Stop treating symptoms

Perphection · June 2015

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Snit wrote: »

Something should scale better when used against large groups than when it is used by them.

The proposal to make Magicka Detonation scale upwards with the number of targets affected is a good candidate. Even then, it will be used by large groups against other large groups, but it would at least give small groups a chance against blobs.

It might be easier to change the rulesets, though, to encourage folks to spread out. At least one of the new campaigns will focus on holding resources. That's an interesting experiment. So are some of the others. Laboratories of Muderocracy

Collision. then a blob can't move together quickly or orderly. Also make friendly players between you and your target block your outgoing damage to hostile targets. I don't think this game has the resources for that kind of messaging but that's the way to actually fix blobs. These 2 things would make blobbing useless and formations useful, and you don't need to hand out a button so 2 v 40 can win half the time.

Yeah, I doubt this game could handle collision, Warhammer collision was fun and made for some absolutely crazy scenarios but again, probably not a solution for ESO.

Perhaps this is where you and I differ though, is in the appropriate size of a group.

I personally don't believe a group of 40 should EVER be standing together at one time and be susceptible to a gank-style bomb you're describing.

Groups are currently capped at 24. If you hit a full group with a Prox, it should do reasonable damage but not insane. That's where the damage would have to be reworked. Just an idea as to my thoughts so maybe you can understand. Let's say they reduce damage of Prox det to 50% of it's current value vs a 24 man group, but beyond 24 is where it begins to scale. Again, arbitrary numbers that would need testing, but I feel like you need an idea of where I'm coming from.

But I believe that if you hit a group of 60, 80, 120 you should absolutely crush them. Not because that gameplay is terrible, not because I don't believe in large scale combat, but because the game simply cannot handle that style of play.

frozywozy · June 2015

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

I won't even talk about purge. All you need is one person in a group of 24 with purge to negate pretty much 80% of the incoming siege damage.

Perphection · June 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

frozywozy · June 2015

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective than the 10-12men group already deployed with massive counter siege aiming at that breach?

Perphection · June 2015

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective ?

I don't believe I am the one who said they use them more "effectively", however the larger group could easily leave 2-3 players or even more behind on siege and not be as impacted by having a smaller force.

Now, if you could. I would like for you to answer me this. How in the scenario I mentioned above with meatbags and increased buffs to siege not result in the player base coming to the conclusion that "They need more numbers", to take said defended keep?

**Also, before this gets way offtrack say what you need to say that's relevant and if there's more you want to talk about msg me instead. I just see this escalating into an argument about hypothetical situations and not being constructive.

frozywozy · June 2015

Perphection wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective ?

I don't believe I am the one who said they use them more "effectively", however the larger group could easily leave 2-3 players or even more behind on siege and not be as impacted by having a smaller force.

Now, if you could. I would like for you to answer me this. How in the scenario I mentioned above with meatbags and increased buffs to siege not result in the player base coming to the conclusion that "They need more numbers", to take said defended keep?

**Also, before this gets way offtrack say what you need to say that's relevant and if there's more you want to talk about msg me instead. I just see this escalating into an argument about hypothetical situations and not being constructive.

I've said what I had to say the same way I did in the dozens of other threads regarding siege damage and at this point, I'm pretty sure that you are one of the few who haven't got my point yet. I have said more than enough to justify why nerfing purge/buffing siege would help smaller group more than larger group in situations involving the scoreboard and NOT openfield battles.

Perphection · June 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective ?

I don't believe I am the one who said they use them more "effectively", however the larger group could easily leave 2-3 players or even more behind on siege and not be as impacted by having a smaller force.

Now, if you could. I would like for you to answer me this. How in the scenario I mentioned above with meatbags and increased buffs to siege not result in the player base coming to the conclusion that "They need more numbers", to take said defended keep?

**Also, before this gets way offtrack say what you need to say that's relevant and if there's more you want to talk about msg me instead. I just see this escalating into an argument about hypothetical situations and not being constructive.

