Siege right now is a stupid state

Zer0oo

Player prefer now to siege instead of actually playing pvp. It is stupid and boring to see players just setting up so many siege on keeps to just avoid to fight even if the largely outnumber you. This ends up in a boring stale mate till some players get lucky and hit you with a siege while a nb ganks you. The other option is to siege back, but it is impossible since your siege will take so much damage for the enemy siege while it also puts a really big dot on you. Basically your siege will be destroyed before you even can shot it more than once. The only way that your siege semi survives is if you have enough players to setup a siege shield but even than siege especial oil against rams will just melt your siege. But in general all siege are way too effective against siege while also really strong against players.

Pvp will become very dull if this trend continues. There is nothing against siege fights but in the current state siege are just plain stupid designed. They do little against really big grps with purge bots but are extremely effective if you are already in the disadvantage and outnumbered. It even almost does not even matter what siege you use because all siege are effective against enemy siege and players at the same time.

Right now the first thing some PC EU player do if they see someone come close to a keep is setup siege.

Current situation:

• I was just riding by and they already set out 2 oils over the main gate. I was laughing and was riding on.
• 2 players at arrius mine -> 5 siege setup at arrius keep wall
• me at arrius mine -> 7 siege (new record)
• me alone at brindle -> 2 oils main door -> just to *** them off i set up siege to set it ua -> 2 dc set up also 2 siege and destroyed my siege before i could do any real damage and put at the same time a big dot on me
• 20+ ep on the wall of brk with a lot of siege vs ~7 ad -> only wall pew pew with snipes and siege

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please reevaluate the siege and make their design more about anti-player or anti siege but not both at the same time. Make hard hitting siege slower so players can better avoid them. Give siege more effectiveness the more player they hit but give those grps also a fair chance to avoid the siege.

One last thing. Can you say hi to the pvp forums from time to time?

Derra

The problem isn´t siege per se - the problem is that it gives rewards.

Take away ap from sieging keeps and taking resources aswell as reduce the ap from siege kills and people will have incentive to actually play pvp.

usmguy1234

Zer0oo wrote: »

Player prefer now to siege instead of actually playing pvp. It is stupid and boring to see players just setting up so many siege on keeps to just avoid to fight even if the largely outnumber you. This ends up in a boring stale mate till some players get lucky and hit you with a siege while a nb ganks you. The other option is to siege back, but it is impossible since your siege will take so much damage for the enemy siege while it also puts a really big dot on you. Basically your siege will be destroyed before you even can shot it more than once. The only way that your siege semi survives is if you have enough players to setup a siege shield but even than siege especial oil against rams will just melt your siege. But in general all siege are way too effective against siege while also really strong against players.

Pvp will become very dull if this trend continues. There is nothing against siege fights but in the current state siege are just plain stupid designed. They do little against really big grps with purge bots but are extremely effective if you are already in the disadvantage and outnumbered. It even almost does not even matter what siege you use because all siege are effective against enemy siege and players at the same time.

Right now the first thing some PC EU player do if they see someone come close to a keep is setup siege.

Current situation:

• I was just riding by and they already set out 2 oils over the main gate. I was laughing and was riding on.
• 2 players at arrius mine -> 5 siege setup at arrius keep wall
• me at arrius mine -> 7 siege (new record)
• me alone at brindle -> 2 oils main door -> just to *** them off i set up siege to set it ua -> 2 dc set up also 2 siege and destroyed my siege before i could do any real damage and put at the same time a big dot on me
• 20+ ep on the wall of brk with a lot of siege vs ~7 ad -> only wall pew pew with snipes and siege

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please reevaluate the siege and make their design more about anti-player or anti siege but not both at the same time. Make hard hitting siege slower so players can better avoid them. Give siege more effectiveness the more player they hit but give those grps also a fair chance to avoid the siege.

One last thing. Can you say hi to the pvp forums from time to time?

I actually like it a lot. It makes taking a keep a lot more tactical than just zerging it down. You'll also need decent counter siege to take a keep as well. Zos has made some pretty decent changes to pvp here lately. Keep it up!

- sincerely the guy who doesn't siege, only fights in it.

WuffyCerulei

Derra wrote: »

The problem isn´t siege per se - the problem is that it gives rewards.

Take away ap from sieging keeps and taking resources aswell as reduce the ap from siege kills and people will have incentive to actually play pvp.

I would much rather not be back in the era of ~27 AP per resource.

WuffyCerulei

The siege damage boost was needed in CP pvp, given how they (except the god tier coldfire ballista) hit players like wet noodle. Pretty sure the buffed siege is nothing like that one hellish week where most sieges dealt immense amounts of oblivion damage.

