OILS NOT SHIELDABLE AND DOING 18K DMG PER TICK

TBois

twitch_zero 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.

Please no, powerful siege promotes skillless anti pvp play.

don't forget to add just plain boring play

kpittsniperb14_ESO

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.

BaylorCorvette

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

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

I seriously hope this is a joke. This did not go into PTS for a few weeks and did not allow for game play testing and feedback. The fact that an unintended bug is being considered as a new game play feature seriously frightens me.

Vapirko wrote: »

It’s way too strong rn no argument. People are just firing siege instead of fighting. It makes small scale keep takes almost impossible.

The damage is absolutely insane right now and really is going to be the nail in the coffin for small group game play, as I experienced this last night. If you don't have someone run a dedicated purge build then you're pretty screwed. I'm all for siege hitting hard, but where it is at right now is way too strong.

Perhaps make balista AoE radius about half the size that it is right now. Make Catapults range shorter, SOMETHING to help balance the fact that siege can nearly 2 shot you.

BoraxFlux

It is good for sales, just sold two coldfire ballista's.

Knowing that they will probably point at my smexy behind next time I enter Cyrodiil (AD ballista's - my behind is EP) :P

biggda76

disintegr8 wrote: »

Nice to see something that can wipe out overhealed zergs and bomb squads, just think of the D-ticks.

Laying siege should not just be about stacking at the front door, just as defending should not be about having a bomb squad ready to hit the incoming group as soon as the door opens.

Think more about it, start a second breech while everyone is focused elsewhere, make an effort to counter siege the counter siege.

If your siege one shots players then I want to one shot sieges

Morgul667

If ZOS goes through with this kind of crap, that would kill all hype built by the best update so far

Dont be that bad .... to push changes that are harmfull to the game and that nobody wants

dem0n1k

Siege was already very effective (especially in non-CP campaigns) & we just got a reduction in damage from scattershots because it was clearly over-performing.. so how can anyone think that more siege damage is going to be better?

It makes no sense to listen to the PVP community about the scattershot damage being way too high (& it was!) & then make an update where the siege is erroneously set too high & then consider to keep the change!? WTH!?

JamilaRaj

I beg you ZOS, keep it.

TBois

dem0n1k wrote: »

Siege was already very effective (especially in non-CP campaigns) & we just got a reduction in damage from scattershots because it was clearly over-performing.. so how can anyone think that more siege damage is going to be better?

It makes no sense to listen to the PVP community about the scattershot damage being way too high (& it was!) & then make an update where the siege is erroneously set too high & then consider to keep the change!? WTH!?

Siege needs to be treated differently in CP vs noCP. In CP seige could have stayed the same before the scattershot nerf. It could have been buffed before this patch (you can tell by how popular door sieging was), but in my opinion this buffed it too much. It's mandatory now and will be the deciding factor in most engagements, but its still boring af to use.

Skander

It's sad times when people are so terrible at a game that they need broken mechanics to kill 2 players with a full zerg.

Mr_Walker

EdoKeledus wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

EdoKeledus wrote: »

OIL like every other siege weapon should not be shieldable and should ignore resistances.

Some of you REALLY like the horse simulator part of this game, don't you?

Some of you REALLY like the zerg stacking simulator part of this game, don't you?

I play in Sotha, when it's US early morning. My idea of a zerg is anything more than 5 people.

BTW, has anyone considered how this affects sotha, where siege engines already hurt badly? No, didn't think so.

TBois

Mr_Walker wrote: »

EdoKeledus wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

EdoKeledus wrote: »

OIL like every other siege weapon should not be shieldable and should ignore resistances.

Some of you REALLY like the horse simulator part of this game, don't you?

Some of you REALLY like the zerg stacking simulator part of this game, don't you?

I play in Sotha, when it's US early morning. My idea of a zerg is anything more than 5 people.

BTW, has anyone considered how this affects sotha, where siege engines already hurt badly? No, didn't think so.

read a few responses before yours

Taunky

You can tell who the zerglings are just by looking at all the salt this thread has

Ajax_22

TBois wrote: »

dem0n1k wrote: »

Siege was already very effective (especially in non-CP campaigns) & we just got a reduction in damage from scattershots because it was clearly over-performing.. so how can anyone think that more siege damage is going to be better?

It makes no sense to listen to the PVP community about the scattershot damage being way too high (& it was!) & then make an update where the siege is erroneously set too high & then consider to keep the change!? WTH!?

Siege needs to be treated differently in CP vs noCP. In CP seige could have stayed the same before the scattershot nerf. It could have been buffed before this patch (you can tell by how popular door sieging was), but in my opinion this buffed it too much. It's mandatory now and will be the deciding factor in most engagements, but its still boring af to use.

