OILS NOT SHIELDABLE AND DOING 18K DMG PER TICK

thedude33

The proxy det theory for siege is a good idea.

JumpmanLane

xxthir13enxx wrote: »

But are the Dunmer still able to brush it off?

I unno about oils but I got hit by a fire ballista and noticed just in time that I was on fire lol. Healed through it luckily.

I generally don’t stand under oils. I rarely drop rams. I generally run around the porch flapping wings at the folks above or will drop a ballista in a spot out of oil range or pop deep thoughts and wait for the door to come down. So, oh well oils.

Heal botfing ball Zergs beware. Cold fire ballista are hitting for 14k TICKS. I hit a group on a ram with one and thought at first they were being one shotted and laughed. The second time I wondered why so many were ending up dead after a pause.

Then I saw one. A cold fire burning status was applied I guess and was TICKING for 14k. Good luck out healing that. Truly broken.

I also wondered why people were dropping siege EVERYWHERE. These DC nerds had a line of siege BEHIND mine at Chal. I thought poor pugs, laughed and charged them. They didn’t even get off their siege and TRY to fight. They took the TIME to TURN the siege TOWARDS me. I was like WTF. Lol.

fastolfv_ESO

so whens this being fixed again?

TheBonesXXX

kpittsniperb14_ESO wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

kringled_1 wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

mayasunrising wrote: »

I've been in cyro, and personally I like it and kinda wish they would just leave it. The battles were crazy and watching - and participating in the new and far more interesting keep take challenges was really fun. Plus keeps weren't flipping every 5 seconds. Fine by me.

@ZOS_GinaBruno maybe tell them not to fix this too much yus?

Yeah, this is actually something we're discussing a bit. No promises, but we'll see what happens.

In noCP a Coldharbour ballista Hit kills anyone within the initial tick and the first or second tick, depending on HP. If that’s the gameplay you want to promote...

Just means you don't have enough health! Plague doctor/warrior poet tank with no damage other than running siege, here I come, just for all the lovers of heavy armor tanks in pvp we have on the forums.
More seriously, I'm not really wild about the prolonged siege battles where you have to punch multiple breaches in a keep, then fire siege through to get defensive siege down, and eventually move in. It tends to come down to attrition, and to promote large stacks at one location which we know doesn't work well.

A siege attack that comes down to attrition. Kind of like how it was when castles and sieges actually happened?

Let's not start the discussion about realism.

Pulling a massive siege engine out of your pocket is realistic?

Setting up said siege weapon in seconds is realistic?

Reloading a torsion based weapon in seconds is realistic?

Carrying 20-30 on your person is realistic?

Using a crew served weapon solo is realistic?

A flaming arrow that does a massive AoE splash is realistic?


If you want realism then this isn't the game for you.


You guys think this will be good for the game but give it a few days and you'll see the zergs start plopping down rows of siege for every open field fight they run into.....even for solo players because that is the mentality of the zerg. Nightcapping or off hours capping will be the standard and dethroning a current emperor in primetime will be impossible. All factions will turtle their keeps and fights will be nearly impossible to find outside of pushing keeps which will require factions stacking to take, increasing lag making for a boring and less dynamic map.

But for argument's sake let's explore the realistic aspect of siege. If you guys keep the damage as is @ZOS_GinaBruno then at least implement an opportunity cost associated with it such as taking much longer to set down etc. Consider having a radius around objectives that siege can be placed and eliminate their use in towns and overland allowing for non siege fights to occur elsewhere. You guys have made a lot of mistakes balancing this game but balancing by bugs hasn't been one up to this point.

If the put Siegesmithing in the game and required ammo or charges I'm all about it. Makes a unique market for guildstores in Cyrodiil.

Hand_Bacon

I can imagine the initial shock causing some hyperbole, but good players will evolve like they always do. The lame will continue to whine.

DeadlyRecluse

Honestly, I think a little siege buff is in order, but this is absurd.

And while it's working right now as an effective zergbuster, it's only a matter of time until a counter gets sussed out, and it becomes effectively impossible to take a keep without an "organized" group bringing megacheese.

