Armitas wrote: »

2. Bottom floor of tower facing postern door

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I'm not sure how any of the siege hits for 24K in one hit. Maybe an initial and some DoT ticks.

Iyas wrote: »

]

death recap plz

bg22 wrote: »

Yes... A siege weapon should 1 shot you if you just let it hit you without support, heals or any other effort to mitigate it.

For the first time since launch, siege weapons are working as they should.

The time of eating your microwave burrito while you siege in a giant zerg is over...

Enter the time of movement, support and teamwork.

Here's a thought, take your 50 points out of magicka and give yourself some health and heavy or medium armor, maybe then you wont be so squishy.

You ever noticed those giant red warning circles in sieges before? Well... you will now.

Rylana wrote: »

So my poor little vamp sorc got annihilated for 32000 fire ballista damage

Not to be outdone, I got up on that wall, dropped 2 fire ballistas of my own and wiped almost a full raid in 30 seconds.

Siege is so OP, its almost hilarious, but I kind of like it o.o

EvilEmpire wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

See my "nightmare" thread about this and you'll see we agree 100% on what you mentioned and that siege will be more important than builds, how you play, your gear, your skills, etc. Basically your goal will be siege siege siege, not build planning, group coordination of abilities, supportive skills, position, etc.

I would rather see someone siege, siege, siege, than what you do - which is zerg, zerg, zerg. It's funny how you pretend to act all anti-zerg, but yet alc doesn't go anywhere without the wrx group of 30-40.

Huntler wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

#What did I say.

So let me get this straight.

When someone whines on the forums about getting hit with a ridiculous number by Radiant Destruction or some other flavor of the month ability, you are quick to question the poster's competence and detail to him how is is oversimplifying things or just isn't a very good player.

But when someone whines on the forum about getting hit with a ridiculous number by a siege weapon - providing ZERO details or evidence - you are quick to agree with the poster and brag "I told you so."

You are a paradigm of objectivity.

1. It was a joke, chill out friend no need to get upset.
2. The radiant thing, as shown by the vast difference here... was the only problem with it was the bug which is fixed. Nobody complaining about it anymore because the ability is fine now.

I'd find your jokes more amusing if you actually proposed something that would make Cyrodiil a better place to PvP instead of just being overly critical and cynical.

How easy it is to point out what's wrong with other people. How hard it is to be correct.

As I explained in your previous thread, I don't care - yet - at the people who are whining about purposefully standing in the target radius of a fire ballista because they are so used to shrugging off the damage. Mostly because at current, siege damage is unacceptably low. It has to change. I am of the mindset that John Maynard Keynes was when asked what to do about the Great Depression, to which he responded by saying to the effect of "do something, anything is better than the status quo."

IF after actually PLAYING the game through empirical observation, points you are so quick to dismiss for the sake of humor, we discover that too much damage was increased for siege weapons, it can always be scaled back somewhere in-between the unacceptably low 1.6 values to the (perhaps) unacceptably high values at present. Instead of being coy, cute, or humorous, provide some objective feedback with empirical evidence that demonstrates your perspective should hold more weight than those who enjoy the buff siege weapons create.

What makes this episode frustration is I know you are a good player and - usually - a thoughtful commentator but on this issue, you seem more interested in just saying "this sucks" rather than offering plausible hypotheses to the impotence that siege weapons possessed after 1.6 came live up to today's maintenance.

I disagree with your theory that siege weapons is "easy mode" for players to use. Sure, any nitwit can put it on top of a castle wall and point it at enemy catapults. But what I gather you mean is that some level 27 recruit can put down a fire ballista on the flat plain in-between Nickel and the Ash Milegate and without any thought and have a comparable effect on the battlefield as your well played Vr14 templar. Let's not even factor in the reality that a level 27 recruit is a net loss because they are taking up a place in the population cap and put Krim, Tea Pot, or Luvboard in queue, but that is besides the point. If that level 27 is part of a larger "zerg" by the time the place that fire ballista down, aim it, and direct a single shot at the defenders - a process that takes up to 10 seconds - the battle has mostly likely has already been decided because zergs have more damage shields, Jesus beams, reflective scales, healing springs, batswarms, and whatever other abilities people are currently whining about. If that recruit did something useful with that shot, something that cannot be taken for a given because the damage can be mitigated, purged, or avoided altogether, then I say good for her because she wasn't doing much use anyway.
Before today, the lesser zerg already had to fall back to Nickel or the Milegate...what exactly has changed? That people have more options to combat a "pain train"?

Where I think your fears have merit is the fluid battles that have the sort of equilibrium in which the front lines are static. As targets are relatively stationary and siege weaponry more easily defended, now the potential of seige weapons can be realized and perhaps be decisive. I am uncertain this is necessarily a bad thing. Think about it, if siege weapons cannot have a decisive effect in ideal conditions, then why have them? Now I will agree that they should not always be the deciding factor or should always trump player skill and abilities, but somewhere there is the right balance that needs to be found. As it is crystal clear obvious that we are WAY too far in the "does too little damage" side, I am willing to suffer some growing pains and be on the "does too much damage" side - temporarily - until siege weapons are in a good place.

Less whining people, more productive feedback.

