Getting wrecked by catapults in the new summerset chapter and I'm a tank!

LoveForElderScrolls

I'm dying too fast to catapults near enemy keeps, even if there's a healer near me and I'm a tank. Now if the enemy players jump down from the walls that problem gets even worst. You have to fight other players near a keep they can respawn plus catapults which leave an area of effect for long with huge damage. If you are a small group you have no chance to siege a keep and your group will be wiped in 10 seconds if enemy players jump down from the wall and they have catapults support. I understand if you take a keep there are benefits to it but right now it's just impossible to siege a keep with a small group.

VaranisArano

Which campaign? No CP or CP?

On the CP campaign, the catapults are very effective currently, and I wish the siege shield skill affected their ground-based DOT too. Nevertheless, I haven't felt like I was dying too fast as long as I was careful or not facing an organized defense. I imagine its much worse in No CP.

Recremen

It's bad enough that they deal too much persistent damage that can't even be mitigated by siege shield, but then it has to go and be invisible 80% of the time. I think that the damage needs to be toned back significantly and they need to up the prioritization on its visual effect. I am less affected by most player abilities than I am by persistent catapult damage, so I'd rather have the indicators on catapults render with a higher priority than just about anything except a destro ult.

Master_Kas

Finally people do not go AFK while standing under siegefire and surviving. Good riddance I'd say.

Merlin13KAGL

Tank or not, it's a little absurd to think you should be able to just eat a siege to the face without skipping a beat.

Recremen

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Tank or not, it's a little absurd to think you should be able to just eat a siege to the face without skipping a beat.

No, it's a little absurd to apply real-world expectations to a game scenario. If we were to apply that then Cyro would be unplayable, people would die in one hit from a sword. Bow light attack spam would be the ultimate meta. That's just bad game design for this style of play. And why stop there! If we're talking real-world expectations then I shouldn't be able to fight a daedric prince buck-ass naked, yet here I am, flapping in the breeze, punching the lord of domination in his tender shins.

We need to be real about what siege is and what it's meant to do. Their two primary purposes are knocking down keep structures and area denial. If they're too good at knocking down keep structures we'd all cry that there's no point in having walled keeps as a game mechanic, and if they're too good at area denial then we'd all cry that there's no point in player abilities. Right now we are way too far towards that latter, point-and-click hero apocalypse and it's making for a worse play experience for people looking to actually compete in skilled combat. Toning it back a little would be to everyone's benefit.

Merlin13KAGL

Siege is intended for area deniability. Seems to be working as intended.

If it was one shotting, that would be one thing. Making you have to relocate a bit, quite another. It's a nice way for the enemy to say "Even though you're a tank, we'd really prefer you not stand right there."

There is a huge difference in speed of target acquisition between a player and an engine, giving both purpose when used tactically. Player skills will be faster, seige will reward with a much bigger hit, if you can land it.

zyk

I've always thought the whole 'left click hero' thing is as insulting as small group players who trash ball groups. As small group players are dismissive of what ball group players enjoy and consider entertaining gameplay, so too are those who insult players who enjoy siege combat.

There is no 'correct' answer about how powerful siege should be. It's entirely subjective. IMO, it should be extremely punishing in a game themed around attacking and defending objectives. Especially because it's so easy to avoid -- except when we can't see it which is a bug that must be addressed.

IMO, it should be the ultimate counter to balled players following a leader. I think ESO objective combat is at it's best when there is relevant defensive siege and counter-siege.

I would say powerful siege in open world AvA is more relevant than rapid maneuvered ball groups spamming abilities at no one in particular.

LoveForElderScrolls

I understand catapults are for siege area denial but right now they are used to kill players because of the huge damage they deal. You cannot fight enemy players if they have catapults support. You have to retreat from the keep otherwise you are dead fighting other players plus catapults. Even when I don't put a siege on the ground I see catapults effects on the ground which means they are used for killing players, not for siege area denial.


One more thing I want to add: I find myself not wanting to pack my siege after I see catapults effect on the ground because I don't want to die standing there. I have to restock every 10 minutes and spend much of my alliance points for buying siege.
Now if you are a group you all lose your siege weapons because of catapults and you have to go to the nearest resource to restock if you have any more alliance points left!

VaranisArano wrote: »

Which campaign? No CP or CP?

On the CP campaign, the catapults are very effective currently, and I wish the siege shield skill affected their ground-based DOT too. Nevertheless, I haven't felt like I was dying too fast as long as I was careful or not facing an organized defense. I imagine its much worse in No CP.

