Maintenance for the week of September 15:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Siege Damage Intended to hit for 24k?
-
Snit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nice bs. Any nab lvl 10 can sit naked and without single skill and get kills balista. Maybe for beings like you its "new skilled player", for me is broken mechanic for baddies.
Adapting your tactics to ruleset changes is also a skill.Snit AD Sorc
Ratbag AD Warden Tank
Goblins AD Stamblade3 -
Gravord✭✭✭✭✭xDOVAHKIINx wrote: »Currently siege is a one way street in favor of the aggressor, there is no real way to mitigate it
There are skills designed to mitigate siege (Siege Shield). There are heals, purges, massive group shields (Barrier) and snare immunity buffs (Retreating Maneuvers). There are actions designed to move you out of AoE while avoiding damage (Dodge Roll). There are playstyle choices that reduce your vulnerability to siege (don't bunch up) or eliminate the damage altogether (circle around the guy on the ballista and kill him).
Some of these won't work in every situation, but every situation can be addressed through at least a couple of the above.
As it was said few times:PeggymoeXD wrote: »Shield, roll, cloak, purge, purify, roll, move, get away, mitigate damage, roll, don't go in the AoE. <-- Some secrets to not dying to siege.
Again. Why on earth you have to do so much things to counter 1 click nab sitting on siege? Where are his superior skills to hit 20k+ without any bothering with gear, spec, leveling. Risk vs reward, effort vs reward. Broken siege remove any balance from those factors.
Its not about dying to siege but totally broken concept having nothing common with idea of player vs player game.
Edited by Gravord on March 27, 2015 4:00PM1 -
PF1901✭✭✭
Aren't we glad you're the lead expert here. I'm all for discussion but your "nab this noob that" babble gets old rather fast.31:05 Q "Are you generally happy with the damage increase in siege damage."
A "I like it!" "I like that it gives the sense of war again." "Cyrodiil for a while was very ummm stick to the herd orrrr, die."
He does goes on to say how it has its negatives and takes away the skill factor.
I never stuck to the herd before. Now its the only option.
Oh my god. Pvp lead designer have so little clue what pvp is about...
4 -
Jauriel✭✭✭✭
^ThisxDOVAHKIINx wrote: »Today I saw groups of 30 use siege on groups of 10 and less. PvP is just pathetic at this point
Zenimax pvp crew must be the dumbest freak'n people on the planet to implement something like this.
So this jerk Dovakhiin who was mocking me in my thread is now crying about siege???Edited by Jauriel on March 27, 2015 4:13PM0 -
Gravord✭✭✭✭✭PeggymoeXD wrote: »Shield, roll, cloak, purge, purify, roll, move, get away, mitigate damage, roll, don't go in the AoE. <-- Some secrets to not dying to siege.
Again. Why on earth you have to do so much things to counter 1 click nab sitting on siege? Where are his superior skills to hit 20k+ without any bothering with gear, spec, leveling. Risk vs reward, effort vs reward. Broken siege remove any balance from those factors.
Its not about dying to siege but totally broken concept having nothing common with idea of player vs player game.
Aren't we glad you're the lead expert here. I'm all for discussion but your "nab this noob that" babble gets old rather fast.31:05 Q "Are you generally happy with the damage increase in siege damage."
A "I like it!" "I like that it gives the sense of war again." "Cyrodiil for a while was very ummm stick to the herd orrrr, die."
He does goes on to say how it has its negatives and takes away the skill factor.
I never stuck to the herd before. Now its the only option.
Oh my god. Pvp lead designer have so little clue what pvp is about...
Dont need an expert, just basic login thinking will do. They implement siege to split zergballs? Great, but zergballs are the ones who will utilize it best of all players in Cyrodiil, with tank root/snare spam supported by balistas. Also zergballs are the ones that have enough manpower and basic organization to designate special ppl to keep up only with siege shield/cleanse. As another logic conclusion you can see that increased siege dmg will only hurt solo players and small groups as they dont have so much luxury with resources and manpower to cover those roles. Ergo, zergball problem stay stronger than ever as its again best way to counter "fix" ZOS served us.
Plus as mentioned just little above, one shotting with siege takes no effort whatsoever from shooter side and should not be happening in mmorph pvp gameplay.
Edit: i get your point, i might be fighting against it too aggressive. But it comes just from simple fact for me its obvious logical mistake and complete misconception for pvp design and cant comprehend why somebody hired as "lead pvp designer" cant figure it out and allow stuff like that to happen.Edited by Gravord on March 27, 2015 4:28PM5 -
RinaldoGandolphi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭As far as realism putting aside the fact that you can have 150 1 ton flaming boulders in your backback, or that fact you can put a siege mechanism like a trebuchet together in seconds, or that one person could do it by themselves, or that even one person could fire and load it by themselves, or that you could reload it and fire it in seconds ...
