Siege Strength And The Quality of Open World PvP

Neoauspex

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Joy_Division wrote: »

Biased poll is biased.

Keep siege week, huh? Let's just ignore the numerous times ZOs already buffed it - The meatbag which infect large areas with overlapping Major Defile fields, the Scattershots while put down overlapping fields of with a +20% damage, oil catapults that drain stamina, lightning cats that drain magicka, the buff to make it so CP siege acts like no CP seige - all of these buffs were recent, all of them were asked for and all of them were applauded. Seige as it is destroys roof defenders on an inner keep, it destroys attackers trying to use a single breech in a well defended keep, it is already been buffed numerous times putting all sorts of debuffs on players as well as damage and people are still complaining and just flat out lying by calling it weak.

All those buffs prove siege fanatics wont be satisfied unless a piece of inventory can destroy players without them being able to do anything about it. Only when it does oblivion damage that ignores everything including shields do you finally deem it useful. Yet someone you all complain about a little oblivion damage dot from Sloads. Because left clicking from 50 meters away on a tower wall is skillful gameplay, but actually getting out there and fighting someone with a proc set is a "crutch."

Everytime siege gets buffed, the people who suffer by far the most are inexperienced players or those poor souls who try to contribute to their alliance by setting up the plain old ballista to hit a castle wall. They lose control of their character while shooting that ballista, so they cant just get out of the mutliple and overlapping red circles on them, and have to with standing in a major defile, a 20% amp to all damage, and getting destroyed by a cold harbor ballista that kills them in 2 seconds tops. People who run in ball groups have pocket purgers and healers who are inconvenienced, not destroyed, by it. Anytime something is overpowered, the people you are so desperate to destroy is effected the least by the changes because they have the most experience and pocket support to deal with it.

Sure, but performance uber alles. Can't fight for real anyway as it is. Make siege strong, and put a mechanic outside keeps (like capturing resources or towns) that decreases the siege cap.

darkblue5

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Siege week did prevent some skillful play styles from performing at the same level as they did in Murkmire. That said on balance I think that the siege changed the meta and useful strategies in ways that appeal to more players than the current meta does. That is why I am actually very much against the idea that healers should be able to heal players through siege regardless of skill level. Clearly healing through siege is not needed to take a keep at all. During the siege week I saw the multiple breaches tactic used by a mixture of barely organized PuGs and solos work repeatedly and be increasingly used like in no-CP. This is without healers to heal through the siege. What this meant was a siege seemed like a siege, not a place for a ball group to maybe come across another ball group that might bomb it after the mere formality of 20/20ing both front doors. Healing through siege is only really needed if you want to skip the siege mechanic, sort of like how most Craglorn trials have been reduced to stack and burn while the party ignores the relevant mechanics. If you value the rare times that there is a ball group versus ball group fight in a keep instead of the consistent albeit smaller combat that having a real siege fight creates you'll be happy that siege is back to being only useful against PuGs. Can the multiple breech aspect get boring? Sure, but the 20/20 FD sprint through the keep aspect sure was boring and miserable for most anyone not in a ball group, and was boring IMO to perform unless you ran into another ball group.

Now after siege week the siege mechanic is once more a negligible formality that barely impedes ball groups progress to either stomping solo players, getting killed by an unexpected faction stacked zerg, or maybe having an intricate battle with another ball group. This while both ball groups simply roll over the foolish solos and PuGs that thought that they should play for the objectives.

The whole idea of the Cyrodiil keeps and objectives originally were to create places to PvP. I think we largely disagree on the kind of PvP experience we want to foster.

Currently I hate the options you have as a solo player, which is get rolled by any slightly organized group, farm noobs and fools like myself on resources by humping walls, or just join a ball group or a faction stacked zerg. I hate the current tanky heal ball meta where 90% of the time you're either eventually going to die by a faction stacked zerg interrupting your 20 siege versus door plan, or you'll keep farming or PvDooring and either way rarely getting into a fair fight where both sides can say that their skill determined whether they lost or not. It only feels like a fair fight when you're either fighting another ball group or you're making 40+ people have a more miserable experience in PVP while encouraging the faction stacking which is a greater evil than ball groups but which ball groups necessitate.

