nerf siege

Lumsdenml

nuttytom wrote: »

DizzyMac wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

should this happen when already fighting vs heavily outnumbered?

(plenty more screens for you if you need btw)

You took 7 rounds of siege and died. I fail to see how that is overpowered. if it was 2 then i would agree, but who stands in 7 rounds of siege and expects to live? seriously!?!

Yes I actively stood in all of this siege......



But really the point of this post is to show how much damage siege is doing (its too much btw). Taking 10k ticks from siege should not be a thing when its actually very regular that you get hit by this amount of siege if you're fighting outnumbered.

Taking this amount of siege should be too much. It has a counter and is therefore balanced ... move.

nuttytom

VaranisArano wrote: »

I repeat myself: nerfing siege will not inherently encourage players to use their own skills. Nor is it going to produce a fun and balanced result for everyone.

Picture a common scene in Cyrodiil: a ball group has taken possession of a keep. They run the walls or the upper floor, moving as one group. Their heals are constantly ticking and anyone who gets in front of them dies. As long as they hold it, they're messing with your campaign score, your transit, your scrolls, and generally being a nuisance to your faction.

So you answer the call. What's the smart tactic to get this ball group out of your keep?

A. You're a casual, less skilled player. Try to tackle the ball group with your skills. Die. Over and over again, you die, usually accomplishing nothing except feeding the ball group more AP.
B. You're a casual, less skilled player. Use Siege Weapons, limiting where the ball group can go and dealing damage when they can't avoid you, sapping their resources and opening up the opportunity for other players to tackle them directly.
C. You already have the gear, build, and personal skill to bomb or pick off the ball group members one by one until they dissolve.
D. You got tired of being farmed by a group you can't kill and left already. The ball will get bored eventually, right?

Your suggestion posits that Player A is at least using their skills and Player B deserves to be nerfed. Oh, and clearly if we nerfed siege, everyone would magically turn into Player C instead of A or D, becoming capable of taking apart a ball group who *checks notes* now takes less damage from the siege they can't avoid.

That's not how it works in practice.

I prefer ballgroup style organized group play and it usually takes all of the first three to drive us out. If you only have the realistic small numbers of Player(s) C and no siege, it doesn't work because their bursts usually aren't coordinated and the ball group regroups elsewhere. If you only have siege, it doesn't usually deal enough damage on its own to beat the coordinated healing. And if you only have Siege + Player(s) A, it's gonna take a lot of less skilled players + siege to break down an organized group. The pop caps have not been kind to PUGs. Without siege, they just get farmed.

And I hope that pointing out the personal skill that it takes to be one of those skilled players who can work at pulling apart a ball group goes to show the uselessness of the suggestion that causal, less skilled players should just "improve their skills" as an alternative to using siege. We both know the skill differential is so high that it won't happen soon enough to make a difference for player enjoyment now. You don't go from Player A to Player C without a lot of time, effort, and practice. That's not really casual play. Nerfing siege will not change that equation, except to make the gulf between ballgroup vs casual player more daunting.

Cyrodiil must remain accessible for casual play, not just for highly skilled players. It is neither healthy, balanced nor fun for the players my guild farmed to nerf one of the few options for casual, less skilled players to fight our organized group effectively.

And one of the glaring flaws with all the arguments that focus on how small scalers, 1vXers, and tower farmers feel about siege damage is that they ignore the ball group problem or try to shuffle it off with hypothetical HOT-stacking changes. You can't nerf siege without effectively buffing ball groups, to the detriment of all the players who fight them. I'd guess, though I'm willing to be corrected on this front, that most small-scalers, 1vXers, and tower farmers probably aren't the ones going into the back keeps to chase out a farming ball group.


I don't expect you to agree, but I continue to comment because I think it's worth continuing to bring up these wider perspectives on the point of siege in Cyrodiil for any Devs who are still reading along.

I see what you are saying but ball groups are entirely separate issue and need to be looked at in other ways, for example HoT stacking. Siege doing as much damage as it does currently to players is not a healthy environment for cyrodiil either. Your arguments are understandable but like I said things like ball groups and tanky players are just different issues which ZoS should be looking at dealing with in other ways.

The same siege that zergs use to kill a ball group is also used on small groups who are already outnumbered massively but might actually have a chance of winning the fight if they play well and coordinate properly. You must understand how cheesy and un fun it is to use or be hit by siege in these situations.

We have also had multiple situations where players will literally just place siege anywhere (yes, even open field) because they know their zerg is behind them and they cant be countered almost at all. This is happening in almost every fight we have in cyrodiil.

While siege should do damage to players obviously, it currently does way too much and needs to be toned down by AT LEAST 20%, if not more.

I dont know where you're getting this "the skill differential is so high from" though? This game really isnt that difficult to learn and get semi-decent at. These players that only place siege just dont ever need to learn or improve because they can shoot small groups whilst in the middle of a zerg with 10k+ damage from siege, so why would they ever even try to fight normally? Improvement should literally be encouraged in pvp games. And, yes, of course siege being nerfed vs players is going increase a small groups chance of survival, but it means they aren't going to die so cheaply when already outnumbered 4x over. A zerg of 20+ people can still be very effective against a small group, but no the majority of them just decide to place siege weapons and then run away when their siege burns. Very engaging and fun gameplay.

Again, ball groups are a separate issue and should also be dealt with so that siege can be dealt with properly.

