Can Anyone Honestly Say PvP Is Better W/Out OP Siege?

Neoauspex

I think if they implemented this on purpose, they could do it in a way that satisfies both sides of this divisive issue. Make it possible for siege to be really strong, make mechanics outside of keeps that weaken siege. Zerg busting is an option, small scale is necessary for it.

Fatalyis

Ahtu wrote: »

I and many others would have quit the game if the siege bug was permanent. I know people who stopped logging into the game when this happened and still haven't come back yet. Population levels were dwindling when siege was OP and it was harder to find people looking for group in Cyrodiil.

So yes, PvP is better without the siege bug.

Which speaks volumes to all of us in the “Make Siege Great Again” camp. Thank you for proving our point...

thedude33

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

thedude33

Neoauspex wrote: »

I think if they implemented this on purpose, they could do it in a way that satisfies both sides of this divisive issue. Make it possible for siege to be really strong, make mechanics outside of keeps that weaken siege. Zerg busting is an option, small scale is necessary for it.

Oil especially needs to be deadly to deter ram use which also slows down the time to take a keep. More time needed = more chance for defenders to arrive = more PvP. Isn't that the whole point? Player vs Player much preferable to Player vs Door

Qbiken

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

If you want your siege to two shot players, then be my guest. But at least allow the damage from Siege vs Keep to be amplified as much as the damage was with Siege vs Players during the first week of Wrathstone. Don´t you think it´s reasonable that siege is equally strong in both the defenders and the attackers favour???

CatchMeTrolling

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

I actually agree with his statement, it isn’t good to cater to good people because there’s way more casuals or bad players in the game. However, I don’t agree that those players should be able to run around and steamroll their “opposition” simply because of numbers. Nor do I think siege should tickle players to the point no actual tactics are being used.

Dying is apart of the game, being scared to die is why we’re in a tank meta and one of the reasons people zerg in the first place.

My issue is if you’re going to zerg they should at least zerg right and if you don’t you should get punished. As it is right now you don’t but small scale players can do everything right just to get ran over while their opponents is doing EVERYTHING wrong. Right now it’s not just forgiving, it’s too forgiving for zergers.

thedude33

Qbiken wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

If you want your siege to two shot players, then be my guest. But at least allow the damage from Siege vs Keep to be amplified as much as the damage was with Siege vs Players during the first week of Wrathstone. Don´t you think it´s reasonable that siege is equally strong in both the defenders and the attackers favour???

I want pvp, so no, I don't want more powerful siege vs doors. I want powerful oil so people can't stand under it and operate a ram. I want the attack slowed down so defenders have a chance to arrive. Player vs Door should not be encouraged or rewarded.

thedude33

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

I actually agree with his statement, it isn’t good to cater to good people because there’s way more casuals or bad players in the game. However, I don’t agree that those players should be able to run around and steamroll their “opposition” simply because of numbers. Nor do I think siege should tickle players to the point no actual tactics are being used.

Dying is apart of the game, being scared to die is why we’re in a tank meta and one of the reasons people zerg in the first place.

My issue is if you’re going to zerg they should at least zerg right and if you don’t you should get punished. As it is right now you don’t but small scale players can do everything right just to get ran over while their opponents is doing EVERYTHING wrong. Right now it’s not just forgiving, it’s too forgiving for zergers.

ESO is the most ruthless pvp game I have ever played. The gap between a very good player and a bad player is immense. That and basic human nature is what produces zergs. That's an entirely different issue than the strength of siege.

Minno

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

I actually agree with his statement, it isn’t good to cater to good people because there’s way more casuals or bad players in the game. However, I don’t agree that those players should be able to run around and steamroll their “opposition” simply because of numbers. Nor do I think siege should tickle players to the point no actual tactics are being used.

Dying is apart of the game, being scared to die is why we’re in a tank meta and one of the reasons people zerg in the first place.

My issue is if you’re going to zerg they should at least zerg right and if you don’t you should get punished. As it is right now you don’t but small scale players can do everything right just to get ran over while their opponents is doing EVERYTHING wrong. Right now it’s not just forgiving, it’s too forgiving for zergers.

