Why The Siege Changes are a Nightmare in Disguise

technohic · March 2015

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Did I miss a statement where the siege changes were supposed to combat the zerg?

It's just everyone's assumption. If it doesn't, its not like we have gone very far from where it is now. EDIT: The real thing is, you at least won't be able to practically ignore siege.

NukeAllTheThings · March 2015

technohic wrote: »

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Did I miss a statement where the siege changes were supposed to combat the zerg?

It's just everyone's assumption. If it doesn't, its not like we have gone very far from where it is now. EDIT: The real thing is, you at least won't be able to practically ignore siege.

Agree. The objectives in the game are set up for "zergs". That style of play will always be prevalent until there is a real reason for multiple groups to do something other than attack the next target in line with the shortest respawn point. Sure, this can cause people to all pile up on 1 particular spot. It can also allow a group of 10-20 to defend a keep against 40 while another group flanks behind and tries to cut off transit. This will at least allow for different options than what we have now.

Huntler · March 2015

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Did I miss a statement where the siege changes were supposed to combat the zerg?

It's just everyone's assumption. If it doesn't, its not like we have gone very far from where it is now. EDIT: The real thing is, you at least won't be able to practically ignore siege.

Agree. The objectives in the game are set up for "zergs". That style of play will always be prevalent until there is a real reason for multiple groups to do something other than attack the next target in line with the shortest respawn point. Sure, this can cause people to all pile up on 1 particular spot. It can also allow a group of 10-20 to defend a keep against 40 while another group flanks behind and tries to cut off transit. This will at least allow for different options than what we have now.

As said already, I chose to point out the most common assumption since most people are championing these changes as a win against the zerg mentality, which I feel is a very bad assumption and thus the reason for my post.

Ishammael wrote: »

Weberda wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

DHale wrote: »

As a real life infantry marine Artillery does more damage that an entire company of men can do. The battle landscape will change there is no doubt of that. It will be about getting siege down and protecting the siege and person manning it. Groups will need to group together fast and not sit there in stealth and wait for the right moment. I am looking forward to siege doing actual damage. Grouping up is not how actual battle is done. That is why we invented grenades I was never less than 5 meters from any man next to me out in the field. Most of the time you are 15 meters away from the man next to you but no more than 15 meters away. Zerging works great in a video game it really does, but I want combat to be remotely believable and plausible (yes I know this is a fantasy video game). IRL zerging would get you and your buddies killed not helped. IRL siege warfare changed the landscape of battle for over a thousand years. Those siegers are going to be a huge target and we will need to defend them not running off chasing down some yahoo who thinks he can 1 v x everyone. Beside level 10’s should not out of Blackwater and it will give them all something to do that contributes to the team IMO. For the siegers I hear a wrecking blow coming…For those not wanting to be impacted by the siege changes using line of sight and rocks, hills and cliffs and uneven surfaces will be the new battle grounds. Real tactics not cause i was a WOW raid commander for 7 years. Real cool.../facepalm

Stop it. Stop with the real-life references. If this was meant to be remotely real-life 1 player wouldn't be able to carry a ballista, let alone set it up in a few seconds so no, any argument on what siege should do due to realism effect is ABSOLUTELY pointless. You can't have your cake and eat it too with these half references to realism while ignoring everything else. I know you claim that well later it is a fantasy game, but you want it realistic...... try and read the problem there. It should not be included in your points anywhere.... at all.

Second, instead of ignoring my point, no where did I say zerging was good. I said it was bad and the whole point of the siege changes are meant to help combat the zerg. My point is its going to help it. Its going to make the zerg safe anywhere except when taking a keep, whereas at the moment a zerg isn't safe even in the open field.

Since you have a big tendency to dismiss anybody's viewpoint that isn't in line with yours then you must realize that your credibility is close to zero.

The post which Huntlar responded to was a straw-man argument. That is, it is created an fallacy of comparison between real life warfare and Huntlar's comments on video gameplay. Indeed, Huntlar's point was that changed siege mechanics (damage) in ESO will promote zerging gameplay which has literally nothing to do with how real life warfare has been influenced by real siege weaponry.