I've said what I had to say the same way I did in the dozens of other threads regarding siege damage and at this point, I'm pretty sure that you are one of the few who haven't got my point yet. I have said more than enough to justify why nerfing purge/buffing siege would help smaller group more than larger group in situations involving the scoreboard.

Sorry, I don't follow you on the forums. So, whatever you have said previously doesn't have relevance here and now.

You can, if you'd like message me though. Or feel free to copy paste your thoughts, either way thanks. I'm sure there are people out there who read what you had to say and agree.

Winnamine · June 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective than the 10-12men group already deployed with massive counter siege aiming at that breach?

And if it's the small group attacking the keep?
Stronger siege favors defenders, but as is, a small group of good players can take a keep from a much larger group, would that still be possible if the small group had to contend with overpowered siege as well as superior numbers?
It seems to me that stronger siege takes much of the skill out of the equation, reducing a battle to just numbers and positioning.

Publius_Scipio · June 2015

I agree with the general premise of this thread to a degree. But it is laden with verbiage and percentages, etc.

ZOS, digitize and bring my biceps into ESO. Watch what happens to the AD and EP zergs when I can wield them in Cyrodiil.

Snit · June 2015

Domander wrote: »

There should be MAJOR bonuses for going solo.

Why? Because that's your preferred playstyle?

They need to address the lag issues -- and Brian's post today gives us some hope on that front -- but Cyrodiil is designed around organized, group PvP. It's not meant to be a couple hundred gankers running around.

Perphection · June 2015

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

I agree with the general premise of this thread to a degree. But it is laden with verbiage and percentages, etc.

ZOS, digitize and bring my biceps into ESO. Watch what happens to the AD and EP zergs when I can wield them in Cyrodiil.

Yeah, like I said the numbers are arbitrary, it's the general idea I'm trying to convey here.

Some people like yourself are okay with a very general concept, while others need something more concrete in order to understand. So I tried to do both and give appropriate examples while also being general.

Perphection · June 2015

Snit wrote: »

Domander wrote: »

There should be MAJOR bonuses for going solo.

Why? Because that's your preferred playstyle?

They need to address the lag issues -- and Brian's post today gives us some hope on that front -- but Cyrodiil is designed around organized, group PvP. It's not meant to be a couple hundred gankers running around.

I agree, Cyrodiil was designed for very large scale PvP. The problem though is that the servers aren't able to handle these loads.

Brian's post today is what lead to me creating this one. I applaud them for finally starting to address the issue but they need to come up with better solutions that take into consideration the players mentality, which in it's current state is "zerg meta"

frozywozy · June 2015

Winnamine wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective than the 10-12men group already deployed with massive counter siege aiming at that breach?

And if it's the small group attacking the keep?
Stronger siege favors defenders, but as is, a small group of good players can take a keep from a much larger group, would that still be possible if the small group had to contend with overpowered siege as well as superior numbers?
It seems to me that stronger siege takes much of the skill out of the equation, reducing a battle to just numbers and positioning.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Winnamine. A small group should never be able to take a keep by himself if the keep is already well defended. It should always be much easier to defend a keep than it is to assault it in the first time.

Now let say that both armies are equal. You have different options to help you out and I have used them plenty of times in the past prior 1.5 when siege was doing relatively well.

1) Use siege shield;

2) If after deploying on one wall, you start getting damaged by massive counter-siege, pack up, run a bit further away from the keep, stealth up, move on another side and re-deploy. Most of the time, the zerg or "pugs" will stay on the side you first deployed and create a diversion while you flag the keep from another angle;

3) Open more than one breach at the same time (preferably not next to each other) to force the defenders to spread out their counter-siege defense.

There are many strategies to be used but the overall goal is to find opportunities to break a large group stacking on each other trying to skip steps to capture a keep by breaching only one single wall when there is a small group of 10-12players who know what they're doing and how to buy time for the reinforcements to arrive.