Gameplay access is a fundamental right for games. You can see this via the increased stacking of numbers and tanky players in ESO, not because ESO punishes you for dying, but because ESO punishes you by denying you access to quickly get to the fight.

Why spend 1-2 minutes running to a fight to die in 2 seconds in a reactive intensive build, when you can just build a tank, hold on for 1-2 minutes until your friends arrive to help! It's all symptoms of a bigger disease, failure of the devs to open up cyro access without crutching on gear/playstyles/classes.

Joy_Division

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

If you want to engage my point, then engage what I wrote and not make up nonsense

There is going to be a learning curve in any game. If there is a ton of lethal damage from any source that places too much of a premium on experienced, having specific skills, or other players for support, that creates a steep learning curve. Which may be fine for something like Dark Souls that has that reputation or a hardmode trial designed for the best of the best.
Cyrodiil is supposed to cater to everyone. You can disagree and that's fine. But that doesn't make my opinion "wrong" and neither does making a strawman.

I never said they learning curve should be so simplistic that people ought to be able to stand under 6 oils. Do you want to engage in hyperbolic nonsense or do you want to have a productive conversation? If there are people who have more oil KBs on the NA server than me, I probably can count them on one hand. I know exactly what oils can and cannot do and how to operate them efficiently. You are just talking out of your butt because oils are already quite lethal:



There are literally thousands of killing blows from my oils and they're not in the bottom 1%

I like to defend, it's by far the thing I like to do most in the game. You know what makes it really hard to defend? Overpowered siege. If the attackers get inside, they can put up more siege and decimate the top floor of keeps, precisely where the defenders are supposed to put down their siege and oils. Do you have any idea how hard it is to run oils with overlapping meatbags and scattershots hitting you with heal debuffs and damage amps when some 5 star just sits there and left clicks a fire treb? It is not sustainable even as a templar with cleanse. The top floor is filled with dead bodies because they either stuck on their siege or cant move out of the red circles because there isn't anywhere to go. The bottom floor flags, which have to be defended are also covered in meatbag and scattershot debuffs. More siege can fire into a an inner keep than out of it.

For 5 years before the bug, people have been defending keeps and have had fun doing it. Heck, the developers even created a lore book about it in the "Chalamo." It is absolutely possible and has been done, so if you want to have meaningful discussion, stop making crazy statements that simply aren't true

Edit: I would not be opposed to higher oil damage because now that is a pure defensive siege and it's not like some 5 star can easily put it down a target outnumbered players 50 meters away.

thedude33

Joy_Division wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

.........
...........



There are literally thousands of killing blows from my oils and they're not in the bottom 1%

I like to defend, it's by far the thing I like to do most in the game. You know what makes it really hard to defend? Overpowered siege. If the attackers get inside, they can put up more siege and decimate the top floor of keeps, precisely where the defenders are supposed to put down their siege and oils. Do you have any idea how hard it is to run oils with overlapping meatbags and scattershots hitting you with heal debuffs and damage amps when some 5 star just sits there and left clicks a fire treb? It is not sustainable even as a templar with cleanse. The top floor is filled with dead bodies because they either stuck on their siege or cant move out of the red circles because there isn't anywhere to go. The bottom floor flags, which have to be defended are also covered in meatbag and scattershot debuffs. More siege can fire into a an inner keep than out of it.

...........

Edit: I would not be opposed to higher oil damage because now that is a pure defensive siege and it's not like some 5 star can easily put it down a target outnumbered players 50 meters away.

I agree with two of your points, with a correction.

1. Higher oil damage. As you said, it's defensive.
2. What makes it hard to defend when the enemy gets past the front door is not because of 'overpowered siege'. It's a physical layout design problem. I was actually going to make a post about this. Once inside the door, the attackers have the advantage. Which should never be the case. They can set up siege along the walls, on top of turrets, and on the ground and completely overwhelm opposing siege. I really don't know the solution to this.