It doesn't need to be and it shouldn't be. Siege can stay as Oblivion damage, but just lower the numbers by 25%-50%. This would keep siege a static factor across all campaigns. Before yesterday siege had always been either slightly over tuned, or a complete joke, depending on the game mode. The damage siege does currently is ridiculous, but switching to Oblivion damage could be a good thing.

Mr_Walker

disintegr8 wrote: »

Nice to see something that can wipe out overhealed zergs and bomb squads, just think of the D-ticks.

Laying siege should not just be about stacking at the front door, just as defending should not be about having a bomb squad ready to hit the incoming group as soon as the door opens.

Think more about it, start a second breech while everyone is focused elsewhere, make an effort to counter siege the counter siege.

I love the front door stacking. It means I get to pour oils on people, we can all set up meatbags focused on the front door. Leads to great fun. Probably because people don't die pretty much instantly. Which leads to people not having fun. Which leads to the ultimate goal of some people, to see Cyro become a PvE zone.

So this needs to be fixed. Regardless of personal preference (and I absolutely love defending), OP siege isn't going to be good for the game.

Mr_Walker

TBois wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

EdoKeledus wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

EdoKeledus wrote: »

OIL like every other siege weapon should not be shieldable and should ignore resistances.

Some of you REALLY like the horse simulator part of this game, don't you?

Some of you REALLY like the zerg stacking simulator part of this game, don't you?

I play in Sotha, when it's US early morning. My idea of a zerg is anything more than 5 people.

BTW, has anyone considered how this affects sotha, where siege engines already hurt badly? No, didn't think so.

read a few responses before yours

Yes, I hadn't read all umpteen pages.

TheBonesXXX

Minno wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

sha-ext wrote: »

DirkRavenclaw wrote: »

Please ZOS, that is awesome, perfect against Zergs and it makes the Game really hard, good, i made afew ap less as we did manage lesser Keep takes last Night but, on the other Hand, we defended really good. I would love to have some proper challenge, PVP is far too easy nowadays

this makes PvP an even easier game. use a siege and click. done. what is skillful about that?

There were plenty of times for actual fighting for me last night. This pretty much just effects keep sieges where I do think siege and counter siege should be more important.

That said; I would not advocate after just 1 day saying "This is fine. Leave it." I'd be ok with seeing how the week plays out and adjusting gradually back rather than all the way.

lol he doesn't remember that dropping siege steals a GCD and CC attempts on you stop you from firing siege/getting off it.

Don't clump in stupid, and don't let that seige warrior fire.

Stop stop stop, you're making too much sense.

Even though most siege droppers are completely obvious that they're going to do it. It's just too hard to actually use terrain in their brains rather they just want easy kills from a simple line up with dawnbreaker and spin to win at the end, apparently that's skill.

Now people actually might have to be careful and use some field awareness and adjust their builds.

supaskrub

Hope this is fixed before console release, was planning on renaming my siege/ram tank Argo to "Drinks Hot Oils" after the Wrathstone drop, but gonna look a bit of a numpty if I'm dead in 3-4 ticks...

TheBonesXXX

sha-ext wrote: »

DirkRavenclaw wrote: »

Please ZOS, that is awesome, perfect against Zergs and it makes the Game really hard, good, i made afew ap less as we did manage lesser Keep takes last Night but, on the other Hand, we defended really good. I would love to have some proper challenge, PVP is far too easy nowadays

this makes PvP an even easier game. use a siege and click. done. what is skillful about that?

We have a dawnbreaker spin the win meta right now, it doesn't take technical proficiency and it's relatively easy to as evident by it being meta.

Now people will actually have to use field awareness and pay attention to their surroundings like an actual PVPer would.

Now people can't catch ballista boats and rocks with their faces without it paying dearly.

Recremen

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

sha-ext wrote: »

DirkRavenclaw wrote: »

Please ZOS, that is awesome, perfect against Zergs and it makes the Game really hard, good, i made afew ap less as we did manage lesser Keep takes last Night but, on the other Hand, we defended really good. I would love to have some proper challenge, PVP is far too easy nowadays

this makes PvP an even easier game. use a siege and click. done. what is skillful about that?

There were plenty of times for actual fighting for me last night. This pretty much just effects keep sieges where I do think siege and counter siege should be more important.

That said; I would not advocate after just 1 day saying "This is fine. Leave it." I'd be ok with seeing how the week plays out and adjusting gradually back rather than all the way.

lol he doesn't remember that dropping siege steals a GCD and CC attempts on you stop you from firing siege/getting off it.

Don't clump in stupid, and don't let that seige warrior fire.

Stop stop stop, you're making too much sense.

Even though most siege droppers are completely obvious that they're going to do it. It's just too hard to actually use terrain in their brains rather they just want easy kills from a simple line up with dawnbreaker and spin to win at the end, apparently that's skill.

