantage. I am sieged down, I am split up, and the walls are being repaired. If we beat the enemies, we start over, and the best case scenario is that the keep is still flagged and the wall that isn't fully repaired is at 80%. Your awesome tactic doesn't work, no matter how confidently you assert that it does.

Trials analogy was an insult. "Actors" playing a script event know the mechanics of avoiding red circles better than anyone that dies to seige. Trying to get the game to change to suit your mistakes, is not the right choice for balance.

I am aware that it was an insult, and I assure you that if it came from anyone who actually leads groups and takes keeps in the modern era of Trueflame, I would probably take offense. Why are you talking to me like you're my sensei?

For why nCP seige is better:

- gives smaller groups chance to funnel zergs to avoid the AOE caps. Seige, if I understand, ignores this. So if a 14 player group is defending a keep against two raids, they should have a chance to kill you.

They're not going to kill two raids. They will kill a few, who will be rezzed by the time the rest of the hydra arrives at the top. Siege does nothing against two raids, but it does a lot against a medium sized group (8-16). Siege is favored by large groups, who can spare the bodies to run it. Small and medium groups cannot.

- currently in TF, seige does nothing. Even against unorganized zergs its terrible. And it masks terrible groups from organized ones.

There is nothing I can say to this other than "no". I don't understand the part about the masks, though. Do you believe that you should be able to kill people with siege without having anyone else fighting them? Do you think you should just be able to one shot people from range? Is this the fundamental disagreement?

- rapids/mist form still let you ignore snares for entering keep breaches. The best counter to seige, and it's invincible in TF. I can ignore everything hitting me in mist form but the skill is performing as intended. It's because seige is underperforming in CP campaigns due to the dmg mitigation.

You can't exactly mist around forever though, can you? Not if you want to get anything done. Without CP, WHICH IS THE TOPIC AT HAND, you can mist once in a while. You can't just keep misting. However, the guys inside can keep clicking their mouse button until their ballista runs out. I don't think there's even a point here.

You're acting like you have something to teach me about group play, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression. Acting confident about what you're saying, and acting like I just finished the tutorial quest, does not make your words real.

Josh this is going to be fun...I'm thinking we gather the old Campaign 1 generation here and play just like the good old days.....

I'm into that! Anyone have a spell to summon Lunamarie?

I have it shall I begin the spell symmetry chant......

usmcjdking

There is no issue with siege in Azura's or due to the lack of CP.

Any insistence that it is too powerful is ignoring the fact that siege is not meant to be ignored.

Aeko

I don't think regular siege is too bad on Azura's but I am a pro healing ward spammer in heavy armor with a good supply of DoT heals. Cold fire's can be oppressive sometimes though but most of the time as long as I don't have many on me while being rooted or otherwise unable to roll I'm ok. Siege is probably especially easy to deal with if you have a coordinated group but I have no friends so..

The only time when siege is super killer is when its stacked at a gate or there a couple of siege combined with oils, but that amount of siege should be able to serve its purpose and kill you.

Alcast

LadyLavina wrote: »

If they do a no-cp week on tf/haddy , a lotttt of people are going to lose their sh*t and say f*** it for a week lol , the population will plummet.

but if such an event does happen, while i'd be against it happening at all, yes the siege dmg should be lowered.

It will not because people want that juicy double AP

Mojomonkeyman

Anazasi wrote: »

The real issue here and since this thread was at its heart asking for additional changes to be made when they turn off CP, is battle spirit buff. I'm ok with the damage reduction, but the healing reduction is going to be crazy hurtful. You have to remember that Templar heals has been nerfed 7 times over the course of 3 years. CP 25% increased healing was the crutch that many healers relied upon. With CP being turned off the heal reduction of 50% should be dropped back to 30% as it was originally.

So basically, you want to eliminate one of the only things that make no-cp worthwhile - that healers are actually killable in reasonable time. The power and ease of healing is one of the largest root problems in eso. An abomination in cp campaign, still totally overperforming in no-cp.

Do you really want to imply that templars need some kind of healing buff in no-cp? Let me tell you something: You have absoluetly no clue on how to properly balance for quality pvp. Please stop pretending you do.