Maybe allow a tent inside so defenders can push out and try and fight? If they die, they can respawn? Currently, you can't use siege and you can't fight. Just sitting ducks waiting for the door to come down.

Edit: You're a Class Rep. Cool it with the personal attacks hidden among your wall of text.

caeliusstarbreaker

So my choices are die in 2 seconds or not use abilities.... hmmmm

Cathexis

High seige damage vs players is good.

-It allows low level players and small group to disrupt large, otherwise invincible zergs
-It allows a small group of players to defend a keep against a large group
-It forces groups to engage keeps strategically, rather than proceedurally.

Catering to an environment where you have to be a good player IS WHAT PVP IS ABOUT.
WHEN YOU MAKE EVERY PLAYER EQUAL WE ARE ESSENTIALLY PLAYING FOOSBALL.

PVP is a competitive combat area, if you neutralize being a good player as a factor, you neuter the competitive element that defines good pvp.

Part of the reason why any competitive game or sport is interesting is because players think differently and operate differently, and at variable skill levels. Right now pvp, particularly in the cp campaign, is entirely a numbers game of who can bring the biggest raid and spin to win.

If this is how class reps feel, I have to say it seems like you are more interested in preserving the zerging status quo than creating an engaging pvp experience.

Edit; also to address the issue of excessive seige on the outer firing at the inner... You need to adapt new offensive strategies. Part of the problem is that the balance has shifted toward tanking to such an extent that you cannot engage in dynamic combat on the ground outside the inner or on the outer walls. By the time you kill one or two players, even as a skilled player, teams have dropped the inner door. It is easy for attackers to rally - they feel no pressure in combat and can regroup with no margin of error.

I have played a long time and I have seen the situation you are describing, where players on the upper of the inner are bombarded by seige... But the truth is that's good strategy on the part of the attacking team, and it necessitates taking a different approach - often that meant leaving the inner and engaging on the ground, or on the walls, setting up counter seige on the outer, etc. Defending in defensive posture is not the only tactical option, and sometimes you must engage directly, even at risk of losing a keep.

AND THAT IS WHERE HAVING A LARGE MARGIN OF HUMAN ERROR & ACTIVE SKILL BASED COMBAT COMES INTO PLAY AND CREATES A DYNAMIC COMBAT EXPERIENCE ..

..RATHER THAN A ZERG ASSEMBLY LINE KEEP ROTATION SCHEDULE.

Right now there is no reason for players to take risks engaging because zergs go unchallenged.
Attackers hide in the safety of the Zerg because it shields them from any risk.
Defenders see they are outnumbered and either let themselves get farmed to respawn or fall back.

MajBludd

Siege should be a concern not something you can just ignore. The stronger siege was much better, and in my opinion, how it should have stayed.

Merlight

@Cathexis Insightful, Agree, Awesome. I don't want to pick one, I want to give four! Thank you.

Joy_Division wrote: »

There is going to be a learning curve in any game. If there is a ton of lethal damage from any source that places too much of a premium on experienced, having specific skills, or other players for support, that creates a steep learning curve. Which may be fine for something like Dark Souls that has that reputation or a hardmode trial designed for the best of the best.
Cyrodiil is supposed to cater to everyone. You can disagree and that's fine. But that doesn't make my opinion "wrong" and neither does making a strawman.

You're painting it as if high siege damage makes the learning curve steeper. It's quite the opposite. Genuinely newer, inexperienced players are usually flexible, because they're in the process of learning and adapting every day. They quickly realize siege is deadly and figure out how to stay out of harm's way. Using siege effectively is also relatively easy to learn, there's not much premium experienced players get. You called siege "a mundane piece of equipment". That is how, and why, high siege damage is noob-friendly.

Do you know what has a steep learning curve? Head-to-head combat, where the inexperienced player faces one of four other classes he/she doesn't play, figuring out how to respond to visual cues without knowing the tooltips, learning to identify threats coming from equipment they've never seen, and perhaps don't even have access to, etc. That's where experienced payers have high premium.

technohic

Merlight wrote: »

@Cathexis Insightful, Agree, Awesome. I don't want to pick one, I want to give four! Thank you.