Please show me an example in "war" where armies setup trebuchets out in open fields to attack groups of armies. The siege they are using in this game was designed to siege castles and keeps none of it was designed to attack groups of armies because in reality they took far to long to put together, reload and took a small army of people just to get it to the battle field, a day or two to put together and another small army to man/reload them. Even the easiest to believe of these siege engines (ballista) would take a team to reload, would have to be built on the field of battle. If anyone was dumb enough to use these in open field they would be killed by the army before they could get one put together.
As far as staying out of the red that would be a lot easier if friendly siege wasn't also red!
Ballistae were specifically designed to be anti-infantry weapons. The fact fire ballista are so darn useful and the aiming arc on them in comparison to treb proves this fact.
Also it was common place to use trebs to launch Greek fire and disease not only over enemy keep walls, but right into the infantry front lines during battles. This was common place as much as the English Longbowmen later became.
It made sense to shell your enemy from range, the ballista was developed more to focus solely as more of an anti infantry weapon. As it was smaller, less cumbersome, easier to move and deploy compared to a treb, with a faster rate if fire. Ballista were terrible for shooting walls because that's not what they were really designed for.
A treb can be and was used as a multi-purpose weapon because simply changing what you were throwing from a rock to Greek fire, or disease, etc made it useful for long range shelling of the enemy, but they were not ideal for use against infantry at closer ranges, were much more cumbersome to move and deploy, thus the ballista found its place.
It was totally plausible to fire on troops with well defended trebs especially to soften them up as they charged the line, the ballitsa was just better suited for close and more so medium range encounters that were most prominent.Rinaldo Gandolphi-Breton Sorcerer Daggerfall Covenant
Juste Gandolphi Dark Elf Templar Daggerfall Covenant
Richter Gandolphi - Dark Elf Dragonknight Daggerfall Covenant
Mathias Gandolphi - Breton Nightblade Daggerfall Covenant
RinaldoGandolphi - High Elf Sorcerer Aldmeri Dominion
Officer Fire and Ice
Co-GM - MVP
Sorcerer's - The ONLY class in the game that is punished for using its class defining skill (Bolt Escape)
"Here in his shrine, that they have forgotten. Here do we toil, that we might remember. By night we reclaim, what by day was stolen. Far from ourselves, he grows ever near to us. Our eyes once were blinded, now through him do we see. Our hands once were idle, now through them does he speak. And when the world shall listen, and when the world shall see, and when the world remembers, that world will cease to be. - Miraak3 -
Gravord✭✭✭✭✭As far as realism putting aside the fact that you can have 150 1 ton flaming boulders in your backback, or that fact you can put a siege mechanism like a trebuchet together in seconds, or that one person could do it by themselves, or that even one person could fire and load it by themselves, or that you could reload it and fire it in seconds ...
Please show me an example in "war" where armies setup trebuchets out in open fields to attack groups of armies. The siege they are using in this game was designed to siege castles and keeps none of it was designed to attack groups of armies because in reality they took far to long to put together, reload and took a small army of people just to get it to the battle field, a day or two to put together and another small army to man/reload them. Even the easiest to believe of these siege engines (ballista) would take a team to reload, would have to be built on the field of battle. If anyone was dumb enough to use these in open field they would be killed by the army before they could get one put together.
As far as staying out of the red that would be a lot easier if friendly siege wasn't also red!
Ballistae were specifically designed to be anti-infantry weapons. The fact fire ballista are so darn useful and the aiming arc on them in comparison to treb proves this fact.
Also it was common place to use trebs to launch Greek fire and disease not only over enemy keep walls, but right into the infantry front lines during battles. This was common place as much as the English Longbowmen later became.
It made sense to shell your enemy from range, the ballista was developed more to focus solely as more of an anti infantry weapon. As it was smaller, less cumbersome, easier to move and deploy compared to a treb, with a faster rate if fire. Ballista were terrible for shooting walls because that's not what they were really designed for.
A treb can be and was used as a multi-purpose weapon because simply changing what you were throwing from a rock to Greek fire, or disease, etc made it useful for long range shelling of the enemy, but they were not ideal for use against infantry at closer ranges, were much more cumbersome to move and deploy, thus the ballista found its place.
It was totally plausible to fire on troops with well defended trebs especially to soften them up as they charged the line, the ballitsa was just better suited for close and more so medium range encounters that were most prominent.
Correct stuff. But dont skip facts that they were build for hours and operated by whole crew. Not pulled from pocket of one person in timestamp of 1 second. And turning them to aim was also not so fast and smooth action. Never any of this machines was used in quick skirmishes, only in big, well prepared and planned battles, something we dont have in ESO.0 -
PeggymoeXD wrote: »At this point the people arguing the siege damage into the ground can obviously not be swayed. They refuse to understand this is an Alliance war. I'm sure there will plenty of fun to be had for them when there are PvP modes that don't involve siege. But for now, we will have to put up with the close-mindedness, because siege should hurt. The players who understand this and work their builds around this fact are now the skilled players. The ones who gripe because they cannot adapt, are not.