In Vivec last night, the only successful keep takes I saw were essentially factionstacks--and these weren't last emp keep defenses or anything. Just regular keep takes.

High siege damage means you NEED purge spam to get through things--so yeah, while ballistas are breaking up zergs pretty well, If it were to stay this way I'm sure we'd just end up with raids running twice the current number of purgespammers, staying mobile, and relying on siege for their own offense....maybe it's just me, but that sounds like a TERRIBLE PvP environment for....everyone.

Bosov

FakeZavos wrote: »

Raudgrani wrote: »

Thing is, you're not supposed to stand in flaming oils. They hurt. This was a way of dealing with attackers in real life too. Hot oils or hot sand, it made people stay clear of passages and doors of castles. That was the point. In this game, make sure someone - or preferably a few people - have Siege Shield, or simply use ranged siege.

I've seen people complaining about ballistas being too powerful. I'm like "Ehum... Ok." When Romans started to fire those through Celtic and Germanic front lines, it punched through several lines of infantry. I'm sure you understand it's pretty likely fatal. If anything, siege damage should be increased. Perhaps we would see more actual SIEGE and COUNTER siege then? Instead of two full groups laying siege with a ram and 4 ballistas, the rest on both sides either running around without any regard at all, or light attacking one another for 10 minutes straight - because "siege is boring".

And yes btw. 12k shield minus a 18k damage tick, that's 6k more than your shield can take. Just as a sidenote....

But this is a game, not real life. Were game balance should be considered. As said above here. I like to play with a small group and fight bigger numbers. Like, 5 of mine vs 15 of the other. With great coordination and teamwork those fights should be doable. Yet atm, I cant even walk upto a keep to fight 1 other dude before getting hit with 6 siege. Normally that would be hard to stay alive in it, but fine. With proper dodging and strong healing I could survive it. Now, I cant even survive 1 hit. The impact dmg in 9/10 times too high to even survive anything. Throw realism away for now, its a game, not real life. How is this balanced/good for every party involved. I know people only think about the game the way they play it. And apperently every other opinion doesnt matter because it doesnt fit they playstyle. Thats why I said, lets make siege like proxy det. Everyone happy.

Proxy det siege is a fantastic idea. Usefull against zergs but a single zergling wont ruin a small group by just left clicking.

TequilaFire

Have you people that say strong siege makes it so hard to take a keep tried counter sieging?
Being hit by siege while on siege on the wall also hurts a lot.
Yes it makes a keep harder to take by just busting front door down in 2 minutes and farming keeps.

Ahtu

This siege change, whether intended or not, has been polarizing. Some people love it and others hate it. I believe the answer lies somewhere between how it is now and how it was before to make the most people happy as possible.

FakeZavos

Ahtu wrote: »

This siege change, whether intended or not, has been polarizing. Some people love it and others hate it. I believe the answer lies somewhere between how it is now and how it was before to make the most people happy as possible.

And the somewhere in between awnser I think is make it like proxy det. And looking at the comments, it looks like many agree.

technohic

DeadlyRecluse wrote: »

Honestly, I think a little siege buff is in order, but this is absurd.

And while it's working right now as an effective zergbuster, it's only a matter of time until a counter gets sussed out, and it becomes effectively impossible to take a keep without an "organized" group bringing megacheese.

In Vivec last night, the only successful keep takes I saw were essentially factionstacks--and these weren't last emp keep defenses or anything. Just regular keep takes.

High siege damage means you NEED purge spam to get through things--so yeah, while ballistas are breaking up zergs pretty well, If it were to stay this way I'm sure we'd just end up with raids running twice the current number of purgespammers, staying mobile, and relying on siege for their own offense....maybe it's just me, but that sounds like a TERRIBLE PvP environment for....everyone.

Its become pretty much hit fast and better burst the keep before enemies port in. The off keeps are the ones I see flipping for the most part.

tim99

sha-ext wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

mayasunrising wrote: »

I've been in cyro, and personally I like it and kinda wish they would just leave it. The battles were crazy and watching - and participating in the new and far more interesting keep take challenges was really fun. Plus keeps weren't flipping every 5 seconds. Fine by me.