Joy_Division wrote: »

There is going to be a learning curve in any game. If there is a ton of lethal damage from any source that places too much of a premium on experienced, having specific skills, or other players for support, that creates a steep learning curve. Which may be fine for something like Dark Souls that has that reputation or a hardmode trial designed for the best of the best.
Cyrodiil is supposed to cater to everyone. You can disagree and that's fine. But that doesn't make my opinion "wrong" and neither does making a strawman.

You're painting it as if high siege damage makes the learning curve steeper. It's quite the opposite. Genuinely newer, inexperienced players are usually flexible, because they're in the process of learning and adapting every day. They quickly realize siege is deadly and figure out how to stay out of harm's way. Using siege effectively is also relatively easy to learn, there's not much premium experienced players get. You called siege "a mundane piece of equipment". That is how, and why, high siege damage is noob-friendly.

Do you know what has a steep learning curve? Head-to-head combat, where the inexperienced player faces one of four other classes he/she doesn't play, figuring out how to respond to visual cues without knowing the tooltips, learning to identify threats coming from equipment they've never seen, and perhaps don't even have access to, etc. That's where experienced payers have high premium.

Chances are, they are not going to see much of the visual queues as they either will be in the blob, or getting run over by it. Its only made things worse when a couple of factions have a blob culture and one stacking multiple raids where siege being powerful is the only way to stop it in the lag it causes.

Toc de Malsvi

Dying instantly to oils is not a steep learning curve, comparing it to DarkSouls show's someone either doesn't think critically or has never played DarkSouls for any length of time. DarkSouls is difficult not because of one shots, but because the game adapts to the strategies you employ to find new ways to one shot you.

Oil CANNOT adapt to your strategy, it can only be placed at specific points. It is a stupid easy learning curve shown over and over at every keep. Other siege weapons are slow to place, slow to move, and slow to fire, it should hit very hard and be pretty unforgiving. In the current design it does not hit hard and is only pseudo effective if you can organize the siege placement as well as counter pressure from your own side.

Probably they should slightly reduce Ballista's vs players again, and increase Treb's damage.

TheBonesXXX

Qbiken wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

Don't know how many bloody times it's gonna be said but dangerous siege is good for the health of the game.

True Zerg busting mechanics should be welcomed, not shunned.

Assigned potato spam just upgrades players to yams, not skilled PvPers. Just a perveyor of skills that overperform, spin to win Ulti dumping is just a DPS dump is just that, ezpz not talent.

Personally I think the damage during siegebug week was severely overkill and one/two shot mechanics are unhealthy for both pve and pvp


But sure, if you want siege to be powerful enough to 1-2 shot players, I want to be able to bring down a keep wall/door with only 3-4 trebuche shots.
I mean, u said it yourself, siege should be powerful, but that should go both ways.

I said dangerous, not over tuned. I wanted the siege bug to stay till they had a plan to make siege work as it should.

People just want a skip through the park as they PvDoor and over whelm the players in it.

It's one part of a the design, which should be rethought with the bigger picture.

Keeps/Resources shouldn't be a cake walk.

TheBonesXXX

Ahtu wrote: »

I and many others would have quit the game if the siege bug was permanent. I know people who stopped logging into the game when this happened and still haven't come back yet. Population levels were dwindling when siege was OP and it was harder to find people looking for group in Cyrodiil.

So yes, PvP is better without the siege bug.

If guiless zergs were cancer, and OP siege were a scalpel...

Gotta remove the cancer to improve the health of the body.

Neoauspex

I just want better performance. I was stoked that ZoS stumbled upon a potential solution for this game's most overt problem, and it's really disappointing that people dissent against solving it just so they don't have to adapt to a new play style. If we can't figure out a compromise, just make one campaign strong siege and keep one laggy and classic. Then people can choose.

Joy_Division

thedude33 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

thedude33 wrote: »

Catering to an environment where you have to be good/experienced to actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

This from a class rep.