Anazasi

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

The real issue here and since this thread was at its heart asking for additional changes to be made when they turn off CP, is battle spirit buff. I'm ok with the damage reduction, but the healing reduction is going to be crazy hurtful. You have to remember that Templar heals has been nerfed 7 times over the course of 3 years. CP 25% increased healing was the crutch that many healers relied upon. With CP being turned off the heal reduction of 50% should be dropped back to 30% as it was originally.

So basically, you want to eliminate one of the only things that make no-cp worthwhile - that healers are actually killable in reasonable time. The power and ease of healing is one of the largest root problems in eso. An abomination in cp campaign, still totally overperforming in no-cp.

Do you really want to imply that templars need some kind of healing buff in no-cp? Let me tell you something: You have absoluetly no clue on how to properly balance for quality pvp. Please stop pretending you do.

I know nothing.

Recremen

@Wrobel and @ZOS_BrianWheeler , any comment on if this is getting looked into, or if this is even the purpose of the test week?

Minno

Recremen wrote: »

@Wrobel and @ZOS_BrianWheeler , any comment on if this is getting looked into, or if this is even the purpose of the test week?

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

As you saw in Matt’s 2017 roadmap, we are making Cyrodiil performance evaluation and fixing a priority this year. We want to make sure that Cyrodiil is a great PvP experience for everyone. Over the last year, we’ve made some good strides towards refining server performance across all campaigns, and we will continue down that path.

When looking into Cyrodiil issues, we definitely see (both in-game and through monitoring) situations where client and server performance degrade significantly when under high load. The small incremental changes we’ve made over the last year have helped, but they alone are not enough. So, we’re going to change our strategy a bit – which is the point of this post.

Simply put, Azura’s Star (the non-Champion Point campaign) runs much better, more efficiently, and is overall a much better PvP experience than the standard campaigns such as Trueflame or Haderus. Now that we’ve had a significant population density in Azura’s Star, we strongly suspect what has been theorized for a long time: Champion Rank passives and abilities are causing too much server load, especially in situations like Keep battles where there are tons of players in one place.

Because of this, we are going to run a series of PvP performance tests, and seig is impossible to simulate PvP load on our internal test servers (or on PTS), we will do this on all live servers on the dates of February 27 – March 6. This is not something we take lightly, and it is important that we evaluate performance when the server is under real-world load situations.

Our first test will be set up as follows:

• For a period of one week, all Champion Points will be disabled on all Campaigns on all platforms and megaservers
• During this time, AP gains in all Campaigns will be doubled, both to compensate for lack of CP and also to incentivize players to PvP so we can record as much data as possible
• Campaign durations and leaderboards will not be adjusted during this week

We encourage all players to continue their PvP activities in their respective Home, Guest, and Friends campaigns – we will be taking feedback and monitoring data on a daily basis during this test, and look forward to reading your constructive posts about server performance during the time of the test.

The results of this test will determine the next course of action for refining Cyrodiil server performance. Thank you for your perseverance and patience – we thoroughly appreciate your time, efforts, and feedback!

Thanks again, and see you in Cyrodiil!

-Wheeler

I'd say he already stated it; AZ currently functions better than TF or Had, and given the increased population density, they want to confirm how CP lags the server.

That means, unless they buffed TF seige but left AZ seige alone, that seige will not be changed. Seige hits on CP enemies will still send calculations to the server due to the dmg/mitigation calculations. So ideally to get the best test, is to test all campaigns at full pop to gather how nCP affects the server load, both skills and unchanged seige.

If TF seige was buffed and AZ unchanged, then we need seige to match current AZ levels.

Minno

Double post

Recremen

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

@Wrobel and @ZOS_BrianWheeler , any comment on if this is getting looked into, or if this is even the purpose of the test week?

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

As you saw in Matt’s 2017 roadmap, we are making Cyrodiil performance evaluation and fixing a priority this year. We want to make sure that Cyrodiil is a great PvP experience for everyone. Over the last year, we’ve made some good strides towards refining server performance across all campaigns, and we will continue down that path.

When looking into Cyrodiil issues, we definitely see (both in-game and through monitoring) situations where client and server performance degrade significantly when under high load. The small incremental changes we’ve made over the last year have helped, but they alone are not enough. So, we’re going to change our strategy a bit – which is the point of this post.