That's what people said about ground oils, but you were probably defending those too with the simply answer of "get out of the red circle nub". People who are defending the outrageous siege damage claiming this is alliance warfare obviously do not understand basic risk v reward and how it functions within a RvR game. In the end it is what it is, ZoS will make the game how they see fit, if they want to make this a siege warfare game that's fine. As soon as something gets unchained I am sure any player who is looking for a real realm vs realm will pack it up.3 -
Huntler✭✭✭✭✭
✭Cervanteseric85ub17_ESO wrote: »PeggymoeXD wrote: »At this point the people arguing the siege damage into the ground can obviously not be swayed. They refuse to understand this is an Alliance war. I'm sure there will plenty of fun to be had for them when there are PvP modes that don't involve siege. But for now, we will have to put up with the close-mindedness, because siege should hurt. The players who understand this and work their builds around this fact are now the skilled players. The ones who gripe because they cannot adapt, are not.
That's what people said about ground oils, but you were probably defending those too with the simply answer of "get out of the red circle nub". People who are defending the outrageous siege damage claiming this is alliance warfare obviously do not understand basic risk v reward and how it functions within a RvR game. In the end it is what it is, ZoS will make the game how they see fit, if they want to make this a siege warfare game that's fine. As soon as something gets unchained I am sure any player who is looking for a real realm vs realm will pack it up.
The funniest thing about this, is most of the names I see defending this new siege damage... screamed bloody murder that ground oils were imba.... its freaking hilarious.2 -
c0rp✭✭✭✭✭
✭Cervanteseric85ub17_ESO wrote: »PeggymoeXD wrote: »At this point the people arguing the siege damage into the ground can obviously not be swayed. They refuse to understand this is an Alliance war. I'm sure there will plenty of fun to be had for them when there are PvP modes that don't involve siege. But for now, we will have to put up with the close-mindedness, because siege should hurt. The players who understand this and work their builds around this fact are now the skilled players. The ones who gripe because they cannot adapt, are not.
That's what people said about ground oils, but you were probably defending those too with the simply answer of "get out of the red circle nub". People who are defending the outrageous siege damage claiming this is alliance warfare obviously do not understand basic risk v reward and how it functions within a RvR game. In the end it is what it is, ZoS will make the game how they see fit, if they want to make this a siege warfare game that's fine. As soon as something gets unchained I am sure any player who is looking for a real realm vs realm will pack it up.
The funniest thing about this, is most of the names I see defending this new siege damage... screamed bloody murder that ground oils were imba.... its freaking hilarious.
No, they were actually screaming bloody murder that its *** you can stand in bubbling oil while your enemies melt instantly. It was dumb. It was stupid. It was ridiculously unrealistic. That was the issue with them, not the damage they caused.
Edited by c0rp on March 27, 2015 5:00PMForce weapon swap to have priority over EVERYTHING. Close enough.
Make stamina builds even with magicka builds.
Disable abilities while holding block.
Give us a REASON to do dungeons more than once.
Remove PVP AoE CAP. It is ruining Cyrodiil.
Fix/Remove Forward Camps. They are ruining Cyrodiil.
Impenetrability needs to REDUCE CRIT DAMAGE. Not negate entire builds.
Werewolf is not equal to Vamps/Bats.2 -
IcyDeadPeople✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Cervanteseric85ub17_ESO wrote: »PeggymoeXD wrote: »At this point the people arguing the siege damage into the ground can obviously not be swayed. They refuse to understand this is an Alliance war. I'm sure there will plenty of fun to be had for them when there are PvP modes that don't involve siege. But for now, we will have to put up with the close-mindedness, because siege should hurt. The players who understand this and work their builds around this fact are now the skilled players. The ones who gripe because they cannot adapt, are not.
That's what people said about ground oils, but you were probably defending those too with the simply answer of "get out of the red circle nub". People who are defending the outrageous siege damage claiming this is alliance warfare obviously do not understand basic risk v reward and how it functions within a RvR game. In the end it is what it is, ZoS will make the game how they see fit, if they want to make this a siege warfare game that's fine. As soon as something gets unchained I am sure any player who is looking for a real realm vs realm will pack it up.
The funniest thing about this, is most of the names I see defending this new siege damage... screamed bloody murder that ground oils were imba.... its freaking hilarious.
No, they were actually screaming bloody murder that its *** you can stand in bubbling oil while your enemies melt instantly. It was dumb. It was stupid. It was ridiculously unrealistic. That was the issue with them, not the damage they caused.
To be fair, you can stand in friendly firepot treb AOE while enemies melt, this is pretty much the same scenario.
Personally I had a lot of fun with ground oil, and I'd like to see it return. However, I gather the developers' intent was for this to be limited to dropping from higher elevation.
.
Edited by IcyDeadPeople on March 27, 2015 5:11PM0 -
krim✭✭✭✭✭IcyDeadPeople wrote: »Cervanteseric85ub17_ESO wrote: »PeggymoeXD wrote: »At this point the people arguing the siege damage into the ground can obviously not be swayed. They refuse to understand this is an Alliance war. I'm sure there will plenty of fun to be had for them when there are PvP modes that don't involve siege. But for now, we will have to put up with the close-mindedness, because siege should hurt. The players who understand this and work their builds around this fact are now the skilled players. The ones who gripe because they cannot adapt, are not.