All I can say is wow.

I am a 1 percenter. As in the bottom 1% of the population ranking player skill...... and I find that statement outrageous. Sure I die a lot.... as should any bad or inexperienced player does. The game is doing no favors to new or bad players by allowing them to stand under 6 oils while running a ram, with no consequences.

Some players are actually inspired to defend. They like to port from keep to keep and have an eye open to any attack. They will shout out when an attack is starting and set up their siege. ( not surprisingly that's what new or weaker players can do to participate and contribute). What's frustrating is to have all your effort be wasted because your siege does laughable damage. You want to contribute, but realize you actually aren't. So they learn quickly, why defend. Why scout? As I mentioned earlier, you don't want to go the route of GW2 when it comes to siege warfare.

Catering to an environment where you can stand under 6 oils and actually stay alive is not healthy. I think that position is very reasonable.

.........
...........



There are literally thousands of killing blows from my oils and they're not in the bottom 1%

I like to defend, it's by far the thing I like to do most in the game. You know what makes it really hard to defend? Overpowered siege. If the attackers get inside, they can put up more siege and decimate the top floor of keeps, precisely where the defenders are supposed to put down their siege and oils. Do you have any idea how hard it is to run oils with overlapping meatbags and scattershots hitting you with heal debuffs and damage amps when some 5 star just sits there and left clicks a fire treb? It is not sustainable even as a templar with cleanse. The top floor is filled with dead bodies because they either stuck on their siege or cant move out of the red circles because there isn't anywhere to go. The bottom floor flags, which have to be defended are also covered in meatbag and scattershot debuffs. More siege can fire into a an inner keep than out of it.

...........

Edit: I would not be opposed to higher oil damage because now that is a pure defensive siege and it's not like some 5 star can easily put it down a target outnumbered players 50 meters away.

I agree with two of your points, with a correction.

1. Higher oil damage. As you said, it's defensive.
2. What makes it hard to defend when the enemy gets past the front door is not because of 'overpowered siege'. It's a physical layout design problem. I was actually going to make a post about this. Once inside the door, the attackers have the advantage. Which should never be the case. They can set up siege along the walls, on top of turrets, and on the ground and completely overwhelm opposing siege. I really don't know the solution to this.

Maybe allow a tent inside so defenders can push out and try and fight? If they die, they can respawn? Currently, you can't use siege and you can't fight. Just sitting ducks waiting for the door to come down.

Edit: You're a Class Rep. Cool it with the personal attacks hidden among your wall of text.

You specifically called me out and wrote stuff that is not true to try and make me look bad. Please follow your own standards before insisting that I do.

That being said, you are correct about the poor design of the inner castles. This was not a big problem until ZOS buffed scattershots and Meatbags such that staying in the confined area tuned it into a potential death trap. This is all part of what also annoys me about these discussions about siege. ZOS has multiple times already buffed siege to the point where the original design of the game is undermined yet people ignore this reality by using untrue terms as "useless." ZOS has been told numerous times that with the meatbag and scattershots as they are, they ought to redesign the keeps so they actually provide an advantage to the defenders.

It's nice in theory, but would take too long and too many resources to make it cost effective, so the reality of the situation is that for now as we have been, we are stuck with inner castles that provide a disadvantage to defenders. Attackers can use the same siege - and more of it once they get to the inner - to devastating effect. People don't think about stuff like this while they are looking for a panacea to make the game play as they would like it to. People probably are annoyed because I won;t let their oversimplifications pass without being challenged. Too bad. I'm annoying like that: I look at the other side when people cant possible comprehend how there's another way to honestly look at things.

AS far as what to do, there aren't easy answers. Tents won't fit inside and besides if that is allowed, then that's taking away the entire strategy of the attackers who need to burst the keep to prevent respawn. If a tool, skill, piece of equipment, anything is buffed to "bust zergs," then said zergs or the attackers will use this same "zerg buster" against the defenders. As someone who has said up thousands of oil pots I can 1000% say for sure that oils are the best way to defend the inner keep and effectively using oils as it is right now is too hard - unsustainable if the attackers have a dozen siege hitting the top floor - and thus buffing projectile siege is a terrible idea if defending the Inner castle is the legitimate goal here.