@ZOS_GinaBruno maybe tell them not to fix this too much yus?

Yeah, this is actually something we're discussing a bit. No promises, but we'll see what happens.

I hope you are not serious...
You want fast paced combat? You want keep sieges? You want players to take keeps?
Then please adjust the damage. I don't mind some sieges hurt a bit more, but remember how it was when meatbag and scattershot catapults were strong - it was very, very hard to take a keep against decent defenders...

<irony>this is totally unacceptable. decent defenders should get overrunned from a zerg within seconds. wait... what?</irony>

Hey cyro currently makes fun again. amazing.
good players still take castles, they just have to think a little bit more than just placing a ram and waiting for it to finish, no matter what. And 30vs1 will still win in a quite short time, but this 1 now has an actual chance to get some reward too. if i was alone and saw 20 people arriving, i didnt even try latlely, just run away or jumped into the group. even if i placed 5 oils, not even one kill... so why should i invest time in trying again over and over.

and its more "real"... i mean if someone shoots with a canon at someone else... hundred times.. and he looses no hp at all, even in a land of dragons and rainbow guars it feels just wrong.

Sy1ph5

The realism argument is ridiculous. For "realism" sake my dawnbreaker should 1 shot everyone at all times. It's the power of a daedric prince vs soft squishy people. Same for meteor and the destro ult and so on. Its dumb. Seige hit hard before the update it just required more than 1 unorganized click to kill someone. It had to be coordinated with friendly players actually fighting the enemy or multiple coordinated seige firing simultaneously on the breach. Rn it's hilarious but the novelty is wearing thin quickly.

Raudgrani

FakeZavos wrote: »

Raudgrani wrote: »

Thing is, you're not supposed to stand in flaming oils. They hurt. This was a way of dealing with attackers in real life too. Hot oils or hot sand, it made people stay clear of passages and doors of castles. That was the point. In this game, make sure someone - or preferably a few people - have Siege Shield, or simply use ranged siege.

I've seen people complaining about ballistas being too powerful. I'm like "Ehum... Ok." When Romans started to fire those through Celtic and Germanic front lines, it punched through several lines of infantry. I'm sure you understand it's pretty likely fatal. If anything, siege damage should be increased. Perhaps we would see more actual SIEGE and COUNTER siege then? Instead of two full groups laying siege with a ram and 4 ballistas, the rest on both sides either running around without any regard at all, or light attacking one another for 10 minutes straight - because "siege is boring".

And yes btw. 12k shield minus a 18k damage tick, that's 6k more than your shield can take. Just as a sidenote....

But this is a game, not real life. Were game balance should be considered. As said above here. I like to play with a small group and fight bigger numbers. Like, 5 of mine vs 15 of the other. With great coordination and teamwork those fights should be doable. Yet atm, I cant even walk upto a keep to fight 1 other dude before getting hit with 6 siege. Normally that would be hard to stay alive in it, but fine. With proper dodging and strong healing I could survive it. Now, I cant even survive 1 hit. The impact dmg in 9/10 times too high to even survive anything. Throw realism away for now, its a game, not real life. How is this balanced/good for every party involved. I know people only think about the game the way they play it. And apperently every other opinion doesnt matter because it doesnt fit they playstyle. Thats why I said, lets make siege like proxy det. Everyone happy.

I hear this argument every now and then "Man, I shoot BEAMS from my hand! I have unlimited arrows, I can resurrect with a crystal!". Yes. You can. But ballistas are real. People build them even today, for "fun". Crystal frags and templar beams are not real. I can't see why the existence of the later in this game, would justify making an ancient weapon of sheer terror something you can just stand in to prove how tough you are, just cleanse off and heal right up? It's ridiculous.
I say increase siege damage towards other players, at least the ones meant for "live targets".

TheBonesXXX

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

The future of 1vX montages will be one dude killing 8 others with a coldfire ballista.

In all honesty siege should be a deadly thing, it adds to the ''sandbox'' part of ESO which is already weak. I don't use siege for anything other than breaking keep doors personally and I don't look at this problem from a biased perspective because I don't want the game to meet my fantasies of outnumbered combat nor am I one of those siege pilots who do nothing else but obsess over their collection of coldfire ballistas.