Ranger209

WuffyCerulei wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

The problem isn´t siege per se - the problem is that it gives rewards.

Take away ap from sieging keeps and taking resources aswell as reduce the ap from siege kills and people will have incentive to actually play pvp.

I would much rather not be back in the era of ~27 AP per resource.

I think it should start low as well but initially climb much faster than it does so that if you have say a 20 v 20 fight it is at about the current 6k AP, but if you PvD it is about 300. The game is about siege "warfare", but not just sieging doors and walls. Requiring a defense for higher AP will encourage PvP at the objectives and leave PvD only for more strategic purposes, not AP farming. The objectives are gathering points. When people gather there from multiple sides they should be worth a lot. When they are taken without people gathering from multiple sides they should not be worth much at all from an AP standpoint.

Zer0oo

@WuffyCerulei , @usmguy1234

You do not get it. Siege is still ineffective against really big grps and only becomes more and more effective the more you are outnumbered. As would bigger numbers not already give enough advantage.

I have nothing against siege being strong but so strong that players just prefer to sit on the wall and shooting down is not really healthy. A 5-10k dot(maybe even higher if you are a vampire) from something that takes little to no skill is just boring.
It is even a bigger problem that siege are effective against siege and players at the same time. Making it for the smaller grp/underpopulated faction even harder to get a keep since their siege gets destroyed in no time by enemy siege while they also take enorme damage from the very same siege. They are effectively shut down by being outnumbered and can just wait outside the keep till they wipe.

Ironically the best way to take a keep is still to zerg it down and siege are pretty useless against that or even empower those zergs more since they give more players who can siege.



Would it not be more tactical if you actually have to choose if you want to use siege that counters other siege or siege that damage players?
Would it not be more tactical if the siege actually had some kind of drawback that it would be only effective if hitting more players with it?

ChunkyCat

Cyrodil was designed to have seige warfare be a thing.

Find something else to whine about.

Karm1cOne

Seige seems fine. If someone is setting up siege on you, go kill them. If you are standing in oils on a door, siege a postern. Your argument that being outnumbered is a defense for *** damage on siege doesn't jive with the realities of faction vs faction warfare. Siege is the best defense vs zergs, ball groups and outnumbered play. If you dont like seige, battlegrounds may be for you.

courier

The op isn't wrong, siege is the new proc set... You get into a decent small man and people will siege you from a distance. Its for little girls, but effective. Reminds me of being a kid playing a fighter game against the other guy who would spam one skill repeatedly.

Kelces

That's what Cyrodiil is about.

Want more "actual PvP"? - Do battlegrounds or go to the IC, that now even got a seperate population!

And since the "No skill"-phrase was put out, I always like to refer to the equally (according to the logic above) skill-less cheese builds and sets that are used by certain people, who after easily steamrolling others with this "skillfull play" imagine they are in the right...What a challenge, right?

Zer0oo

If players who already have the advantage of the numbers prefer to set up a siege, then there is something wrong with how strong siege are.

If you really want a siege fight how about just asking for a siege with damage scaling with numbers it did hit.

Kelces

Zer0oo wrote: »

If players who already have the advantage of the numbers prefer to set up a siege, then there is something wrong with how strong siege are.

If you really want a siege fight how about just asking for a siege with damage scaling with numbers it did hit.

Modified version:

If players who already have the advantage of the numbers prefer to use more powerful sets than their opponents, then there is something wrong with how people define skill.

Interesting, how easily one finds contradictions...

Katahdin

You have 2 full groups trying to take a keep with seige and you expect the defenders to just run out and try to kill them? Yea right.

Sorry, no. The current tactial defense is to counter seige, soften them up, break their seige line then go clean up the rest of the stragglers.

Seige is fine as is and working the way it's supposed to.

usmguy1234

Zer0oo wrote: »

@WuffyCerulei , @usmguy1234

You do not get it. Siege is still ineffective against really big grps and only becomes more and more effective the more you are outnumbered. As would bigger numbers not already give enough advantage.

I have nothing against siege being strong but so strong that players just prefer to sit on the wall and shooting down is not really healthy. A 5-10k dot(maybe even higher if you are a vampire) from something that takes little to no skill is just boring.
It is even a bigger problem that siege are effective against siege and players at the same time. Making it for the smaller grp/underpopulated faction even harder to get a keep since their siege gets destroyed in no time by enemy siege while they also take enorme damage from the very same siege. They are effectively shut down by being outnumbered and can just wait outside the keep till they wipe.

Ironically the best way to take a keep is still to zerg it down and siege are pretty useless against that or even empower those zergs more since they give more players who can siege.