Domander · June 2015

Snit wrote: »

Domander wrote: »

There should be MAJOR bonuses for going solo.

Why? Because that's your preferred playstyle?

They need to address the lag issues -- and Brian's post today gives us some hope on that front -- but Cyrodiil is designed around organized, group PvP. It's not meant to be a couple hundred gankers running around.

No, you snide little snit, because safety in numbers should = less reward. There should still be large battles, but it would help with the lag issues if everyone spread out.

next time, don't edit my quote.

Domander wrote: »

There should be MAJOR bonuses for going solo, and really good bonuses for going with a small group (4 or less) into pvp.

Safety in numbers should = least reward.

Perphection · June 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective than the 10-12men group already deployed with massive counter siege aiming at that breach?

And if it's the small group attacking the keep?
Stronger siege favors defenders, but as is, a small group of good players can take a keep from a much larger group, would that still be possible if the small group had to contend with overpowered siege as well as superior numbers?
It seems to me that stronger siege takes much of the skill out of the equation, reducing a battle to just numbers and positioning.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Winnamine. A small group should never be able to take a keep by himself if the keep is already well defended. It should always be much easier to defend a keep than it is to assault it in the first time.

Now let say that both armies are equal. You have different options to help you out and I have used them plenty of times in the past prior 1.5 when siege was doing relatively well.

1) Use siege shield;

2) If after deploying on one wall, you start getting damaged by massive counter-siege, pack up, run a bit further away from the keep, stealth up, move on another side and re-deploy. Most of the time, the zerg or "pugs" will stay on the side you first deployed and create a diversion while you flag the keep from another angle;

3) Open more than one breach at the same time (preferably not next to each other) to force the defenders to spread out their counter-siege defense.

There are many strategies to be used but the overall goal is to find opportunities to break a large group stacking on each other trying to skip steps to capture a keep by breaching only one single wall when there is a small group of 10-12players who know what they're doing and how to buy time for the reinforcements to arrive.

So, I don't want to be rude here. But it seems that you've ignored my previous post about getting off-topic. If you want to discuss the issue that I brought up initially that's fine, but let's not go off on tangents.

You're doing exactly what I described earlier, arguing hypothetical situations and scenarios.

Also, if you could take the time to argue your point with that, you surely could have answered my question earlier? If you don't have anything else constructive to add I'd kindly ask you to bow out. Thanks.

IxSTALKERxI · June 2015

I would like to see a much higher diminishing return in AP gain for larger groups.

Leandor · June 2015

Keep the damage of proximity detonation as is - but make it a suicide ability. Make its damage scale with actual magicka instead of maximum magicka and have the caster be blown up as well. Still usable and valid as zerg buster, not usable at all for single targets and not usable as a bomb tool in zergs.

RinaldoGandolphi · June 2015

Perphection wrote: »

Valnas wrote: »

this would make zerg vs zerg like a heavyweight fight. TKO. i say yea.

More i

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People keep saying that, but its simply not true. I run smaller groups all the time, my 9 man crew wiped 20+ the other night with tactical siege placement, and they were sieging too and had more siege weapons up then my team and we still wiped them. Just because they have more siege dont mean they win,terrain, LOS, and positioning can make a HUGE difference in the outcome of fights.

the group we wiped i know for a fact is an organized group with TS. Only 1 person in my group was even using Purge. Creative use of High Ground, LOS, and terrain allowed my 9 man crew(including myself) to wipe another organized group twice the size of my own.

I'll make it known, I would rather ALL purge DOTS and effects be un-purgable, but I doubt that will happen.

However making the Lighting Ballista, Oil Catapult, and Meatbags un-purgableable would be really all thats needed....that big blob always snared 60% all the time with no way to remove it, and healing debuff stacked 3 times makes that large blob a sitting suck to 2-3 other siege weapons(fire ballistas, etc) as they will be unable to heal the damage and moving too slow to be able to overrun the siege line or avoid the supporting siege fire.