I embrace the change if it stays, standing under oil is well, dumb. You should most definitely suffer if you get hit by it. Siege shield must be definitely slotted if a group of 6 wants to ram a gate.

However if these changes stay , it would definitely require some tweaking, coldfire sieges for example could even use a nerf to their rate of fire to give them a meaningful choice rather than being a straight upgrade for everything.

And if they fix everything back to how it once was... Well, then still not much changes for me other than a missed chance at an opportunity to make cyrodiil more interesting.

I would support slower reload and charges/ammo even. Would provide a PvP economy.

Raudgrani

Feanor wrote: »

And yes btw. 12k shield minus a 18k damage tick, that's 6k more than your shield can take. Just as a sidenote....

Just as a side note, you’re going to take the full 18k at the moment regardless of shields. Btw.

And if we’re so totally into realism, I’d expect you need 15 people at least to carry 1 siege weapon and assembling it takes a few hours at least. Sounds fun.

Why even have siege engines to start with? If they are supposed to do less damage than a real life water cannon? Explain this to me. Then remove exactly all siege types except rams and oil, and make oil hurt as much as a hot shower, so you babies will be nice and happy little toddlers. Just so you can zerg in peace, without risk of getting burnt while you wait at the door.

I'm not talking realism per se here, but if we ARE having anything resembling real siege weapons - why make them about as harmful as throwing snowballs or hot tap water at other people? Increase the damage towards other players at least x5-10 times if you ask me. You are not supposed to survive a direct hit from a flaming oil trebuchet. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Recremen

thedude33 wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

kringled_1 wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

mayasunrising wrote: »

I've been in cyro, and personally I like it and kinda wish they would just leave it. The battles were crazy and watching - and participating in the new and far more interesting keep take challenges was really fun. Plus keeps weren't flipping every 5 seconds. Fine by me.

@ZOS_GinaBruno maybe tell them not to fix this too much yus?

Yeah, this is actually something we're discussing a bit. No promises, but we'll see what happens.

In noCP a Coldharbour ballista Hit kills anyone within the initial tick and the first or second tick, depending on HP. If that’s the gameplay you want to promote...

Just means you don't have enough health! Plague doctor/warrior poet tank with no damage other than running siege, here I come, just for all the lovers of heavy armor tanks in pvp we have on the forums.
More seriously, I'm not really wild about the prolonged siege battles where you have to punch multiple breaches in a keep, then fire siege through to get defensive siege down, and eventually move in. It tends to come down to attrition, and to promote large stacks at one location which we know doesn't work well.

A siege attack that comes down to attrition. Kind of like how it was when castles and sieges actually happened?

Realism - the go-to argument in every high fantasy setting, right?

I wouldn't go with realism as much as common sense. I don't believe 25 people standing under hot oil, and surviving, is great game design.

Taking a keep should be tougher than killing a mudcrab.

"A little hot oil should instantly murder people, but also it's totally normal to be alive after getting shot with six arrows, or cut by a full-force axe swing, or struck by lightning. Also I have a terrible understanding for how difficult it is to take a keep or the fact that multi-raid faction fights regularly occur at them several times an hour."

Y'all are betraying your complete lack of understanding for even basic Cyrodiil dynamics.

What are you going on about?

It's a difference of opinion. Get over yourself. I don't like ineffectual siege. I also don't like Justin Bieber. I guess we disagree on both.

I'm going on about the extremely obvious lack of follow-through with your argument. You say that 25 people shouldn't be able to stand under hot oil and live, but make zero mention of all the other "common sense" ways that people should be dying. Is it bad game design that all these other attacks don't one-hit people? Or do you honestly think a couple of axe hits to the gut is survivable? You are either being inconsistent, or obtuse. "Difference of opinion" my ass.

Recremen

FakeZavos wrote: »

Raudgrani wrote: »

Thing is, you're not supposed to stand in flaming oils. They hurt. This was a way of dealing with attackers in real life too. Hot oils or hot sand, it made people stay clear of passages and doors of castles. That was the point. In this game, make sure someone - or preferably a few people - have Siege Shield, or simply use ranged siege.