Now people actually might have to be careful and use some field awareness and adjust their builds.

"Drawing people out and maneuvering them into a good strike position using actual class and weapon skills is easy, the real skill comes from standing completely still and firing off the highest-damage AoE, largest-radius in the game."

You do realize that using terrain is a staple of PvP combat, even moreso than point-and-click siegers have to worry about, right?

TheBonesXXX

Recremen wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

sha-ext wrote: »

DirkRavenclaw wrote: »

Please ZOS, that is awesome, perfect against Zergs and it makes the Game really hard, good, i made afew ap less as we did manage lesser Keep takes last Night but, on the other Hand, we defended really good. I would love to have some proper challenge, PVP is far too easy nowadays

this makes PvP an even easier game. use a siege and click. done. what is skillful about that?

There were plenty of times for actual fighting for me last night. This pretty much just effects keep sieges where I do think siege and counter siege should be more important.

That said; I would not advocate after just 1 day saying "This is fine. Leave it." I'd be ok with seeing how the week plays out and adjusting gradually back rather than all the way.

lol he doesn't remember that dropping siege steals a GCD and CC attempts on you stop you from firing siege/getting off it.

Don't clump in stupid, and don't let that seige warrior fire.

Stop stop stop, you're making too much sense.

Even though most siege droppers are completely obvious that they're going to do it. It's just too hard to actually use terrain in their brains rather they just want easy kills from a simple line up with dawnbreaker and spin to win at the end, apparently that's skill.

Now people actually might have to be careful and use some field awareness and adjust their builds.

"Drawing people out and maneuvering them into a good strike position using actual class and weapon skills is easy, the real skill comes from standing completely still and firing off the highest-damage AoE, largest-radius in the game."

You do realize that using terrain is a staple of PvP combat, even moreso than point-and-click siegers have to worry about, right?

Did you not read what I said? I said there's a difference between technical proficiency (skill) as some of you call it, versus tactics and cunning.

If you have a friend who has a cold fire ballista, and a big zerg decides to chase you into a choke point and you and your them up with the ballista and they die, then that's their fault for not seeing the bait.

In fact that just makes them dumb, because they were literally following you into a crack. It was no different back when the game first launched, when people would follow two people into a choke point and they get oil poured on them, and they died.

That's their damn fault for dying in a fire. The intelligent people will not follow a turd herd chasing people because anyone who's been here long enough, knows that's probably a trap.

Groups that are still running purge, will intelligently time their purge. God forbid this is harder then the mindlessness that goes on in Cyrodiil right now.

It might just take out those numbskulls using something as simple as shalks+spin to win+dawnbreaker. Who don't realize the game is carrying them.

Meta stands for most efficient tactic available, but all that really means is the easiest abilities to use especially in Elder Scrolls, in patch XXX.

Those who are technically proficient will remain technically proficient, as you said in this thread.

But now it just requires an extra layer of carefulness, awareness, and cunning. It's not going to affect you much.

It's not going to affect anyone who was actually good at the game and not getting crutched by the meta.

Vapirko

Minno wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

I really don't mind siege being strong, if there are ways to mitigate it beyond simply not standing in it. Some fights have an incredible amount of defensive siege and there is literally nowhere for offensive siege to be except in the defensive siege AoEs. Often, even if I wanted to move to another location the siege cap prevents me from being able to set up enough new siege to be effective against a second wall.
Siege is already strong against people who can't/won't mitigate it with siege shields, strong heals and purges. Many disorganized groups die to siege, and that's as it should be, but everyone cheering overpowered siege are looking for a way to make disorganized beat organized by making siege a death sentence with no counter play.

Id like to see that video showing a random clump zerg "defeat" a well organized ball group running purges/dedicated healers with only siege lol.

Edit:
because they couldn't on murkmire and they wont on live.

Great so now Cyrodiil is going to be all giant zergs or ball groups? Sounds fun.

thedude33

Recremen wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

disintegr8 wrote: »

Nice to see something that can wipe out overhealed zergs and bomb squads, just think of the D-ticks.

Laying siege should not just be about stacking at the front door, just as defending should not be about having a bomb squad ready to hit the incoming group as soon as the door opens.

Think more about it, start a second breech while everyone is focused elsewhere, make an effort to counter siege the counter siege.

Isn't this what the try hard leets always talk about ? gitgud with tactics?

If you're really going to play it that way, we're just going to out-point-and-click you. If you weren't good before you're not going to suddenly be good now, and forcing experienced players into your playstyle is just going to show you how much room you have to grow in point-and-click heroism. Have fun getting wrecked by siege every time you go to attack a keep.

Took 2 keeps last night and 2 today. Didn't die once to siege.