Lumsdenml

nuttytom wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I repeat myself: nerfing siege will not inherently encourage players to use their own skills. Nor is it going to produce a fun and balanced result for everyone.

Picture a common scene in Cyrodiil: a ball group has taken possession of a keep. They run the walls or the upper floor, moving as one group. Their heals are constantly ticking and anyone who gets in front of them dies. As long as they hold it, they're messing with your campaign score, your transit, your scrolls, and generally being a nuisance to your faction.

So you answer the call. What's the smart tactic to get this ball group out of your keep?

A. You're a casual, less skilled player. Try to tackle the ball group with your skills. Die. Over and over again, you die, usually accomplishing nothing except feeding the ball group more AP.
B. You're a casual, less skilled player. Use Siege Weapons, limiting where the ball group can go and dealing damage when they can't avoid you, sapping their resources and opening up the opportunity for other players to tackle them directly.
C. You already have the gear, build, and personal skill to bomb or pick off the ball group members one by one until they dissolve.
D. You got tired of being farmed by a group you can't kill and left already. The ball will get bored eventually, right?

Your suggestion posits that Player A is at least using their skills and Player B deserves to be nerfed. Oh, and clearly if we nerfed siege, everyone would magically turn into Player C instead of A or D, becoming capable of taking apart a ball group who *checks notes* now takes less damage from the siege they can't avoid.

That's not how it works in practice.

I prefer ballgroup style organized group play and it usually takes all of the first three to drive us out. If you only have the realistic small numbers of Player(s) C and no siege, it doesn't work because their bursts usually aren't coordinated and the ball group regroups elsewhere. If you only have siege, it doesn't usually deal enough damage on its own to beat the coordinated healing. And if you only have Siege + Player(s) A, it's gonna take a lot of less skilled players + siege to break down an organized group. The pop caps have not been kind to PUGs. Without siege, they just get farmed.

And I hope that pointing out the personal skill that it takes to be one of those skilled players who can work at pulling apart a ball group goes to show the uselessness of the suggestion that causal, less skilled players should just "improve their skills" as an alternative to using siege. We both know the skill differential is so high that it won't happen soon enough to make a difference for player enjoyment now. You don't go from Player A to Player C without a lot of time, effort, and practice. That's not really casual play. Nerfing siege will not change that equation, except to make the gulf between ballgroup vs casual player more daunting.

Cyrodiil must remain accessible for casual play, not just for highly skilled players. It is neither healthy, balanced nor fun for the players my guild farmed to nerf one of the few options for casual, less skilled players to fight our organized group effectively.

And one of the glaring flaws with all the arguments that focus on how small scalers, 1vXers, and tower farmers feel about siege damage is that they ignore the ball group problem or try to shuffle it off with hypothetical HOT-stacking changes. You can't nerf siege without effectively buffing ball groups, to the detriment of all the players who fight them. I'd guess, though I'm willing to be corrected on this front, that most small-scalers, 1vXers, and tower farmers probably aren't the ones going into the back keeps to chase out a farming ball group.


I don't expect you to agree, but I continue to comment because I think it's worth continuing to bring up these wider perspectives on the point of siege in Cyrodiil for any Devs who are still reading along.

I see what you are saying but ball groups are entirely separate issue and need to be looked at in other ways, for example HoT stacking. Siege doing as much damage as it does currently to players is not a healthy environment for cyrodiil either. Your arguments are understandable but like I said things like ball groups and tanky players are just different issues which ZoS should be looking at dealing with in other ways.

The same siege that zergs use to kill a ball group is also used on small groups who are already outnumbered massively but might actually have a chance of winning the fight if they play well and coordinate properly. You must understand how cheesy and un fun it is to use or be hit by siege in these situations.

We have also had multiple situations where players will literally just place siege anywhere (yes, even open field) because they know their zerg is behind them and they cant be countered almost at all. This is happening in almost every fight we have in cyrodiil.

While siege should do damage to players obviously, it currently does way too much and needs to be toned down by AT LEAST 20%, if not more.

I dont know where you're getting this "the skill differential is so high from" though? This game really isnt that difficult to learn and get semi-decent at. These players that only place siege just dont ever need to learn or improve because they can shoot small groups whilst in the middle of a zerg with 10k+ damage from siege, so why would they ever even try to fight normally? Improvement should literally be encouraged in pvp games. And, yes, of course siege being nerfed vs players is going increase a small groups chance of survival, but it means they aren't going to die so cheaply when already outnumbered 4x over. A zerg of 20+ people can still be very effective against a small group, but no the majority of them just decide to place siege weapons and then run away when their siege burns. Very engaging and fun gameplay.

Again, ball groups are a separate issue and should also be dealt with so that siege can be dealt with properly.

Here is the problem with your argument, you feel that a small group who is massively outnumbered SHOULD have a chance to win. No, they shouldn't, either with our without siege. Outnumbered groups should be run over. Cyrodiil was not intended, nor balanced, for small scale groups. That is what BGs are for. Cyrodiil was designed to be zerg v zerg.

BenTSG

There is lots of things wrong in Cyrodill at the moment. Siege is not one of them, it is meant to hurt. If you're being targetted by multiple people and kept in place and killed by siege, then that's just being outplayed. It's PvP, you're not a god and you're going to die. [snip]

[Edited for Baiting]

nuttytom

Lumsdenml wrote: »

[

Here is the problem with your argument, you feel that a small group who is massively outnumbered SHOULD have a chance to win. No, they shouldn't, either with our without siege. Outnumbered groups should be run over. Cyrodiil was not intended, nor balanced, for small scale groups. That is what BGs are for. Cyrodiil was designed to be zerg v zerg.