I've seen people complaining about ballistas being too powerful. I'm like "Ehum... Ok." When Romans started to fire those through Celtic and Germanic front lines, it punched through several lines of infantry. I'm sure you understand it's pretty likely fatal. If anything, siege damage should be increased. Perhaps we would see more actual SIEGE and COUNTER siege then? Instead of two full groups laying siege with a ram and 4 ballistas, the rest on both sides either running around without any regard at all, or light attacking one another for 10 minutes straight - because "siege is boring".

And yes btw. 12k shield minus a 18k damage tick, that's 6k more than your shield can take. Just as a sidenote....

But this is a game, not real life. Were game balance should be considered. As said above here. I like to play with a small group and fight bigger numbers. Like, 5 of mine vs 15 of the other. With great coordination and teamwork those fights should be doable. Yet atm, I cant even walk upto a keep to fight 1 other dude before getting hit with 6 siege. Normally that would be hard to stay alive in it, but fine. With proper dodging and strong healing I could survive it. Now, I cant even survive 1 hit. The impact dmg in 9/10 times too high to even survive anything. Throw realism away for now, its a game, not real life. How is this balanced/good for every party involved. I know people only think about the game the way they play it. And apperently every other opinion doesnt matter because it doesnt fit they playstyle. Thats why I said, lets make siege like proxy det. Everyone happy.

They're also completely ignoring the fact that siege and countersiege was already an extremely common sight in Cyrodiil, and that not everything is a front door ram spam. These people are either not playing in primetime or not paying attention.

TheBonesXXX

I can step aside the realism angle and talk simple game physics.

This game provides players with a plethora of visual ques, siege being placed, siege being aimed, siege firing, impact even has a ground visual that increases in size the closer it gets to a player.

Players can skip all the way till the last visual, because that big ole circle on the ground tells to how far one needs to move.

It's the simplest function. Pick a direction outside the radius. But this is bad?

Rather, than the game allowing players to hit other players with 2-3 incomplete animations in a shortened window in which other players have less time to react. Which doesn't have a significant increased difficulty, any competent player can line burst complete with weaves.

One has a plethora of visual indicators, one does not. However the one without visual indicators is okay.

Simply put, players just want to dictate how other players play and people don't play it their way they have a fit.

Toc de Malsvi

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

The future of 1vX montages will be one dude killing 8 others with a coldfire ballista.

In all honesty siege should be a deadly thing, it adds to the ''sandbox'' part of ESO which is already weak. I don't use siege for anything other than breaking keep doors personally and I don't look at this problem from a biased perspective because I don't want the game to meet my fantasies of outnumbered combat nor am I one of those siege pilots who do nothing else but obsess over their collection of coldfire ballistas.

I embrace the change if it stays, standing under oil is well, dumb. You should most definitely suffer if you get hit by it. Siege shield must be definitely slotted if a group of 6 wants to ram a gate.

However if these changes stay , it would definitely require some tweaking, coldfire sieges for example could even use a nerf to their rate of fire to give them a meaningful choice rather than being a straight upgrade for everything.

And if they fix everything back to how it once was... Well, then still not much changes for me other than a missed chance at an opportunity to make cyrodiil more interesting.

I would support slower reload and charges/ammo even. Would provide a PvP economy.

Slow down siege decay immensely and add ammunition that has to be purchased.

One treb type, one ballista, but that ammunition can change and can be stacked in inventory.

Slow down fire rates but keep high damage.

Scale damage based on relation to center of impact.

Make fire siege set other siege on fire that needs to be put out by users. When siege is on fire it decays more rapidly while dealing aoe flame damage to players attempting to use it.

Recremen

Raudgrani wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

And yes btw. 12k shield minus a 18k damage tick, that's 6k more than your shield can take. Just as a sidenote....

Just as a side note, you’re going to take the full 18k at the moment regardless of shields. Btw.

And if we’re so totally into realism, I’d expect you need 15 people at least to carry 1 siege weapon and assembling it takes a few hours at least. Sounds fun.