This is really all thats needed....smaller groups may not win all the time, but they would have a better chance then they do now....especially if they take advantage of the terrain and draw the enemy into areas where they can have a LOS and tactical advantage to funnell the larger numbers into tighter areas. The games terrain was designed for this...at nearly every resource in this game there is a place you can fire siege from that your enemy can't counter siege you back....its not only at resources, there are numerous places this can be done.

Sure the smaller group won't always win, but they will atleast have a chance to put up a good fight and it will be a lot more fun then simply being zerged down all the time. just my 2 cents.

PS: what Frozy is telling you is true, this type of seige would make it impossible to just charge the breech like they do now as they would get owned and would be forced to open another hole to spread the defenders thin which adds more tactics and strategy to keep taking....which would be good for the game and beats the current trend of barrier+rapid+heals and purge and just charge full steam ahead. JMO, but its pretty obvious that siege was meant to be the counter to larger groups in this game and meant to be fired from defensive positions, but its not powerful enough to do so now due to Purge.

80% of the damage siege does comes from DOTS. A Fire Ballista does like 9k on the intial hit, but then DOT ticks for 8.3k per sec for 3 secs...thats nearly 25k worth of damage thats being negated by purge, its no wonder siege can't do what it was designed to do....80% of its damage potential is being negated by an ridiculously cheap spell.

un-purgeable siege would result in these zergblobs getting crushed...flat out owned...and the gmaes meta would change drastically into more "small mobile groups" of 7-10 people and far more open field skirmish type of warfare, as it would be much harder to take keeps from defenders due to the defenders having a greater advantage then they do now...sure it would be easier to farm Defensive ticks, but the map would also be a little more static, as taking keeps would be more difficult then it is now...overall it would be a great change, it would also greatly reduce the lag in Cyrodiil by encouraging smaller group play as being quite literally a HUGE target dummy for siege fire wouldn't exactly be the most appealing way to play the game.

Roselle · June 2015

Posts like these make me wish I was DC.

AhPook_Is_Here · June 2015

Perphection wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Snit wrote: »

Something should scale better when used against large groups than when it is used by them.

The proposal to make Magicka Detonation scale upwards with the number of targets affected is a good candidate. Even then, it will be used by large groups against other large groups, but it would at least give small groups a chance against blobs.

It might be easier to change the rulesets, though, to encourage folks to spread out. At least one of the new campaigns will focus on holding resources. That's an interesting experiment. So are some of the others. Laboratories of Muderocracy

Collision. then a blob can't move together quickly or orderly. Also make friendly players between you and your target block your outgoing damage to hostile targets. I don't think this game has the resources for that kind of messaging but that's the way to actually fix blobs. These 2 things would make blobbing useless and formations useful, and you don't need to hand out a button so 2 v 40 can win half the time.

Yeah, I doubt this game could handle collision, Warhammer collision was fun and made for some absolutely crazy scenarios but again, probably not a solution for ESO.

Perhaps this is where you and I differ though, is in the appropriate size of a group.

I personally don't believe a group of 40 should EVER be standing together at one time and be susceptible to a gank-style bomb you're describing.

Groups are currently capped at 24. If you hit a full group with a Prox, it should do reasonable damage but not insane. That's where the damage would have to be reworked. Just an idea as to my thoughts so maybe you can understand. Let's say they reduce damage of Prox det to 50% of it's current value vs a 24 man group, but beyond 24 is where it begins to scale. Again, arbitrary numbers that would need testing, but I feel like you need an idea of where I'm coming from.

But I believe that if you hit a group of 60, 80, 120 you should absolutely crush them. Not because that gameplay is terrible, not because I don't believe in large scale combat, but because the game simply cannot handle that style of play.

I don't have any convictions as to how many people may stand together; there is no min/max number in my mind. The group I play with ranges from 8 to 24 when running, and sometimes I just derp around by myself. I don't think the solution is to provide a minority group with a control solution to a majority group.