I think that even if buffed siege make combats where individually your skills didn't matter because some PVE-er set up siege while a troll tank CC locked you that what most people in Cyrodiil gain outweighs that. Most people in Cyrodiil have a choice between being essentially useless dead weight on a server preventing a ball group from having another healer with proxy det, and being part of a PvP obviating faction stacked zerg. In the long run the tanky ball group meta clearly is less popular and will keep PvP from being as popular as it could be when it already is hardly the biggest draw in the game.

Now are there ways to make siege better at controlling the faction stacked zergs and the ball groups that play a large role in forming those zergs? Sure, everything from friendly fire to a Proxy det like mechanic. Will those thing ultimately destroy organized group play? No, clearly not and that isn't what I hope for either. Would buffed siege harm athe genuinely skill intensive and rewarding playstyle of having a perfectly calibrated ball group that only a faction stack can chase off? Yes, and whether that's worth it depends on how much you value that PvP experience over the other PvP experience that it suppresses.

Finally specifically talking about the use of siege on solo players. Honestly if your favorite build and play style was terminally weak to siege being set up nearby by a noob then chances are you really don't want siege to be effective against solo players. You're also probably part of the tank and snare meta that really isn't popular right now. In many ways the reason that buffed siege was more popular during siege week than after Summerset is probably partially due to how stale the tank and snare meta got for anyone without a rapids spammer / stamina support. Or even for many people who had played with a rapids spammer or stamina support. With enough time off from the tank/snare meta most players would probably get tired of a mobile and bursty meta as well but we're pretty far from those two things.

FleetwoodSmack

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Zevrro

Other

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Thlepse

dont worry about siege being fixed, you can move on to other great things !! you can spam scattershot and its morphs since its not fixed properly yet, or spam stamina based snares like caltrops and that other bow skill i forgot what its called

if youre a magicka char its not an issue !!!!!!! you can just spam ice blockade no problemo, no need to L2P as they say, just move on to the next broken aspect of pvp and stubbornly refuse to git gud

honestly some players are just hopeless

darkblue5

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Thlepse wrote: »

dont worry about siege being fixed, you can move on to other great things !! you can spam scattershot and its morphs since its not fixed properly yet, or spam stamina based snares like caltrops and that other bow skill i forgot what its called

if youre a magicka char its not an issue !!!!!!! you can just spam ice blockade no problemo, no need to L2P as they say, just move on to the next broken aspect of pvp and stubbornly refuse to git gud

honestly some players are just hopeless

The problem is that all of those broken things are part of what's been making PvP less fun for the majority of people, while the bugged siege were generally not supported for how broken they were but rather for how they broke up unfun things people were doing. Unfun things like the broken faction stacking and broken snare tank meta. As soon as the fix was live the faction stacked zerg PvDooring returned! Which we all agree is a true hallmark of skillful, not broken, and interactive PvP.

kerthas

Other

i want to play pvp, not siege online

FleetwoodSmack

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCGD9dT12C0

TheBonesXXX

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Siege needs to be powerful, but the deployment speed and turn speed can be reduced when not near keeps.

Also bring back ground oils.

Judas Helviaryn

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

leeux

Other

I'd like a strong siege... but then some other changes need to be done too in order to compensate for that. Siege Shield needs to be buffed, and more/easier options for purging need to be available to stamina players or players that don't play in groups... all within reason, ofc.

EDIT: Perhaps Barrier would also need to be unnerfed back to 12 people? Don't know, maybe that's unnecessary.

Else you're turning siege in a auto I Win button.

I play magplar/healer so I don't say this from a position of bias myself, I don't care for stamina builds either... but I don't like the game to be worse for people that play those builds or don't have an easy cleanse available.

TheBonesXXX

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

leeux wrote: »

I'd like a strong siege... but then some other changes need to be done too in order to compensate for that. Siege Shield needs to be buffed, and more/easier options for purging need to be available to stamina players or players that don't play in groups... all within reason, ofc.

Else you're turning siege in a auto I Win button.

I play magplar/healer so I don't say this from a position of bias myself, I don't care for stamina builds either... but I don't like the game to be worse for people that play those builds or don't have an easy cleanse available.