All campaigns. Even if siege shields affect catapults ground-based damage over time they are useless because the duration is short and I don't feel protected by them. I mostly use them for protecting my group from oils but I die standing in siege shield when I try to recast it again plus all the players that are hitting on me.

Ragnarock41

You are not supposed to tank a siege weapon anyways.

evoniee

The only thing really annoy me is the treebuchet area of effect. invader cannot enter outer wall cause of the insane damage of stacking treebuchet.
The only way is invader make a new way in.
but once invaders enter outer wall, its hard to defend inner wall, cause defender small area its so cramped up and its really immune to invaders treebuchet.

Agrippa_Invisus

One thing I will say, anecdotally, is that today I witness a couple of sieges (both won by the defenders) from both sides of the coin that would /not/ have been won by the defenders prior to the Summerset patch, IMO.

A combination of heavy counter siege, timestops, and lots of AOE made it impossible to breach into the keeps and survive.

Whether you consider this good or bad is up to you, but there is the caveat that the defenders should have some form of advantage.

At this point the game there are very, very few guilds (only speaking about PC/NA) who could offensively take a keep while being outnumbered now. I can count them on one hand and have fingers left over. Even then it's very, very hard. Most others, in my experience, have been ground down under the constant rain of catapult AoEs, Timestops, and oils and often to smaller numbers.

PUGs against a well defended breach are just hapless. Complete fodder unless vastly outnumbering the enemy. It becomes vital to ensure every single enemy you can manage dies in the courtyard instead of getting into the inner.. It also forces the attacker to approach it from multiple angles, sieging multiple posterns down, and even then that may not be enough. At that point it becomes time to circumvent the objective and hit them where they're not stacked up if enough are defending.

But I can say for certain, guilds and pugs alike, both are getting killed in breaches and chokes with a much greater rate of occurrence than ever before.

If you want an idea of how powerful the scattershot dot is... think of it as long range ground oils that persist. Only the size of the siege engine prevent it from really getting to the silly place that ground oils were at.

Enkil

Adapt or die. Catapults were too weak before.

The_Protagonist

The change is a good one, when I am defending a keep with a ballista and catapult I see the enemy relocating and setting up their own siege to take mine down, for me at least this has become an interesting way to play where I have to relocate my siege too while defending when fighting an intelligent enemy.

What is more interesting is to see VD proccing with ballista and catapults

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Recremen wrote: »

It's bad enough that they deal too much persistent damage that can't even be mitigated by siege shield,

siege shield does mitigate against catapults.

I think the issue with siege is mainly the debuffs constantly reapplying on top of the damage. If the debuff only affected players hit by the siege but the dmg continued it would be a little more manageable.

In addition they are really difficult to see.

On non CP it is really crazy how much dmg siege does.

VaranisArano

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

It's bad enough that they deal too much persistent damage that can't even be mitigated by siege shield,

siege shield does mitigate against catapults.

I think the issue with siege is mainly the debuffs constantly reapplying on top of the damage. If the debuff only affected players hit by the siege but the dmg continued it would be a little more manageable.

In addition they are really difficult to see.

On non CP it is really crazy how much dmg siege does.

As far as I can tell, siege shield mitigates the initial hit from catapults, but not the ground based DOT afterwards. I might be wrong, sieges these days are a little hectic for actual testing.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

VaranisArano wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

It's bad enough that they deal too much persistent damage that can't even be mitigated by siege shield,

siege shield does mitigate against catapults.

I think the issue with siege is mainly the debuffs constantly reapplying on top of the damage. If the debuff only affected players hit by the siege but the dmg continued it would be a little more manageable.

In addition they are really difficult to see.

On non CP it is really crazy how much dmg siege does.

As far as I can tell, siege shield mitigates the initial hit from catapults, but not the ground based DOT afterwards. I might be wrong, sieges these days are a little hectic for actual testing.

It mitigates the initial and the ticks. The difference is that the ticks have the 20% buff applied with scattershots.

usmguy1234

Recremen wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Tank or not, it's a little absurd to think you should be able to just eat a siege to the face without skipping a beat.

No, it's a little absurd to apply real-world expectations to a game scenario. If we were to apply that then Cyro would be unplayable, people would die in one hit from a sword. Bow light attack spam would be the ultimate meta. That's just bad game design for this style of play. And why stop there! If we're talking real-world expectations then I shouldn't be able to fight a daedric prince buck-ass naked, yet here I am, flapping in the breeze, punching the lord of domination in his tender shins.