If not intended, then why has this style of gameplay been in the game since the beginning and actively catered for?

Also, by your logic, outnumbered play should be possible in BGs. But it isn't, it's 4v4v4. The maps are too small for any type of outnumbered play to occur. So, I ask you, where would you suggest I go to get the type of pvp I want?

Lumsdenml

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

[

Here is the problem with your argument, you feel that a small group who is massively outnumbered SHOULD have a chance to win. No, they shouldn't, either with our without siege. Outnumbered groups should be run over. Cyrodiil was not intended, nor balanced, for small scale groups. That is what BGs are for. Cyrodiil was designed to be zerg v zerg.

If not intended, then why has this style of gameplay been in the game since the beginning and actively catered for?

Also, by your logic, outnumbered play should be possible in BGs. But it isn't, it's 4v4v4. The maps are too small for any type of outnumbered play to occur. So, I ask you, where would you suggest I go to get the type of pvp I want?

I would say this style of play was not intended in the design. Has it happened? Of course. People will make the style of play they want. But that doesn't mean it was designed. I mean, just look at the map. That will tell you what the designers were expecting and how it was designed... huge battles.

Also, I said small scale is what BGs are for, not for outnumbered. Many people wanted small scale fights and ZOS listened and created BGs.

So, by all means, if that is the style you want to play, go for it! But also realize that numbers win, as they were designed to. If you have 3 players of equal skill fighting a 1v2, the 2 should win 99% of the time.

BenTSG

nuttytom wrote: »

BenTSG wrote: »

There is lots of things wrong in Cyrodill at the moment. Siege is not one of them, it is meant to hurt. If you're being targetted by multiple people and kept in place and killed by siege, then that's just being outplayed. It's PvP, you're not a god and you're going to die. Then again you go around hate whispering people just because you couldn't kill them in a 1v1, so I'd say that says a lot

[snip]

It's not the seige directly, it's being CC'ed and held in place, not making use of the terrain, or if it's out in the open then not going directly to the seige players themselves. We're in a stupid tanky meta, and if seige can do more damage then what I can do as a non-DPS, you bet I am going to take the better option. You can keep the 1v1 offer though, I ain't about that.I know my build, I know my capabilities, I know I won't do any damage. I'm just a little frost Warden lookin' to grind up the healing achivement and assist whoevers around me and nab some AP pocket change with my little frost lancer! I call him Steve!

[Edited for Quote]

Lumsdenml

nuttytom wrote: »

BenTSG wrote: »

There is lots of things wrong in Cyrodill at the moment. Siege is not one of them, it is meant to hurt. If you're being targetted by multiple people and kept in place and killed by siege, then that's just being outplayed. It's PvP, you're not a god and you're going to die. Then again you go around hate whispering people just because you couldn't kill them in a 1v1, so I'd say that says a lot

[snip]

There are two counters to this. 1) move. 2) cleanse.

[Edited for Quote]

nuttytom

Lumsdenml wrote: »

I would say this style of play was not intended in the design. Has it happened? Of course. People will make the style of play they want. But that doesn't mean it was designed. I mean, just look at the map. That will tell you what the designers were expecting and how it was designed... huge battles.

Also, I said small scale is what BGs are for, not for outnumbered. Many people wanted small scale fights and ZOS listened and created BGs.

So, by all means, if that is the style you want to play, go for it! But also realize that numbers win, as they were designed to. If you have 3 players of equal skill fighting a 1v2, the 2 should win 99% of the time.

At one point ZoS actually advocated for people to be spread out on the map and not just clumped up into one area.
If not intended in the design, then why is it still prevalent in the game today and from the very beginning?

Also, apart of smallscaling is fighting outnumbered to really test your group's ability in unfavourable situations, so your BGs argument is not relevant to this discussion on siege at all.

VaranisArano

nuttytom wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I repeat myself: nerfing siege will not inherently encourage players to use their own skills. Nor is it going to produce a fun and balanced result for everyone.

Picture a common scene in Cyrodiil: a ball group has taken possession of a keep. They run the walls or the upper floor, moving as one group. Their heals are constantly ticking and anyone who gets in front of them dies. As long as they hold it, they're messing with your campaign score, your transit, your scrolls, and generally being a nuisance to your faction.

So you answer the call. What's the smart tactic to get this ball group out of your keep?

A. You're a casual, less skilled player. Try to tackle the ball group with your skills. Die. Over and over again, you die, usually accomplishing nothing except feeding the ball group more AP.
B. You're a casual, less skilled player. Use Siege Weapons, limiting where the ball group can go and dealing damage when they can't avoid you, sapping their resources and opening up the opportunity for other players to tackle them directly.
C. You already have the gear, build, and personal skill to bomb or pick off the ball group members one by one until they dissolve.
D. You got tired of being farmed by a group you can't kill and left already. The ball will get bored eventually, right?

Your suggestion posits that Player A is at least using their skills and Player B deserves to be nerfed. Oh, and clearly if we nerfed siege, everyone would magically turn into Player C instead of A or D, becoming capable of taking apart a ball group who *checks notes* now takes less damage from the siege they can't avoid.

That's not how it works in practice.