That's what people said about ground oils, but you were probably defending those too with the simply answer of "get out of the red circle nub". People who are defending the outrageous siege damage claiming this is alliance warfare obviously do not understand basic risk v reward and how it functions within a RvR game. In the end it is what it is, ZoS will make the game how they see fit, if they want to make this a siege warfare game that's fine. As soon as something gets unchained I am sure any player who is looking for a real realm vs realm will pack it up.
The funniest thing about this, is most of the names I see defending this new siege damage... screamed bloody murder that ground oils were imba.... its freaking hilarious.
No, they were actually screaming bloody murder that its *** you can stand in bubbling oil while your enemies melt instantly. It was dumb. It was stupid. It was ridiculously unrealistic. That was the issue with them, not the damage they caused.
To be fair, you can stand in friendly firepot treb AOE while enemies melt, this is pretty much the same scenario.
Personally I had a lot of fun with ground oil, and I'd like to see it return. However, I gather the developers intend for this to be limited to dropping from higher elevation.
Exactly lol.. i love the realism in everyone's argument.1 -
frozywozy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭@Xylena is the one who started the main thread about siege damage which was not enough and probably leaded us to this major change. I know for a fact that she loved ground oil and would like it back anytime. I also enjoyed playing with it.Frozn - Stamdk - AR50
Frosted - Magplar - AR50
Frodn - Magden - AR50
Warmed - Magblade - AR50
Mmfrozy - Magsorc - AR44
Necrozn - Magcro - AR32
Twitch.TV/FrozyTV
PvP Group Builds
“Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas.” -Eleanor Roosevelt- Fix Volendrung (spawn location - weapon white on the map causing the wielder to keep it forever - usable with emperorship)
- Remove / Change CPs System, remove current CP/noCP campaigns and introduce one 30days with lock, one with no locks
- Fix crashes when approaching a keep under attack because of bad / wrong rendering prioritization system
- Change emperorship to value faction score points and not alliance points - see this and this
- Fix long loading screens (mostly caused by players joining group out of rendering range)
- Add 2 more quickslots to the wheel or add a different wheel for sieges weaponry only
- Fix Balista Bolts not dealing damage on walls or doors if deployed at a certain place
- Release bigger battlegrounds with 8 to 16 players per team and only two teams
- Fix the permanent block animation - see examples : link1 link2 link3 link4 link5
- Gives players 10 minutes to get back into Cyrodiil after relogging / crashing
- Add a function to ignore the Claiming system of useless rewards
- Improve the Mailing System / Rewards of the Worthy stacking
- Assign specific group sizes to specific campaigns (24-16-8)
- Make forward camps impossible to place near objectives
- Make snares only available from ground effects abilities
- Change emperorship to last minimum 24hours
- Fix body sliding after cc breaking too quickly
- Remove Block Casting through Battle Spirit
- Fix the speed drop while jumping - see video
- Fix loading screens when keeps upgrade
- Fix Rams going crazy (spinning around)
- Bring back dynamic ulti regeneration
- Fix speed bug (abilities locked)
- Introduce dynamic population
- Lower population cap by 20%
- Add Snare Immunity potions
- Bring resurrection sickness
- Fix character desync
- Fix cc breaking bug
- Fix gap closer bug
- Fix health desync
- Fix combat bug
- Fix streak bug
- Fix server lag
0 -
Huntler✭✭✭✭✭
✭Cervanteseric85ub17_ESO wrote: »PeggymoeXD wrote: »At this point the people arguing the siege damage into the ground can obviously not be swayed. They refuse to understand this is an Alliance war. I'm sure there will plenty of fun to be had for them when there are PvP modes that don't involve siege. But for now, we will have to put up with the close-mindedness, because siege should hurt. The players who understand this and work their builds around this fact are now the skilled players. The ones who gripe because they cannot adapt, are not.
That's what people said about ground oils, but you were probably defending those too with the simply answer of "get out of the red circle nub". People who are defending the outrageous siege damage claiming this is alliance warfare obviously do not understand basic risk v reward and how it functions within a RvR game. In the end it is what it is, ZoS will make the game how they see fit, if they want to make this a siege warfare game that's fine. As soon as something gets unchained I am sure any player who is looking for a real realm vs realm will pack it up.
The funniest thing about this, is most of the names I see defending this new siege damage... screamed bloody murder that ground oils were imba.... its freaking hilarious.
No, they were actually screaming bloody murder that its *** you can stand in bubbling oil while your enemies melt instantly. It was dumb. It was stupid. It was ridiculously unrealistic. That was the issue with them, not the damage they caused.
is this real life? Are you being serious? OH MY GOD YOU ARE. Is your cognitive dissonance so bad you don't realize the massive hypocrisy of your post? You do know other siege doesn't have friendly fire right? You DO know that right? I.... I don't even know how to respond to this.... Remember my previous post everyone a few minutes ago about those guys that screamed bloody murder about ground oil, but totally dig this skillful siege damage change?
I give you exhibit A. ^^^
You can't make this **** up.