And basically this as to the original quote, my credibility does not matter in a debate on game mechanics. There is nothing I am saying that you have to "trust" me about. This is about debating what is best for game balance and what will happen. I make points, you make counterpoints thats how a debate works. I am not dismissing someone's viewpoint when they use a logical fallacy or broken argument...

Rasimir · March 2015

The main reason why increased siege damage won't help much is that right now it is almost impossible to place siege weapons near the lag zergs. And if you can, you are not able to fire them. The same problem exists with the newly introduced zerg buster skill: you cannot cast it near such zergs.
Therefore, sticking together to lag capture whatever you want still wins.

frozywozy · March 2015

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Did I miss a statement where the siege changes were supposed to combat the zerg?

^What this guy said.

@Huntler you seem to assume that the buff to siege damage was intended to break up zergs when most people who asked for it, @Xylena included meant it another way.

The siege damage, as it is now, is not sufficient to achieve anything. Only the snare from the oil cat and the healing debuff from the meatbag is useful at the moment.

So the point to get a siege damage buff was not only to go back to where we used to be prior 1.6, as Brian mentionned in his post, but also to put a smile on people who don't usually run in large groups. When you say that even the large groups will be able to drop sieges and will have a larger impact, I disagree. It is mostly a question of timing and positioning there. It will takes just a few players to cause a huge impact if you are not paying attention and keeping your shield up.

Also, from my side of view, I see the buff to siege damage amazing regarding keep and ressource defenses. I'm that guy who will ride to solo defend Drake or Dragon from pvdoorers and it will be totally rejoycing to be able to do my thing again and have a chance to defend successfuly.

Jauriel · March 2015

My problem with this change is simple. While sieging a keep now it takes one or two good shots sometimes for a siege weapon for it to be obliterated. With the cost of siege being so expensive...Kinda sucks. This just might end up being an ap drain.

Jauriel · March 2015

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Did I miss a statement where the siege changes were supposed to combat the zerg?

What else would you use anti personnel siege on if not PEOPLE zerged up and to defend choke points from zergs?

Lesspa · March 2015

Guess its time to actually utilize Alliance War Support ability of siege shield. Lawls.

Lesspa · March 2015

Srsy tho. If you're worried about siege, rock the CYRO heavy set and siege shield.

Roechacca · March 2015

When Paul Sage says spread out , spread out . Or you get a new game called Elder Scrolls-Spread Out !

Wreuntzylla · March 2015

If you go to any keep fight where solid offensive and defensive forces are engaged, less than half are using siege. The rest are skirmishing at the base of the wall, protecting siege users, cutting off reinforcements, etc. If siege damage is too high, you'll have people primarily standing around waiting just out of siege range. The standing.... the waiting...

Not enough of the player base uses or cares to use siege. It's a mistake to overbuff it's damage.

Jauriel · March 2015

Idk siege is pretty well used in Thornblade. I see it up all the time. I command my troops to set anti personnel siege up at choke points and it does work-unless the zerg is causing undue lag.

Manoekin · March 2015

Considering the ZOS directive is to get people to stop zerging, and then they implement changes which encourage zerging... Some of us are a little skeptical and think they're actually under the impression they are helping their game with some of these.

Makkir · March 2015

Doesn't the increased siege damage and the Forward Camps being gone now mean Doors/walls will come down twice as fast giving defenders a lot less time to respond....?

Jauriel · March 2015

Manoekin wrote: »

Considering the ZOS directive is to get people to stop zerging, and then they implement changes which encourage zerging... Some of us are a little skeptical and think they're actually under the impression they are helping their game with some of these.

ZOS is doing nothing to stop the zerging. They are doing nothing about the cheaters who deliberately lag the server and cause widespread havoc in the vicinity they are in. Cough ahem EP cough. We all know who they are. We all report every night and it gets ignored by ZOS every.single.night.

themdogesbite · March 2015

I've had similar concerns, but a this point im willing to see ANY changes to cyrodiils enviorment to try and spread the bigger groups out.