I prefer ballgroup style organized group play and it usually takes all of the first three to drive us out. If you only have the realistic small numbers of Player(s) C and no siege, it doesn't work because their bursts usually aren't coordinated and the ball group regroups elsewhere. If you only have siege, it doesn't usually deal enough damage on its own to beat the coordinated healing. And if you only have Siege + Player(s) A, it's gonna take a lot of less skilled players + siege to break down an organized group. The pop caps have not been kind to PUGs. Without siege, they just get farmed.

And I hope that pointing out the personal skill that it takes to be one of those skilled players who can work at pulling apart a ball group goes to show the uselessness of the suggestion that causal, less skilled players should just "improve their skills" as an alternative to using siege. We both know the skill differential is so high that it won't happen soon enough to make a difference for player enjoyment now. You don't go from Player A to Player C without a lot of time, effort, and practice. That's not really casual play. Nerfing siege will not change that equation, except to make the gulf between ballgroup vs casual player more daunting.

Cyrodiil must remain accessible for casual play, not just for highly skilled players. It is neither healthy, balanced nor fun for the players my guild farmed to nerf one of the few options for casual, less skilled players to fight our organized group effectively.

And one of the glaring flaws with all the arguments that focus on how small scalers, 1vXers, and tower farmers feel about siege damage is that they ignore the ball group problem or try to shuffle it off with hypothetical HOT-stacking changes. You can't nerf siege without effectively buffing ball groups, to the detriment of all the players who fight them. I'd guess, though I'm willing to be corrected on this front, that most small-scalers, 1vXers, and tower farmers probably aren't the ones going into the back keeps to chase out a farming ball group.


I don't expect you to agree, but I continue to comment because I think it's worth continuing to bring up these wider perspectives on the point of siege in Cyrodiil for any Devs who are still reading along.

I see what you are saying but ball groups are entirely separate issue and need to be looked at in other ways, for example HoT stacking. Siege doing as much damage as it does currently to players is not a healthy environment for cyrodiil either. Your arguments are understandable but like I said things like ball groups and tanky players are just different issues which ZoS should be looking at dealing with in other ways.

The same siege that zergs use to kill a ball group is also used on small groups who are already outnumbered massively but might actually have a chance of winning the fight if they play well and coordinate properly. You must understand how cheesy and un fun it is to use or be hit by siege in these situations.

We have also had multiple situations where players will literally just place siege anywhere (yes, even open field) because they know their zerg is behind them and they cant be countered almost at all. This is happening in almost every fight we have in cyrodiil.

While siege should do damage to players obviously, it currently does way too much and needs to be toned down by AT LEAST 20%, if not more.

I dont know where you're getting this "the skill differential is so high from" though? This game really isnt that difficult to learn and get semi-decent at. These players that only place siege just dont ever need to learn or improve because they can shoot small groups whilst in the middle of a zerg with 10k+ damage from siege, so why would they ever even try to fight normally? Improvement should literally be encouraged in pvp games. And, yes, of course siege being nerfed vs players is going increase a small groups chance of survival, but it means they aren't going to die so cheaply when already outnumbered 4x over. A zerg of 20+ people can still be very effective against a small group, but no the majority of them just decide to place siege weapons and then run away when their siege burns. Very engaging and fun gameplay.

Again, ball groups are a separate issue and should also be dealt with so that siege can be dealt with properly.

"And one of the glaring flaws with all the arguments that focus on how small scalers, 1vXers, and tower farmers feel about siege damage is that they ignore the ball group problem or try to shuffle it off with hypothetical HOT-stacking changes."

Did I call it or what?

Ballgroups are not a seperate issue to how siege currently impacts play on the Live servers.

There's no evidence I've seen that ZOS is even looking at ways to deal with HOT stacking or the other reasons why ballgroups are so powerful. You can't simply handwave the issue away with hypothetical balance changes or claim that casual players should improve their skills enough to deal with farming ball groups in the meantime (that was the skill differential yo which I referred.)

I won't hold my breath for ZOS to whisk up a silver bullet against ball groups. Maybe they'll surprise me.

Meanwhile, the current reality is that most players who tangle with ballgroups need siege support in order to win, and that nerfing siege thus means indirectly buffing ballgroups. Siege dealing less damage to ball groups than now is not a healthy choice for Cyrodiil.

nuttytom

BenTSG wrote: »

It's not the seige directly, it's being CC'ed and held in place, not making use of the terrain, or if it's out in the open then not going directly to the seige players themselves. We're in a stupid tanky meta, and if seige can do more damage then what I can do as a non-DPS, you bet I am going to take the better option. You can keep the 1v1 offer though, I ain't about that.I know my build, I know my capabilities, I know I won't do any damage. I'm just a little frost Warden lookin' to grind up the healing achivement and assist whoevers around me and nab some AP pocket change with my little frost lancer! I call him Steve!

So let me ask you this: is it ok for one broken system to exist (siege damage being too high vs players) just to counter another broken system (current tank meta)? I can bet that you still wouldn't think siege needed a nerf even if the tank meta and ball group HoT stacking issues were dealt with.

You have basically just proved my point by saying that you just place a siege weapon because you know you're not going to be effective otherwise. How can you not see the problem here? This is just one button gameplay which is absolutely not intended in this game.

Lumsdenml

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

I would say this style of play was not intended in the design. Has it happened? Of course. People will make the style of play they want. But that doesn't mean it was designed. I mean, just look at the map. That will tell you what the designers were expecting and how it was designed... huge battles.