Simply put, Azura’s Star (the non-Champion Point campaign) runs much better, more efficiently, and is overall a much better PvP experience than the standard campaigns such as Trueflame or Haderus. Now that we’ve had a significant population density in Azura’s Star, we strongly suspect what has been theorized for a long time: Champion Rank passives and abilities are causing too much server load, especially in situations like Keep battles where there are tons of players in one place.

Because of this, we are going to run a series of PvP performance tests, and seig is impossible to simulate PvP load on our internal test servers (or on PTS), we will do this on all live servers on the dates of February 27 – March 6. This is not something we take lightly, and it is important that we evaluate performance when the server is under real-world load situations.

Our first test will be set up as follows:

• For a period of one week, all Champion Points will be disabled on all Campaigns on all platforms and megaservers
• During this time, AP gains in all Campaigns will be doubled, both to compensate for lack of CP and also to incentivize players to PvP so we can record as much data as possible
• Campaign durations and leaderboards will not be adjusted during this week

We encourage all players to continue their PvP activities in their respective Home, Guest, and Friends campaigns – we will be taking feedback and monitoring data on a daily basis during this test, and look forward to reading your constructive posts about server performance during the time of the test.

The results of this test will determine the next course of action for refining Cyrodiil server performance. Thank you for your perseverance and patience – we thoroughly appreciate your time, efforts, and feedback!

Thanks again, and see you in Cyrodiil!

-Wheeler

I'd say he already stated it; AZ currently functions better than TF or Had, and given the increased population density, they want to confirm how CP lags the server.

That means, unless they buffed TF seige but left AZ seige alone, that seige will not be changed. Seige hits on CP enemies will still send calculations to the server due to the dmg/mitigation calculations. So ideally to get the best test, is to test all campaigns at full pop to gather how nCP affects the server load, both skills and unchanged seige.

If TF seige was buffed and AZ in changed, then we need seige to match current AZ levels.

@Minno

That's kind of the crux of my argument, though. Combat on AS is fundamentally different from combat on TF, and TF is the place where they are currently actually getting consistent poplock and consistent lag issues. Siege may also trigger certain defensive CP, but it is categorically less costly than a bunch of people spamming their various AoE skills, each of which activates both offensive and defensive CP passives, plus it occurs much more frequently than you could ever hope to fire siege. So since all campaigns are getting CP removed for the test week, it is important that the siege damage also be temporarily adjusted, otherwise they won't get combat on Trueflame that is properly representative of real-world Trueflame combat because it will devolve into people using siege as a crutch for the whole week. That will seriously impact the testing mission, if I'm reading into this correctly.

Minno

Recremen wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

@Wrobel and @ZOS_BrianWheeler , any comment on if this is getting looked into, or if this is even the purpose of the test week?

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

As you saw in Matt’s 2017 roadmap, we are making Cyrodiil performance evaluation and fixing a priority this year. We want to make sure that Cyrodiil is a great PvP experience for everyone. Over the last year, we’ve made some good strides towards refining server performance across all campaigns, and we will continue down that path.

When looking into Cyrodiil issues, we definitely see (both in-game and through monitoring) situations where client and server performance degrade significantly when under high load. The small incremental changes we’ve made over the last year have helped, but they alone are not enough. So, we’re going to change our strategy a bit – which is the point of this post.

Simply put, Azura’s Star (the non-Champion Point campaign) runs much better, more efficiently, and is overall a much better PvP experience than the standard campaigns such as Trueflame or Haderus. Now that we’ve had a significant population density in Azura’s Star, we strongly suspect what has been theorized for a long time: Champion Rank passives and abilities are causing too much server load, especially in situations like Keep battles where there are tons of players in one place.

Because of this, we are going to run a series of PvP performance tests, and seig is impossible to simulate PvP load on our internal test servers (or on PTS), we will do this on all live servers on the dates of February 27 – March 6. This is not something we take lightly, and it is important that we evaluate performance when the server is under real-world load situations.

Our first test will be set up as follows:

• For a period of one week, all Champion Points will be disabled on all Campaigns on all platforms and megaservers
• During this time, AP gains in all Campaigns will be doubled, both to compensate for lack of CP and also to incentivize players to PvP so we can record as much data as possible
• Campaign durations and leaderboards will not be adjusted during this week

We encourage all players to continue their PvP activities in their respective Home, Guest, and Friends campaigns – we will be taking feedback and monitoring data on a daily basis during this test, and look forward to reading your constructive posts about server performance during the time of the test.