All that being said, I do think resources should have a sort of active defense to prevent a lone sieger from killing all the NPCs. So I do not like this particular facet. But as has been pointed out, this was already a problem because a single level 35 with a bow could do the same thing. It is a fundamental problem that the change in siege weapons has magnified.

Well thought out post which I appreciate so allow me to at least provide some responses to the points posed at me.


First I have proposed what I think is the better decision when it comes to the idea of trying to break up zerg balls. First, let me be clear, I completely agree that siege damage needs to be increase. I had said this before, but worry/fear here is this is over the top. There is a happy medium where siege damage is high enough that you can't just stand in it and it will kill people, but not so high that it will provide this massive of a difference in the landscape of this game's pvp. As I have said before I think this makes siege more important than any other kind of influencing factor which frustrates me as a player who works hard on builds, position, skill, etc. Many people claim oh just don't get hit by siege, but I feel anyone who has played this game enough (and hopefully knows me) is that I will not stand in siege and completely lambast anyone I run with that do. However, that being said, I am not naive enough to think in a battlefield in a number of scenarios there are simply just too much enemy siege, or no way to avoid it (I promise you I already have situations where you cannot avoid siege), in these scenarios which tend to have zergs using them (and in safer/more readily available ways) it will significantly hurt gameplay.

But to pull it bad to your criticism about helpful criticism or ideas that might be used instead. I think ZOS was onto something when they introduced something like magicka detonation. However their implementation is what left me wanting. We all want tools for fighting the zerg, but we must also agree whatever tool you implement needs to be near useless/not benefit the zerg. This is why I feel siege in any scenario other than keep defense is actually going to benefit the zerg (and in some cases keep sieges too). I prefer we put the tools to solve the zerg in the hands of the players, but it needs to be more dynamic than something like siege as a fire/forget easy to use tool that anyone can use without so much as a brain cell in any other aspects of the game in which influences PvP makes me a bit distraught and is just another sign of this game pushing to a casual atmosphere. Look at where we are with 1.6, any build basically can kill anything with very little trouble. Some see this as good, I see this as catering to people who just want to blow stuff up even if their build is poor. Spam the latest 1-2 hit ability or bring more friends is the solution to everything. Its not a shocker everyone and their mother are running 2hand builds or bow builds (for the most part), these builds while skilled players can make them extremely effective, are also simply effective on their own spamming 1 button and do not need to be in the hands of a good player to make strong. A scrub with a terrible gear setup can still wrecking blow you for over 10k. I see this similar problem in where siege is headed. Since it cannot be mitigated other than not being hit at all, there is very little you can do other than not get hit by it (and see what I said before about that line, while a very effective strategy becomes a very moot point in most cases where you try to combat enemy siege as the smaller group).

Back to magicka det then, since its a skill this or something like it would bring the focus closer to the player's build, skillset, etc. It would take coordination, planning, and execution instead of point click. I think if ZOS tweaked some numbers here and there, along with how magicka det works we could have something effective. Once again I think siege can be effective to break up a zerg when applied correctly I think the number of times it will benefit instead of hinder a zerg is far too great. We all joke about it, but the zerg does the mob mentality. It does whats easy, quick, path of least resistance, etc. It doesn't handle organization well or adapting to situations. Siege slows down the game, especially with this damage. It will be very hard to engage a zerg siege, neigh impossible. Many claim flanking is the solution and flanking is the solution for your initial bomb. But in the case with large enough zergs and changing to rez mechanics (along with more players being alliance rank 10), the combination of large numbers, fast rezzes, and siege makes truly countering the zerg a monumental feet outside of very tightly packed areas. You push through an area of a zerg and kill many, but a few seconds later as you push to the next big group, everyone behind you has been rezzed by the lucky players (or smart ones) that avoided the initial push or simply spread out (yes some zerg players spread out when this happens, as they should to avoid being taken down by the small group). So this is starting to touch on why I think rez mechanics have started to become broken and I could spend a lot of time talking about that and how it benefits the zerg as well, but let me quickly just say I think there needs to be the reimplementation of destroying bodies that can't be rezzed or some similar solution, perhaps a skill or aoe that makes rezzing for a certain period of time impossible (kind of like a banish the souls or whatever name you wanna give it where maybe bodies in a certain area are now unrezzable for 2 minutes... make it a long cast time of the ability). Couple a few things like this and put the tool in the hand of the players instead of a tool that anyone can use. When a zerg is wiping someone, coordinating magicka det's wont work especially if they tweak how it works, it won't be useful to them. But to a small group it is a lethal tool (that right now is powerful, but not dynamic enough to be applied in enough zerg situations other than tight area bombs).


Holy text of wall batman, I will stop here, but hopefully I've answered a few of your points. I would prefer pivoting on what tools we provide to players that require a bit more finesse and build planning/optimizing. Things more influenced by player builds, decisions, organization ,etc. All those different things that we do to influence our pvp experience instead of a very linear tool such as siege where it performs the same no matter who uses it, no matter how, it hits for X when you hit Y. (And again I think siege damage needed to be increased, but not quite to these levels, as it stands the damage is way too much once players start using it more effectively, even the zerg.)

WebBull wrote: »

Hektlk wrote: »

The changes to siege damage is absolutely *** ***. It's just a way for *** to feel like they're good at PVP.

No surprise that EP players would hate these changes.