The problem is there are no caveats for making the most complex Venn diagram you can out of your stack of humans that can stand inside each other and be as effective as if they were free to move their arms. The game itself has huge gaps in what we consider common sense, very silly if you take a moment to think about it. Think about counter-strike if players could set off grenades without friendly fire or self damage from it going off in their hands, and set grenades off in their own hands solely to harm only enemies next to them with smart shrapnel. As long as a infinite number of angels can stand on the head of a pin and and set off grenades in their hands to hurt only devils around them, that's what you are going to get, silly. Then when one argues about silly and tries to fix silly while embracing the core premises of silly; all you can get out of it is silly.

Without collision you can still adjust this problem by causing a damage reducing debuff if a friendly player is within x meters of another and have the debuff stack the more people are stacked to a point where they can't do anything but pogo. This addresses the problem without giving one player the ability to solo a full stack with a single button. It won't stop the game from being silly, but it might encourage stacks to spread out.

Jahosefat · June 2015

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

I would like to see a much higher diminishing return in AP gain for larger groups.

^ would probably yield most return for least development effort.

Draxys · June 2015

Cogo wrote: »

You can not be serious. In case you are. Nothing in this thread makes sense.

You need to realize that is is.. Player Vs Player..

You are wrong.
Cyrodiil is War. AvAvA.

I fight to win the campaign for the pact, every 30 days. The same one no matter how we do.

lol and who plays for the 3 A's?

Spoiler: it's "players"

Draxys · June 2015

Sign me up. I'd be down to do a test for this on the PTS

RinaldoGandolphi · June 2015

Roselle wrote: »

Posts like these make me wish I was DC.

You should roll a DC, having your YOLO style running around would probably prove very interesting and entertaining.

frozywozy · June 2015

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

Winnamine wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Again, you want to have a counter to zergs, do the following:

1. Make Oil Catapult and its snare un-purgable and not able to be removed with rapid manuevers or shuffle.
2. Make Meatbag Catapults Heal debuff un-purgable and able to stack 3 times.

Problem solved, an enemy who can't move;can't fight and meatbag heal debuffs will make it impossible for their healers to heal though the other siege damage being fired on them.

Yes you will need an organized group to do this, but its fair. While i would like 1 shot cannons, i also think compromise is important and the above is fair balance...you still need some organization to pull it off and your not 1 shotting the other zerg. it would make for more interesting battles for sure.

Siege is not the answer.

The reason being is that those types of changes would hurt smaller groups more than they would larger groups, which again would incentivize a Zerg style of play.

People who think the answer to zergs is siege always seem to forget that large groups can use siege too...they can just put up more siege, while still having people left over to heal and protect the people on siege, great plan...

That's exactly it.

In this type of scenario where let's say Meatbags did stack, and were un-purgeable, if healing were reduced 75% the obvious solution would be..

"Well, looks like we need 75% more healers. Start up Group 4, and have everyone equip healing springs."

This is why siege is not the solution.

Nor can siege be used in the Directionally Proportional example I used earlier, because it eliminates the risk/reward scenario of players endangering themselves to output the necessary damage.

Amazing the amount of people who keep counter-arguing that large groups can use sieges better and be more efficient with it. Everybody always focus on open field battles when in reality, open fields battles don't mean anything in the alliance war scale. What matters is to defend your keeps against pvedoorers while being out numbered to buy enough time for the reinforcements to arrive.

During an assault, if you focus massive amount of sieges on one breach, no matter the amount of people zerging in, you should be able to kill plenty of them on the way in. You should be able to force them to open a second wall if you positioned your sieges properly and used a good combination of meatbags, fire balistas, oil catapults, etc.

Don't tell me that a large group can benefit more from sieges when they are stacked up rushing into a breach to take control of the courtyard. They have absolutely no way to use sieges on their way in. The only thing they can do is to spam heals and purges and hope to survive until they reach the nearest tower.