Why even have siege engines to start with? If they are supposed to do less damage than a real life water cannon? Explain this to me. Then remove exactly all siege types except rams and oil, and make oil hurt as much as a hot shower, so you babies will be nice and happy little toddlers. Just so you can zerg in peace, without risk of getting burnt while you wait at the door.

I'm not talking realism per se here, but if we ARE having anything resembling real siege weapons - why make them about as harmful as throwing snowballs or hot tap water at other people? Increase the damage towards other players at least x5-10 times if you ask me. You are not supposed to survive a direct hit from a flaming oil trebuchet. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Don't be ridiculous. Oils, catapults, and other siege were already an essential part of keep defense without the sudden buff to damage. The difference is that before you couldn't exclusively rely on point-and-click heroism, you had to also have people down there using actual attacks to finish the job. Oils and such were so scrubs could meaningfully contribute something from a position of relative safety, without being the sole deciding factor in a fight. They were completely fine as they were, if not overpowered to begin with (looking at you, meatbag catapult).

And your realism argument is still complete nonsense. Let me know how you like getting hit with a 5-foot-long sword at full swing and then come back to me talking about how realistic it is to survive a siege hit. If you want strong siege then bow light attacks should instakill.

Toc de Malsvi

Recremen wrote: »

FakeZavos wrote: »

Raudgrani wrote: »

Thing is, you're not supposed to stand in flaming oils. They hurt. This was a way of dealing with attackers in real life too. Hot oils or hot sand, it made people stay clear of passages and doors of castles. That was the point. In this game, make sure someone - or preferably a few people - have Siege Shield, or simply use ranged siege.

I've seen people complaining about ballistas being too powerful. I'm like "Ehum... Ok." When Romans started to fire those through Celtic and Germanic front lines, it punched through several lines of infantry. I'm sure you understand it's pretty likely fatal. If anything, siege damage should be increased. Perhaps we would see more actual SIEGE and COUNTER siege then? Instead of two full groups laying siege with a ram and 4 ballistas, the rest on both sides either running around without any regard at all, or light attacking one another for 10 minutes straight - because "siege is boring".

And yes btw. 12k shield minus a 18k damage tick, that's 6k more than your shield can take. Just as a sidenote....

But this is a game, not real life. Were game balance should be considered. As said above here. I like to play with a small group and fight bigger numbers. Like, 5 of mine vs 15 of the other. With great coordination and teamwork those fights should be doable. Yet atm, I cant even walk upto a keep to fight 1 other dude before getting hit with 6 siege. Normally that would be hard to stay alive in it, but fine. With proper dodging and strong healing I could survive it. Now, I cant even survive 1 hit. The impact dmg in 9/10 times too high to even survive anything. Throw realism away for now, its a game, not real life. How is this balanced/good for every party involved. I know people only think about the game the way they play it. And apperently every other opinion doesnt matter because it doesnt fit they playstyle. Thats why I said, lets make siege like proxy det. Everyone happy.

They're also completely ignoring the fact that siege and countersiege was already an extremely common sight in Cyrodiil, and that not everything is a front door ram spam. These people are either not playing in primetime or not paying attention.

I can vigor heal through siege damage in CP-PVP on xbox right now. At this point you only move out of siege damage to save resources.

You can have a stack of siege on a ram group and they don't even use siege shield while shrugging off the dammage with efficient cheap AOE heals from dedicated healers. You might drop the noob in the group but the core wont be touched and they will rez the noob and walk in.

In a couple weeks xbox will get the update and maybe I'll be even slightly concerned with siege damage.

MrTtheDK

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

mayasunrising wrote: »

I've been in cyro, and personally I like it and kinda wish they would just leave it. The battles were crazy and watching - and participating in the new and far more interesting keep take challenges was really fun. Plus keeps weren't flipping every 5 seconds. Fine by me.

@ZOS_GinaBruno maybe tell them not to fix this too much yus?

Yeah, this is actually something we're discussing a bit. No promises, but we'll see what happens.

Please no. This is one of the worst ideas I've seen proposed.

Toc de Malsvi

Claiming siege will kill small group play is laughable. Small groups are least affected by siege. You can easily move to avoid siege damage and attack walls not doors. Big groups are far more affected, especially organized 15+ groups trying to snowball over keeps against unorganized randos.

