Siege Weapons

Rezdayn

Siege weapons (Oils, Meat bags etc) should have a optional "lock" feature which stops other players from using it. It should be optional. This will allow some players to leave their siege weapons open to other players and allow other players to lock their own.

Why? Its really annoying to have placed down two oils (for example) and to have a random player walk up and take control of it. That by itself is not so bad but when that other player is working at a snails pace to drop the oil it now leaves you losing AP and damage output... Unless you place another. Risking now 2/3 oils to be used slowly by someone other than you. Maybe worse... 3/3 if someone takes the first one...

None of this would be a problem if other players tried harder to press one single key to use the siege item but often players are barely focusing on the game and essentially just wasting your AP and item...

(Edit: I should of made this a poll. Rip oh well. If someone wants to make a poll for this they can. However I wont duplicate the thread myself)

DTStormfox

You have a good point and I understand the reasoning behind it. Especially when you consider that you are spending the resources (AP) to purchase the siege weapons and want a return on investment. I wouldn't oppose the option to lock your own siege weapons to prevent others from using them. I think, however, it would only be 'fair' that if you lock your siege weapons from the use by other players, you should also be locked from using siege weapons placed by other players.

So, if you enable a 'shared siege weapons' setting:
- Other players can interact with your siege weapons
- And: you can interact with siege weapons placed by other players

So, if you disable a 'shared siege weapons' setting:
- Other players can not interact with your siege weapons
- And: you can not interact with siege weapons placed by other players.

ErythorBloodsheild

Or if you lay the siege weapon down, you get the AP credit for use.

Rezdayn

DTStormfox wrote: »

You have a good point and I understand the reasoning behind it. Especially when you consider that you are spending the resources (AP) to purchase the siege weapons and want a return on investment. I wouldn't oppose the option to lock your own siege weapons to prevent others from using them. I think, however, it would only be 'fair' that if you lock your siege weapons from the use by other players, you should also be locked from using siege weapons placed by other players.

So, if you enable a 'shared siege weapons' setting:
- Other players can interact with your siege weapons
- And: you can interact with siege weapons placed by other players

So, if you disable a 'shared siege weapons' setting:
- Other players can not interact with your siege weapons
- And: you can not interact with siege weapons placed by other players.

Great idea.
Totally agree.

VaranisArano

I suspect it would open up room for trolls to lay out a bunch of siege and lock it so no one can either use it or place down enough siege weapons of their own.

If ZOS did give us an optional lock, I'd prefer that it be limited to the rarer and more expensive siege weapons like Coldfire and Lancers. The rarity should help prevent trolls from abusing the lock mechanic as they easily could with relatively cheap siege weapons like oils and ballistas.

On the other hand, what happens if you die? Does the lock just *go away* so others can use weapons that you can't?

Rezdayn

VaranisArano wrote: »

I suspect it would open up room for trolls to lay out a bunch of siege and lock it so no one can either use it or place down enough siege weapons of their own.

If ZOS did give us an optional lock, I'd prefer that it be limited to the rarer and more expensive siege weapons like Coldfire and Lancers. The rarity should help prevent trolls from abusing the lock mechanic as they easily could with relatively cheap siege weapons like oils and ballistas.

On the other hand, what happens if you die? Does the lock just *go away* so others can use weapons that you can't?

Each player should have a limit.
Each players item should open to others on death.

wheresbes

DTStormfox wrote: »

You have a good point and I understand the reasoning behind it. Especially when you consider that you are spending the resources (AP) to purchase the siege weapons and want a return on investment. (...)

Quite unrelated to OP issue (sorry) but it seems that you can stock up siege weapons very cheaply through guild traders (I've found them for like 10/50/100g each)

Vevvev

I'd like an option to kick people off siege weapons you own so you can use them. Locking them is an option but the game already recognizes we own the weapon so I'd like it to prioritize its owner using it.

Rezdayn

Vevvev wrote: »

I'd like an option to kick people off siege weapons you own so you can use them. Locking them is an option but the game already recognizes we own the weapon so I'd like it to prioritize its owner using it.

That could work but it might mean you miss a few faster ticks sadly.

wheresbes wrote: »

DTStormfox wrote: »

You have a good point and I understand the reasoning behind it. Especially when you consider that you are spending the resources (AP) to purchase the siege weapons and want a return on investment. (...)

Quite unrelated to OP issue (sorry) but it seems that you can stock up siege weapons very cheaply through guild traders (I've found them for like 10/50/100g each)

Didnt know people would be selling them so cheap. Thank you.