We need to be real about what siege is and what it's meant to do. Their two primary purposes are knocking down keep structures and area denial. If they're too good at knocking down keep structures we'd all cry that there's no point in having walled keeps as a game mechanic, and if they're too good at area denial then we'd all cry that there's no point in player abilities. Right now we are way too far towards that latter, point-and-click hero apocalypse and it's making for a worse play experience for people looking to actually compete in skilled combat. Toning it back a little would be to everyone's benefit.

This change was absolutely needed in cp pvp. Makes the game more tactics and position orientated rather than who can mitigate/ heal through the most damage.

NBrookus

They introduced the Gladiator dailies which potentially spread people out, then changed a siege mechanic that forces people to clump up. They are self-defeating.

Scattershot is too strong -- when one siege becomes the go-to for all situations, you know it's overbuffed. Perhaps increasing the reload speed to reduce the amount of stacking.

"Tank" or not, standing in a sieged breach shouldn't be possible. What I do miss is that most of the nooks and crannies you could find that were safely out of LoS to heal up or wait for the push are now gone.

Mureel

LoveForElderScrolls wrote: »

I'm dying too fast to catapults near enemy keeps, even if there's a healer near me and I'm a tank. Now if the enemy players jump down from the walls that problem gets even worst. You have to fight other players near a keep they can respawn plus catapults which leave an area of effect for long with huge damage. If you are a small group you have no chance to siege a keep and your group will be wiped in 10 seconds if enemy players jump down from the wall and they have catapults support. I understand if you take a keep there are benefits to it but right now it's just impossible to siege a keep with a small group.

Sorry but nope. Huge telegraph, and they're meant to breach walls and doors. Sorry not sorry that you cannot survive a launched boulder.

Get out of the way or get more people.

Why does everything need to be a faceroll?

anadandy

LoveForElderScrolls wrote: »

You cannot fight enemy players if they have catapults support. You have to retreat from the keep otherwise you are dead fighting other players plus catapults.

Isn't this the entire point of siege defense? Keep defenders holding the attackers back. That's working as intended, imo.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Mureel wrote: »

LoveForElderScrolls wrote: »

I'm dying too fast to catapults near enemy keeps, even if there's a healer near me and I'm a tank. Now if the enemy players jump down from the walls that problem gets even worst. You have to fight other players near a keep they can respawn plus catapults which leave an area of effect for long with huge damage. If you are a small group you have no chance to siege a keep and your group will be wiped in 10 seconds if enemy players jump down from the wall and they have catapults support. I understand if you take a keep there are benefits to it but right now it's just impossible to siege a keep with a small group.

Sorry but nope. Huge telegraph, and they're meant to breach walls and doors. Sorry not sorry that you cannot survive a launched boulder.

Get out of the way or get more people.

Why does everything need to be a faceroll?

OP is talking about catapults not trebs. You aren't intended to siege walls or doors with cats. They are made for debuffing and area denial but that doesn't mean they aren't a little over tuned and causing more players to stack up.

VaranisArano

Suggestion: Don't try to tank the catapult debuffs like they were boss environmental damage in a Vet Dungeon unless you also have a dedicated healer healing your tank's butt like you would in a Vet dungeon that required your tank to take the environmental damage.

That healer trying to keep you alive will thank you.

LoveForElderScrolls

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

One thing I will say, anecdotally, is that today I witness a couple of sieges (both won by the defenders) from both sides of the coin that would /not/ have been won by the defenders prior to the Summerset patch, IMO.

A combination of heavy counter siege, timestops, and lots of AOE made it impossible to breach into the keeps and survive.

Whether you consider this good or bad is up to you, but there is the caveat that the defenders should have some form of advantage.

At this point the game there are very, very few guilds (only speaking about PC/NA) who could offensively take a keep while being outnumbered now. I can count them on one hand and have fingers left over. Even then it's very, very hard. Most others, in my experience, have been ground down under the constant rain of catapult AoEs, Timestops, and oils and often to smaller numbers.

PUGs against a well defended breach are just hapless. Complete fodder unless vastly outnumbering the enemy. It becomes vital to ensure every single enemy you can manage dies in the courtyard instead of getting into the inner.. It also forces the attacker to approach it from multiple angles, sieging multiple posterns down, and even then that may not be enough. At that point it becomes time to circumvent the objective and hit them where they're not stacked up if enough are defending.

But I can say for certain, guilds and pugs alike, both are getting killed in breaches and chokes with a much greater rate of occurrence than ever before.

If you want an idea of how powerful the scattershot dot is... think of it as long range ground oils that persist. Only the size of the siege engine prevent it from really getting to the silly place that ground oils were at.

The combination of siege and time stop near a keep breach is one of the most annoying things in the game right now.