What I probably would start looking to is to actually buff specific defensive oriented player SKILLS - I know, strange concept - that are more conducive to defending/holding ground than attacking/taking it. Off the top of my head: the Mage's guild Fire rune, Fighter's Guild Circle of protection, the Nightblade ultimate Consuming Darkness are all defensive skills that are not nearly as effective in attack. I'd add the Undaunted Blood Alter, it's decent, but it cast-time and kind of niche. I also feel the Alliance War trees should be expanded to provide new options. we've been playing this game for 5 years and it has changed completely from the original design. Why haven't there been new abilities added that help the player base adopt to problems that have been identified?

Or if you really really want pieces of inventory to solve problems, that how about at least design something new that is more defensive in nature instead of buffing stuff that can be easily abused by attackers and zergs? In every sort of fantasy game I have ever played, traps are specifically designed to aid in protection, area-denial, and defense: it takes a lot of creativity and strategy to use them offensively (which is fine in my opinion). ESO doesn't have this at all.

If people *really* want to defend keeps when they are outnumbered, then these are the sorts of reforms that would work toward that objective much better than a blanket buff in projectile siege.

Toc de Malsvi

They could make it where attackers cannot place Siege on walls or towers. Limit them to the ground. That could reduce the effect of the top being pounded.

thedude33

"AS far as what to do, there aren't easy answers. Tents won't fit inside and besides if that is allowed, then that's taking away the entire strategy of the attackers who need to burst the keep to prevent respawn. If a tool, skill, piece of equipment, anything is buffed to "bust zergs," then said zergs or the attackers will use this same "zerg buster" against the defenders."

The attackers are already using tents. So once inside the inner door, they not only have more siege, they are also able to respawn if they get too aggressive and die. ZoS should be able to put in something to allow defenders to respawn if killed while the outer door is down. That would help with the attacker siege advantage, because defenders could push out to try and kill siege on the walls. At least give the attackers something to think about. At least it lets the defenders do something

"What I probably would start looking to is to actually buff specific defensive oriented player SKILLS - I know, strange concept - that are more conducive to defending/holding ground than attacking/taking it. Off the top of my head: the Mage's guild Fire rune, Fighter's Guild Circle of protection, the Nightblade ultimate Consuming Darkness are all defensive skills that are not nearly as effective in attack. I'd add the Undaunted Blood Alter, it's decent, but it cast-time and kind of niche. I also feel the Alliance War trees should be expanded to provide new options"

All good ideas that I had never considered.

I'm just very very frustrated that attackers have the advantage when it should be the opposite. It's a really important part of the game.

moosegod

Yeah like some have said, small scale is super rough now and solo is just a joke. So hard to fight outnumbered now unless your opponents are just utterly unprepared.

TheBonesXXX

Here's a pitch for all of you, respond but don't be that guy.

1) Change Bastion of the Heartland so it's 5 piece is a group buff set.

2) Give oils the same work that catapults received, so it stays as a residual effect that is refreshed. (straight from Art of War where Sun Tzu oils the ground the shoots it with arrows.) But can be layered like Wall of Elements used to be.

3) Get rid of Coldfire Trebs and put in Coldfire Catapults instead.

4) Change Coldfire to Oblivion damage with a moderate modifier.

5) Buff regular siege to a high modifier.

Coldfire will act as constant pressure, regular siege will have a high mod but mitigated.

Bastion + Protective Shield will offer 55% siege mitigation for players.

Bergzorn

Siege damage has been buffed multiple times over the years. As far as I remember, people enjoyed it for a few weeks. Then most players had adapted to not attack, not push, not fight, a lot of them just put down siege whereever possible. Gameplay became stale and boring. People complained, rightfully IMO, siege damage got dialed back again.

Why should it be different this time? One week was not enough to let the excitement settle.