Would it not be more tactical if you actually have to choose if you want to use siege that counters other siege or siege that damage players?
Would it not be more tactical if the siege actually had some kind of drawback that it would be only effective if hitting more players with it?

Siege is really effective if you play it right especially now. It has allowed my faction on xbox to push back nearly double its numbers in certain fights. Heck I dropped a half dozen players with a single dawny because I pinned them where the counter siege was hitting. Before, they would have shook off my dawny and healed through the siege damage. Now if we could just address that damn hammer, I'd be very content.

Zer0oo

Katahdin wrote: »

You have 2 full groups trying to take a keep with seige and you expect the defenders to just run out and try to kill them? Yea right.

Sorry, no. The current tactial defense is to counter seige, soften them up, break their seige line then go clean up the rest of the stragglers.

Seige is fine as is and working the way it's supposed to.

Really what does have 2 full groups have to do with the situation i have described? I even ask to buff them by scaling them with the numbers they hit. If i were the leader of a zerg of 2 full grps i would just crush the keep and ignore all the players who siege till i flipped the keep.


The problem is how strong siege is if you are already outnumbered and cheap/easy it is to get siege that work good against both players and enemy siege so player just prefer not to fight at all.

Hashtag_

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Zer0oo wrote: »

Player prefer now to siege instead of actually playing pvp. It is stupid and boring to see players just setting up so many siege on keeps to just avoid to fight even if the largely outnumber you. This ends up in a boring stale mate till some players get lucky and hit you with a siege while a nb ganks you. The other option is to siege back, but it is impossible since your siege will take so much damage for the enemy siege while it also puts a really big dot on you. Basically your siege will be destroyed before you even can shot it more than once. The only way that your siege semi survives is if you have enough players to setup a siege shield but even than siege especial oil against rams will just melt your siege. But in general all siege are way too effective against siege while also really strong against players.

Pvp will become very dull if this trend continues. There is nothing against siege fights but in the current state siege are just plain stupid designed. They do little against really big grps with purge bots but are extremely effective if you are already in the disadvantage and outnumbered. It even almost does not even matter what siege you use because all siege are effective against enemy siege and players at the same time.

Right now the first thing some PC EU player do if they see someone come close to a keep is setup siege.

Current situation:

• I was just riding by and they already set out 2 oils over the main gate. I was laughing and was riding on.
• 2 players at arrius mine -> 5 siege setup at arrius keep wall
• me at arrius mine -> 7 siege (new record)
• me alone at brindle -> 2 oils main door -> just to *** them off i set up siege to set it ua -> 2 dc set up also 2 siege and destroyed my siege before i could do any real damage and put at the same time a big dot on me
• 20+ ep on the wall of brk with a lot of siege vs ~7 ad -> only wall pew pew with snipes and siege

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please reevaluate the siege and make their design more about anti-player or anti siege but not both at the same time. Make hard hitting siege slower so players can better avoid them. Give siege more effectiveness the more player they hit but give those grps also a fair chance to avoid the siege.

One last thing. Can you say hi to the pvp forums from time to time?

I actually like it a lot. It makes taking a keep a lot more tactical than just zerging it down. You'll also need decent counter siege to take a keep as well. Zos has made some pretty decent changes to pvp here lately. Keep it up!

- sincerely the guy who doesn't siege, only fights in it.

Lmao no it doesn’t. It actually makes it more zergs as groups have to stack to take a keep this creating more lag and server stress.

LuciusOctavio

Siege is fine, adapt and overcome.

zyk

Derra wrote: »

The problem isn´t siege per se - the problem is that it gives rewards.

Take away ap from sieging keeps and taking resources aswell as reduce the ap from siege kills and people will have incentive to actually play pvp.

A zillion times this. All AP should come from kills. No kills, no AP. Goodbye useless flips. Gameplay should be designed around capture and hold. Not just capture capture capture capture etc.

Unfortunately, IMO, most players in Cyrodiil don't want actual PVP anymore.

SirAndy

Zer0oo wrote: »

This ends up in a boring stale mate till some players get lucky and hit you with a siege while a nb ganks you.

Wait, they can't be *all* inside the keep using siege and gank you outside at the same time.

Also, the increase to siege damage was sorely needed.
People did not even bother to move out of red anymore because it was barely a tickle.