Vevvev

Rezdayn wrote: »

Vevvev wrote: »

I'd like an option to kick people off siege weapons you own so you can use them. Locking them is an option but the game already recognizes we own the weapon so I'd like it to prioritize its owner using it.

That could work but it might mean you miss a few faster ticks sadly.

I understand, but knowing my luck I'll get hit with a cold flame bolt, die from lag not letting me heal, and then my weapon is locked and my allies can't use it to press the charge x.x

Aigym_Hlervu

Here is another perspective, Rezdayn: as a leading officer of a huge PvP guild I always carry 15 trebuchets, 15 forward camps, 15 catapults, 15 oil bowls, 15 rams and other military equipment, because I don't want my unit to get into a situation when it can't complete the objective I give it just because some of my group mates have no siege equipment at all. It happens sometimes when I recruit non-guild members, so I tell the objective to the guys, then I deploy those weapons, tell them to use it and they use it. Because earning gold or Alliance Points is the last thing I'm thinking about while fighting in Cyrodiil. My task is to make those whom I lead be satisfied of their play session, to let them log off with a feeling of a performed duty and satisfaction. In order to achieve it I have to plan the objectives and provide everything my guys might need to be effective.

My unit has to fight effectively, and a situation when a soldier can't use a weapon of his comrade who fell in battle and respawned far away, or just simply doesn't want to share it in the middle of a battle when such things can be desperately needed, is unacceptable. If an oil carrier somehow falls down, I don't want to wait until his weapon despawns, I might also have no time for searching for another location to place the oil bowl - I'll need exactly that bowl used by any soldier capable to fight, and I'm totally indifferent who's that oil is. I need the military objective completed and thus any weapon that can be used by a particular soldier only is a bad weapon. I'll say it better - it's not a weapon at all. It's a toy. The game made it impossible to run out of arrows, or, say, to lose a sword in a fight, so, it's ok - but since the siege weapons are used the way such things are used IRL (partially, of course), they should be used by anyone capable to fight, not just by it's "owner". I remember those cases when we were losing time because a ram carrier was either killed or unexperienced enough to stow his ram back after the doors were broken. The unit broke into the inner yard performing the assault plan, and nobody could neither bring the ram to the inner keep nor to stow it. Rare weapons that can be separated from a soldier are bad weapons too since it's not a street fight there. It's a war.

In conclusion I can say that if your idea gets implemented, and if I see someone in my unit fighting his "own war" that way instead of being a valuable part of the team, I'll apologize for my decision but I'll kick out such a guy immediately. I'd better recruit an unexperienced low level ballista carrier who's mentally not bound to it than a top 810 level individualist who has a personal cannon, personal camp to respawn, personal oil bowls, healer, nursemaid, views on the world, etc. Well, perhaps it's just the difference in our reasoning and approaches there - you play a PvP match or simply earning money to buy some motifs or armor there while I'm fighting a war against the enemies of the Pact, represent my guild and lead people who trust me, people who act as a team, who want to spend a good time in the game and who know that typing the CYG battletag in the chat means that their leader will do everything to make their play session effective and thus pleasant . Your idea won't make them a better team for sure.

JamieAubrey

I hate putting a siege down, coming out to apply buffs and someone has taken it leaving me to stand there bashing at them and half the time they will shoot something not even in the direction I was aiming at

Rezdayn

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

Here is another perspective, Rezdayn: as a leading officer of a huge PvP guild I always carry 15 trebuchets, 15 forward camps, 15 catapults, 15 oil bowls, 15 rams and other military equipment, because I don't want my unit to get into a situation when it can't complete the objective I give it just because some of my group mates have no siege equipment at all. It happens sometimes when I recruit non-guild members, so I tell the objective to the guys, then I deploy those weapons, tell them to use it and they use it. Because earning gold or Alliance Points is the last thing I'm thinking about while fighting in Cyrodiil. My task is to make those whom I lead be satisfied of their play session, to let them log off with a feeling of a performed duty and satisfaction. In order to achieve it I have to plan the objectives and provide everything my guys might need to be effective.

My unit has to fight effectively, and a situation when a soldier can't use a weapon of his comrade who fell in battle and respawned far away, or just simply doesn't want to share it in the middle of a battle when such things can be desperately needed, is unacceptable. If an oil carrier somehow falls down, I don't want to wait until his weapon despawns, I might also have no time for searching for another location to place the oil bowl - I'll need exactly that bowl used by any soldier capable to fight, and I'm totally indifferent who's that oil is. I need the military objective completed and thus any weapon that can be used by a particular soldier only is a bad weapon. I'll say it better - it's not a weapon at all. It's a toy. The game made it impossible to run out of arrows, or, say, to lose a sword in a fight, so, it's ok - but since the siege weapons are used the way such things are used IRL (partially, of course), they should be used by anyone capable to fight, not just by it's "owner". I remember those cases when we were losing time because a ram carrier was either killed or unexperienced enough to stow his ram back after the doors were broken. The unit broke into the inner yard performing the assault plan, and nobody could neither bring the ram to the inner keep nor to stow it. Rare weapons that can be separated from a soldier are bad weapons too since it's not a street fight there. It's a war.