Same thing when the fight gets to the inner keep. People with good siege placements on walls should have a major advantage and should force the enemy to open multiple breaches if the keep is properly defended with massive sieges everywhere. Oil pots on top of the breach, first balista near the siege vendor aiming at the breach, fire balista half the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, meatbag all the way up the stairs aiming at the breach, oil pots on top of the other inner in case the group pushes across the backflag to the opposite stairs, etc.

With this proper setup and great coordination, no group in the world should be able to survive on their way in. They should be forced to take the main door or other postern down, giving the time to defender reinforcements to arrive and have a chance to defend the keep against the pvedoorers.

Right now, no matter the amount of sieges you deploy, it doesn't change anything. It all results in who had the most ultimates ready, who had the most shields, the most armor and the most aoe spells.

You don't think that buffing siege negatively impacts small groups more than it does massive zergs?

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 10-12 man group, that might have 2-3 healers. It's going to hurt A LOT.

If you stack meatbag debuffs on a 40-60 man zerg, they wipe once and then tell half the raid to switch to a resto staff on their offbar and spam it and barrier as they run up the stairs past your meat bags =/

Ok now explain to me how a group of 40-60men can manage to drop sieges as they push inside a breach to be more effective than the 10-12men group already deployed with massive counter siege aiming at that breach?

And if it's the small group attacking the keep?
Stronger siege favors defenders, but as is, a small group of good players can take a keep from a much larger group, would that still be possible if the small group had to contend with overpowered siege as well as superior numbers?
It seems to me that stronger siege takes much of the skill out of the equation, reducing a battle to just numbers and positioning.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Winnamine. A small group should never be able to take a keep by himself if the keep is already well defended. It should always be much easier to defend a keep than it is to assault it in the first time.

Now let say that both armies are equal. You have different options to help you out and I have used them plenty of times in the past prior 1.5 when siege was doing relatively well.

1) Use siege shield;

2) If after deploying on one wall, you start getting damaged by massive counter-siege, pack up, run a bit further away from the keep, stealth up, move on another side and re-deploy. Most of the time, the zerg or "pugs" will stay on the side you first deployed and create a diversion while you flag the keep from another angle;

3) Open more than one breach at the same time (preferably not next to each other) to force the defenders to spread out their counter-siege defense.

There are many strategies to be used but the overall goal is to find opportunities to break a large group stacking on each other trying to skip steps to capture a keep by breaching only one single wall when there is a small group of 10-12players who know what they're doing and how to buy time for the reinforcements to arrive.

So, I don't want to be rude here. But it seems that you've ignored my previous post about getting off-topic. If you want to discuss the issue that I brought up initially that's fine, but let's not go off on tangents.

You're doing exactly what I described earlier, arguing hypothetical situations and scenarios.

Also, if you could take the time to argue your point with that, you surely could have answered my question earlier? If you don't have anything else constructive to add I'd kindly ask you to bow out. Thanks.

Your main post discuss the issues with zerg busting, and I brought ideas and opinions regarding that specific issue. I don't think I am out of subject at all. You may not agree about it but please respect how I see things, thanks.

Roselle · June 2015

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Roselle wrote: »

Posts like these make me wish I was DC.

You should roll a DC, having your YOLO style running around would probably prove very interesting and entertaining.

Lol. I think my favorite line of the week has been...

"MINOA WENT OUTSIDE"

ZOS_Tarina · June 2015

Just a general reminder that it's okay to disagree and debate, but please remember to be respectful and constructive. Some comments in this thread have stooped to personal digs. Please keep your comments about the discussion topic, not the people participating in the discussion. Thank you.

Agrippa_Invisus · June 2015

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Perphection wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Snit wrote: »

Something should scale better when used against large groups than when it is used by them.

The proposal to make Magicka Detonation scale upwards with the number of targets affected is a good candidate. Even then, it will be used by large groups against other large groups, but it would at least give small groups a chance against blobs.