Siege Shield getting buffed is fine.

Zevrro

Other

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

FleetwoodSmack

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

Zevrro

Other

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

FleetwoodSmack

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

There's still other problems with this scenario.

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

The other problem is; If a zerg uses OP siege, that's a side effect I can live with. Because unlike most who complain? I know not to stand in dumb and if I die due to standing in dumb, then that's my own fault. It's all about this little thing called...

VaranisArano

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

To be honest, if the 4-man group wants to play ring-around-the-tower at a resource I'm trying to clear out with my team, you bet I'm going to drop siege and cover that tower in debuffs. Sorry, I really don't go for chasing the tower farmers in circles. That just gets tiresome and its playing right into their hands.

Zevrro

Other

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

There's still other problems with this scenario.

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

The other problem is; If a zerg uses OP siege, that's a side effect I can live with. Because unlike most who complain? I know not to stand in dumb and if I die due to standing in dumb, then that's my own fault. It's all about this little thing called...

You're joking, right? Every time I play in a small group and a zerg comes and forces us into a tower they will place siege down without fail. Within seconds the entire bottom floor and entrance is covered in meatbags and scattershot whilst other players are sieging the top with trebuchets.

@VaranisArano confirmed exactly my point. Large groups would rather siege a small group and get the fight out the way than attempt to fight them.

FleetwoodSmack

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

There's still other problems with this scenario.

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

The other problem is; If a zerg uses OP siege, that's a side effect I can live with. Because unlike most who complain? I know not to stand in dumb and if I die due to standing in dumb, then that's my own fault. It's all about this little thing called...

You're joking, right? Every time I play in a small group and a zerg comes and forces us into a tower they will place siege down without fail. Within seconds the entire bottom floor and entrance is covered in meatbags and scattershot whilst other players are sieging the top with trebuchets.

@VaranisArano confirmed exactly my point. Large groups would rather siege a small group and get the fight out the way than attempt to fight them.

You didn't read what I wrote very well, so I'll repeat it again and bold the part that you must've glazed over.

*Clears throat*

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

Even with that, I see that as a deterrent of that type of gameplay, so that's another benefit that I'll casually mark down. Thanks!

VaranisArano

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

There's still other problems with this scenario.

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

The other problem is; If a zerg uses OP siege, that's a side effect I can live with. Because unlike most who complain? I know not to stand in dumb and if I die due to standing in dumb, then that's my own fault. It's all about this little thing called...

You're joking, right? Every time I play in a small group and a zerg comes and forces us into a tower they will place siege down without fail. Within seconds the entire bottom floor and entrance is covered in meatbags and scattershot whilst other players are sieging the top with trebuchets.

@VaranisArano confirmed exactly my point. Large groups would rather siege a small group and get the fight out the way than attempt to fight them.

Kind of? I guess I really don't see the point of fighting four or so players for whom the height of gameplay is running around and around the tower floors again and again.

There's certainly times we'll happily fight small groups without siege as a raid. We'll fight other organized raids without siege. But generally speaking, if I'm part of a raid, I want to be capturing keeps and fighting other organized raids, not playing ring-around-the-resource-tower with a couple of tower farmers who were trolling for PUGs to wander in one at a time. Those tower farmers get the siege treatment because that's the most efficient way to get rid of them. (If that's not what your group does, sorry, but that's what I see the vast majority of times a small group is holed up in a tower - which if that's not how your group plays, certainly may explain why everyone's first reaction is to put down siege.)

VaranisArano

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

IME, this most often happens when an organized raid is stopping to cap resources before or after a keep capture, and there happens to be a small group at the resource who was tower farming the random PUGs and solo players who were coming to recapture the resources.

Either the raid decides to rush in and wipe the small group, or the raid is like "Don't have time to run them down, got things to do! Drop siege."

In either case, that small group proceeds to go "OMG, we got zerged!" like they weren't sitting at an objective farming players in onesies and twosies, and act shocked that a raid capping objectives just clears them off.

That's not true of all small groups that fight at resources, I'm sure, but that's by far the most common situation I've seen where organized raids fight with small groups holed up in resource towers.