In conclusion I can say that if your idea gets implemented, and if I see someone in my unit fighting his "own war" that way instead of being a valuable part of the team, I'll apologize for my decision but I'll kick out such a guy immediately. I'd better recruit an unexperienced low level ballista carrier who's mentally not bound to it than a top 810 level individualist who has a personal cannon, personal camp to respawn, personal oil bowls, healer, nursemaid, views on the world, etc. Well, perhaps it's just the difference in our reasoning and approaches there - you play a PvP match or simply earning money to buy some motifs or armor there while I'm fighting a war against the enemies of the Pact, represent my guild and lead people who trust me, people who act as a team, who want to spend a good time in the game and who know that typing the CYG battletag in the chat means that their leader will do everything to make their play session effective and thus pleasant . Your idea won't make them a better team for sure.

You should read some of the replies which would be best of both worlds.

Aigym_Hlervu

Rezdayn wrote: »

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

Here is another perspective, Rezdayn: as a leading officer of a huge PvP guild I always carry 15 trebuchets, 15 forward camps, 15 catapults, 15 oil bowls, 15 rams and other military equipment, because I don't want my unit to get into a situation when it can't complete the objective I give it just because some of my group mates have no siege equipment at all. It happens sometimes when I recruit non-guild members, so I tell the objective to the guys, then I deploy those weapons, tell them to use it and they use it. Because earning gold or Alliance Points is the last thing I'm thinking about while fighting in Cyrodiil. My task is to make those whom I lead be satisfied of their play session, to let them log off with a feeling of a performed duty and satisfaction. In order to achieve it I have to plan the objectives and provide everything my guys might need to be effective.

My unit has to fight effectively, and a situation when a soldier can't use a weapon of his comrade who fell in battle and respawned far away, or just simply doesn't want to share it in the middle of a battle when such things can be desperately needed, is unacceptable. If an oil carrier somehow falls down, I don't want to wait until his weapon despawns, I might also have no time for searching for another location to place the oil bowl - I'll need exactly that bowl used by any soldier capable to fight, and I'm totally indifferent who's that oil is. I need the military objective completed and thus any weapon that can be used by a particular soldier only is a bad weapon. I'll say it better - it's not a weapon at all. It's a toy. The game made it impossible to run out of arrows, or, say, to lose a sword in a fight, so, it's ok - but since the siege weapons are used the way such things are used IRL (partially, of course), they should be used by anyone capable to fight, not just by it's "owner". I remember those cases when we were losing time because a ram carrier was either killed or unexperienced enough to stow his ram back after the doors were broken. The unit broke into the inner yard performing the assault plan, and nobody could neither bring the ram to the inner keep nor to stow it. Rare weapons that can be separated from a soldier are bad weapons too since it's not a street fight there. It's a war.

In conclusion I can say that if your idea gets implemented, and if I see someone in my unit fighting his "own war" that way instead of being a valuable part of the team, I'll apologize for my decision but I'll kick out such a guy immediately. I'd better recruit an unexperienced low level ballista carrier who's mentally not bound to it than a top 810 level individualist who has a personal cannon, personal camp to respawn, personal oil bowls, healer, nursemaid, views on the world, etc. Well, perhaps it's just the difference in our reasoning and approaches there - you play a PvP match or simply earning money to buy some motifs or armor there while I'm fighting a war against the enemies of the Pact, represent my guild and lead people who trust me, people who act as a team, who want to spend a good time in the game and who know that typing the CYG battletag in the chat means that their leader will do everything to make their play session effective and thus pleasant . Your idea won't make them a better team for sure.

You should read some of the replies which would be best of both worlds.

Yes, I've read them, thank you. But my opinion stays the same.

NordSwordnBoard

On one hand, I'd rather some ally pour oils on me through the grate while I fight the ram crew at an outpost.
On the other hand, the only time I won't rez an ally is if they died using my lancer.

As much as I like the idea of having a lock or switch - some of this stuff is barely functional to begin with in big fights. I'd say the default would have to be open to all users. If you want to keep it to yourself, you toggle the switch (which could take up valuable time).