Now THAT was boring as hell ...

usmguy1234

Hashtag_ wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Zer0oo wrote: »

Player prefer now to siege instead of actually playing pvp. It is stupid and boring to see players just setting up so many siege on keeps to just avoid to fight even if the largely outnumber you. This ends up in a boring stale mate till some players get lucky and hit you with a siege while a nb ganks you. The other option is to siege back, but it is impossible since your siege will take so much damage for the enemy siege while it also puts a really big dot on you. Basically your siege will be destroyed before you even can shot it more than once. The only way that your siege semi survives is if you have enough players to setup a siege shield but even than siege especial oil against rams will just melt your siege. But in general all siege are way too effective against siege while also really strong against players.

Pvp will become very dull if this trend continues. There is nothing against siege fights but in the current state siege are just plain stupid designed. They do little against really big grps with purge bots but are extremely effective if you are already in the disadvantage and outnumbered. It even almost does not even matter what siege you use because all siege are effective against enemy siege and players at the same time.

Right now the first thing some PC EU player do if they see someone come close to a keep is setup siege.

Current situation:

• I was just riding by and they already set out 2 oils over the main gate. I was laughing and was riding on.
• 2 players at arrius mine -> 5 siege setup at arrius keep wall
• me at arrius mine -> 7 siege (new record)
• me alone at brindle -> 2 oils main door -> just to *** them off i set up siege to set it ua -> 2 dc set up also 2 siege and destroyed my siege before i could do any real damage and put at the same time a big dot on me
• 20+ ep on the wall of brk with a lot of siege vs ~7 ad -> only wall pew pew with snipes and siege

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please reevaluate the siege and make their design more about anti-player or anti siege but not both at the same time. Make hard hitting siege slower so players can better avoid them. Give siege more effectiveness the more player they hit but give those grps also a fair chance to avoid the siege.

One last thing. Can you say hi to the pvp forums from time to time?

I actually like it a lot. It makes taking a keep a lot more tactical than just zerging it down. You'll also need decent counter siege to take a keep as well. Zos has made some pretty decent changes to pvp here lately. Keep it up!

- sincerely the guy who doesn't siege, only fights in it.

Lmao no it doesn’t. It actually makes it more zergs as groups have to stack to take a keep this creating more lag and server stress.

I mean you do have a point if the groups are too stupid to punch a hole on another side of the keep and honestly that's really a l2p issue as long as this game has been out. You should really try it sometime. I can't tell you how satisfying it is to pummel a group to death while they're not aware that their wall has been compromised somewhere else and have all of their focus on the front door.

Mr_Walker

Siege isn't too bad, except for cold-fire, which need a little tweaking, but people sieging in open fields? Seriously?

Grimhallow

I like it when people set up siege just for me. It makes me feel very spooky.

InvictusApollo

@Zer0oo please be honest while answering my question:
Are you a ballgroup member?

Zer0oo

@InvictusApollo No.

Funny thing is what most players do not realize is, that siege is still not extreme effective again ball grps with purge bots.

I am just sick and tired of players hiding in keeps to setup siege or even running some builds that is just designed around sieging.(Yes, such players exist, they all are tanks and they setting up siege as soon as a fight starts. )

idk

It is really nonsense. I have yet to see a keep defense that was soley based on siege except when there were very small numbers defending. So what is said in the OP just makes no sense in and of itself.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Bring back ground oils

InvictusApollo

Zer0oo wrote: »

@InvictusApollo No.

Funny thing is what most players do not realize is, that siege is still not extreme effective again ball grps with purge bots.

I am just sick and tired of players hiding in keeps to setup siege or even running some builds that is just designed around sieging.(Yes, such players exist, they all are tanks and they setting up siege as soon as a fight starts. )

Nothing is... sadly.

Loralai_907

Siege in a defense situation is needed, not on its own, but is part of how you do it. What are we supposed to do, just wait and punch enemies in the face as they flood in and if that doesn't work than oh well, they deserve to win the keep?

SodanTok

Was going to come and agree but seems OP means something utterly different. Yes, sieges are right now in stupi state, but mostly because of how weak they are. They overnerfed the damage of everything but oils/coldharbour to a point where sieging for sake of countering enemy sieges or push is just pointless unless you stack as much sieges if not more as number of people you are fighting against.

I have no doubt that 5man groups are hating siegies or whatever when they just see fields of them. And I could care less how effective they are against them, but catapults AoEs are supposed to create some sort of dangerous area, but they fail to kill even afk players on nonCP.

MLRPZ

Kelces wrote: »

That's what Cyrodiil is about.

Want more "actual PvP"? - Do battlegrounds or go to the IC, that now even got a seperate population!

And since the "No skill"-phrase was put out, I always like to refer to the equally (according to the logic above) skill-less cheese builds and sets that are used by certain people, who after easily steamrolling others with this "skillfull play" imagine they are in the right...What a challenge, right?

still takes more effort to press 12 different buttons than point and click