Also, I said small scale is what BGs are for, not for outnumbered. Many people wanted small scale fights and ZOS listened and created BGs.

So, by all means, if that is the style you want to play, go for it! But also realize that numbers win, as they were designed to. If you have 3 players of equal skill fighting a 1v2, the 2 should win 99% of the time.

At one point ZoS actually advocated for people to be spread out on the map and not just clumped up into one area.
If not intended in the design, then why is it still prevalent in the game today and from the very beginning?

Also, apart of smallscaling is fighting outnumbered to really test your group's ability in unfavourable situations, so your BGs argument is not relevant to this discussion on siege at all.

Please provide a reference to this. I assume that it was not "from the beginning" and was probably a response to performance. That is not "in the design" but developed out of performance issues. So again, I say, it was not from the beginning.

The BG argument is your response to wanting siege to be nerfed in the first place. You say your small scale group is being taken out by a large group using siege. My point was then move to BGs where small scale was the intent and there is no siege, therefore IS relevant to this discussion.

nuttytom

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

BenTSG wrote: »

There is lots of things wrong in Cyrodill at the moment. Siege is not one of them, it is meant to hurt. If you're being targetted by multiple people and kept in place and killed by siege, then that's just being outplayed. It's PvP, you're not a god and you're going to die. Then again you go around hate whispering people just because you couldn't kill them in a 1v1, so I'd say that says a lot

[snip]

There are two counters to this. 1) move. 2) cleanse.

[snip] this is not always possible at all. I have spoke about this many times already in this thread. Please actually try and fight outnumbered whilst getting pummelled by siege before making such [snip] comments.

If it was easy as you suggest then this thread would not even exist and I wouldnt be back here every day reinforcing my points on siege. [snip]

[Edited for Quote and Baiting]

BenTSG

nuttytom wrote: »

BenTSG wrote: »

It's not the seige directly, it's being CC'ed and held in place, not making use of the terrain, or if it's out in the open then not going directly to the seige players themselves. We're in a stupid tanky meta, and if seige can do more damage then what I can do as a non-DPS, you bet I am going to take the better option. You can keep the 1v1 offer though, I ain't about that.I know my build, I know my capabilities, I know I won't do any damage. I'm just a little frost Warden lookin' to grind up the healing achivement and assist whoevers around me and nab some AP pocket change with my little frost lancer! I call him Steve!

So let me ask you this: is it ok for one broken system to exist (siege damage being too high vs players) just to counter another broken system (current tank meta)? I can bet that you still wouldn't think siege needed a nerf even if the tank meta and ball group HoT stacking issues were dealt with.

You have basically just proved my point by saying that you just place a siege weapon because you know you're not going to be effective otherwise. How can you not see the problem here? This is just one button gameplay which is absolutely not intended in this game.

I'm a healer, I heal. On the field I heal, and when defending keeps I'll seige because I know there is no point jumping down to CC a bunch of people that will just kill me anyways, or any tiny group that might be trying to fend off a offensive push on a keep. I'm making the most of my time and being effective with the tools at hand to complete an objective, and if it happens that seige is more effective then my current DPS abilities, then that's what it is. Simply keep moving out of the area, cleanse if you're hit by it, or accept that, for one reason or another, something has kept you or pulled you into the AoE of seige and that you've been countered

VaranisArano

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

I would say this style of play was not intended in the design. Has it happened? Of course. People will make the style of play they want. But that doesn't mean it was designed. I mean, just look at the map. That will tell you what the designers were expecting and how it was designed... huge battles.

Also, I said small scale is what BGs are for, not for outnumbered. Many people wanted small scale fights and ZOS listened and created BGs.

So, by all means, if that is the style you want to play, go for it! But also realize that numbers win, as they were designed to. If you have 3 players of equal skill fighting a 1v2, the 2 should win 99% of the time.

At one point ZoS actually advocated for people to be spread out on the map and not just clumped up into one area.
If not intended in the design, then why is it still prevalent in the game today and from the very beginning?

Also, apart of smallscaling is fighting outnumbered to really test your group's ability in unfavourable situations, so your BGs argument is not relevant to this discussion on siege at all.

Please provide a reference to this. I assume that it was not "from the beginning" and was probably a response to performance. That is not "in the design" but developed out of performance issues. So again, I say, it was not from the beginning.

The BG argument is your response to wanting siege to be nerfed in the first place. You say your small scale group is being taken out by a large group using siege. My point was then move to BGs where small scale was the intent and there is no siege, therefore IS relevant to this discussion.

You are correct. ZOS making reference to people spreading out has is part of their concern with performance and the issues they know crop up during protracted battles at one keep.

They've changed various aspects of Cyrodiil to encourage this, such as the hammer and adding AP to the side keeps like Drake and Dragonclaw so there are rewards for players who get off the emp ring.

In the beginning, Cyrodiil could handle hundreds of players onscreen in the same fight. Not so much anymore.

Ironically, on a balance note, one of the reasons that CP Battlegrounds failed was because of the same tanky builds that ZOS allows in Cyrodiil. ZOS allows it because those builds can be balanced in Cyrodiil: just call on more numbers or siege and overwhelm them. Cyrodiil is a faction-based PVP game at its heart. You can choose to play alone or in a small group, but that is by choice. It's not what the zone is balanced around.