And I agree very few guilds can take keeps right now. Prior to Summerset I could see back keeps like Kingscrest, Black Boot or Rayles being taken regularly but right now that occurs very few times and most tries for taking those keeps are a failure. I don't know if this is because of the changes to how siege works because I'm not usually spending my time in the back keeps. Also if you attacked a keep and the whole enemy faction was there you could siege an emptier keep and you had about 30 percent chance of taking it but that chance is about 5 percent right now (My experience in PC/NA)

Dreyloch

Look OP,

I'm gonna tell you what every decent raid or guild leader will if it's pvp or pve. Don't stand in stupid. There are ways to counter the siege. Sadly though, no one uses trebs anymore. They can reach the tops of walls. Catas can, but they have to be fairly close. Most of "our" problems (you ,me, and any other PvP'er) is because zergs aren't creative enough to use the gear ZoS has provided efficiently.

Mureel

Lol my husband is having a meltdown reading this thread xD

Keep it up OP! I'll get that inheritance yet!

Minno

::plays game marketed as a huge warfare simulator, but expects small group sport-like competition where siege hits like a pool noodle::

VaranisArano

Minno wrote: »

::plays game marketed as a huge warfare simulator, but expects small group sport-like competition where siege hits like a pool noodle::

As much as I do play this game like its a huge warfare simulator, the servers haven't exactly been letting us play like its a huge warfare simulator, so I can understand the confusion.

In a heavily contested keep capture/defense, the disconnects are as dangerous as the siege these days.

Minno

VaranisArano wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

::plays game marketed as a huge warfare simulator, but expects small group sport-like competition where siege hits like a pool noodle::

As much as I do play this game like its a huge warfare simulator, the servers haven't exactly been letting us play like its a huge warfare simulator, so I can understand the confusion.

In a heavily contested keep capture/defense, the disconnects are as dangerous as the siege these days.

It's not that, it's complaining about mechanics that are intended for one aspect of play and trying to slam your head to make it match your playstyle.

If I hated keep fights and horse riding (and I do), I'd rather zos make a mode specifically for a smaller environment without large zergy keeps (and they did, BGs).

VaranisArano

Minno wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

::plays game marketed as a huge warfare simulator, but expects small group sport-like competition where siege hits like a pool noodle::

As much as I do play this game like its a huge warfare simulator, the servers haven't exactly been letting us play like its a huge warfare simulator, so I can understand the confusion.

In a heavily contested keep capture/defense, the disconnects are as dangerous as the siege these days.

It's not that, it's complaining about mechanics that are intended for one aspect of play and trying to slam your head to make it match your playstyle.

If I hated keep fights and horse riding (and I do), I'd rather zos make a mode specifically for a smaller environment without large zergy keeps (and they did, BGs).

Yeah, I hear you. I'd love to see Cyrodiil be able to support the large scale combat that it used to and for the other PVP types like IC and BGs to have a healthy population. If the technical side of things would allow, we could probably get more players and thus more types of PVP content. Unfortunately, the technical side of things is not good, leading to the drop in population, and to Cyrodiil becoming much smaller in the scope of its warfare. When the servers can't support the large fights Cyrodiil is intended for, I'm not surprised to see more small groups, and thus for those small groups to push for changes to the original design of Cyrodiil that's aimed for large groups.

Minno

VaranisArano wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

::plays game marketed as a huge warfare simulator, but expects small group sport-like competition where siege hits like a pool noodle::

As much as I do play this game like its a huge warfare simulator, the servers haven't exactly been letting us play like its a huge warfare simulator, so I can understand the confusion.

In a heavily contested keep capture/defense, the disconnects are as dangerous as the siege these days.

It's not that, it's complaining about mechanics that are intended for one aspect of play and trying to slam your head to make it match your playstyle.

If I hated keep fights and horse riding (and I do), I'd rather zos make a mode specifically for a smaller environment without large zergy keeps (and they did, BGs).

Yeah, I hear you. I'd love to see Cyrodiil be able to support the large scale combat that it used to and for the other PVP types like IC and BGs to have a healthy population. If the technical side of things would allow, we could probably get more players and thus more types of PVP content. Unfortunately, the technical side of things is not good, leading to the drop in population, and to Cyrodiil becoming much smaller in the scope of its warfare. When the servers can't support the large fights Cyrodiil is intended for, I'm not surprised to see more small groups, and thus for those small groups to push for changes to the original design of Cyrodiil that's aimed for large groups.

Oh yeah totally agree. It's they can fix cyro lag, give more choices to BGs, and add some balance changes then PvP will be in a good spot in order to weather CU launch or other MMOs.