And if I have to make a point about how realism doesn't mean jack in a video game about daedric gods, zombies, being able to summon a meteor from outer space, and just the fact that I can rez people.....
Edited by Huntler on March 27, 2015 5:23PM3 -
xDOVAHKIINx✭✭✭I use fire ballistas the same way as i did oil, Fire, Exit, Aoe spam, Repeat. The only difference is one has alot more range, anyone who defends siege in that way is stupid."According to most of the people on these forums, every organized 16 man guild group is a lagblobbing pulsespamming zerg."-Fmonk3
-
xDOVAHKIINx✭✭✭Cervanteseric85ub17_ESO wrote: »PeggymoeXD wrote: »At this point the people arguing the siege damage into the ground can obviously not be swayed. They refuse to understand this is an Alliance war. I'm sure there will plenty of fun to be had for them when there are PvP modes that don't involve siege. But for now, we will have to put up with the close-mindedness, because siege should hurt. The players who understand this and work their builds around this fact are now the skilled players. The ones who gripe because they cannot adapt, are not.
That's what people said about ground oils, but you were probably defending those too with the simply answer of "get out of the red circle nub". People who are defending the outrageous siege damage claiming this is alliance warfare obviously do not understand basic risk v reward and how it functions within a RvR game. In the end it is what it is, ZoS will make the game how they see fit, if they want to make this a siege warfare game that's fine. As soon as something gets unchained I am sure any player who is looking for a real realm vs realm will pack it up.
The funniest thing about this, is most of the names I see defending this new siege damage... screamed bloody murder that ground oils were imba.... its freaking hilarious.
No, they were actually screaming bloody murder that its *** you can stand in bubbling oil while your enemies melt instantly. It was dumb. It was stupid. It was ridiculously unrealistic. That was the issue with them, not the damage they caused. is this real life? Are you being serious? OH MY GOD YOU ARE. Is your cognitive dissonance so bad you don't realize that massive hypocrisy of your post? You do know other siege doesn't have friendly fire right? You DO know that right? I.... I don't even know how to respond to this.... Remember my previous post everyone a few minutes ago about those guys that screamed bloody murder about ground oil, but totally dig this skillful siege damage change?
I give you exhibit A. ^^^
You can't make this *** up.
Do not bother with bads in the game, they never learn."According to most of the people on these forums, every organized 16 man guild group is a lagblobbing pulsespamming zerg."-Fmonk2 -
eventide03b14a_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭If the same faction is a red circle I have never noticed, I just move out of all red circles. It's really a separate issue and inconsistent with the rest of the game and should definitely be changed. Again it should have no bearing on how much damage the siege weapons do so it really doesn't support the argument to nerf them. Good try though.:trollin:0 -
kitsinni✭✭✭✭✭I think siege should be friendly fire. I know it is unrealistic to have everything in a game be friendly fire but for siege it makes sense. I don't think you should be able to have your team rooting people while you drop siege on them if it is going to do that much damage. I think it would make keep taking a lot more interesting also, no more pouring burning oil on top of your army while only the other side gets hurt.
It is pretty funny how people weave in and out of what's "realistic" .. "Oh you should take that much from a 1 ton flaming boulder" ... "You just took that boulder out of your backpack and the guy next to you is shooting fire out of a stick"1 -
This change destroys PvP. And to everyone who says " now its more realistic" "its now like real war"
One question! When was the last time you were in combat got shot by a "magic spell" and told your friend next to you to spam heals so you don't die. Lol Realistic! Really people?1 -
Lava_Croft wrote: »
I'm a '0 skills nab'.Lava_Croft wrote: »The changes to siege damage are simply awesome and have greatly improved the overall PvP experience.
Not sure if troll or 0 skills nab.
I trust your words so gave you "agree" on post
Skill in a MMO is not really spamming buttons or skills, although there is a minor impact of it (obviously correct timings, reactions, etc. are important). Skill gets involved with 2 primary components: Planning and During. The planning phase is half of what makes a MMO and corresponds to skill and it happens days, weeks, etc. before you do any fight. With siege, planning is entirely removed. The "During" phase when it comes to skill is spatial awareness such as not standing in red, blocking certain attacks, bashing others, roll dodging when needing to, correctly timing attacks/combos, etc.if this is what you consider skillful play then I think I am done talking here.... so much skill, charge uppercut 80% of the time.... full reliance on the items... and spamming button to what add-ons popped up...
Now count all of those above items that I believe (and hopefully you do too) impact skill, and tell me.... how many are involved with siege? How many are involved with the other option (aka fighting).
There are two kinds of planning involved in a fight, its the planning of your build/equipment for the skirmishes and there's the greater battle plan involving positioning, siege and maybe multiple coordinated strike teams.
During the fight you need spatial awareness such as not standing in red, roll dodging when needing to, and also quick thinking about where to move the fight, and to know where you weak spots/blind spots are in any given scenario. This applies to the whole fight, siege or no siege. Actually hard hitting siege increases the need for awareness and the ability to change tactics quickly both alone and as a group imo.