Lumsdenml

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

BenTSG wrote: »

There is lots of things wrong in Cyrodill at the moment. Siege is not one of them, it is meant to hurt. If you're being targetted by multiple people and kept in place and killed by siege, then that's just being outplayed. It's PvP, you're not a god and you're going to die. Then again you go around hate whispering people just because you couldn't kill them in a 1v1, so I'd say that says a lot

[snip]

There are two counters to this. 1) move. 2) cleanse.

[snip] this is not always possible at all. I have spoke about this many times already in this thread. Please actually try and fight outnumbered whilst getting pummelled by siege before making such [snip] comments.

If it was easy as you suggest then this thread would not even exist and I wouldnt be back here every day reinforcing my points on siege. [snip]

I'm not sure why you think they are "silly" because those are all actual counters. I have placed siege in open fields and have been killed by players moving faster than a slow siege can move and attacking me on the siege. I've also been on the other end where the group pushes the siege in order to counter it.

There are also counters to CC. There are skills as well as pots that give you CC immunity. That is a counter to your issue. If you are 4v20, you probably should lose the fight and that is not the fault of the siege.

I have fought outnumber plenty of times, and have been in the situation you described, but never once did I think that siege needs to be nerfed. My thoughts were that we were outnumbered, we did our best, rez up and try again.

[Edited for Quote]

OBJnoob

@nuttytom I have to agree with whoever has been mentioning BGs to you. And I get that it isn't exactly what you want to do but it may be a viable substitute.

You won't be able to fight outnumbered, no, but after you take the time to reach an mmr befitting your skill level then you won't have to be outnumbered to find the challenge you seek. And of course it is worth mentioning that there's no siege.

Cyrodiil on the other hand, as you know, gives you the opportunity to flex outnumbered, but at the cost of LOTS of cheesey things. Siege is only one of them.

Lumsdenml

OBJnoob wrote: »

@nuttytom I have to agree with whoever has been mentioning BGs to you. And I get that it isn't exactly what you want to do but it may be a viable substitute.

You won't be able to fight outnumbered, no, but after you take the time to reach an mmr befitting your skill level then you won't have to be outnumbered to find the challenge you seek. And of course it is worth mentioning that there's no siege.

Cyrodiil on the other hand, as you know, gives you the opportunity to flex outnumbered, but at the cost of LOTS of cheesey things. Siege is only one of them.

Just a side note, it may be possible to 4v8 depending on the situation if both teams are targeting yours.... it happens sometimes, but nothing you can really do to create that situation.

Jaraal

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

I would say this style of play was not intended in the design. Has it happened? Of course. People will make the style of play they want. But that doesn't mean it was designed. I mean, just look at the map. That will tell you what the designers were expecting and how it was designed... huge battles.

Also, I said small scale is what BGs are for, not for outnumbered. Many people wanted small scale fights and ZOS listened and created BGs.

So, by all means, if that is the style you want to play, go for it! But also realize that numbers win, as they were designed to. If you have 3 players of equal skill fighting a 1v2, the 2 should win 99% of the time.

At one point ZoS actually advocated for people to be spread out on the map and not just clumped up into one area.
If not intended in the design, then why is it still prevalent in the game today and from the very beginning?

Also, apart of smallscaling is fighting outnumbered to really test your group's ability in unfavourable situations, so your BGs argument is not relevant to this discussion on siege at all.

Please provide a reference to this. I assume that it was not "from the beginning" and was probably a response to performance. That is not "in the design" but developed out of performance issues. So again, I say, it was not from the beginning.

When ZOS was doing the live Cyro tests they stated that cutting group size from 24 to 12 had only a negligible effect on performance, but they "liked the behavioral changes" that it brought. Forum users speculated that the natural behavioral changes brought about by smaller groups would mean less large gatherings of organized players, and more nomadic smaller groups spread about the map. However, what it really did was kill the ability for large organized groups to flip remote keeps quickly and efficiently, and it created the current solo zerg mentality where most people run solo and then watch the map and then congregate in one big performance destroying blob of battle.

TheMightyRevan

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

BenTSG wrote: »

There is lots of things wrong in Cyrodill at the moment. Siege is not one of them, it is meant to hurt. If you're being targetted by multiple people and kept in place and killed by siege, then that's just being outplayed. It's PvP, you're not a god and you're going to die. Then again you go around hate whispering people just because you couldn't kill them in a 1v1, so I'd say that says a lot

[snip]

There are two counters to this. 1) move. 2) cleanse.

[snip] this is not always possible at all. I have spoke about this many times already in this thread. Please actually try and fight outnumbered whilst getting pummelled by siege before making such [snip] comments.

If it was easy as you suggest then this thread would not even exist and I wouldnt be back here every day reinforcing my points on siege. [snip]

I'm not sure why you think they are "silly" because those are all actual counters. I have placed siege in open fields and have been killed by players moving faster than a slow siege can move and attacking me on the siege. I've also been on the other end where the group pushes the siege in order to counter it.

There are also counters to CC. There are skills as well as pots that give you CC immunity. That is a counter to your issue. If you are 4v20, you probably should lose the fight and that is not the fault of the siege.

I have fought outnumber plenty of times, and have been in the situation you described, but never once did I think that siege needs to be nerfed. My thoughts were that we were outnumbered, we did our best, rez up and try again.

