Uniforming all Covenant/Pact/Dominion siege items into one item each - Would that be good?

TheDarkRuler

I got a chest in my house called "PVP Cyro/BG" which is currently bursting because of the different variations of the same item.

Revival tents, siege weapons etc. are having a variant on each alliance.
How about making it one "Coldfire Trebuchet" and depending on the alliance you're in you get your Alliance Visuals?
It would remove the strain on inventory much more and you can stack them better in your banks/chests.

If you disagree, please tell me why...

Amottica

Did they change it so siege stack? If not, then storage will still be bursting with this suggestion.

Treeshka

Would be nice yes and trading them with players would be easy. But of course bound items are still bound. Since you can not trade camps and a few other items.

TheDarkRuler

Amottica wrote: »

Did they change it so siege stack? If not, then storage will still be bursting with this suggestion.

Tents do stack as far as I know. Siege weapons itself no. But well that is one thing you could also easily change.

Amottica

TheDarkRuler wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Did they change it so siege stack? If not, then storage will still be bursting with this suggestion.

Tents do stack as far as I know. Siege weapons itself no. But well that is one thing you could also easily change.

But in a decade of this game this game's release, and an occasional thread asking for siege stacking, it has not happened. There is a reason why they pass on making such a change.

Dangranma_Burgrukgad

They should be just generic/stackable and as soon as you deploy it for the first time be converted to the specific alliance and become unique
Would be nice, but it's only for PvPers, so who cares.

Still waitinjg for the siege category for the quickslot wheel .....

DizzyMac

making them stackable - yeah i can agree with that.

making them generic - dont agree. if you want to play in multiple alliances, then having large amounts of siege in storage is your own fault

Pyvos

While I agree that sieges which have full HP should be considered the same items and therefore be stackable, I imagine they would need to improve how they store items to support "stacking" sieges which have variable HP (without such stacking code negatively impacting things like gear stacking when they have variable attributes / metadata like enchant, gear quality, attribute). Tents are an exception because you can either store them with full HP, or you have "consumed" it by putting it down. You can't pick it up again, so you aren't storing it in your inventory with variable HP either. So no different than any other consumable in that respect (for example stackable potions of the same time, either get consumed or not).

They have enough issues with their database as is (their words, not mine) due to the sheer amount of characters, per-character inventories, account-wide inventories, storage furnishing inventories, guild inventories, etc. not to mention everything else they need to store. A big reason they moved to a cold storage model for accounts that haven't logged in for a while is to reduce the size of the live database. I can't really speak to any net positives or negatives that a change for these sieges would have, but I can see why they may be hesitant to make those changes.

Fully agree on the concept of sieges not being alliance specific!

Danikat

I wonder if they separated them so you can sell them or give them away and know you're not helping another Alliance?

I've heard some people in Guild Wars 2 refuse to sell siege items for that reason - they can't control who buys it and don't want it to go to an enemy server, so they always donate it to their guild or a commander they know instead.

It seems like when ESO was first created the devs expected the Alliance War to be a big part of the game for the majority of players and as part of that probably expected Alliance loyalty to be very important too. (Originally we weren't going to be able to go to other Alliances areas, which made Cyrodiil pretty much the only end-game activity, and we couldn't play with people from other alliances outside dungeons until One Tamriel.)

So I could imagine them thinking you'd want to be able to keep your siege to your Alliance and ensure the enemy didn't use it, and if they wanted to make it tradable having separate versions probably seemed like the way to go. Especially if they assumed most players would only play PvP on one Alliance, so they'd only ever have to deal with one version anyway.

Nomadic_Atmoran

Amottica wrote: »

TheDarkRuler wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Did they change it so siege stack? If not, then storage will still be bursting with this suggestion.

Tents do stack as far as I know. Siege weapons itself no. But well that is one thing you could also easily change.

But in a decade of this game this game's release, and an occasional thread asking for siege stacking, it has not happened. There is a reason why they pass on making such a change.

You cant possibly know that. Theres plenty of examples in this forum alone of ZOS ignoring feedback for years before finally deciding to give in and do it anyway. Not every decision at ZOS is based on logical "can we do this or not" thinking. Text chat on console is one of these moments. They decided without any sort of actual input from console players or any sort of research into the usefulness or capacity for text chat in the console version that console players "preferred headsets" (their own words not mine) and they wouldnt want to use text chat. It took months of arguing with PC players AND shortsighted selfish console players to convince ZOS they had made a mistake.

virtus753

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

TheDarkRuler wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Did they change it so siege stack? If not, then storage will still be bursting with this suggestion.

Tents do stack as far as I know. Siege weapons itself no. But well that is one thing you could also easily change.

But in a decade of this game this game's release, and an occasional thread asking for siege stacking, it has not happened. There is a reason why they pass on making such a change.