Zevrro

Other

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

There's still other problems with this scenario.

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

The other problem is; If a zerg uses OP siege, that's a side effect I can live with. Because unlike most who complain? I know not to stand in dumb and if I die due to standing in dumb, then that's my own fault. It's all about this little thing called...

You're joking, right? Every time I play in a small group and a zerg comes and forces us into a tower they will place siege down without fail. Within seconds the entire bottom floor and entrance is covered in meatbags and scattershot whilst other players are sieging the top with trebuchets.

@VaranisArano confirmed exactly my point. Large groups would rather siege a small group and get the fight out the way than attempt to fight them.

You didn't read what I wrote very well, so I'll repeat it again and bold the part that you must've glazed over.

*Clears throat*

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

Even with that, I see that as a deterrent of that type of gameplay, so that's another benefit that I'll casually mark down. Thanks!

Lol zergs aren't full of smart players. Why are you acting like they would make smart and strategical decisions? If they were lots of smart and strategical players they wouldn't be zerging 4 players in a tower.

I didn't glaze over anything its just you clearly don't understand how these groups fight.

Xsorus

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

powerful siege hurts one group.. zerg balls, everyone else has already learned to avoid it cause we don’t have siege shield and a ton of healers

FleetwoodSmack

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

There's still other problems with this scenario.

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

The other problem is; If a zerg uses OP siege, that's a side effect I can live with. Because unlike most who complain? I know not to stand in dumb and if I die due to standing in dumb, then that's my own fault. It's all about this little thing called...

You're joking, right? Every time I play in a small group and a zerg comes and forces us into a tower they will place siege down without fail. Within seconds the entire bottom floor and entrance is covered in meatbags and scattershot whilst other players are sieging the top with trebuchets.

@VaranisArano confirmed exactly my point. Large groups would rather siege a small group and get the fight out the way than attempt to fight them.

You didn't read what I wrote very well, so I'll repeat it again and bold the part that you must've glazed over.

*Clears throat*

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

Even with that, I see that as a deterrent of that type of gameplay, so that's another benefit that I'll casually mark down. Thanks!

Lol zergs aren't full of smart players. Why are you acting like they would make smart and strategical decisions? If they were lots of smart and strategical players they wouldn't be zerging 4 players in a tower.

I didn't glaze over anything its just you clearly don't understand how these groups fight.

Uh-huh. So large groups shouldn't use siege on four people in a resource because that's not strategy and totally not a valid reason to use siege. Yet I clearly don't understand these 'group fights'.

You're not being zerged down if you're stuck in a tower. I'm sorry, but no. Just no. You made that choice and still stayed in it instead of saying "Oh Sithis!" and running out the back like most SMART small groups do.

That being said, that's getting off topic. You're not going to change my mind, I'm not changing yours. Just remember to make good choices.

Moving on.

VaranisArano wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

IME, this most often happens when an organized raid is stopping to cap resources before or after a keep capture, and there happens to be a small group at the resource who was tower farming the random PUGs and solo players who were coming to recapture the resources.

Either the raid decides to rush in and wipe the small group, or the raid is like "Don't have time to run them down, got things to do! Drop siege."

In either case, that small group proceeds to go "OMG, we got zerged!" like they weren't sitting at an objective farming players in onesies and twosies, and act shocked that a raid capping objectives just clears them off.

That's not true of all small groups that fight at resources, I'm sure, but that's by far the most common situation I've seen where organized raids fight with small groups holed up in resource towers.

I've had varying experiences. Most of mine are people that take the flag too soon and they can't siege the tower down so all they can do is fire at the place hoping to at least get them out. Meanwhile they're still in there circling for sometimes half an hour to an hour (the longest I seen was at least an hour and a half). No one gets anywhere and it becomes this prolonged stale stalemate.

I've been on both sides of the fence, though. I've been 'that' player that did loopdeeloops in the tower farming people chasing me and I've been on the other side chasing. I've stopped both because it's not even fun or funny anymore. Honestly though, it diverts from the main problem.