[snip] if you say you fought outnumbered i somehow dont believe it, because you think 4v20 should be auto death for the 4. just saying move or cleanse is like telling a trial group "just dps the boss". [snip]

[Edited for Quote and Baiting]

Lumsdenml

TheMightyRevan wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

BenTSG wrote: »

There is lots of things wrong in Cyrodill at the moment. Siege is not one of them, it is meant to hurt. If you're being targetted by multiple people and kept in place and killed by siege, then that's just being outplayed. It's PvP, you're not a god and you're going to die. Then again you go around hate whispering people just because you couldn't kill them in a 1v1, so I'd say that says a lot

[snip]

There are two counters to this. 1) move. 2) cleanse.

[snip] this is not always possible at all. I have spoke about this many times already in this thread. Please actually try and fight outnumbered whilst getting pummelled by siege before making such [snip] comments.

If it was easy as you suggest then this thread would not even exist and I wouldnt be back here every day reinforcing my points on siege. [snip]

I'm not sure why you think they are "silly" because those are all actual counters. I have placed siege in open fields and have been killed by players moving faster than a slow siege can move and attacking me on the siege. I've also been on the other end where the group pushes the siege in order to counter it.

There are also counters to CC. There are skills as well as pots that give you CC immunity. That is a counter to your issue. If you are 4v20, you probably should lose the fight and that is not the fault of the siege.

I have fought outnumber plenty of times, and have been in the situation you described, but never once did I think that siege needs to be nerfed. My thoughts were that we were outnumbered, we did our best, rez up and try again.

[snip], and if you say you fought outnumbered i somehow dont believe it, because you think 4v20 should be auto death for the 4. just saying move or cleanse is like telling a trial group "just dps the boss". [snip]

I would not say auto death, but at least 99% death. Are you dismissing my experience fighting siege in an open field? The answer is push the siege, every time. If you are that outnumbered, you die. Im not sure how popping an unstoppable pot and being quicker than slow siege is "silly" because it works.

[Edited for Quote]

MLRPZ

I still don't get why people get so mad about ballgroups. Of course you should be encouraged to team up in a MMO.
Sieges would actually be fine right now if zos didn't destroy purges with the introduction of Plague break.

ZOS_Phoenix

Greetings,

We have removed some insulting back and forth that was disruptive. Please ensure you are treating others with respect on the forums even when they have views that differ from your own.

Thank you for your understanding.

Iriidius

Players say you shouldnt expect to win 4v20 but it is stupid if the reason you cant win is not the dmg of the 20 players. If you can 4v20 without siege without getting anyway near death then get hit by a coldfire ballista/meatbag catapult and cant outheal the dmg and die or cet oneshottet by a lancier it is definitely the sieges fault.

Cloudrest wrote: »

Elendir2am wrote: »

So, if you want any respect from me to your experiences with PvP, then stop make untrue claim about "players don't go out of keeps to fight with their skills". You wouldn't have any problems with sieges, if none come out of keep.

Your "respect" has no bearings on my experience, nor does it have any correlation with objective reality in PvP. Hate to burst your bubble.

I think you're confusing trying to siege a keep to get inside with already being inside of a keep whilst having 4-5 coldfire ballistas and a few trebs trying to hit you from the walls and players rotating meatbags on the ground at you because they've given up trying to actually fight you using their own abilities. The amount of times where we've had to leave a keep out of sheer boredom because people stopped coming out to try and fight us, or we've actually just taken the keep entirely after 30-40 minutes of fighting because the faction decided to respawn somewhere else and stop trying is too much for my liking.

People don't improve their mechanics and game knowledge by giving up and resorting to siege, or outright leaving entirely to avoid PvP.

First it sounded like they immediately startet sieging whenever you siege a keep.
Now you admit that they stopped trying to fight you after getting farmed for 30-40 minutes, so they tried and failed and got killed multiple times before giving up. Chasing and trying to kill a tank-Smallscale without doing any noticeable dmg until you get ultidumped/focussed is boring and frustrating and not fun, especially if you do it for 30-40 minutes. Even fun fights get boring after half an hour. And chasing smallscalers around towers for 30-40 minutes is also not an effective way to improve in PvP. Maybe you somewhen learn to avoidult dumps, but real improvement comes when you try new playstiles and tactics. Learning to not chase LoS Trolls is one of the first things you should learn.

Lumsdenml wrote: »

[

Here is the problem with your argument, you feel that a small group who is massively outnumbered SHOULD have a chance to win. No, they shouldn't, either with our without siege. Outnumbered groups should be run over. Cyrodiil was not intended, nor balanced, for small scale groups. That is what BGs are for. Cyrodiil was designed to be zerg v zerg.

Maybe Cyrodiil was originally designed for Zerg vs Zerg fights, but the population has decreased and Zerg vs Zerg fights are not the norm anymore. In off hours or less populated campaigns not even all alliances have zergs. Often only 1 faction has a PvDoor Zerg, while other alliances have only Smallscales and Solo Players. If the Smallscalers and Solo Players dont have a chance to win against the Zerg there are no fights at all and the Zerg PvDoors and gatekeeps the whole map.
Most Zerglings also dont want to fight other zergs, they only want to fight if they outnumber their enemy and have 100% win chance. If Zerg can autokill smallscales they will attack them without giving them the chance to escape/avoid the fight.

nuttytom wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

[

Here is the problem with your argument, you feel that a small group who is massively outnumbered SHOULD have a chance to win. No, they shouldn't, either with our without siege. Outnumbered groups should be run over. Cyrodiil was not intended, nor balanced, for small scale groups. That is what BGs are for. Cyrodiil was designed to be zerg v zerg.