It will however encourage stacking on crown even more in groups. However if the crown makes a mistake your group will wipe. Versus now where the only chance an organized group has to wipe is vs vastly superior numbers/players.

The other option is to spread out and risk letting onesies or twosies die because they were unsuccessful in avoiding siege.

Recremen

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

I can step aside the realism angle and talk simple game physics.

This game provides players with a plethora of visual ques, siege being placed, siege being aimed, siege firing, impact even has a ground visual that increases in size the closer it gets to a player.

Players can skip all the way till the last visual, because that big ole circle on the ground tells to how far one needs to move.

It's the simplest function. Pick a direction outside the radius. But this is bad?

Rather, than the game allowing players to hit other players with 2-3 incomplete animations in a shortened window in which other players have less time to react. Which doesn't have a significant increased difficulty, any competent player can line burst complete with weaves.

One has a plethora of visual indicators, one does not. However the one without visual indicators is okay.

Simply put, players just want to dictate how other players play and people don't play it their way they have a fit.

The one "without visual indicators" (read : actually you're just bad at recognizing the indicators/participating in the mind games) does not one-hit, it hits a much smaller area, and it requires building ultimate. You're also nitpicking about how long it takes to set up siege and overestimating the length of time between firing the siege and impact. Most siege it placed from a position of absolute safety within a keep and fired at a very short range, and/or leaves a DoT on the ground that acts as a semipermanent discouragement from moving into any location. So again, you're not giving an honest analysis for how fair siege is. You are ignoring the fact that siege primarily happens around a keep, and that accomplishing any map objective forces you to move into an area which by all rights should be littered with siege, if the defenders are even halfway competent.

This isn't about players dictating how others play, it's about you wanting a turn at easy AP for minimal effort.

Recremen

Toc de Malsvi wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

FakeZavos wrote: »

Raudgrani wrote: »

Thing is, you're not supposed to stand in flaming oils. They hurt. This was a way of dealing with attackers in real life too. Hot oils or hot sand, it made people stay clear of passages and doors of castles. That was the point. In this game, make sure someone - or preferably a few people - have Siege Shield, or simply use ranged siege.

I've seen people complaining about ballistas being too powerful. I'm like "Ehum... Ok." When Romans started to fire those through Celtic and Germanic front lines, it punched through several lines of infantry. I'm sure you understand it's pretty likely fatal. If anything, siege damage should be increased. Perhaps we would see more actual SIEGE and COUNTER siege then? Instead of two full groups laying siege with a ram and 4 ballistas, the rest on both sides either running around without any regard at all, or light attacking one another for 10 minutes straight - because "siege is boring".

And yes btw. 12k shield minus a 18k damage tick, that's 6k more than your shield can take. Just as a sidenote....

But this is a game, not real life. Were game balance should be considered. As said above here. I like to play with a small group and fight bigger numbers. Like, 5 of mine vs 15 of the other. With great coordination and teamwork those fights should be doable. Yet atm, I cant even walk upto a keep to fight 1 other dude before getting hit with 6 siege. Normally that would be hard to stay alive in it, but fine. With proper dodging and strong healing I could survive it. Now, I cant even survive 1 hit. The impact dmg in 9/10 times too high to even survive anything. Throw realism away for now, its a game, not real life. How is this balanced/good for every party involved. I know people only think about the game the way they play it. And apperently every other opinion doesnt matter because it doesnt fit they playstyle. Thats why I said, lets make siege like proxy det. Everyone happy.

They're also completely ignoring the fact that siege and countersiege was already an extremely common sight in Cyrodiil, and that not everything is a front door ram spam. These people are either not playing in primetime or not paying attention.

I can vigor heal through siege damage in CP-PVP on xbox right now. At this point you only move out of siege damage to save resources.

You can have a stack of siege on a ram group and they don't even use siege shield while shrugging off the dammage with efficient cheap AOE heals from dedicated healers. You might drop the noob in the group but the core wont be touched and they will rez the noob and walk in.