That being said, I do think that there needs to be something done where the majority comes out happy. It's just something that's probably not likely going to happen because there's not a lot of genuine constructive dialogue over it. I've sprinkled some bullet ideas that have compromises (some even courtesy to you!) in them in another poll thread about it, though I don't think that's going to go anywhere because it's the forums and it's rare to find that nowdays too.

Zevrro

Other

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

Judas Helviaryn wrote: »

Zevrro wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

#MakeZergsCryAgain

Anything that counters zergs can be used by zergs too.

Zergs will be hurt the least by it.

Funny, you'd think there would be a minimum distance, and actual limit, to siege weapon placement.

Wait..

Zergs would definitely get the short end of the straw here, come on man. Think it out!

Just because you can use siege weapons easily kill zergs doesnt mean they aren't going to do the same to the 4 man groups fighting in towers. How well do you think 4 people stand against a 24 man group using sieges that were buffed enough to be able to kill 24 players with ease? They do the same damage to small groups as small groups can do to large groups except the large groups can place more.

Zergs already resort to sieging smaller groups of players.

Last week begs to differ with you.

Edit; Also a 4 man group isn't going to do well against a group of 24 anyways. That's not a good scenario.

4v24 was an example of a small group vs a zerg. No outnumbered fight is "good scenario" because numbers usually win.

There's still other problems with this scenario.

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

The other problem is; If a zerg uses OP siege, that's a side effect I can live with. Because unlike most who complain? I know not to stand in dumb and if I die due to standing in dumb, then that's my own fault. It's all about this little thing called...

You're joking, right? Every time I play in a small group and a zerg comes and forces us into a tower they will place siege down without fail. Within seconds the entire bottom floor and entrance is covered in meatbags and scattershot whilst other players are sieging the top with trebuchets.

@VaranisArano confirmed exactly my point. Large groups would rather siege a small group and get the fight out the way than attempt to fight them.

You didn't read what I wrote very well, so I'll repeat it again and bold the part that you must've glazed over.

*Clears throat*

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

Even with that, I see that as a deterrent of that type of gameplay, so that's another benefit that I'll casually mark down. Thanks!

Lol zergs aren't full of smart players. Why are you acting like they would make smart and strategical decisions? If they were lots of smart and strategical players they wouldn't be zerging 4 players in a tower.

I didn't glaze over anything its just you clearly don't understand how these groups fight.

Uh-huh. So large groups shouldn't use siege on four people in a resource because that's not strategy and totally not a valid reason to use siege. Yet I clearly don't understand these 'group fights'.

You're not being zerged down if you're stuck in a tower. I'm sorry, but no. Just no. You made that choice and still stayed in it instead of saying "Oh Sithis!" and running out the back like most SMART small groups do.

That being said, that's getting off topic. You're not going to change my mind, I'm not changing yours. Just remember to make good choices.

VaranisArano wrote: »

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something. It's easier for them to just pop a few destro ults rather than fighting the game mechanics to lay down siege possibly in some clearing and then pew pew at a measly four players.

IME, this most often happens when an organized raid is stopping to cap resources before or after a keep capture, and there happens to be a small group at the resource who was tower farming the random PUGs and solo players who were coming to recapture the resources.

Either the raid decides to rush in and wipe the small group, or the raid is like "Don't have time to run them down, got things to do! Drop siege."

In either case, that small group proceeds to go "OMG, we got zerged!" like they weren't sitting at an objective farming players in onesies and twosies, and act shocked that a raid capping objectives just clears them off.

That's not true of all small groups that fight at resources, I'm sure, but that's by far the most common situation I've seen where organized raids fight with small groups holed up in resource towers.

I've had varying experiences. Most of mine are people that take the flag too soon and they can't siege the tower down so all they can do is fire at the place hoping to at least get them out. Meanwhile they're still in there circling for sometimes half an hour to an hour (the longest I seen was at least an hour and a half). No one gets anywhere and it becomes this prolonged stale stalemate.

I've been on both sides of the fence, though. I've been 'that' player that did loopdeeloops in the tower farming people chasing me and I've been on the other side chasing. I've stopped both because it's not even fun or funny anymore. Honestly though, it diverts from the main problem.