So your rethorical question does not convince me that siege requires no skill in planning or duration of a fight, on the contrary it adds another dimension of planning and even more need of sitational awareness during a fight.
I always look around me to see if seige is getting deployed - because then I know where my next target is
Siege make strategically good positions in the terrain/battlefield more important. I like that!
But siege should maybe take longer to deploy, it should allways be a high risk operation to set up.
What you say is partially true. Its make game more demanding for team facing sieges. But what you conviniently skip is that team with sieges skill requirements are much lower that the skills needed to counter idiotic siege dmg. And thats the problem. Minimal risk, 0 effort in char/gear/team build is deadly and require lot effort to counter that. Now put it in hand of any semi decent team, with few balistas, solid def tanks spamming roots/snares and you have mass murder done way too easy.
And i partly agree with that as well. Allthough im sure good attacking teams will figure out a counter to the defending scenario you just outlined Bottom line I still think its a better game then before, that's where we differ i guess.
What do you think of an increased deployment time? Maybe even an increased deployment time outside of keeps to make siege less viable in group vs group fights?
If an enemy has fortified a position in advance it SHOULD be much harder to take i think, but to be able to fortify you position with siege in a few seconds doesnt feel quite right.
Increase deployment would be some kind of solution but that wouldnt solve issue with 20 balistas spam on keep def or for example choke points like gates on way to scrolls. Theres no way around there, you have to pass one little gate, with oils on top, caltrops inside gate and 20 balistas aiming and devastating anyone entering. In this scenario it doesnt make "harder to attack", it make it impossible to break if defenders know what they doing. And deployment time wont help with that either as after loosing keeps theres still plenty time to fortify gates. Dmg reduction is necessary.
Tell that to a certain group of EP who just walked into DC scroll temple being pelted by a TON of siege and taking 0 damage.
A whole faction saw that one1 -
technohic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I think siege should be friendly fire. I know it is unrealistic to have everything in a game be friendly fire but for siege it makes sense. I don't think you should be able to have your team rooting people while you drop siege on them if it is going to do that much damage. I think it would make keep taking a lot more interesting also, no more pouring burning oil on top of your army while only the other side gets hurt.
It is pretty funny how people weave in and out of what's "realistic" .. "Oh you should take that much from a 1 ton flaming boulder" ... "You just took that boulder out of your backpack and the guy next to you is shooting fire out of a stick"
I can see where you could like the idea of friendly fire for siege; but have you played a lot of MMOs? People like to troll and do a lot of less than honorable things. Whats to stop someone from making a buy to play troll account just to enter the other alliances side and start sieging them in the back? It would happen, and happen often.1 -
eventide03b14a_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I still haven't heard a single coherent argument as to why people think they should not have to move out of the siege circles and should be able to just survive being hit by them. Someone please give me your best argument for being able to survive these. I'm not interested in your opinions about skill, I want an actual reason why you feel you should be able to be hit with these.
Are you not skilled enough to roll dodge?
Are you not able to see the red circles around your feet?
Are you not fast enough or have ranged abilities to take out the person operating it?
Just give me one reason why countering these is so difficult.:trollin:1 -
Weberda✭✭✭✭✭
✭nukeemstudiosub17_ESO wrote: »Lava_Croft wrote: »
I'm a '0 skills nab'.Lava_Croft wrote: »The changes to siege damage are simply awesome and have greatly improved the overall PvP experience.
Not sure if troll or 0 skills nab.
I trust your words so gave you "agree" on post
Skill in a MMO is not really spamming buttons or skills, although there is a minor impact of it (obviously correct timings, reactions, etc. are important). Skill gets involved with 2 primary components: Planning and During. The planning phase is half of what makes a MMO and corresponds to skill and it happens days, weeks, etc. before you do any fight. With siege, planning is entirely removed. The "During" phase when it comes to skill is spatial awareness such as not standing in red, blocking certain attacks, bashing others, roll dodging when needing to, correctly timing attacks/combos, etc.if this is what you consider skillful play then I think I am done talking here.... so much skill, charge uppercut 80% of the time.... full reliance on the items... and spamming button to what add-ons popped up...
Now count all of those above items that I believe (and hopefully you do too) impact skill, and tell me.... how many are involved with siege? How many are involved with the other option (aka fighting).
There are two kinds of planning involved in a fight, its the planning of your build/equipment for the skirmishes and there's the greater battle plan involving positioning, siege and maybe multiple coordinated strike teams.
During the fight you need spatial awareness such as not standing in red, roll dodging when needing to, and also quick thinking about where to move the fight, and to know where you weak spots/blind spots are in any given scenario. This applies to the whole fight, siege or no siege. Actually hard hitting siege increases the need for awareness and the ability to change tactics quickly both alone and as a group imo.
So your rethorical question does not convince me that siege requires no skill in planning or duration of a fight, on the contrary it adds another dimension of planning and even more need of sitational awareness during a fight.
I always look around me to see if seige is getting deployed - because then I know where my next target is Siege make strategically good positions in the terrain/battlefield more important. I like that!
But siege should maybe take longer to deploy, it should allways be a high risk operation to set up.