If not intended, then why has this style of gameplay been in the game since the beginning and actively catered for?

Also, by your logic, outnumbered play should be possible in BGs. But it isn't, it's 4v4v4. The maps are too small for any type of outnumbered play to occur. So, I ask you, where would you suggest I go to get the type of pvp I want?

Outnumbered play in BGs is possible. Usually you have 4 players in your group, so you have the option to play with them and fight enemys in equal number, but you can also leave them and play alone vs enemy teams outnumbered. Even if I try to play with group I often get seperated and Xv1ed before I can get vack to them, because survivability is worse without cp and the skill gap to other players in bg is usually lower than in Cyrodiil. However playing in BGs is a completely different experience than playing outnumbered in Cyrodiil and cant replace that.

OBJnoob

Honestly people know what an AP farm looks like and they don't want to be a part of it. It's really that simple.

If you've been farming someone for 30 or 40 minutes but not made an honest attempt at taking the keep and ending their misery then you're kinda a troll. And being a "good player" really isn't a defense for being a troll-- trolling is kinda mean.

Of course it is probably true that trying to take the keep would make the small-scale vulnerable-- and so this is why they don't-- but so why should the zerg continuously engage in a disadvantageous manner when the small-scalers don't? Or why should the zerg adhere to "honor" when the small-scalers don't?

blktauna

DizzyMac wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

should this happen when already fighting vs heavily outnumbered?

(plenty more screens for you if you need btw)

You took 7 rounds of siege and died. I fail to see how that is overpowered. if it was 2 then i would agree, but who stands in 7 rounds of siege and expects to live? seriously!?!

Absolutely this. No one is meant to stand in Siege AOE and live. That's stupid.

I will counter slightly that I would like the aoe markers to show so I know to get out of it.

Jaraal

OBJnoob wrote: »

Honestly people know what an AP farm looks like and they don't want to be a part of it. It's really that simple.

If you've been farming someone for 30 or 40 minutes but not made an honest attempt at taking the keep and ending their misery then you're kinda a troll. And being a "good player" really isn't a defense for being a troll-- trolling is kinda mean.

Of course it is probably true that trying to take the keep would make the small-scale vulnerable-- and so this is why they don't-- but so why should the zerg continuously engage in a disadvantageous manner when the small-scalers don't? Or why should the zerg adhere to "honor" when the small-scalers don't?

The reason they don't take the flags is that by leaving the keep unlit the victims have unlimited free rezzes at the transitus to try and take them down again (and get farmed again if not successful.)

Alchimiste1

DizzyMac wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

should this happen when already fighting vs heavily outnumbered?

(plenty more screens for you if you need btw)

You took 7 rounds of siege and died. I fail to see how that is overpowered. if it was 2 then i would agree, but who stands in 7 rounds of siege and expects to live? seriously!?!

you do realize that wasn't 7 shots of a coldfire ballista right ? thats just the dots ticing

blktauna wrote: »

DizzyMac wrote: »

nuttytom wrote: »

should this happen when already fighting vs heavily outnumbered?

(plenty more screens for you if you need btw)

You took 7 rounds of siege and died. I fail to see how that is overpowered. if it was 2 then i would agree, but who stands in 7 rounds of siege and expects to live? seriously!?!

Absolutely this. No one is meant to stand in Siege AOE and live. That's stupid.

I will counter slightly that I would like the aoe markers to show so I know to get out of it.

You guys know how the death recap works right ? He didn't get hit by 7 rounds of siege lol

OBJnoob

Jaraal wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

Honestly people know what an AP farm looks like and they don't want to be a part of it. It's really that simple.

If you've been farming someone for 30 or 40 minutes but not made an honest attempt at taking the keep and ending their misery then you're kinda a troll. And being a "good player" really isn't a defense for being a troll-- trolling is kinda mean.

Of course it is probably true that trying to take the keep would make the small-scale vulnerable-- and so this is why they don't-- but so why should the zerg continuously engage in a disadvantageous manner when the small-scalers don't? Or why should the zerg adhere to "honor" when the small-scalers don't?

The reason they don't take the flags is that by leaving the keep unlit the victims have unlimited free rezzes at the transitus to try and take them down again (and get farmed again if not successful.)

Yes. So they're trolling and have no right to complain when less than honorable means are used to oust them. I believe I covered that.

It's probably also true though that they require the LOS of a tower to withstand the numbers disadvantage. There's a reason people X around trees rocks and towers instead of open fields. Similarly I think gathering on a ram would be their demise.

Loooree

- can be used from a safe spot so you take 0 risk while using it (keep walls etc)
- gives the strongest DoT in the game that results in around 40k damage over the duration
- works with proc sets like vicious death or elf bane
- it can hit multiple targets with 1 hit
- sometimes red circle is literally invisible
- if you purge it you risk nuking yourself and your team mates with plaguebreak
- damage ticks are no longer blockable and they are no longer dodgable. Once you get hit you are destined to face tank 40k+ damage

I see people in this thread saying it's balanced because "cyro big map and it was designed for zergy zergy ooga booga so it shouldn't be allowed to kill bigger groups that can also siege you. Oh and if you don't like it you can go to IC and hope for an enemy group bigger than 2 people or you can go battlegrounds and play flag games." Wow, thanks.