Siege sure could use an overhaul and become more powerful. But it has to be risk and reward, not just increased damage (or Oblivion damage siege, lol gtfo).

Edit: What I could live with is noticeably increased oil damage. It's the only siege that is easily avoided in the heat of a battle, except if you decide to ram a gate or push the flags.

Vapirko

Bergzorn wrote: »

Siege damage has been buffed multiple times over the years. As far as I remember, people enjoyed it for a few weeks. Then most players had adapted to not attack, not push, not fight, a lot of them just put down siege whereever possible. Gameplay became stale and boring. People complained, rightfully IMO, siege damage got dialed back again.

Why should it be different this time? One week was not enough to let the excitement settle.

Siege sure could use an overhaul and become more powerful. But it has to be risk and reward, not just increased damage (or Oblivion damage siege, lol gtfo).

Edit: What I could live with is noticeably increased oil damage. It's the only siege that is easily avoided in the heat of a battle, except if you decide to ram a gate or push the flags.

But that’s okay. Oils are niche for a reason and making them more powerful might entirely negate the use of rams.

TheBonesXXX

Vapirko wrote: »

Bergzorn wrote: »

Siege damage has been buffed multiple times over the years. As far as I remember, people enjoyed it for a few weeks. Then most players had adapted to not attack, not push, not fight, a lot of them just put down siege whereever possible. Gameplay became stale and boring. People complained, rightfully IMO, siege damage got dialed back again.

Why should it be different this time? One week was not enough to let the excitement settle.

Siege sure could use an overhaul and become more powerful. But it has to be risk and reward, not just increased damage (or Oblivion damage siege, lol gtfo).

Edit: What I could live with is noticeably increased oil damage. It's the only siege that is easily avoided in the heat of a battle, except if you decide to ram a gate or push the flags.

But that’s okay. Oils are niche for a reason and making them more powerful might entirely negate the use of rams.

There's a skill for that.

thedude33

Vapirko wrote: »

Bergzorn wrote: »

Siege damage has been buffed multiple times over the years. As far as I remember, people enjoyed it for a few weeks. Then most players had adapted to not attack, not push, not fight, a lot of them just put down siege whereever possible. Gameplay became stale and boring. People complained, rightfully IMO, siege damage got dialed back again.

Why should it be different this time? One week was not enough to let the excitement settle.

Siege sure could use an overhaul and become more powerful. But it has to be risk and reward, not just increased damage (or Oblivion damage siege, lol gtfo).

Edit: What I could live with is noticeably increased oil damage. It's the only siege that is easily avoided in the heat of a battle, except if you decide to ram a gate or push the flags.

But that’s okay. Oils are niche for a reason and making them more powerful might entirely negate the use of rams.

Exactly, and that's the point. One or two oils? Heal and shield through it. Six oils? Should need to get out of dodge and find another way in.

Vapirko

thedude33 wrote: »

Vapirko wrote: »

Bergzorn wrote: »

Siege damage has been buffed multiple times over the years. As far as I remember, people enjoyed it for a few weeks. Then most players had adapted to not attack, not push, not fight, a lot of them just put down siege whereever possible. Gameplay became stale and boring. People complained, rightfully IMO, siege damage got dialed back again.

Why should it be different this time? One week was not enough to let the excitement settle.

Siege sure could use an overhaul and become more powerful. But it has to be risk and reward, not just increased damage (or Oblivion damage siege, lol gtfo).

Edit: What I could live with is noticeably increased oil damage. It's the only siege that is easily avoided in the heat of a battle, except if you decide to ram a gate or push the flags.

But that’s okay. Oils are niche for a reason and making them more powerful might entirely negate the use of rams.

Exactly, and that's the point. One or two oils? Heal and shield through it. Six oils? Should need to get out of dodge and find another way in.

Well during OP siege week, rams were out of the question. Now it depends. If you happen to have your *** together and you’ve got a healer and or shields then you’re probably good to go. If not there’s some risk and it doesn’t always work and to me that sounds reasonable.