In a couple weeks xbox will get the update and maybe I'll be even slightly concerned with siege damage.

Well gee golly that sounds like quite the hyperbole. You can vigor through what, one oil at best?

And your siege game must be terrible on xb if defenders can't pressure a ram group off the front door with oil. Do people not run multiple siege? Do they not time drops? These are all easy ways to pressure even great groups off of a ram. And where are your ground defenders? No other coordinated groups waiting to push in on the ram group while they're under oils? You should not expect siege to be effective when all you do is a set up a single oil and then proceed to make every bad decision possible.

thegreat_one

More people set up counter siege than actually hitting the doors/ wall because they know they can kill everyone there and take the keep once its empty

If they keep it this way they have to get rid of siege shield as it will be useless.

thegreat_one

I'm just going to farm AP on my healer till the end of this game.....

Neoauspex

Toc de Malsvi wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

The future of 1vX montages will be one dude killing 8 others with a coldfire ballista.

In all honesty siege should be a deadly thing, it adds to the ''sandbox'' part of ESO which is already weak. I don't use siege for anything other than breaking keep doors personally and I don't look at this problem from a biased perspective because I don't want the game to meet my fantasies of outnumbered combat nor am I one of those siege pilots who do nothing else but obsess over their collection of coldfire ballistas.

I embrace the change if it stays, standing under oil is well, dumb. You should most definitely suffer if you get hit by it. Siege shield must be definitely slotted if a group of 6 wants to ram a gate.

However if these changes stay , it would definitely require some tweaking, coldfire sieges for example could even use a nerf to their rate of fire to give them a meaningful choice rather than being a straight upgrade for everything.

And if they fix everything back to how it once was... Well, then still not much changes for me other than a missed chance at an opportunity to make cyrodiil more interesting.

I would support slower reload and charges/ammo even. Would provide a PvP economy.

Slow down siege decay immensely and add ammunition that has to be purchased.

One treb type, one ballista, but that ammunition can change and can be stacked in inventory.

Slow down fire rates but keep high damage.

Scale damage based on relation to center of impact.

Make fire siege set other siege on fire that needs to be put out by users. When siege is on fire it decays more rapidly while dealing aoe flame damage to players attempting to use it.

This. And create some mechanism outside the keep (resources, towns, some new capturable feature) which affects how many siege you can have at a given keep. Like if all the resources are taken, defenders can only put up 5 siege. To counter faction stacking at dethrone keep, etc.

TBois

Neoauspex wrote: »

Toc de Malsvi wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

The future of 1vX montages will be one dude killing 8 others with a coldfire ballista.

In all honesty siege should be a deadly thing, it adds to the ''sandbox'' part of ESO which is already weak. I don't use siege for anything other than breaking keep doors personally and I don't look at this problem from a biased perspective because I don't want the game to meet my fantasies of outnumbered combat nor am I one of those siege pilots who do nothing else but obsess over their collection of coldfire ballistas.

I embrace the change if it stays, standing under oil is well, dumb. You should most definitely suffer if you get hit by it. Siege shield must be definitely slotted if a group of 6 wants to ram a gate.

However if these changes stay , it would definitely require some tweaking, coldfire sieges for example could even use a nerf to their rate of fire to give them a meaningful choice rather than being a straight upgrade for everything.

And if they fix everything back to how it once was... Well, then still not much changes for me other than a missed chance at an opportunity to make cyrodiil more interesting.

I would support slower reload and charges/ammo even. Would provide a PvP economy.

Slow down siege decay immensely and add ammunition that has to be purchased.

One treb type, one ballista, but that ammunition can change and can be stacked in inventory.

Slow down fire rates but keep high damage.

Scale damage based on relation to center of impact.

Make fire siege set other siege on fire that needs to be put out by users. When siege is on fire it decays more rapidly while dealing aoe flame damage to players attempting to use it.

This. And create some mechanism outside the keep (resources, towns, some new capturable feature) which affects how many siege you can have at a given keep. Like if all the resources are taken, defenders can only put up 5 siege. To counter faction stacking at dethrone keep, etc.

This is the type of gameplay we should be advocating for, not an immense increase in point and click siege damage.