Me liking that siege actually hurts has nothing to do with my playstyle or lack of ability.

thedude33

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.

TheBonesXXX

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.

I'd also like to add anyone trying to catch a ballista bolt or a rock with their face and living through it is not good game design.

zaria

barshemm wrote: »

This only encourages pvdoor

Make it harder

TheBonesXXX

zaria wrote: »

barshemm wrote: »

This only encourages pvdoor

Make it harder

Very unsneaky Khajit.

Girl_Number8

Feanor wrote: »

You all seem to forget we had a phase like this before, although ZOS upped the damage on siege deliberately in the past. It was fun for a week, but ultimately the gameplay was so boring, that it got dialed back again in an incremental.

Now, if your playing capabilities are so limited that a left click inducing ridiculous damage is your best bet at killing someone, I see why you might want to keep it. Tells more about the players than the siege damage then though.

Oil groups now, lol. Now they can play with one hand.

Ralamil

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.

@ZOS_GinaBruno: If you're discussing it, then please share with us ZOS's collective thoughts on why you believe a point-and-click, class-independent, player-skill-independent action should hit as hard as an ultimate, without the risk or time investment associated with building an ultimate.

Leaving siege overpowered to make certain players feel like they're contributing does not make for a healthy meta. We know this already, because we've seen it in other metas. Ground oils. Open field siege. It becomes so overwhelming powerful and effective that it eliminates most every strategy around player movement, character builds (outside of "be tanky"... but wait, doesn't ZOS dislike the ability to be super tanky and super hard-hitting? Isn't that why you "nerfed" heavy armor passives?), inter-player communication, and tactics. Siege needs to be powerful and useful, but not the single best option - with highest reward for the lowest possible risk - in every scenario. If you claim to want to encourage diverse play styles, this is not the way one does that.

You're not helping the players who feel like using massive amounts of insanely hard-hitting siege is the best counter to players in groups even a tiny bit larger than them ("zergs" is apparently a forum-favorite colloquism for this). Why do I say you are not helping them? Because if it's insanely powerful and the most efficient play style, then it's likely that "zergs" are going to use it against them, and they're going to die all the same.

Instead of seriously considering ill-conceived "bandaids" for a perceived problem, ZOS should, in my opinion, work towards encouraging more cohesive play between players (it's not like existing, coordinated PvP guilds have a monopoly on the play style). And if that style of play does not suit folks, then perhaps they should consider battlegrounds, duels, or IC, where smaller-scale content is a bit more common/enforced. They have other options that can prevent them from fighting the zergs they seem to hate so much. People who enjoy playing in larger groups (up to 24-man, I also cannot stand folks who intentionally stack multiple full raid groups together), and who enjoy fighting the masses (be they other, similar-sized groups or overwhelming numbers), really only have Cyrodiil.

Xsorus

Ralamil 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.

@ZOS_GinaBruno: If you're discussing it, then please share with us ZOS's collective thoughts on why you believe a point-and-click, class-independent, player-skill-independent action should hit as hard as an ultimate, without the risk or time investment associated with building an ultimate.

Leaving siege overpowered to make certain players feel like they're contributing does not make for a healthy meta. We know this already, because we've seen it in other metas. Ground oils. Open field siege. It becomes so overwhelming powerful and effective that it eliminates most every strategy around player movement, character builds (outside of "be tanky"... but wait, doesn't ZOS dislike the ability to be super tanky and super hard-hitting? Isn't that why you "nerfed" heavy armor passives?), inter-player communication, and tactics. Siege needs to be powerful and useful, but not the single best option - with highest reward for the lowest possible risk - in every scenario. If you claim to want to encourage diverse play styles, this is not the way one does that.

You're not helping the players who feel like using massive amounts of insanely hard-hitting siege is the best counter to players in groups even a tiny bit larger than them ("zergs" is apparently a forum-favorite colloquism for this). Why do I say you are not helping them? Because if it's insanely powerful and the most efficient play style, then it's likely that "zergs" are going to use it against them, and they're going to die all the same.

Instead of seriously considering ill-conceived "bandaids" for a perceived problem, ZOS should, in my opinion, work towards encouraging more cohesive play between players (it's not like existing, coordinated PvP guilds have a monopoly on the play style). And if that style of play does not suit folks, then perhaps they should consider battlegrounds, duels, or IC, where smaller-scale content is a bit more common/enforced. They have other options that can prevent them from fighting the zergs they seem to hate so much. People who enjoy playing in larger groups (up to 24-man, I also cannot stand folks who intentionally stack multiple full raid groups together), and who enjoy fighting the masses (be they other, similar-sized groups or overwhelming numbers), really only have Cyrodiil.

That's easy

1. Siege in immobile
2. You cannot use any other ability while operating siege