The results of this test will determine the next course of action for refining Cyrodiil server performance. Thank you for your perseverance and patience – we thoroughly appreciate your time, efforts, and feedback!

Thanks again, and see you in Cyrodiil!

-Wheeler

I'd say he already stated it; AZ currently functions better than TF or Had, and given the increased population density, they want to confirm how CP lags the server.

That means, unless they buffed TF seige but left AZ seige alone, that seige will not be changed. Seige hits on CP enemies will still send calculations to the server due to the dmg/mitigation calculations. So ideally to get the best test, is to test all campaigns at full pop to gather how nCP affects the server load, both skills and unchanged seige.

If TF seige was buffed and AZ in changed, then we need seige to match current AZ levels.

@Minno

That's kind of the crux of my argument, though. Combat on AS is fundamentally different from combat on TF, and TF is the place where they are currently actually getting consistent poplock and consistent lag issues. Siege may also trigger certain defensive CP, but it is categorically less costly than a bunch of people spamming their various AoE skills, each of which activates both offensive and defensive CP passives, plus it occurs much more frequently than you could ever hope to fire siege. So since all campaigns are getting CP removed for the test week, it is important that the siege damage also be temporarily adjusted, otherwise they won't get combat on Trueflame that is properly representative of real-world Trueflame combat because it will devolve into people using siege as a crutch for the whole week. That will seriously impact the testing mission, if I'm reading into this correctly.

Your argument would alter the nature of the test, though. It would create a new playing environment, since we will be nerfing seige dmg when the dmg on AZ is only stronger because you lose CP bonuses (extra health from warrior tree, extra defense mitigation, elemental expert buffs, etc.).

Based on his standment, AZ functions because CP bonuses aren't impacting the player. That includes seige having an effect on the player, where on TF this isn't the case.

That's my argument, that we need to test AZ current playing standards on TF population primetime size. Not bring TF playing standards to AZ nCP requirements.

technohic

dotme wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. On CP-enabled campaigns, I can hurl cold-fire bolts running TWO ballistas at once towards a group attacking the front door of a keep, and they heal right through the hits. Counter-siege is supposed to hurt. If there are only two of you defending a keep against a large group of attackers, oil and ballistas are often the best option and IMHO they should be doing damage comparable to a destro-ult (except, of course, you can always purge and dodge counter-siege more easily than a destro-ult, where half the time you don't even see the animation and just die)

TLDR - Increase siege damage in normal CP-enabled campaigns, don't lower damage for the test week.

I agree. One of the side effects of CP seems to be no one giving an F about siege. I can remember when they bumped the damage up at the same time they introduced the cold-fire stuff. It seemed like it hurt a lot more then than even now in Azuras, but it might be due to more health points these days with more heavy armor wearers.

Recremen

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

@Wrobel and @ZOS_BrianWheeler , any comment on if this is getting looked into, or if this is even the purpose of the test week?

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

As you saw in Matt’s 2017 roadmap, we are making Cyrodiil performance evaluation and fixing a priority this year. We want to make sure that Cyrodiil is a great PvP experience for everyone. Over the last year, we’ve made some good strides towards refining server performance across all campaigns, and we will continue down that path.

When looking into Cyrodiil issues, we definitely see (both in-game and through monitoring) situations where client and server performance degrade significantly when under high load. The small incremental changes we’ve made over the last year have helped, but they alone are not enough. So, we’re going to change our strategy a bit – which is the point of this post.

Simply put, Azura’s Star (the non-Champion Point campaign) runs much better, more efficiently, and is overall a much better PvP experience than the standard campaigns such as Trueflame or Haderus. Now that we’ve had a significant population density in Azura’s Star, we strongly suspect what has been theorized for a long time: Champion Rank passives and abilities are causing too much server load, especially in situations like Keep battles where there are tons of players in one place.

Because of this, we are going to run a series of PvP performance tests, and seig is impossible to simulate PvP load on our internal test servers (or on PTS), we will do this on all live servers on the dates of February 27 – March 6. This is not something we take lightly, and it is important that we evaluate performance when the server is under real-world load situations.