Skafsgaard · March 2015

please provide a link to these changes, thank you!

Xupacabra · March 2015

You will never end zerg groups until you end the ability to spam skills with endless resources.

Joy_Division · March 2015

TL; DR. I don't care.

Why I don't care:

1. What the OP describes is theoretical. When the game's meta actually matches what the OP describes then I'll care.

2. If the meta is as bad as the OP describes, ZoS can always scale back the siege damage. SOMETHING has to change at present.

3. Siege in its current form is utterly incapable of helping a smaller group of defenders defeat a zerg attacking a castle. Unacceptable.

4. There are many counters in game to siege damage. Siege shield, purge, purifying ritual, self heals, damage shields, and the ever popular move out of the way all work wonders. This say nothing of killing the defenseless siege operator.

5. What the OP describes can happen with any abilities. Because the zergs will always have more people, more skill slots, more X equipment, they will always be able to better and more often use any of the functions in the game. They will have more lethal arrows, more magicka detonations, more shields, more barriers, more reflective scales, more healing springs, more ground oils, more caltrops, more impulses, more Jesus Beams, moar everything, which is usually why they win.

6. Outnumbered defenders will, as they always had to historically, have to make use of choice terrain/choke points to mitigate the sort of advantage the OP describes and stuff in my point #5. DC should not try to defend against the Yellow zerg in-between Nickle and the Ash milegate but at the milegate...failing this to the Ash keep...failing this to the inner keep.

7. Failing all this, I still would prefer what the OP describes than standing underneath the oils at a castle breech which I do at present because I don't respect the damage that it does.

Garion · March 2015

I cannot wait until this goes live and you all see how it is actually going to be. The reason for this change is apparently to combat zerging, and @Huntler is right - the zergs are the ones who will benefit from this.

Just wait and see. I for one am against such a dramatic change but at the end of the day, those of us that enjoy small scale fights are evidently outnumbered on here as much as we are in game. The hive mind will always win, it seems!

RinaldoGandolphi · March 2015

Zerging will remain the same, the only difference will be defensive tactical position will be far more important.

I can't wait either, its almost back to the good old days, be prepared to lose half your raid charging the breech, the days of walking through oil and siege fire are over.

The oils, oh the vampire tears are going to be delicious!

Rune_Relic · March 2015

Keron wrote: »

If the meta really develops the way OP describes, it can be changed back. But please let us try it first before we start to complain about it.

Agree with this. Lets suck it and see before we kill it with fire.

Jauriel · March 2015

woodsro wrote: »

Zerging will remain the same, the only difference will be defensive tactical position will be far more important.

I can't wait either, its almost back to the good old days, be prepared to lose half your raid charging the breech, the days of walking through oil and siege fire are over.

The oils, oh the vampire tears are going to be delicious!

No reason to lose half your raid on the breech. While you are sieging you put anti personnel treb damage on the oilers and have your best bow and dps range them down before the breech even opens.

Valnas · March 2015

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGPzEoxxAkDO1_dc5MPLNT_5UJ7gB6SNixFv_sua0zp7pPZ9BM

vortexman11 · March 2015

I don't think people really see the problems that will arise from this. Yes it's true, if you want a realistic game then pretty much any direct hit with a siege weapon should be an instant kill... But are you guys really looking forward to that? All it will take now is two stone trebuchet focused on one spot to kill basically everything.... I know seige was weak at the start of 1.6 but the amount they are raising it to is just crazy.. Was it that hard to simply scale siege damage up evenly with the health and damage of other things?

Davadin · March 2015

Huntler wrote: »

Friends, its been a while since I've posted one of these....

<snip>

Why bother having abilities, just siege up friends.

I respectfully disagree.

But we'll just have to wait and see how the mass will adopt this new changes. It will take a week or two, maybe three for people to get "holy *** that hits like a truck" and start dispersing zergs OR people start spamming these like you described.

Etaniel · March 2015

Davadin wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Friends, its been a while since I've posted one of these....