It might be easier to change the rulesets, though, to encourage folks to spread out. At least one of the new campaigns will focus on holding resources. That's an interesting experiment. So are some of the others. Laboratories of Muderocracy

Collision. then a blob can't move together quickly or orderly. Also make friendly players between you and your target block your outgoing damage to hostile targets. I don't think this game has the resources for that kind of messaging but that's the way to actually fix blobs. These 2 things would make blobbing useless and formations useful, and you don't need to hand out a button so 2 v 40 can win half the time.

Yeah, I doubt this game could handle collision, Warhammer collision was fun and made for some absolutely crazy scenarios but again, probably not a solution for ESO.

Perhaps this is where you and I differ though, is in the appropriate size of a group.

I personally don't believe a group of 40 should EVER be standing together at one time and be susceptible to a gank-style bomb you're describing.

Groups are currently capped at 24. If you hit a full group with a Prox, it should do reasonable damage but not insane. That's where the damage would have to be reworked. Just an idea as to my thoughts so maybe you can understand. Let's say they reduce damage of Prox det to 50% of it's current value vs a 24 man group, but beyond 24 is where it begins to scale. Again, arbitrary numbers that would need testing, but I feel like you need an idea of where I'm coming from.

But I believe that if you hit a group of 60, 80, 120 you should absolutely crush them. Not because that gameplay is terrible, not because I don't believe in large scale combat, but because the game simply cannot handle that style of play.

I don't have any convictions as to how many people may stand together; there is no min/max number in my mind. The group I play with ranges from 8 to 24 when running, and sometimes I just derp around by myself. I don't think the solution is to provide a minority group with a control solution to a majority group.

The problem is there are no caveats for making the most complex Venn diagram you can out of your stack of humans that can stand inside each other and be as effective as if they were free to move their arms. The game itself has huge gaps in what we consider common sense, very silly if you take a moment to think about it. Think about counter-strike if players could set off grenades without friendly fire or self damage from it going off in their hands, and set grenades off in their own hands solely to harm only enemies next to them with smart shrapnel. As long as a infinite number of angels can stand on the head of a pin and and set off grenades in their hands to hurt only devils around them, that's what you are going to get, silly. Then when one argues about silly and tries to fix silly while embracing the core premises of silly; all you can get out of it is silly.

Without collision you can still adjust this problem by causing a damage reducing debuff if a friendly player is within x meters of another and have the debuff stack the more people are stacked to a point where they can't do anything but pogo. This addresses the problem without giving one player the ability to solo a full stack with a single button. It won't stop the game from being silly, but it might encourage stacks to spread out.

People are getting way too complex in how they want to make pain trains disperse.

Your solution to 'I want people to spread out to lower server calculations to reduce lag' is to add another server calculation (constantly checking positioning of players in a game that already has extreme troubles with that -- see the fall damage issues) which will cause yet more lag.

No, that's now what you want.

What you want is to remove a calculation entirely.

Change AE so there's no random dropoff of damage to players hit beyond the first 6. The non-removal of AOE caps is your culprit there, as well as that every AE checks LoS twice (as Wheeler said, this will be addressed). Removing this random check for every single AOE in an area where large groups are fighting would take weight off the servers AND encourage people to pull out of the stack.

Simple solutions are the best solutions.

Perphection · June 2015

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

80% of the damage siege does comes from DOTS. A Fire Ballista does like 9k on the intial hit, but then DOT ticks for 8.3k per sec for 3 secs...thats nearly 25k worth of damage thats being negated by purge, its no wonder siege can't do what it was designed to do....80% of its damage potential is being negated by an ridiculously cheap spell.

I'll agree with you there 100%, Purge is far too powerful, and much too cheap for the utility it provides.

Fruitdog · June 2015

I agree, get rid of purge. I just want to sit on my siege and one shot people. It's too hard for me to set up another siege and fire it or, god forbid, go down off the wall and snipe them with my bow. Also, can we please get a rapid fire ballista? I need to be able to just hold down the mouse button and nuke everyone.