Our first test will be set up as follows:

• For a period of one week, all Champion Points will be disabled on all Campaigns on all platforms and megaservers
• During this time, AP gains in all Campaigns will be doubled, both to compensate for lack of CP and also to incentivize players to PvP so we can record as much data as possible
• Campaign durations and leaderboards will not be adjusted during this week

We encourage all players to continue their PvP activities in their respective Home, Guest, and Friends campaigns – we will be taking feedback and monitoring data on a daily basis during this test, and look forward to reading your constructive posts about server performance during the time of the test.

The results of this test will determine the next course of action for refining Cyrodiil server performance. Thank you for your perseverance and patience – we thoroughly appreciate your time, efforts, and feedback!

Thanks again, and see you in Cyrodiil!

-Wheeler

I'd say he already stated it; AZ currently functions better than TF or Had, and given the increased population density, they want to confirm how CP lags the server.

That means, unless they buffed TF seige but left AZ seige alone, that seige will not be changed. Seige hits on CP enemies will still send calculations to the server due to the dmg/mitigation calculations. So ideally to get the best test, is to test all campaigns at full pop to gather how nCP affects the server load, both skills and unchanged seige.

If TF seige was buffed and AZ in changed, then we need seige to match current AZ levels.

@Minno

That's kind of the crux of my argument, though. Combat on AS is fundamentally different from combat on TF, and TF is the place where they are currently actually getting consistent poplock and consistent lag issues. Siege may also trigger certain defensive CP, but it is categorically less costly than a bunch of people spamming their various AoE skills, each of which activates both offensive and defensive CP passives, plus it occurs much more frequently than you could ever hope to fire siege. So since all campaigns are getting CP removed for the test week, it is important that the siege damage also be temporarily adjusted, otherwise they won't get combat on Trueflame that is properly representative of real-world Trueflame combat because it will devolve into people using siege as a crutch for the whole week. That will seriously impact the testing mission, if I'm reading into this correctly.

Your argument would alter the nature of the test, though. It would create a new playing environment, since we will be nerfing seige dmg when the dmg on AZ is only stronger because you lose CP bonuses (extra health from warrior tree, extra defense mitigation, elemental expert buffs, etc.).

Based on his standment, AZ functions because CP bonuses aren't impacting the player. That includes seige having an effect on the player, where on TF this isn't the case.

That's my argument, that we need to test AZ current playing standards on TF population primetime size. Not bring TF playing standards to AZ nCP requirements.

@Minno

Okay, then we're just in disagreement over interpretation of what the test is meant to do. I am under the impression that they're performing the test with the intent of figuring out where to focus the code refinement process for their next development cycle: either on the base game code or the CP system code. Since CP is going away for the week, it seems to me that they're trying to isolate the base game code and make sure that's still working optimally even under the highest stress conditions. The highest stress conditions have been on the most competitive campaigns, where well-practiced guilds duke it out using a huge number of abilities, many of which are AoE skills. Given those premises, toning down siege damage and potentially adding baseline skill cost reduction to battle spirit would ensure that we're still getting the highest-stress conditions, but while mostly only testing the base code.

So if those premises are correct, it's not altering the nature of the test to tone down siege, it's entirely in line with it. It's really a matter of whether or not they want to test Trueflame fighting conditions (high-skill play with a lot of AoE) but without CP, or if they just want to test AS playing conditions, but with Trueflame population density. I think that the first situation is more likely because there isn't really a good way to move forward with code refinement in the second situation. You'd just have a bunch of data for a fighting style that is incredibly dissimilar to what goes on in CP campaigns, and CP campaign performance appears to be what they're trying to improve. That makes sense, right?

t3hdubzy

Siege kills people? Been a while since i saw someone die to siege unless they were afk

Recremen

t3hdubzy wrote: »

Siege kills people? Been a while since i saw someone die to siege unless they were afk

@t3hdubzy

Concentrated siege fire can kill in any campaign, but people don't really do concentrated fire in Trueflame because people are mostly looking for actual fights. In AS siege is both even more lethal and even more common, since people are not looking for good fights as much.

t3hdubzy

Recremen wrote: »

t3hdubzy wrote: »

Siege kills people? Been a while since i saw someone die to siege unless they were afk

@t3hdubzy

Concentrated siege fire can kill in any campaign, but people don't really do concentrated fire in Trueflame because people are mostly looking for actual fights. In AS siege is both even more lethal and even more common, since people are not looking for good fights as much.

Id rather see how this works before they change anythings, its only 1 eeek but is prefer siege to be more dmg