<snip>

Why bother having abilities, just siege up friends.

I respectfully disagree.

But we'll just have to wait and see how the mass will adopt this new changes. It will take a week or two, maybe three for people to get "holy *** that hits like a truck" and start dispersing zergs OR people start spamming these like you described.

You do realize that "dispersing zergs" is never going to happen right? Zergs are a bunch of unorganized players that rabble rabble behind whoever is in front. They see 1, 2, 3 players go off in one direction and rabble rabble the whole flock of sheep follows.And if you are a random without a group, it's always safer to run with a bunch of other randoms than to stray off. What this game needs is tools for small groups to kill off those zergs. Tools like dynamic ulti regen, that was taken away in 1.6

Edit : to go back to the OP's post, siege damage increase should have a positive impact. Currently zergs are a thing, and number superiority is the only factor in fights. Zergs don't need any more tools to kill off smaller groups, they are already super effective at it, so giving them those tools isn't going to change the speed at which small groups get roflstomped. But it should give those groups a better shot at killing the zergs when taking them by surprise

EskimoBrother · March 2015

Huntler wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

A smaller group is not going to run head on into the zerg and try to put up siege right in front of them. They are going to stealth up, get on the flanks and set up the siege from there. They will then have a lot more targets to hit which mean more people who need healing and maybe even too many to heal.

And thats where this game turns into just one massive siege fest that is literally mind numbingly boring and stupid. Anyone can use siege, it doesn't take some genius. It is literally the easiest mechanic in the game to use and that will be the most effective way to play. That is awful for gameplay. But don't worry, you'll all see in a few days.

Siege is slow, so it is not very effective against a spread out group. Not to mention; when on it you are really vulnerable to stealth attacks and your friends will have a lot slower time to react. Snipe is still a pretty big thing, but WB from stealth is freaking awesome but very hard to do. Easier to do to someone tunneling a catapult.

And it is precisely this reason that a zerg will be able to effectively use it a lot more than a small organized group, because you are massively vulnerable on a siege weapon. Thats my whole point. The game will turn into who drops siege faster and has more (the zerg always will) and the small groups cannot afford in open field to separate. People keep saying this will give great defender advantage as their reasoning, completely ignoring my points in the OP... I get it, yes siege is going to be great for small numbers in a keep, but I'm talking more than just a keep here. This entire game will revolve around siege, even in the open field. The only time skills will even be important is when you are in locations that siege cannot be placed. Its going to be ***.

Agreed. I still want to see how it plays out first though, but atm it seems like they upped the damage a little too much. Hopefully they'll keep an eye out on this and adjust it swiftly if its too drastic

heystreethawk · March 2015

Joy_Division wrote: »

TL; DR. I don't care.

7. Failing all this, I still would prefer what the OP describes than standing underneath the oils at a castle breech which I do at present because I don't respect the damage that it does.

I think your reply is full of good, Insightful observations but I want to single this one out, because the phrasing is terrific.

I picture your remark delivered with the civility of a 19th Century Virginian-- an educated landowner of a well regarded heritage-- and directed to the impotent contents of an oil pot, having just been drizzled from an overhead grate onto the heal-sprung personnel of a battering ram:

"Although you are committed wholly to this present endeavor, I cannot respect your work here."

AhPook_Is_Here · March 2015

The change would be better if the weapons represented their real counterparts characteristics. Time to construct one, effort to load one, the purpose of the weapon. As an example of purpose the ballista was anti-personnel, and if it was used against buildings at all, it was against light structures. It was effective at breaking up shield lines, killing archers as a defensive weapon, and while it shot rocks and bolts, it did not have any area denial or damage feature. It was not a cluster bomb munition. Trebuchets which didn't show up for about 1500 years after ballista, and while many things where launched with trebs, from plague ridden corpses to stones, a 100kg stone does not kill everything in a 10m radius when it lands.

Not trying to bring reality too far into this but I think the assumption that ancient siege weapons have some analog to modern HE artillery is incorrect.