I see all siege as disposable except Lancers. I bet more lancers would get placed if people knew they could use or repair them without someone hopping on it out of ignorance or worse.

Rezdayn

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

Rezdayn wrote: »

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

Here is another perspective, Rezdayn: as a leading officer of a huge PvP guild I always carry 15 trebuchets, 15 forward camps, 15 catapults, 15 oil bowls, 15 rams and other military equipment, because I don't want my unit to get into a situation when it can't complete the objective I give it just because some of my group mates have no siege equipment at all. It happens sometimes when I recruit non-guild members, so I tell the objective to the guys, then I deploy those weapons, tell them to use it and they use it. Because earning gold or Alliance Points is the last thing I'm thinking about while fighting in Cyrodiil. My task is to make those whom I lead be satisfied of their play session, to let them log off with a feeling of a performed duty and satisfaction. In order to achieve it I have to plan the objectives and provide everything my guys might need to be effective.

My unit has to fight effectively, and a situation when a soldier can't use a weapon of his comrade who fell in battle and respawned far away, or just simply doesn't want to share it in the middle of a battle when such things can be desperately needed, is unacceptable. If an oil carrier somehow falls down, I don't want to wait until his weapon despawns, I might also have no time for searching for another location to place the oil bowl - I'll need exactly that bowl used by any soldier capable to fight, and I'm totally indifferent who's that oil is. I need the military objective completed and thus any weapon that can be used by a particular soldier only is a bad weapon. I'll say it better - it's not a weapon at all. It's a toy. The game made it impossible to run out of arrows, or, say, to lose a sword in a fight, so, it's ok - but since the siege weapons are used the way such things are used IRL (partially, of course), they should be used by anyone capable to fight, not just by it's "owner". I remember those cases when we were losing time because a ram carrier was either killed or unexperienced enough to stow his ram back after the doors were broken. The unit broke into the inner yard performing the assault plan, and nobody could neither bring the ram to the inner keep nor to stow it. Rare weapons that can be separated from a soldier are bad weapons too since it's not a street fight there. It's a war.

In conclusion I can say that if your idea gets implemented, and if I see someone in my unit fighting his "own war" that way instead of being a valuable part of the team, I'll apologize for my decision but I'll kick out such a guy immediately. I'd better recruit an unexperienced low level ballista carrier who's mentally not bound to it than a top 810 level individualist who has a personal cannon, personal camp to respawn, personal oil bowls, healer, nursemaid, views on the world, etc. Well, perhaps it's just the difference in our reasoning and approaches there - you play a PvP match or simply earning money to buy some motifs or armor there while I'm fighting a war against the enemies of the Pact, represent my guild and lead people who trust me, people who act as a team, who want to spend a good time in the game and who know that typing the CYG battletag in the chat means that their leader will do everything to make their play session effective and thus pleasant . Your idea won't make them a better team for sure.

You should read some of the replies which would be best of both worlds.

Yes, I've read them, thank you. But my opinion stays the same.

Some of the options people stated would allow you to do that while also giving people who disagree a option. With no loss to either side.

NordSwordnBoard wrote: »

On one hand, I'd rather some ally pour oils on me through the grate while I fight the ram crew at an outpost.
On the other hand, the only time I won't rez an ally is if they died using my lancer.

As much as I like the idea of having a lock or switch - some of this stuff is barely functional to begin with in big fights. I'd say the default would have to be open to all users. If you want to keep it to yourself, you toggle the switch (which could take up valuable time).

I see all siege as disposable except Lancers. I bet more lancers would get placed if people knew they could use or repair them without someone hopping on it out of ignorance or worse.

I agree with most of this. I think the option should be in the settings and not in the siege weapon. That was you dont need to do it every time. I also think it should default to sharing.

Araneae6537

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

Here is another perspective, Rezdayn: as a leading officer of a huge PvP guild I always carry 15 trebuchets, 15 forward camps, 15 catapults, 15 oil bowls, 15 rams and other military equipment, because I don't want my unit to get into a situation when it can't complete the objective I give it just because some of my group mates have no siege equipment at all. It happens sometimes when I recruit non-guild members, so I tell the objective to the guys, then I deploy those weapons, tell them to use it and they use it. Because earning gold or Alliance Points is the last thing I'm thinking about while fighting in Cyrodiil. My task is to make those whom I lead be satisfied of their play session, to let them log off with a feeling of a performed duty and satisfaction. In order to achieve it I have to plan the objectives and provide everything my guys might need to be effective.