What you say is partially true. Its make game more demanding for team facing sieges. But what you conviniently skip is that team with sieges skill requirements are much lower that the skills needed to counter idiotic siege dmg. And thats the problem. Minimal risk, 0 effort in char/gear/team build is deadly and require lot effort to counter that. Now put it in hand of any semi decent team, with few balistas, solid def tanks spamming roots/snares and you have mass murder done way too easy.
And i partly agree with that as well. Allthough im sure good attacking teams will figure out a counter to the defending scenario you just outlined Bottom line I still think its a better game then before, that's where we differ i guess.
What do you think of an increased deployment time? Maybe even an increased deployment time outside of keeps to make siege less viable in group vs group fights?
If an enemy has fortified a position in advance it SHOULD be much harder to take i think, but to be able to fortify you position with siege in a few seconds doesnt feel quite right.
Increase deployment would be some kind of solution but that wouldnt solve issue with 20 balistas spam on keep def or for example choke points like gates on way to scrolls. Theres no way around there, you have to pass one little gate, with oils on top, caltrops inside gate and 20 balistas aiming and devastating anyone entering. In this scenario it doesnt make "harder to attack", it make it impossible to break if defenders know what they doing. And deployment time wont help with that either as after loosing keeps theres still plenty time to fortify gates. Dmg reduction is necessary.
Tell that to a certain group of EP who just walked into DC scroll temple being pelted by a TON of siege and taking 0 damage.
A whole faction saw that one
Zero damage as in none?!?!?! That one needs to be explained big time.
Fernwood, EP Haderus NA
Lo Behold, AD Thornblade NA (formerly Haderus, inactive)2 -
Sylvyr✭✭✭✭✭Trebs pack a huge punch but really should be more (not always though) for wall/keep assault. That being said, they should be powerful but I do think that the RADIUS should be reduced.
Yes getting hit by a 2 ton stone should hurt, but it shouldn't have such a large radius it should be more focused damage.
Badge: Wall-of-Text GRANDMASTER
PvP: Patch Vs. Player
ZoSence (n.):
1) What is reasonable or comprehensive using ZoS logic. "That makes ZoSense"
2) Making zero sense. "That makes ZoSense"2 -
technohic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭nukeemstudiosub17_ESO wrote: »Lava_Croft wrote: »
I'm a '0 skills nab'.Lava_Croft wrote: »The changes to siege damage are simply awesome and have greatly improved the overall PvP experience.
Not sure if troll or 0 skills nab.
I trust your words so gave you "agree" on post
Skill in a MMO is not really spamming buttons or skills, although there is a minor impact of it (obviously correct timings, reactions, etc. are important). Skill gets involved with 2 primary components: Planning and During. The planning phase is half of what makes a MMO and corresponds to skill and it happens days, weeks, etc. before you do any fight. With siege, planning is entirely removed. The "During" phase when it comes to skill is spatial awareness such as not standing in red, blocking certain attacks, bashing others, roll dodging when needing to, correctly timing attacks/combos, etc.if this is what you consider skillful play then I think I am done talking here.... so much skill, charge uppercut 80% of the time.... full reliance on the items... and spamming button to what add-ons popped up...
Now count all of those above items that I believe (and hopefully you do too) impact skill, and tell me.... how many are involved with siege? How many are involved with the other option (aka fighting).
There are two kinds of planning involved in a fight, its the planning of your build/equipment for the skirmishes and there's the greater battle plan involving positioning, siege and maybe multiple coordinated strike teams.
During the fight you need spatial awareness such as not standing in red, roll dodging when needing to, and also quick thinking about where to move the fight, and to know where you weak spots/blind spots are in any given scenario. This applies to the whole fight, siege or no siege. Actually hard hitting siege increases the need for awareness and the ability to change tactics quickly both alone and as a group imo.
So your rethorical question does not convince me that siege requires no skill in planning or duration of a fight, on the contrary it adds another dimension of planning and even more need of sitational awareness during a fight.
I always look around me to see if seige is getting deployed - because then I know where my next target is Siege make strategically good positions in the terrain/battlefield more important. I like that!
But siege should maybe take longer to deploy, it should allways be a high risk operation to set up.
What you say is partially true. Its make game more demanding for team facing sieges. But what you conviniently skip is that team with sieges skill requirements are much lower that the skills needed to counter idiotic siege dmg. And thats the problem. Minimal risk, 0 effort in char/gear/team build is deadly and require lot effort to counter that. Now put it in hand of any semi decent team, with few balistas, solid def tanks spamming roots/snares and you have mass murder done way too easy.
And i partly agree with that as well. Allthough im sure good attacking teams will figure out a counter to the defending scenario you just outlined Bottom line I still think its a better game then before, that's where we differ i guess.
What do you think of an increased deployment time? Maybe even an increased deployment time outside of keeps to make siege less viable in group vs group fights?
If an enemy has fortified a position in advance it SHOULD be much harder to take i think, but to be able to fortify you position with siege in a few seconds doesnt feel quite right.