That being said, I do think that there needs to be something done where the majority comes out happy. It's just something that's probably not likely going to happen because there's not a lot of genuine constructive dialogue over it. I've sprinkled some bullet ideas that have compromises (some even courtesy to you!) in them in another poll thread about it, though I don't think that's going to go anywhere because it's the forums and it's rare to find that nowdays too.

"So large groups shouldn't use siege on four people in a resource because that's not strategy" You're the one that questioned that strategy by saying "Why on Nirn would a group of 24 stop to siege four players? They're a zerg. That makes no strategical sense unless said zerg was smart enough NOT to take the resource so they could siege down a tower/wall or something." Make your mind up. They won't siege the tower down they'll just siege the floors.

You really think a zerg is going to leave you alone because you dropped out the tower?

Rojnaar

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Cathexis wrote: »

I would like to see more than strong seige, I would like to see seige builds.

I would like to see short range seige that hits hard and adjusts quickly, that stays down for long durations, has higher health and perhaps has secondary defensive abilities, and that moves slowly with a single player.

Show me seige knights.

I used the vicious death set, coupled with sloads and nerieneth(other monster sets can work too) It worked out pretty well. I'd been gone about a year and just popped in out of boredom, so didn't want to bother looking over what skills I had on when I left or go through the bother of changing them. I just pulled some old gear from the bank, and hung out in keep sieges enjoying myself. All in all it was more pvp fun than I've had since the early years.

_Ahala_

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Make it proxy det style

darkblue5

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

Honestly if siege kills the tower touching style of solo play I won't be mad because honestly it is a much more boring way to solo than to run out to the edges of a siege battle and engage until you're dead. I mean if you very much care about your kill/deaths then sure my style makes no sense but IMO deaths are free. The kite and then burst style requires way to much patience, and often generates less interesting fights than the fights around siege during siege week.

Honestly, if ZOS just implemented special week long Cyrodiil events like the accidental siege week during long boring metas that'd help break up the monotony of whatever is going on. Someday the meta won't be the tank meta and I'll get tired of it too. And at that point some random weekly event briefly reviving the snare tank meta might be a similarly well received. Sheo needs to make some nonsense events and not just nonsense weapons that either faction stacks or guilds will nearly always grab first.

FleetwoodSmack

Make Siege A Force To Be Reckoned With Once More

darkblue5 wrote: »

Honestly if siege kills the tower touching style of solo play I won't be mad because honestly it is a much more boring way to solo than to run out to the edges of a siege battle and engage until you're dead. I mean if you very much care about your kill/deaths then sure my style makes no sense but IMO deaths are free. The kite and then burst style requires way to much patience, and often generates less interesting fights than the fights around siege during siege week.

Honestly, if ZOS just implemented special week long Cyrodiil events like the accidental siege week during long boring metas that'd help break up the monotony of whatever is going on. Someday the meta won't be the tank meta and I'll get tired of it too. And at that point some random weekly event briefly reviving the snare tank meta might be a similarly well received. Sheo needs to make some nonsense events and not just nonsense weapons that either faction stacks or guilds will nearly always grab first.

It would certainly make things more interesting. Supposedly that's what the artifacts are supposed to do, but after hearing what Volendrung will do in Cyrodiil I'm kind of unimpressed by how it sounds. Still, I'll give it a go and see if it changes anything.

Vapirko

darkblue5 wrote: »

Honestly if siege kills the tower touching style of solo play I won't be mad because honestly it is a much more boring way to solo than to run out to the edges of a siege battle and engage until you're dead. I mean if you very much care about your kill/deaths then sure my style makes no sense but IMO deaths are free. The kite and then burst style requires way to much patience, and often generates less interesting fights than the fights around siege during siege week.

Honestly, if ZOS just implemented special week long Cyrodiil events like the accidental siege week during long boring metas that'd help break up the monotony of whatever is going on. Someday the meta won't be the tank meta and I'll get tired of it too. And at that point some random weekly event briefly reviving the snare tank meta might be a similarly well received. Sheo needs to make some nonsense events and not just nonsense weapons that either faction stacks or guilds will nearly always grab first.

It won’t though. Tower farmers were some of the biggest users of siege.