My unit has to fight effectively, and a situation when a soldier can't use a weapon of his comrade who fell in battle and respawned far away, or just simply doesn't want to share it in the middle of a battle when such things can be desperately needed, is unacceptable. If an oil carrier somehow falls down, I don't want to wait until his weapon despawns, I might also have no time for searching for another location to place the oil bowl - I'll need exactly that bowl used by any soldier capable to fight, and I'm totally indifferent who's that oil is. I need the military objective completed and thus any weapon that can be used by a particular soldier only is a bad weapon. I'll say it better - it's not a weapon at all. It's a toy. The game made it impossible to run out of arrows, or, say, to lose a sword in a fight, so, it's ok - but since the siege weapons are used the way such things are used IRL (partially, of course), they should be used by anyone capable to fight, not just by it's "owner". I remember those cases when we were losing time because a ram carrier was either killed or unexperienced enough to stow his ram back after the doors were broken. The unit broke into the inner yard performing the assault plan, and nobody could neither bring the ram to the inner keep nor to stow it. Rare weapons that can be separated from a soldier are bad weapons too since it's not a street fight there. It's a war.

In conclusion I can say that if your idea gets implemented, and if I see someone in my unit fighting his "own war" that way instead of being a valuable part of the team, I'll apologize for my decision but I'll kick out such a guy immediately. I'd better recruit an unexperienced low level ballista carrier who's mentally not bound to it than a top 810 level individualist who has a personal cannon, personal camp to respawn, personal oil bowls, healer, nursemaid, views on the world, etc. Well, perhaps it's just the difference in our reasoning and approaches there - you play a PvP match or simply earning money to buy some motifs or armor there while I'm fighting a war against the enemies of the Pact, represent my guild and lead people who trust me, people who act as a team, who want to spend a good time in the game and who know that typing the CYG battletag in the chat means that their leader will do everything to make their play session effective and thus pleasant . Your idea won't make them a better team for sure.

Which server and which campaign are your home?

Aigym_Hlervu

Araneae6537 wrote: »

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

Here is another perspective, Rezdayn: as a leading officer of a huge PvP guild I always carry 15 trebuchets, 15 forward camps, 15 catapults, 15 oil bowls, 15 rams and other military equipment, because I don't want my unit to get into a situation when it can't complete the objective I give it just because some of my group mates have no siege equipment at all. It happens sometimes when I recruit non-guild members, so I tell the objective to the guys, then I deploy those weapons, tell them to use it and they use it. Because earning gold or Alliance Points is the last thing I'm thinking about while fighting in Cyrodiil. My task is to make those whom I lead be satisfied of their play session, to let them log off with a feeling of a performed duty and satisfaction. In order to achieve it I have to plan the objectives and provide everything my guys might need to be effective.

My unit has to fight effectively, and a situation when a soldier can't use a weapon of his comrade who fell in battle and respawned far away, or just simply doesn't want to share it in the middle of a battle when such things can be desperately needed, is unacceptable. If an oil carrier somehow falls down, I don't want to wait until his weapon despawns, I might also have no time for searching for another location to place the oil bowl - I'll need exactly that bowl used by any soldier capable to fight, and I'm totally indifferent who's that oil is. I need the military objective completed and thus any weapon that can be used by a particular soldier only is a bad weapon. I'll say it better - it's not a weapon at all. It's a toy. The game made it impossible to run out of arrows, or, say, to lose a sword in a fight, so, it's ok - but since the siege weapons are used the way such things are used IRL (partially, of course), they should be used by anyone capable to fight, not just by it's "owner". I remember those cases when we were losing time because a ram carrier was either killed or unexperienced enough to stow his ram back after the doors were broken. The unit broke into the inner yard performing the assault plan, and nobody could neither bring the ram to the inner keep nor to stow it. Rare weapons that can be separated from a soldier are bad weapons too since it's not a street fight there. It's a war.

In conclusion I can say that if your idea gets implemented, and if I see someone in my unit fighting his "own war" that way instead of being a valuable part of the team, I'll apologize for my decision but I'll kick out such a guy immediately. I'd better recruit an unexperienced low level ballista carrier who's mentally not bound to it than a top 810 level individualist who has a personal cannon, personal camp to respawn, personal oil bowls, healer, nursemaid, views on the world, etc. Well, perhaps it's just the difference in our reasoning and approaches there - you play a PvP match or simply earning money to buy some motifs or armor there while I'm fighting a war against the enemies of the Pact, represent my guild and lead people who trust me, people who act as a team, who want to spend a good time in the game and who know that typing the CYG battletag in the chat means that their leader will do everything to make their play session effective and thus pleasant . Your idea won't make them a better team for sure.

Which server and which campaign are your home?

Europe, Ravenwatch.