Increase deployment would be some kind of solution but that wouldnt solve issue with 20 balistas spam on keep def or for example choke points like gates on way to scrolls. Theres no way around there, you have to pass one little gate, with oils on top, caltrops inside gate and 20 balistas aiming and devastating anyone entering. In this scenario it doesnt make "harder to attack", it make it impossible to break if defenders know what they doing. And deployment time wont help with that either as after loosing keeps theres still plenty time to fortify gates. Dmg reduction is necessary.
Tell that to a certain group of EP who just walked into DC scroll temple being pelted by a TON of siege and taking 0 damage.
A whole faction saw that one
Zero damage as in none?!?!?! That one needs to be explained big time.
I was not at the scroll capture in question, but I did see something like this inside a resource tower. Fire balistas at the ground, but no damage. You quickly get to defending yourself so there wasn't much time for me to analyze what happened. I need to start recording some fights more often to where I then would at least have that.2 -
krim✭✭✭✭✭eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »I still haven't heard a single coherent argument as to why people think they should not have to move out of the siege circles and should be able to just survive being hit by them. Someone please give me your best argument for being able to survive these. I'm not interested in your opinions about skill, I want an actual reason why you feel you should be able to be hit with these.
Are you not skilled enough to roll dodge?
Are you not able to see the red circles around your feet?
Are you not fast enough or have ranged abilities to take out the person operating it?
Just give me one reason why countering these is so difficult.
I should be able to play the way i want.
1 -
eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »I still haven't heard a single coherent argument as to why people think they should not have to move out of the siege circles and should be able to just survive being hit by them. Someone please give me your best argument for being able to survive these. I'm not interested in your opinions about skill, I want an actual reason why you feel you should be able to be hit with these.
Are you not skilled enough to roll dodge?
Are you not able to see the red circles around your feet?
Are you not fast enough or have ranged abilities to take out the person operating it?
Just give me one reason why countering these is so difficult.
I should be able to play the way i want.
My favorite is the realistic argument. Especially In a game with magic, tiger mounts, and talking cats and lizardsEdited by nukeemstudiosub17_ESO on March 27, 2015 6:11PM2 -
Cervanteseric85ub17_ESO wrote: »Tintinabula wrote: »You know what I just realized? PvPers (here and other places) often boast about how much more skilled they are than PvEers. How dueling is the only real test of a person's skill and ability. How the number of ears or scalps or noses you've got hanging from your belt is somehow indicative of how awesome you are and how only someone as elite as you could ever reach the same level of awesomeness no matter what the circumstances were when you got them.
You know what PvEers do all day, every day? Move out of the red circle of death.
I'm sorry but PvE counting the seconds til a red circle is thrown down..count one ...two...three...move to the left..1....2...3..everyone to the other corner...1...2....3 red circle move..is no comparison to dynamic pvp.
And yet they consistently manage to get out of the red circle while fulfilling their chosen role to the upper levels of it's potential whereas these "superior skilled" PvPers apparently cannot even manage to just not stand in it.
Because pve fights are scripted. They never change, it's easy to get used to a fight and knowing were to stand. A pvp fight is dynamic and ever changing they are not static like pve fights. But apparently you don't have the ability to grasp such an easy concept.
I believe I covered this earlier. It doesn't matter if they're scripted or not. You guys seem to be under the false impression that all PvE attack mechanics involving aoe simply puts the aoe in predetermined locations in the environment. Some fights do indeed have that element, however most fights consist of an aoe being placed at your feet just like siege. Many of these aoes will one shot you or darn close to it if you're not a tank, just like siege. The best way to mitigate it is to get out of it, just like siege. PvEers do it on a regular basis, but apparently there's a very noisy portion of the PvP community that simply cannot manage to figure out the basics.
The mechanics are all the same. The only difference is that there's a person using the siege, which only means that the aoe will not always be placed with you in the exact center of it.
I never said all AOEs land in predetermined locations. I said all fights are scripted and therefore can be learned and memorized. It is not just AOE that's are scripted, it is ALL boss and fight mechanics. Whether it be a massive AOE the group has to heal through, a massive spike thrown on the tank, or mechanics like in spindle where a link is made between two players and if they don't break it they die, or the mechanic of one player being chained down. Point here is ALL mechanics are scripted and can be learned and MEMORIZED.....and another very important fact, almost all AOEs or fight mechanics that will one shot you are very much telegraphed before they happen giving you the appropriate time to do what needs to be done to survive said attack....and where you mention the difference with siege is that it isn't placed under your feet, your right it may not be but you are also being targeted with 10 - 20 siege at any ONE time and repeatedly not every so often like it occurs in pve allowing the group time to regen. I also want to point out that the level of pve difficultly in ESO is really not that high when compared to other raiding games which require much higher levels of battlefield awareness and actual strategy. I will give you one example of this, previous games I raided in required groups to have two tanks because there would be boss mechanics debuffing tanks requiring them to switch back in fourth.
TLDR : pve scripted can be memorized, eso pve is very rudimentary. PVP is non scripted and dynamic therefore situations must be accounted for on the fly2