You cant possibly know that. Theres plenty of examples in this forum alone of ZOS ignoring feedback for years before finally deciding to give in and do it anyway. Not every decision at ZOS is based on logical "can we do this or not" thinking. Text chat on console is one of these moments. They decided without any sort of actual input from console players or any sort of research into the usefulness or capacity for text chat in the console version that console players "preferred headsets" (their own words not mine) and they wouldnt want to use text chat. It took months of arguing with PC players AND shortsighted selfish console players to convince ZOS they had made a mistake.

But it is also the case that some siege stacking can occur now when it was not possible before. Camps formerly did not stack at all. Now they do. I also have two Cold Fire Ballistae stacked that I received from support as compensation for a bug eating mine. Since they took the time to allow camps to stack, and since it is technically possible for two unused siege to stack (just like treasure maps - I once got two identical stacked treasure maps from a thieves trove), I would have thought they'd also be interested in allowing other forms of siege to stack if it were just as easy to do so.

The fact that health-based siege still normally cannot stack does suggest that it is not as easy to enable that as camp stacking, since otherwise there seems to be no reason to stack camps but not other forms of siege tools. Whether they will ever allot the time and resources to enable items of varying health to stack (e.g. by returning the siege to full health when stowed, or somehow implementing a way for the game to remember each particular example's health while in a stack) is a different question. It doesn't mean that it will never happen. But it does strongly suggest it is more complicated than camp stacking and may not be deemed worthwhile in terms of the time investment. I suspect many things are technically possible but not (to their mind) worth doing for the time being, such as enabling cross-platform transfer, where we know they could create the tool to enable it but have stated they have no plans to do so. In some cases it is literally "can we?" - in others, it is "do we want to spend the time on this?"

Vevvev

TheDarkRuler wrote: »

I got a chest in my house called "PVP Cyro/BG" which is currently bursting because of the different variations of the same item.

Revival tents, siege weapons etc. are having a variant on each alliance.
How about making it one "Coldfire Trebuchet" and depending on the alliance you're in you get your Alliance Visuals?
It would remove the strain on inventory much more and you can stack them better in your banks/chests.

If you disagree, please tell me why...

Good idea, I like it! Tying the visuals to your alliance is a good idea, although I feel like this decisions should've happened back during it's original development.

Wonder what gymnastics ZOS would have to go through to merge all the siege weapons together and tie the cosmetics to your alliance. I know there's the one costume that does just that so it shouldn't be too hard, although granted that was just a texture change. Ballista for instance all have a different figurehead on the end meaning it'll be storing 3 different models instead of 3 different textures.

I want it to happen though and I hope they go through the effort to implement this.

maximusrex45

DizzyMac wrote: »

making them stackable - yeah i can agree with that.

making them generic - dont agree. if you want to play in multiple alliances, then having large amounts of siege in storage is your own fault

They don't have to have generic appearance, they can spawn horses and outfits based on your faction, no reason for seige to not do the same.

Drammanoth

Howling in the desert we are...

So many wonderful ideas to make this game GREAT and make the players SWARM - alas...

kargen27

Drammanoth wrote: »

Howling in the desert we are...

So many wonderful ideas to make this game GREAT and make the players SWARM - alas...

I've seen this a few times. Howling in a desert you are more likely to be heard because sound travels better/farther.

To the topic that started the thread I think they told us long ago siege can't stack because they vary in how much they decay. After seeing that answer players started asking if it were possible for unused siege to stack and then once used it can no longer be stacked. Not sure if there was a reply to that suggestion or not.

Amottica

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

TheDarkRuler wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Did they change it so siege stack? If not, then storage will still be bursting with this suggestion.

Tents do stack as far as I know. Siege weapons itself no. But well that is one thing you could also easily change.

But in a decade of this game this game's release, and an occasional thread asking for siege stacking, it has not happened. There is a reason why they pass on making such a change.

You cant possibly know that. Theres plenty of examples in this forum alone of ZOS ignoring feedback for years before finally deciding to give in and do it anyway. Not every decision at ZOS is based on logical "can we do this or not" thinking. Text chat on console is one of these moments. They decided without any sort of actual input from console players or any sort of research into the usefulness or capacity for text chat in the console version that console players "preferred headsets" (their own words not mine) and they wouldnt want to use text chat. It took months of arguing with PC players AND shortsighted selfish console players to convince ZOS they had made a mistake.

I do know that Zenimax has not made siege stackable during the time since the game went live. There is obviously a reason they ahve not done it which is not in question since it has not happened.

There is nothing to argue there since I merely stated clear and obvious facts.

Ofc, one of the reasons Zenimax may have avoided making such a change has already been mentioned in this thread.

BTW, Camps do stack, and they clearly have limited use so they degrade. However, they are the exception because they cannot be picked back up, so no camp in our bag has been partially used.

ZOS_Hadeostry

Greetings,

After further review we have decided to move this thread to a category we think is more appropriate for this topic.

Thank you for your understanding

Ominer

No anything that buffs people who's only activity in cyrodiil is spamming siege should not be implemented